Talk:Brown trout

message: I've done this as a single page because I've never seen a case where we have different pages for different subspecies.  Also I wasn't convinced, from the data to hand, that there is a hard and fast difference in their habits etc.  However if anyone feels like splitting them up, go right ahead.  All I've done so far is shovel some basics down from FishBase.  seglea 07:18, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we're supposed to be more of a summary of knowledge than a replacement for specialists' works, I tend to incline towards discussing types as a group, rather than breaking each out into a lot of stubly articles. I can't even think of a subspecies that has so much information unique to it that the info would add multiple pages to a species article... Stan 07:30, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Article creation

message: The life cycle is NOTHING like an Atlantic Salmon. This needs sorting out!  Malcolm Morley 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to expand on that a bit? Dave 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most brown trout are not anadromous whereas all Salmon are. Malcolm Morley 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an ichthyologist, I can assure you that all "Salmon" are not anadromous. The life cycle of anadromous brown trout populations is very similar to that of anadromous Atlantic salmon populations. Lacustrine brown trout populations are very similar to landlocked Atlantic salmon populations. There are literally thousands of landlocked Atlantic salmon populations in the world, all(?) of which are potamodromous. The only real exception to the similarity is in the fario morph of brown trout which is really, it could be argued, a form of neoteny. I'm not aware, personally, of any Atlantic salmon populations that share this stream-resident trait although it wouldn't surprise me if there were some. In any event, there is more to life history than migratory pattern. Even if we focus solely on migration, however, you are not entirely correct. Most Atlantic salmon populations and most brown trout populations are either anadromous of potamodromous. This reality, it seems to me, is a far cry from your statement that the brown trout "life cycle is NOTHING like an Atlantic salmon." Regardless, I'm not wedded to the language. Your edit is not inaccurate. I'd suggest, though, that your view is somewhat narrow. There are many places in the world where anadromous brown trout populations and anadromous Atlantic salmon populations occur sympatrically and are very similar in life cycle. There are also many places in the world where landlocked Atlantic salmon populations are in some sense sympatric with lacustrine brown trout populations and they share a very similar life cycle. Does your edit capture this? Dave 15:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave I have made some amendments to the article. I am not an ichthyologist, merely a keen fisherman with a scientific background. Please tell me if you disagree with my changes!  Malcolm Morley 22:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way you broke it up. I re-arranged things just a bit to keep the zoogeography in the main part of the article and the farming stuff alone in the second section. Dave 01:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Life cycle

message: "The lacustrine morph of brown trout is most usually potamodromous although there is some evidence of stocks which spawn on wind-swept shorelines of lakes."   Do you mean by this that most lacustrine morph fish migrate into flowing water to spawn whereas some do not migrate outside the lake to spawn? It just needs a little clarification... perhaps "The lacustrine morph of brown trout is most usually potamodromous, migrating into rivers or streams to spawn, although there is some evidence of stocks which spawn on wind-swept shorelines of lakes."' Malcolm Morley 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your version is clearer, especially to a non-specialist which is the audience Wikipedia strives to address. Dave 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potamodromous 

message: "Brown trout may live for several years although, as with the Atlantic salmon, there is a high proportion of death of males after spawning and probably fewer than 20% of female kelts recover from spawning."  Absolute malarky!  Can I get a source on this?  I used to live immediately adjacent to a brown trout stream in Alberta.  They would spawn there every year.  These figures are garbage or misinformed.  Freshwater browns do not fit this statement at all!
:Well, you're largely correct. Jonsson in 2001 showed that brown trout post-spawning mortality is correlated with stream size and habitat quality. Presumably, longer migrations in larger and faster streams exert a high energetic toll on the fish. At the same time, this 1998 study by Berg et al says that post-spawning mortality depends on the sex of the fish and how many times the individual has already spawned. In their study, they indicate that first time female spawners essentially all survived whereas about 65% of first-time spawning males survived. For repeat spawners, about 60% of females and 40% of males survived. So, on balance, I'd say that you are correct, the 20% number is probably too high except, perhaps, for anadromous populations in large streams undertaking long migrations. I didn't insert the 20% figure — it's been in the article for some time — but I also didn't verify it during my last rewrite. Feel free to alter the text appropriately. If you care not to make the alterations, I'll do it in a couple of days when I get a bit of time. — Dave 04:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spawning figures

message: No sub-species listed? I can think of 3 off-hand...German Brown, Loch Leven strain, English brown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fisher99 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not subspecies. If anything, they are strains. Taxonomists used to list the three morphs in the article as subspecies (and you will still find a fair amount of stuff on the 'Net listing those three) but more recent exposition suggests that those are simply morphs. Since morphs have no official taxonomic valence, one can say that the brown trout is a single species according to the latest thought on that. Now, it's true that the species exhibits quite a degree of phenotypic variation across its range. But so, too, do dogs, for example. That doesn't make them separate species. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-Species 

message: Brown Trout on average weigh 1-5 pounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.134.235 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight

message: The claim that Brown Trout are circumpolar in their native distribution is highly questionable. This is certainly not a widely accepted view, nor have I read of Brown Trout fisheries in the Canadian or Alaskan arctic, or in the drainages of the northern Pacific. At a minimum it needs support with references but when I googled "Brown Trout circumpolar" I only find the assertion repeated with exactly the same wording as in the Wikipedia article.  Hmmm....  LADave (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although not cited in the article, the third reference in the Further Reading section:  does indeed say the species is circumpolar.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumpolar? 

