Talk:Livebearers

message: (Originally posted by [user:Guppymax])
This defination is OK for icthyologist but the largest fish in the world, Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) is hardly an aquarium fish. Advanced hobbiest might be more comfortable with "fresh water" livebearers. I am not sure but I think the eggs of the mouth brooders are laid before they are put in the mouth? Poeciliidae includes a lot of oviparous killiefishes. Freshwater stingrays of the family Potamotrygonidae are salt water fish. You may read my articles but be careful about borrowing information before the paint is dry: http://maxsmi.100webspace.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=59 )
Thanks for posting this, but be sure any put "arguments" in the dicussion page rather than the article itself. Let people read and comment, then change the article if you want.
Anway, the article itself only mentions aquarium species (no whale sharks mentioned!). You are indeed correct to say that the Poeciliidae include egg laying species, now that the "livebearers" have been demoted to a subfamily status, the Poeciliinae . The Poecilidae article will need to be updated accordingly. But the Live-bearing aquarium fish article isn't the place for that, given that this article is explicitly about the livebearing species and says as much.
Freshwater stingrays are in fact freshwater fish, and they are livebearers as well as being quite common (if difficult to keep) aquarium fish. Mouthbrooders are not livebearers, but they are analogous to them, in the sense of protecting the eggs and fry inside the body of the parent fish. Likewise seahorses and pipefish, where the male gets "pregnant".
Cheers,
Neale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neale Monks (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "livebearer" 

message: Why is this article only about "aquarium" fish? Are the only fish in the world that bear live young found in aquariums? Surely this article should be renamed "live-bearing fish" and be primarily about the phenomenom in general, with perhaps a small section on fish with this characteristic who happen to be kept in aquariums. --Krsont 12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure ichthyologists use the term "livebearer". Instead, they talk about ovoviviparous fishes and viviparous fishes. Aquarists aren't that bothered about the differences between these two classes of fish, whereas biologists are very interested. Hence aquarists lump them altogether as fishes that don't lay eggs (a practical issue) whereas biologists differentiate them by the actual modes of reproduction (a scientific issue). If you wanted to create an article on Viviparous fishes and Ovoviviparous fishes, that would be a very good idea. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icthyology vs. keeping of pets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Live-bearing aquarium fish. 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/20060303224019/http://homepage.mac.com/nmonks/aquaria/halfbeaks.html to http://homepage.mac.com/nmonks/aquaria/halfbeaks.html
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) 03:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tim Low, writing in "Feral Future" notes that live bearers are a greater risk as invasive species, as compared to "regular" fish. That's another important distinction, but given the controversy that would ensue, I'll just park this comment here.JohnAugust (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasive species