Talk:Cichlid

message: Why does the article Cichlidae redirect to Cichlid? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Isn't it better to redirect someone searching for an article on a "cichlid" to a more official, professional page about the family "cichlidae"? J. Finkelstein 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since you asked your question, so I don't know if you got your answer yet, but the standard practice is to create the articles under the common name with a redirect from the scientific name, but only if the common name is unambiguous.  Hope that helps.  Neil916 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cichlid / Cichlidae 

message: I'd like to propose the material at Malawi Cichlid be merged with the main Cichlid page - which I think should be moved to Cichlidae. Thoughts?
:Seems sensible, but I'd suggest a separate article on Cichlid speciation in the African Great Lakes or something would actually be very useful. It's the kind of topic that students, teachers, and hobbyists would all find useful. There's also plenty of accessible literature, such as The Cichlid Fishes: Nature's Grand Experiment in Evolution by George W. Barlow. So adding references should be straightforward. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge - malawi cichlids 

message: I'd like to propose we keep all aquarium related matters under in the section regarding cichlids as aquarium fish. MidgleyDJ 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cichlids as aquarium fish vs cichlids as a taxonomic grouping 

message: Editors (including: 69.232.73.33) -
I was wondering what our position was on commentry on external links. I think they need to be neutral and objective. I've been removing commentry on fishbase as I think it is unnecessary. I should stress, I have no vested interest in the fishbase site. I do think, though, that it is the most up-to-date taxonomy site.
Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  commentry on fishbase 

message: Wikipedia isnt a website review. Please stop reverting and adding commentry re: external links. MidgleyDJ 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to: 69.232.73.33 

message: There's some confusion on this issue on the main page and on this talk page. So, just to clear things up: yes, the overwhelming majority of cichlids live in freshwater. But no, there are rather more than just two Asian species of brackish water cichlids. There are species of cichlid that naturally occur in brackish water in Asia, Africa, and Central America. Of the Asian species, the two Etroplus species are well known, but Iranocichla can be added to the list, too. In Africa, species of Sarotherodon, Oreochromis, Tilapia, Pelviachromis, Hemichromis, and others naturally occur in more or less brackish waters. Sarotherodon melanotheron, for example, is largely confined to brackish waters. In Central America, species of Nandopsis and Vieja are common in brackish water, Vieja maculicauda, Nandopsis tetracanthus, and Nandopsis haitiensis in particular being able to tolerate up to fully marine conditions.
In aquaria and in aquaculture, a variety of cichlids have been maintained in brackish, even marine, conditions. The various tilapias in particular do well in salty water and this has allowed them to colonise brackish waters outside their natural range, for example in Florida. It also makes them versatile subjects for aquaculture in brackish pools and ponds, where other farmed fish, like carp, wouldn't work.
So, what needs to be stated in the article is that while cichlids are a freshwater fish family, many cichlids are notably salt-tolerant, and this has made them of particular interest to fish farmers and a particular problem for conservationists. It's important for this article to avoid being just about aquarium fish (and I say this as an aquarist!) and cover the breadth of adapation and biology of the group.
Cheers,
Neale Neale Monks 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, having personally seen Cichlasomine cichlids in Cancoon lagoon - they are remarkably adaptable animals. MidgleyDJ 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brackish water cichlids 

message: Is this a word? And if it is, does it mean what the Wikipedia editor who added it thinks it means? "Paedo-" means "relating to children" while "phore" would come from the Greek "pherein", which means "to bring" or "to carry". So a "paedophore" would be something that "carries children". Compare Ctenophore, comb jellies, whose name means "bears combs" rather than eats combs.
Now, a "paedovore" would be something that ate children (or baby cichlids, at least!) but a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything to suggest this word is used by the scientific community. So, is paedophore a made-up word used by cichlid keepers, a misspelling, or an actual word? Can someone clarify this for me? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paedophagous? MidgleyDJ 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Made the change, plus a few others. Please, someone with cichlid know-how, can you check the examples given of dietary specialisations; I'm not much of a cichlid expert at all. Thanks! Neale Monks 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created Paedophagy. MidgleyDJ 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done Lepidophagy created. MidgleyDJ 11:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paedophores? (In the Diet section) 

message: We should probably have an article on scale eating (lepidophagy) also. MidgleyDJ 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Lepidophagy created. MidgleyDJ 11:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lepidophagy