message: I will be adding an external link to the species fact sheet through GLANSIS: GLANSIS FactSheet
Thanks, Greatlakesavenger (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link 

message: This should be linked to Orret in Norwegian and Salmo trutta in French 88.84.174.248 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The linking has been changed accordingly. Isheden (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to french and norwegian 

message: "These stations have been bought out and closed down by angling associations but has had the opposite effect in that the proprietors of these stations regularly culled seals"  This sentence  -  if it is one sentence  -  seems to have become garbled.  What stations? What has had an "opposite effect"?  Opposite to what? Kendrick Pereira (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Paragraph of Article

message: I disagree with the statement about brown trout and sea trout being in any way separate populations or 'morphs'.  They are the same fish. They were all sea trout originally.  A brown trout is simply a non-migratory sea trout.  At breeding time, brown trout breed with either brown trout or sea trout and sea trout breed with either brown trout or sea trout.  In some rivers, all male trout stay in the river, while most female trout go to sea, to return as sea trout and breed with the river males.  The overall proportion of stay-at-homes and sea-going fish is dictated by a combination of genetics and environmental factors, and in any river can change with time and circumstance, both in the river and at sea.  This is their survival strategy. Cap'n Fishy (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Brown trout and sea trout

message: Compiling a list of sources for potential article improvement. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential sources

message: I removed the above statement as it is too generalized and absolute and is not supported by the source which refers only to a specific mayfly species in one particular river in England. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Mayfly Nymphs Parasites 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brown trout. 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/20110211223810/http://www.climate-and-freshwater.info:80/rivers-temperate-ecoregions/climate-change-species/ to http://www.climate-and-freshwater.info/rivers-temperate-ecoregions/climate-change-species/
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) 13:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brown trout. 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/20100607112802/http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/species/fish/brown-trout.html to http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/species/fish/brown-trout.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701175813/http://www.amff.com/assets/images/archived-journals/1985-Vol12-No3web.pdf to http://www.amff.com/assets/images/archived-journals/1985-Vol12-No3web.pdf
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) 15:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :"Introductions of brown trout into the American West created new angling opportunities, none so successful from an angling perspective as was the introduction of browns into the upper Firehole River in Yellowstone National Park in 1890.[32]"
Link in [32] points to an article on cheetahs.
The brown trout were introduced in Yellowstone at Nex Perce Creek, not Firehole River.
:Kendall, W. C.; Smith, Hugh M. (1921). The Fishes of the Yellowstone National Park—With Description of Park Waters and Notes on Fishing (PDF). Washington D.C.: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries.(page 24)24.52.38.62 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. The link presumably was good when we added it, but now goes for some reason to a blog entry that isnt related and isnt even a PDF.  I would not assume that the PDF was wrong however .... when one source contradicts another, both are thrown into doubt, and a book written in 1921 may have been based on incomplete knowledge.  (That does not mean it is wrong either .... I dont think we can judge without seeing both of them.) —Soap— 01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link in reference 

message: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lacustrine
and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potamodromous
It didn't mean quite what I thought it would from its parts. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:8999:887B:B370:D3B1 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  useful links 

message: The article doesn't say anything about this fish's qualities on the plate.
I'm very picky about fish; but possibly the nicest fish I ever ate was a brown trout, freshly tickled, gutted, and fried in butter. Flesh is firm and creamy-white, separates easily from the bones. Flavour is nutty - not fishy at all. It's poles away from rainbow trout.
That's all WP:OR. I get the sense that although this fish has been transplanted all over the world as a game fish, anglers are only going for it to test their latest fly - doesn't anyone actually eat it?
Also, no mention of trout-tickling. I think only brown trout are tickled; I'd have thought that would merit a brief section. I may add something if I can find a WP:RS.
MrDemeanour (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed if you can find WP:RS on brown trout re trout-tickling, please address it.  As for eating qualities, that is better addressed as it is in the Trout article. Flesh color and quality is highly localized to the individual trout’s environment.  We catch a lot of brown trout here in SW Montana and flesh color varies from white to deep orange depending on the source (obviously because we know that because we eat them).  Doubtful that the eating quality of brown trout is significantly different from the many other trout species and any distinction would be highly subjective. Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Mike Cline. Aside from taste naturally being a highly subjective perception, there is also an extraordinary amount of what could best be called superstition regarding the relationship of flesh color and taste. And a great deal of those who lodge the most vehement claims about taste between trout species (or between trout with certain flesh colors) are often doing so entirely on the basis of little more than personal, anecdotal experience.Jgcoleman (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating qualities 

message: See: WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Salmo abanticus Tortonese, 1954. WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Salmo abanticus Tortonese, 1954: Synonymised names
Salmo trutta abanticus Tortonese, 1954 · unaccepted  Creuzbourg (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redirect from  Salmo abanticus seems to be wrong