Talk:Arowana

Picture

The picture shows an Arowana with droopy eye syndrome. It is not healthy and is therefore a misleading picture of a healthy Arowana fish. Change it... 61.3.190.30 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Arowana[reply]

Name

According to FishBase, "arowana" is an unofficial vernacular name, while "bonytongue" is the official common name. This will need to be fixed at some point. Stan 02:49, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC) --- I consider the concept of "official common names" both oxmoronic and absurd - the fact the common names are by definition unofficial is the main purpose of binomial names! However, I have never heard the name "bony tongue" used to describe these fish, only ever "arowana". "Bony tongue" also strikes me as a contrived name, simply a transation of the family, rather than a true common name that is actually used,and common names should reflect the names that people actualy use. It is also the translation of the order name, and could potentially lead to confusion (e.g. mormyrids are "bony tongues", but they certainly aren't arowanas). There's no harm is creating a redirect page for "bony tongue" or "bonytongue", but I don't see any point in moving the article.

From Googling, I see there are lots more "arowana" than "bonytongue", even though "bonytongue" is what FishBase and my ichthyology books use. But to answer your implicit question, there has been a move afoot in zoological circles to set up standard English names that are as precise as the traditional binomial names; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and its talk page for past discussion on what's going on. Among other considerations, lots more people know English than Latin, so the old Latin names are just so much random gobbledygook, they just don't have the meaning for people that they used to. Stan 04:35, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am aware of the attempted "standardisation of common names" to which you refer, and I consider it utterly absurd. Nonetheless, I take your point. However, on the grounds of the google test it seems fair to say that most people have ignored this particular attempt at "standardisation", and an encyclopaedia should reflect what is current, rather than be complicit in some biologist's masterplan to standardise. Just as more people know english than latin, more people certainly know "arowana" than "bony tongue", so I suggest that this article stays under "arowana" with a redirect at "bony( )tongue".

80.225

incidentally - can you check the author for Scleropages leichardti Günther, 1864; I'm sure it's the correct name, but it might need to be bracketed, since I'm not sure if the genus even existed at that time, and can't seem to find much information on it.

why does everyone want to spell this incorrectly? it's arowana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.221.222.130 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossils

I have always read that arowanas are "living fossils" and so forth, so I added some information on fossil species. I still have to do a lot of research (I don't even 220.255.154.145 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Line

The article makes the claim that this family is the only family of freshwater fishes found on both sides of the Wallace Line. This is not true, for example family Centropomidae (giant perches) which is widepread in the Indo-Pacific includes species on both side of this line, two cases in point being Nile perch Lates niloticus and barramundi lates calcarifer. Indeed the latter species itself is found in coastal areas of east Africa, northern Australia and Asia to southern Japan. Unless someone provides justification for retaining the current statement, I will remove it in a few days. Nick Thorne 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centropomidae is not exclusively freshwater; Lates calcarifer is diandromous (that is, migrates between fresh and salt water). --Ginkgo100^talk 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and many fishes recognised as freshwater species have life cycles that involve a marine or esturine phase. L.Calcarifer is actually catadromous, spawning in esturine environments. Freshwater eels actually migrate right out into the oceans to spawn, would you not consider them to be freshwater fish? What about trout? Rainbow and brown trout will often proceed to sea if given the chance, yet no one would seriously consider them not to be freshwater fish. thus to say that Centropomidae are not freshwater fish is a false dichotomy. the claim about the Wallace line still fails. Nick Thorne 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trout belong to subfamily Salmoninae, which is hardly a freshwater family. Perhaps the article should read that Osteoglossidae is the only exclusively freshwater family, or the only family whose members are obligate freshwater fishes, to be found on both sides. This is significant because a fish that cannot ever survive saltwater at any stage of its lifecycle theoretically cannot migrate across this line. Scleropages did because of continental drift. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you merely splitting hairs here? The antiquity of the Osteoglossidae is undisputed and would seem to be supported (as in the case of the various Lungfish species) by their wide and disparate dispersion. They are a family of truly freshwater species which are found distributed all around the globe, as well as on both sides of the Wallace line, which is an interesting observation, regardless. Pantodon buccholzi is a strange (and fascinating) oddity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.254.159 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon fish

The article implies that the arowana is known as "dragon fish" by the Chinese. Could someone confirm this? Drutt (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the literal translation of what the Arowana is called in Chinese.

As an ornmental fish importer and retailer for several decades my experience is that people involved in the ornamental aquatics trade in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia usually refer to all Scleropages species as "Dragon fish", whereas Osteoglossum species are usually traded under the common name of "Arowana" (AKA Aruana, Arrowana etc...). I believe "Arowana" is simply a version of a native Amazonian Indian name for Osteoglossum bicirrhosum a Brazilian-Portugese spelling I've seen is "Arahuana", or even "Arajuana". Arapaima gigas is a popular food fish in the Amazon (or was when it was more common) and goes by various common names: "Piracuru","Arapaima" and "Paiche", for example, but not "Arowana" in my personal experience. I also find the idea of "standard English" names for species a little bizarre, especially as we already have a working convention with latin, most well known fish species have at least half a dozen different "common names" in different countries (not least the US and the UK, both using "English" names) and I can't imagine how you would choose a "correct" one from amongst them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.254.159 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systematics wrong

The Heterotididae cannot be treated as subfamily without including Pantodon – indeed without including essentially all Osteoglossoidei living and extinct – in the Osteoglossidae: the freshwater butterflyfish is a closer relative of the arowanas than either is of the arapaima. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered Species and Illegal Black Market

Food for thought. Why not include the fact that the species Scleropages Formosus is listed as Endangered by the U.S.A. Or the fact that Arowanas are highly controvercial due to import regulations in many, many countries. Include issues such as micro-chips, birth-certificates, and smuggling indicators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.2.50 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

Acording to Fishbase, Arapaimidae are the bonytounges. They were formerly part of the Osteoglossidae. Thus the bony tounge and the obligate air breathing are features of Arapaima gigas and Heterotis niloticus and not the Arowana. Osteoglossidae is simply named ″Arowanas″. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.12.29 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link in the External Links Section

The bottom link of this section of the "external links" section is a 404 error.

I would suggest this as a new guide arowana-fish.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherMathew (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arowana. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]