message: Kullander 1998 suggests there are 1900 species of cichlid. Wondering if we have any revised estimates/counts for this family?
Ref: Kullander, S.O., 1998. A phylogeny and classification of the South American Cichlidae (Teleostei: Perciformes).. p. 461-498. In: L.R. Malabarba, R.E. Reis, R.P. Vari, Z.M. Lucena and C.A.S. Lucena (eds.) Phylogeny and classification of neotropical fishes. Porto Alegre, Edipucrs. 603 p.
Cheers! MidgleyDJ 07:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have added I ask this because User_talk:70.137.65.163 has been changing "It may include 2000 species" to "It includes 2000..." in the introduction. I am wondering if there is a reference to support this claim. MidgleyDJ 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is, I couldn't find any. The currently accepted figures range from 1200 (Fishbase) to 1900 (Kullander). The "2000 species" number seems to be mostly something aquarists throw about rather than an actual scientific estimate. So, for example, Paul Loiselle in The Cichlid Aquarium says their diversity "approaches two thousand". I think that "approaches" has gradually morphed into "around" and then "over". Cheers, Neale 08:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The same user has returned making all the same old changes to this article. Again without references or discussion. I've reverted the changes. MidgleyDJ 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimates of cichlid numbers. 

message: I think there needs to be some mention of the fact that hybrid cichlids have been produced for various commerical reasons. Obviously, the most important of these are the tilapiine hybrids used in fish farming. I believe (but I'd need to check this) that in some places, e.g. China/Taiwan, hybrids are more commonly farmed than true species.
Then there are the aquarium ones. While I cannot begin to describe my dislike of these fish in a family-oriented site like this, I have to admit that they have been very popular and have commercial significance.
Thoughts? Neale Neale Monks 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to help Neale. Let me know what I can do. I think it would be a useful addition for the article. It might also be worth including some information on natural hybridisation in African rift lake cichlids. MidgleyDJ 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start. Please expand. I know almost nothing about Rift Lake cichlids. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrids 

message: I'd suggest that people add references using the standard format from now on, and if anyone knows what the original references (now moved to "Further reading") refer to, perhaps they can link them to the appropriate text. I have no idea what "The South African zoological society" refers to, if anything, and I'm pretty sure Barlow didn't write a book called "The Chiclid Fishes" (I fixed that!). Thanks, Neale Neale Monks 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my best to move some of the references into the text. Please try your best to actually refer to a book or paper by its proper name and not one dimly dredged up from memory. The one about Malawi cichlids by Snoeks used a name with only a passing resemblance to the actual publication! If in doubt, search on Google and see if you can find the reference as you've written it. If not, then you've liked written it down incorrectly. Let's take some care with references and further reading, too. Some were badly written duplicates (the Barlow ones) others don't lead to anything (the SA Zoological Society one). Those have gone. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I couldn't help but thinking that angelfish is probably not the best to represent the cichlids. May be picture of a cichla species might do a better job? I looked it up in the net and some people say cichla is the type genus of cichildae. So I proposed moving the angelfish picture to the gallery and replacing it with this one. 
Image:Peacock bass.jpg|peacock bass, cichla orinocensis
--Melanochromis 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Melanochromis, I'm ambivalent about the angelfish as well - but I'm not overly taken with the picture of the Cichla proposed either (it seems too small, relative to the picture size). What is the convention? Is it simply a good picture of a cichlid? If so, I think the angel fish is probably a better photo. Other thoughts? MidgleyDJ 09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MidgleyDJ, I agree with you actually. My issue is that the angelfish is far from being representative of the cichlid family. On the other hand, the peacock bass which is supposedly the chosen representative (as it belongs to the type genus), doesn't have a good image available. Anyway, here's the cropped version of the original peacock bass image along with other image that I think makes a good representative picture of the family. Which one do you think should be in taxobox? --Melanochromis 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cropped version of the Cichla is an improvement. On the other hand, the family Cichlidae is a very diverse one - as such, perhaps the angelfish does go someway to representing that diversity? User:Neale Monks has also been a significant contributer to this article, it might be wise to also ask for his advice, prior to the change?  MidgleyDJ 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't have very strong feelings. While angelfish aren't representative, they are perhaps the best known cichlids in the English-speaking world, and hence a good way to connect with readers unfamiliar with the family. On the other hand, if you want a cichlid that is generalised and ecologically/commercially important, then one of the tilapias would be a better bet. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Since there're no strong supports for replacing the anglefish picture, I'll guess I'll just put this proposal on hold. --Melanochromis 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image in the taxobox - replace the angelfish?

message: Dear all editors who have been contributing to this wonderful article, I think it is almost ready to be nominated for Good Articles. So I'm going to do a few more tasks and then nominate it. Feel free to join in polishing the article. Here are what you can do:
* Expand the "endangered cichlids" section and include citations for this section
* Check existing references and add more if you can
* Improve grammar and make sure the article is easy to read (I definitely need help as English is not my native language)
* "cichlid as food fish" and "cichlid as gamefish" sections (or combined these two somehow). Done!
* Get rid of red links, they don't look pretty. With exceptions of the genera section perhaps.
* "Images of cichlids" section will have to be revised. Done!
:: The 12 pictures in this section have to be of high quality and include representations of food cichlids, game cichlids, aquarium cichlids, as well as well-known cichlids. I will also replace pictures that have red links. I apologize if the images you posted are going to be replaced, but they are already categorized and can be seen in the Main gallery anyway--Melanochromis 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy over the next two weeks to try and complete the listing of genera (by creating the relevant stubs). I've finished the first column. MidgleyDJ 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks a lot Midgley. Gallery section revision done. --Melanochromis 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Cichlid as food and game fish" section created --Melanochromis 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've spent what time I have lately on oscar (fish) and Pelvicachromis pulcher, I've not yet had the chance to create more genera stubs, apologies. MidgleyDJ 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also shall we fix the reference list so each reference only appears once? MidgleyDJ 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok. I'll help creating the genera stubs too. And I agree we should do something with the references. Something like your oscar article would be really nice. By the way, I like what you did with that article. It's such a big improvement.  --Melanochromis 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few more tasks for the good article status 

message: Please do not add random pictures to the article gallery. Instead add :category:cichlid images to your picture and it will be included in the main gallery should anyone click the "main article" link. The current gallery has been carefully selected to represent different aspects of the cichlids. There's a logic behind it, if you are curious to know, here's what they are:
*image#1: popular pet fish (oscar)
*image#2: popular game fish (peacock bass)
*image#3: popular food/farm fish (Nile tilapia)
*image#4: commercial aquarium trade 
*image#5: cichlid sexual dimorphism
*image#6: cichlid sexual behavior
*image#7: cichlid brood care
*image#8: African cichlid (Lake Malawi)
*image#9: African cichlid (Lake Tanganyika)
*image#10: American cichlid (and also happens to be the northernmost cichlid species)
*image#11: Dwarf cichlid
*image#12: Popular hybrid
You should only replace these images with the ones that better represent the themes. For example, if you have a picture that display a better sexual behavior of cichild, then replace it with image#6. Also, provide a good caption with a link to an existing species/genus article (no red links). Sorry for the inconvenience but we are pushing this article for the good article status.
Regards, --Melanochromis 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes about the gallery section 

message: Very nice!  I suggest thinking of WP:FA once GA is obtained.  
My only quibbles are:
# The placement of in-line references is inconsistent (before or after period at end of sentence), and some that have the reference after the period have a whitespace before and after the reference tag, which makes the reference float between sentences.
# The "Source: Froese, R." sentence at the beginning of the Genera section, can some of this be inlined or something?  It sort of feels like someone forgot to put the "<ref>" tags around a reference (I know that's not the case, but it feels a bit like that).
::Changed it to the fishbase reference. I think this works better. MidgleyDJ 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA feedback

message: The very well written and otherwise delectable article is too long, and should be considered for splitup, f.ex. the genera list could be placed on a separate page. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long

message: Since I've yet to learn how to convert references into footnotes, could someone give my additions to the Taxonomy section a once over and perform the requisite conversion? Only I thought it was apposite to include links to a couple of recent scientific papers highlighting some of the work being done in the field. Calilasseia 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy Additions

message: A number of IP's have been heavily involved in changing the number of species (from 1900 to 2200 species), despite clearly not fitting the references. Multiple requests for references have resulted in nothing. I've now warned the last, IP 71.138.49.121 (which probably is the same as the previous editor who've been involved in this), but, based on history, I suspect he'll continue, seeing that this goes back several months. Just something to keep an eye on. 212.10.89.251 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: number of species (changed by IP's)

