Talk:Pterophyllum

message: Added a link to blackwater river in the P. altum section as I teach myself how to use and edit Wikipedia articles and move toward actually contributing new material.  In doing so, I might have exposed a contradiction where the P. altum section of this article states:
:"In the wild they come from water that is so stained with tanins from detrius such as decaying peatmoss and driftwood that it is a dark brown and visibility is only a few inches"
However, the article on blackwater rivers states: 
:"Blackwater rivers are also characterized by striking water clarity; so clear that visibility regularly exceeds 30 feet (9 meters). However, after rainstorms blackwater rivers can lose their typical clarity and color while sediment runs off from the surrounding forest. Within a few hours to a few days, the normal conditions return."
Everything I've been able to come across on the web indicates that the blackwater rivers are tea-colored and appear dark when the water is deep, but extraordinarily clear.  But I don't know for sure.  It would be great if someone more knowledgeable on this subject could edit or clarify the article containing the incorrect information.  Neil916 05:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't receive any comments here, so I removed the statement. Neil916 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P. altum 

message: Probably there should be a seperate page on the breeding and breeds of angelfish, along with some of the other bred for characteristics tropical fish like bettas, gouramis, discuses, guppies etc. Whole books have been written about the subjects so I imagine there's a whole huge section that could be written. Williamb 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the current flow of the articles seem to support adding info on breeding fish to the specific fish that the info applies. However, if you want to add an article on fish breeding be bold and go for it! Blue Leopard 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breeding fish 

message: Edited out a personal attack in the section on P. scalare by 64.231.67.213. Although the information was wrong it doesn't give the right to make personal attacks on another wikipedian. Although I've seen worse, please leave constructive critcisms on the talk page, NOT the article. Blue Leopard 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks in a fish article? 

message: I propose we merge Freshwater Angelfish into Pterophyllum.
The genus only has 2-3 species and I think is best dealt with in a genus page.
Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 23:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the genus page, listed under its common name, with taxobox and everything.  All of the information you entered on the Pterophyllum page should be integrated into this article.  There was previously a redirect on the Pterophyllum to this page.  See the guidelines on the WikiProject Fishes page regarding how these articles should be named.  Eventually I could forsee gathering enough information on P. altum and P. leopoldi to warrant separating the species information into their own pages, but since it's such a small genus they're all jumbled into one right now. Neil916 01:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's probably the best bet.  It seems like it would be a lot less work than creating a new Pterophyllum article then trying to merge the content from here into it.  I've never had much of a liking to the "freshwater angelfish" article name, since it's not really the common name, so it would be better to go with the scientific name.  I've given thought to splitting the individual species out into separate articles since a majority of the content that is in this article (especially the parts I've added) have to do specifically with P. scalare and I'm sure there's plenty out there that could be added to the very small sections of P. altum and P. leopoldi and easier to add content specific to those species...but haven't gotten to it yet.  So my vote is go for it.   Neil916 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge article? 

message: This article seems confused, flipping between biology in the wild and what they do in aquaria. Wild angelfish don't normally spawn on aquatic plants -- where they live, there aren't any aquatic plants (the Amazon has very little in the way of submerged vegetation). Rather, they spawn on sunken wood, particularly vertical surfaces such as tree stumps. Similarly, small fish aren't a major part of their diet in the wild, instead they eat mostly insect larvae. Certainly they will eat fish given the chance, but they aren't especially well adapted to that (e.g., no deeply-cleft, highly expandible mouth as in the case of other stealth piscivores such as leaffish). It's in an aquarium, where prey fish can't escape, that angels become effective fish-eaters.
I'd suggest a broad summary of WILD biology, then dividing out species descriptions for the three species, and finally a section on the commercial value of angelfish and their maintenance in aquaria.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus: biology OR aquarium care? 

message: My friend and I are starting two websites.  One is breedingangelfish.info, the other will be for commercial purposes.  Does anyone see a problem with putting a link out to the informational site once it is live?  There will be no sales derived from the .info site, just Adsense Ads.  Sushilover boy 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sushilover boy - any external links need to meet wikipedias requirements. See WP:EL. Hope this helps, MidgleyDJ (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see a problem a person putting an external link to one's own site, since a person won't have objective judgment about the quality of his/her own work  If the page is good an useful, someone else will link it. Of course, there's no way for me to tell if you create an imaginary wiki account at a Public library and link yourself, so this philosophy can't be strictly enforced. However, there is nothing wrong with taking the information from your own site and adding it in with Wikipedia articles.  That would be the correct philosophy here.  DAID (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New external link

message: I'm no biology expert, but I do some evolution reading in my spare time, and I have a decent understanding of basic taxonomic rules.  Under Strains of Angelfish the article states, "Domestic strains are most likely a collection of genes resulting from more than one species of wild angelfish..."  Now, I'm going to assume firstly that these domestic strains are not sterile, that angelfish are not a ring species, and that the angelfish genes were not altered by humans in a laboratory.  If all these assumptions are the case, this is a flawed statement, because, by definition, standard species cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, otherwise the original 'species' in question is mis-labeled as such.  I would appreciate the review of this material by an expert.  Maybe we don't know the origin of the domestic angelfish, but it certainly ought not be one which violates a basic definition in biology.  I will also assume that those people who made the species categorizations had more professional scientific training than the original author of the statement I question.  This is not meant to be a slam on the wiki-author, but my reasoning for questioning the accuracy of such a statement, because I trust the person I know for sure is a scientist by training. DAID (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DAID - That's the reason the Biological (Reproductive) Species Concept is generally not very useful. Interspecies cichlid hybrids are readily fertile, in some cases intergeneric (between genus) hybrids are also fertile. The same is true for a number of other animal families and also for a great many plants. If you're after a cichlid example consider the flowerhorn, which is likely to be an intergeneric hybrid of various heroine and cichlasomine cichlids -- virtually all flowerhorns are fertile. This article could do with some work, but the section in question is fine and likely to be true with regard to the mixed species origins of the "common" angelfish. That said, it could use a reliable source to back it up. MidgleyDJ (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic Fish and Species

message: I was trying to make a new article on an extinct plant, called "Pterophyilum" with an "i" in the Extinct plants list. It seems to be a misspelling, since I could only find images and pieces of information about the plant by searching up "Pterophyllum plant" - and on a photo of the fossil it is referred to as "Pterophyllum". Turns out "Pterophyllum" is both a kind of an animal (the angelfish) and a plant. I am unsure what to do so I can write an article about the plant genus too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4Vdragon (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The easiest way to do it would be to call the new page Pterophyllum (plant). Before you go too far on that, please take a look at WP:Notability and make sure that you have enough reliable sourcing to justify creating the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. See this article to appreciate there are various invalid names in circulation (like Pterophyllum longifolium), so make sure you properly research the topic and prepare a good draft, listing only valid taxon names in that genus (though clarifying nomenclatural issues within an article is too be welcomed). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shares a name with an extinct plant?