Talk:Mosquitofish

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mosquitofish article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aquarium Fishes Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Updated a bit and reformatted with taxobox etc.; moved to conform to FishBase name. —Tkinias 10:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've removed a line that someone added "some of this info comes from websites with false information" which does not back up its claims. In the future if you'd like to fix the inaccuracies of this article please include references so we know what's wrong and why you changed them. 208.26.45.85 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been a long time since the comment above, but my philosophy is to take anything from about.com with a large grain of salt. Probably what the previous editor was referencing is that the Gambusia genus is considered an introduced species to most of the world and has documented consequences (as noted in the second URL listed in Links). That same site says that the claim of the ability of the fish to significantly control mosquito populations is dubious. I'm assuming the claim in this article ("where it has long been known that they feed readily on the aquatic larval and pupal stages of mosquitoes") comes from the about.com article, but I don't know since I make a point to not visit about.com.68.88.66.217 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mean to be crude....

...but isn't this the fish that has the largest penis to body size of any animal? --Ebz 18:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, a quick google search seems to point to the barnacle for that particular honor. Norvy 05:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gambusia statue in Sochi

I am removing the reference to myth that gambusia played a central role in eradicating malaria from Sochi for the second time. The two references provided are both romanticized histories of the city from State sources that make passing reference to this myth, but do not offer any actual evidence that this is true, and neither cite any scientific literature.

There is absolutely no evidence that the introduction of gambusia had any significant impact on malaria eradication efforts in Sochi. And given what is known about gambusia, there is no reason to believe that the popular myth that gambusia had a significant impact on the campaign to eradicate malaria there is true. More likely, the draining of wetlands, the chemical methods used, and the medical efforts to treat the disease had the largest impact (these are all mentioned in the two references which are currently provided).

67.6.94.23 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I softened the claim and added a reference. As I understand the story, the Soviets carried large-scale introduction of Gambusia in the 1930s in the Middle Asia and at the Black Sea coast. The results were well described in their scientific literature (particular names could be Sokolov NP for Asia and Sokolov S Yu for Sochi [1] [2]). They were regarded as successful in the Soviet Union, especially for Sochi - there should be no doubt on that. Could they be misinterpreted - yes, can we evaluate that - no. Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the new references are certainly more neutral, they still don't offer any evidence that the actual introduction of gambusia affinis was critical to the success of the mosquito control and malaria eradication efforts (i.e. that the use of native fish in irrigation canals wouldn't have worked equally well). There is no evidence for this, of course, and there is no reason to assume that it is true in the absence of any evidence. And as such, none of this information belongs in an article about gambusia affinis. At all. Perhaps it could be moved to an article about the biological control of mosquitoes or an article about Sochi? 71.34.62.238 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are denying evidence provided by at least two reliable sources [3] [4], and yet suggest the information is correct but for some reason does not belong to this article, but to articles on mosquitoes or Sochi. Those two sources specifically talk about Gambusia affinis. I am fine to remove this info if we realize why it is incorrect, but until then I suggest you continue discussion here and do not remove sourced information. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources you are providing. None of them back up your claim that Gambusia affinis was of any critical importance to the successful mosquito eradication effort in Sochi. You are the one making the claim, so the onus is on you to prove it. I'm deleting this once more, hopefully for the final time. Please stop putting false information on Wikipedia. un.chemyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Un.chemyst (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave for an hour but will reply after. Meanwhile, please do avoid edit warring (any rush?). Materialscientist (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before leaving, I scrolled through the sources and they all support the claim that introduction of Gambusia affinis did help eradicating malaria. Thus ether provide sources claiming the opposite or cease and desist. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I should have to "avoid edit warring". The sources don't support the claim, so deleting the erroneous passage should be a trivial edit. If you want to respond, it should be by revising or deleting the offending passage, not by restoring it. un.chemyst 02:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Un.chemyst (talk • contribs)

Reverted. Ask assistance if you can't read the sources. Otherwise consider yourself warned.