message: Suspending public editing of the document until a specified date hardly seems like a measure in fighting vandalism but whatever. The reason for this section is that the very first sentence in the page for Cichlids is not proper English and makes use of Fishes which is not a word. Fish is an odd word that when used in plural does not change from the singular use of the word. The only thing that changes is the context it is used in.
singular - You may have one "fish" in each bucket.
plural - Have you ever seen a school of "fish"?
I propose a change to the text Fishes to Fish and the link should reflect this as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.95.13 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishes is not a word (... yes it is) 

message: I was thinking that, since cichlids provide us with such a rich example of speciation, we should include a little more information on this subject. Maybe even add in a new section heading addressing this directly? I have written a little on the subject below and was wondering what you all thought before doing any editing.
Cichlids provide scientists with a unique perspective of speciation, having become extremely diverse in the more recent geological past. It is widely believed that one of the contributing factors to their diversification are the various forms of prey processing displayed by cichlid pharyngeal jaw apparatus. These different jaw apparatus allow for a broad range of feeding strategies including: algae scraping, snail crushing, planktivores, piscivores, and insectivores.Albertson, R. C., J. A. Markert, P. D. Danley, and T. D. Kocher. 1999. Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. PNAS. 96:5107-5110. Some cichlids can also show phenotypic plasticity in their pharyngeal jaws, which can also help lead to speciation. In response to different diets or food scarcity, members of the same species can display different jaw morphologies that are better suited to different feeding strategies. As species members begin to concentrate around different food sources and continue their life cycle, they most likely spawn with like individuals. This can reinforce the jaw morphology and given enough time, create new species.Muschick, M., M. Barluenga, W. Salzburger, and A. Meyer. 2011. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in the Midas cichlid fish pharyngeal jaw and its relevance in adaptive radiation. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 11:116. This can happen through allopatric speciation, when they concentrate on different food sources in different areas, or possibly through sympatric speciation. This is one of the most interesting aspects of cichlid diversification, there exists a strong possibility that they can provide us with evidence of sympatric speciation. In a crater lake in Nicaragua called Lake Apoyo, there is a species of cichlid, Amphilophus zaliosus, that very may well have speciated through sympatric speciation. A. zaliosus, its sister species Amphilophus citrinellus, and the lake itself display many of the criteria needed for sympatric speciation.Barluenga, M., A. Meyer, M. Muschick, W. Salzburger, and K. N. Stolting. 2006. Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. Nature. 439:719
Knisley.46 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea. I'd welcome you being WP:BOLD, and adding it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of information regarding cichlid speciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cichlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041028055943/http://www.rsnz.org:80/publish/nzjmfr/2004/041.pdf to http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjmfr/2004/041.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cichlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abc.net.au/farnorth/stories/s1313845.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818063521/http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet2.php?toc_id=200 to http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet2.php?toc_id=200
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/show_article.php?article_id=331
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516094604/http://www.aquafriend.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=66&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 to http://www.aquafriend.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=66&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi folks. I'm not an evolutionary biologist. However, I did once have cichlids in my aquarium and noticed this article which is open! I uploaded a slightly edited version of their figure 1. I think that there is now evidence for the statement in the speciation section "there exists a strong possibility that they can provide us with evidence of sympatric speciation.", but, again, I'm not an expert. Sooooo, I give you the figure and reference and hope that somebody else will edit the section.  DennisPietras (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is excellent source information; thank you very much for thinking of this! I've read the paper, and it does indeed indicate evolution from a common ancestry in the form of a hybrid swarm. On the other hand, it addresses only the cichlids of the African rift lakes, but not cichlids as a whole, so I will present it accordingly. I'll make the edits now. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  speciation section 

message: Why is there an anglefish picture on the cichlid page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Mayes (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The genus Pterophyllum is in the family Cichlidae. (They are closely related to Discus.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglefish picture? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cichlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818063320/http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet2.php?toc_id=195 to http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet2.php?toc_id=195
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cichlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5n54DCWKy?url=http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=3615 to http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=3615
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please see the comment I have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes and give comments. Thanks Quetzal1964 (talk)   07:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Cichlinae

message: Not a large enough topic that it requires its own article. Could easily be merged into the more comprehensive cichlid article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cichlid aggressive behavior]]