Talk:Iridescent shark

message: Perhaps a section discussing the controversy of the fish as a food export from Vietnam would be good. This article contains a report on the success of the Vietnamese in breeding the fish for food, which they export as 'dory' or 'sutchi' fillet. Other news articles report that the fish is contaminated with hormones, toxins and antibiotics. --Hooiying (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

message: --Jadealicous (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I've yet to read anything in the fishkeeping press proving a connection between stunting (which happens with many fish species) and organ failure (no evidence I've seen at all). So far as I know, it's a myth held by hobbyists. Is stunting bad? Sure. Fish stunt when they're kept in poor conditions, and that means they're more prone to finrot, behavioural stress, etc. But do their organs actually stop working? Doubtful. It's likely connected with another myth, that organs keep growing even when the body size stops, causing the fish to explode! Wikipedia should take greater care not to promote myths, but stick with verifiable science. Cheers, Neale.
While there has not yet been significant proof of the continued growth of organs in stunted fish, there also has been limited exploration. The majority of research on stunted fish has been on growth potential and reproductive ability in fish bred and raised for food, and the length of stunting is usually measured in months. I looked a bit into that for this article. The article: Aquaculture Research; Jul2004, Vol. 35 Issue 9, p836-841, 6p, Effect of stunting of juvenile bighead carp... shows that such fish will resume almost normal growth, but shows extremely limited reproductive capability. Such fish stunted for over a year entirely lost the ability to breed. Other tests on other breeds of fish have produced similar results.
Perhaps the language in the article should be toned down, but there is definite harm done by the very act of stunting, not just side-effects of the poor environment. Wyrdsol (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious: Stunting causes organ failure 

message: I have a fine specimen well over two feet in length and currently 26 years old living in a 55 gallon tank.  I rescued him from the previous owner who could not maintain the tank any longer.  He has two Giant Danios two long finned Cherry Barbs and a beta (siamese fighting fish) as tank companions.  He is generally docile, eats shrimp pellets, algae pellets, and flake food, mostly ignores the smaller fish and definitely dislikes the color red.  (S)He is active strong and an excellent pet.  I have always had Iridescent Sharks in my aquariums.  To the best of my recollection all have lived long lives; most over 8 years.  I sadly lost one this past winter at age 13 and approximately 12" long.      
They are not particularly difficult fish though very active as youth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.2.12 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longevity and difficulty of maintaining is in error 

message: A 55 gallon tank is 48" x 13".  A fish "well over two feet" kept in such an tank is NOT "active, strong and an excellent pet", it is tortured and probably malformed.  Does the owner manually turn it around after it has swum the 18" he/she generously allows it, so it can swim 18" in the other direction?  The fact that it has lived 26 years is remarkable and attests to the durability of the catfish and the owner's ability to keep the water clean despite the waste load of such a large fish, but this is hardly what I would call an example to publish. 208.104.90.134 (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dispute the above claim 

message: I had these as a child and found they were quite fragile.  Very sensitive to water changes and stress, and I have heard that they like a bit of salt in the water. Truth be told, though, Pictus cats make better and more interesting pets, IMO--Ron E (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: any info on proper care?

message: The Names section states that "The fish is named for the glow or iridescence exhibited in juveniles..."  Iridescence is having the appearance of different or changing colors when viewed from different angles, like a soap bubble.  A glow would be phosphorescence, not iridescence. There is no reference given to support either assertion. Since the name of the fish is iridescent shark I'm guessing the statement is at least half wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.145 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphorescence or iridescence? 

message: It seems to me this article might be better titled by scientific name. "Iridescent shark" is a common name used by aquarium hobbyists, but the fish is more widely known as food source marketed as "swai" (and packages of swai often list the scientific name in smaller text). Fishbase calls it "striped catfish", as does the FAO (and Fishbase does not list "iridescent shark" as a common name but does have "iridescent shark-catfish"). The "common name" is variable depending on context (aquarium fish vs. food source), and there is more than one common name for each context.Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I'm a bit confused by conflicting claims of whether "swai" is threatened or not. For one thing, the Red List gives a different species for "swai" (Pangasius elongatus); more importantly, and confusingly, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch list says swai is a "Good Alternative" and is farm raised. As a seafood eater that tries to be ethical, I find this all very confusing... Floatjon (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wild populations are endangered, but there are many farms raising the fish in captivity. Conservation assessments are typically only concerned about wild populations (for another organism that is threatened in it's native range, but widely cultivated, see Pinus radiata). I'm not sure why the IUCN links "swai" to a different species, but pre-packaged frozen seafood (as opposed to unfrozen shrink-wrapped filets at the butcher's counter) is almost always labelled somewhere with a scientific name. Every package of swai I've ever noticed has been labeled Pangasius hypopthalmus. Plantdrew (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: In  edit,  amended the taxobox image caption to Pangasius sanitwongsei. If that is the case the image shouldn't be used, rather than recaptioned. I've removed it for the time being, but can't decide whether the identification is correct. Other editors with a fish bent please double-check.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong species in image? 

message: This is all pretty messy overall, and our articles are in pretty bad shape...
There are at least two species grown commercially sold as "pangasius": Pangasius bocourti (basa fish, IUCN) and Pangasius hypophthalmus (iridescent shark or tra, ). To add to the mix, IUCN for P. bocourti says that . 
FAO has a pretty detailed article  that we could use or even adapt (their license seems compatible), but it is titled Pangasius hypophthalmus. However, the information therein seems to pertain to both species, or whatever is called "basa" or "pangasius" on the given market. The most important aspects of these species, are however, commercial and nutritional, and, in my opinion, would be best covered in a third article (not titled P. bocourti or P. hypophthalmus) – maybe Pangasius as food? Does anyone even know the ratio of the two species in commercial use? No such user (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FAO often doesn't care much about taxonomic niceties as long as they can track a trade name, so their data probably can't be teased apart. - The human use/nutrition angle is certainly worth of greater coverage, but I don't think it's really worth of its own article (I can see that being merged right back on creation). Maybe adding an extended section to one species article, noting that it pertains to both or more "pangasius" species, and linking with a summary in the other? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Basa fish is currently 90% about human use, with very little about the species' biology. Generally I would prefer the setup I described in the long run, but as we currently don't have much of anything (the information on production, nutritional value and recipes is close to zero), it would probably be better to expand Basa article for the time being and selectively merge/cross-link from this one. I don't foresee having much time to devote to it soon, though. (I actually come here to learn but found only fragmentary stuff, and discovered that FAO page in the process). No such user (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''P. bocourti'' vs. ''P. hypophthalmus''