This source clearly says ".. широко и весьма успешно использована в борьбе с малярией в республиках Средней Азии, Кавказа и на юге РСФСР и УССР. В рыбохозяйственных угодьях Г. может приносить вред." which roughly means "[Gambusia affinis].. is widely and rather successfully used to fight malaria in Middle Asia [former USSR], Caucasus, south of Russia and Ukraine. It can be detrimental to fish farms." The timing (introduction in 1925; acclimatization and action in 1930s-1940s) is mentioned just above that phrase.
You should be able to read this source, which clearly describes the use of Gambusia to control mosquito larvae. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito fish in Western US

The mosquito fish is now being used in California to combat outbreaks of West Nile Virus in stagnant pools of water. Apparently, mosquito fish, can eat 500 larvae a day, and residents bring home a batch of fish to put in any stagnant water sites of concern. Contra Costa county has a full-time crew that visits abandoned swimming pools and stocks them with mosquito fish. [[5]]

...just something for another editor to consider for inclusion Kungfp (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size

0.5" - 3", with the females larger than the males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.152.167 (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of dominated by the Aussie viewpoint, isn't it?

I'm certainly not a fan of rampant species introduction or exotic pests, but two thirds of the article is about the fish's introduction to Australia...and so is half the introductory paragraph! I live where these guys are the endemic mosquito larva predators, so I think a single sentence in the Overview about their world travels would be plenty. It's not the fish's fault that people apparently like to take it everywhere.

Then perhaps the section about their introduction into other environments could be expanded to be more general, and to use examples in addition to Australia/New Zealand, with some citations for the ecological damage studies. Right now the whole article reads a bit like a rant; it overshadows the basic physiological information that I was looking for, and has a sort of breathless zeal that makes me feel skeptical, even though I'm sure it's perfectly accurate. Jdrum00 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have split out the Australian section to Mosquitofish in Australia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cites used in article

Patvac-chs (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

I cited the two books as examples to follow, the web references. The remaining web references are devoid of citation information (just a web address), thus the template is meaningless. You need to visit these cites and glean the details for complete citations using the correct format.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the remaining improperly cited cites reliable enough for references? Patvac-chs (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a {{Citation needed}} on some information in your article. You should probably take care of that ASAP. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar species

The lead section statses that the fish's "similar species are...." The reference of this fact appears reliable at first glance, but what are "similar species"? Is "similar species" a scientifically defined term, and is it important information to the article of Gambusia affinis? If so, I do think it should be reworded: "similar species" are not a set of species that somehow belong to this one (they aren't it's similar species), but simply species of fish that the one could be considered similar to. So, I would either take that bit of information out or reword it to "Gambusia affinis is considered similar to..." but even that seems too awkward to fit into the article. Sorry if I'm too wordy here. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you want to say that the fish resembles or is often mistaken for those species, you could move that bit of information to the Description section, because it would fit better there. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved that information to the description section and it does seem to pertain to the description section more than any other section. Patvac-chs (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Experience

I know it doesn't account for much as far as wikipedia is concerned, but we've kept these in our koi pond for years and they are, in fact, cannibalistic (the article says scientists aren't sure). 173.22.73.154 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, experience shows that the majority of live-bearing poeciliids are, and this is a very widely-observed and well-documented phenomenon. If the fry don't seek cover soon after birth, they are at serious risk of predation from adult conspecifics for a week or more. 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:240E:F814:5165:2CC6 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

The article name seems unclear. Maybe the common name western mosquitofish per Wikipedia:FISH#Fish_names_and_article_titles to match eastern mosquitofish. Gambusia already exists and Mosquitofish is ambiguous. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a move from this article to Western mosquitofish. Should "western mosquitofish" be used throughout the article instead of just "mosquitofish"?Patvac-chs (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either if you can source it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to Western mosquitofish. Still open to using just mosquitofish if sources justify it and seems it may if eastern mosquitofish is an invalid taxonomic name. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have been named back to simply "Mosquitofish"; if it's going under the "Mosquitofish" umbrella, oughtn't the eastern page be merged to this one?Zentomologist (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be Moved to Western mosquitofish bacause it is about a single species (Gambusia affinis). There is another page for the Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbroki). These are two distinct species recognized by the scientific community, as such they each deserve there own page. Including "Western" and "Eastern" in the title is necessary to avoid confusion. SeaPigman (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]