Talk:Pregnancy in fish
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge
editThe snippets here should be incorporated to Fish development or Fish reproduction. There is already a plethora of fish biology articles (see Diversity of fish template) It's better if a single article comprehensively covers a topic rather than have lots of scattered stubs that say only one or two things. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I created this article partly because of a discussion regarding the Pregnancy article and the way that it totally disregards pregnancy in non-human animals. The definitive opening sentence actually implies pregnancy ONLY occurs in humans. Also, there is an article Pregnancy (mammals) and I felt this might be nicely balanced by an article on fish. This article is definately a "work in progress" - please could you revisit in a few days and see if you still have the same view about a merge.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure thing, I look forward to seeing expansions, and thanks for your contributions. Along a slightly different note, the parenthetical title seems a bit unnatural, since the subject is not "pregnancy" per se but "pregnancy in fish", and pregnancy has no special meaning unique to fish. Thus Pregnancy in fish would be a more natural title, per WP:Natural guidelines, and similarly we have Fish development rather than Development (fish). A parenthetical disambiguation would be more appropriate should there be a band or movie called Pregnancy, entirely unrelated to the biological phenomenon, e.g. Pregnancy (film). I may also bring this up in the Pregnancy (mammals) discussion. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have to admit I am confused as to understanding parenthetical or non-parenthetical titles. I was simply following the example of Pregnancy (mammals). I am happy to go either way. It might also be appropriate to raise this discussion on the Pregnancy article which is exclusively about humans. Should it be Pregnancy in humans?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure thing, I look forward to seeing expansions, and thanks for your contributions. Along a slightly different note, the parenthetical title seems a bit unnatural, since the subject is not "pregnancy" per se but "pregnancy in fish", and pregnancy has no special meaning unique to fish. Thus Pregnancy in fish would be a more natural title, per WP:Natural guidelines, and similarly we have Fish development rather than Development (fish). A parenthetical disambiguation would be more appropriate should there be a band or movie called Pregnancy, entirely unrelated to the biological phenomenon, e.g. Pregnancy (film). I may also bring this up in the Pregnancy (mammals) discussion. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I created this article partly because of a discussion regarding the Pregnancy article and the way that it totally disregards pregnancy in non-human animals. The definitive opening sentence actually implies pregnancy ONLY occurs in humans. Also, there is an article Pregnancy (mammals) and I felt this might be nicely balanced by an article on fish. This article is definately a "work in progress" - please could you revisit in a few days and see if you still have the same view about a merge.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is also a similar article: Live-bearing aquarium fish. It might be prudent to combine these two, with the "aquarium fish" as a subsection of this article. Additional terms to that could redirect here are Viviparous fish, Viviparity in fish, Ovoviviparous fish, etc. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is also further overlapping material in spawning, some of which might be useful to use here as well. Most of the examples I gave in that article are to do with fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Is mouthbrooding pregnancy / ovoviviparity ?
editDoes the ''Diversity of Fishes reference actually state that mouthbrooding is a form of ovoviviparity? Most sources tend to discuss mouthbrooding and ovoviviparity as distinct behaviors, e.g. Developmental Biology of Teleost Fishes. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. No, the reference does not state this. I started writing this section thinking that because other fish brood their eggs in body cavities and this is termed "pregnancy", logic suggests mouthbrooding would also be called "pregnancy". So, I wrote the section, and then in the reverse order of sensible writing, began to look for references referring to mouthbrooding as "pregnancy". I struck a big fat zero on this! I was staggered! I guess this makes the section in this article to be "Personal Research" and I have no defense for it to be treated as otherwise. Wipe it from the face of the earth if you wish. Perhaps, however, the section can remain for a (brief) period of time in case another editor knows that mouthbreeding has been referred to as "pregnancy". Incidentally, I have just found an interesting paper (Paternal Mouthbrooding in the Black-Chinned Tilapia... Hormones and Behavior 37, 40–48 (2000)) which describes mouth brooders potentially providing nourishment to their offspring - I will check the Mouthbrooding article and see if this is incorporated.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I will just delete the section to avoid any controversy.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. Mouthbrooding is certainly a topic worth expanding, and the spectrum of parental investment in fish is broad and diverse, but as editors we should strive to portray topics accurately and clearly. I'm not even sure if a single widely agreed upon definition of 'pregnancy' in fish exists. Alternately, the scope (and title) of this article might be expanded to include mouth brooding and external brooding (fish that carry eggs attached to the body), but that part if the spectrm blends with external nest guarding, etc. A broad concept article such as Parental investment in fish would allow a full discussion of the spectrum of behavior of all non-spawners, without the need to shoehorn in any behaviors. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you about the lack of definition of pregnancy in fish. I have actually modified what I have found here on WP and in other media. However, the term is definitely used for these species, including seahorses and pipefish. I suspect an article as broad as Parental investment in fish would be huge! I personally would not be prepared to start such an article, but would certainly contribute to sections.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. Mouthbrooding is certainly a topic worth expanding, and the spectrum of parental investment in fish is broad and diverse, but as editors we should strive to portray topics accurately and clearly. I'm not even sure if a single widely agreed upon definition of 'pregnancy' in fish exists. Alternately, the scope (and title) of this article might be expanded to include mouth brooding and external brooding (fish that carry eggs attached to the body), but that part if the spectrm blends with external nest guarding, etc. A broad concept article such as Parental investment in fish would allow a full discussion of the spectrum of behavior of all non-spawners, without the need to shoehorn in any behaviors. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I will just delete the section to avoid any controversy.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. No, the reference does not state this. I started writing this section thinking that because other fish brood their eggs in body cavities and this is termed "pregnancy", logic suggests mouthbrooding would also be called "pregnancy". So, I wrote the section, and then in the reverse order of sensible writing, began to look for references referring to mouthbrooding as "pregnancy". I struck a big fat zero on this! I was staggered! I guess this makes the section in this article to be "Personal Research" and I have no defense for it to be treated as otherwise. Wipe it from the face of the earth if you wish. Perhaps, however, the section can remain for a (brief) period of time in case another editor knows that mouthbreeding has been referred to as "pregnancy". Incidentally, I have just found an interesting paper (Paternal Mouthbrooding in the Black-Chinned Tilapia... Hormones and Behavior 37, 40–48 (2000)) which describes mouth brooders potentially providing nourishment to their offspring - I will check the Mouthbrooding article and see if this is incorporated.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Article disagrees with itself
editQuoting the article as of my writing:
"Examples of ovoviviparous fish are many of the squaliform sharks, which include sand sharks, mackerel sharks, nurse sharks, requiem sharks, dog sharks and hammerheads, among others, and the lobe finned coelacanth. Some species of rockfish (Sebastes) and sculpins (Comephoridae) produce rather weak larvae with no egg membrane and are also, by definition, ovoviviparous. Ovoviviparity occurs in most live-bearing bony fishes (Poeciliidae).
...
Viviparous fish include the families Goodeidae, Anablepidae, Jenynsiidae, Poeciliidae, Embiotocidae and some sharks (some species of the requiem sharks, Carcharinidae and the hammerheads, Sphyrnidae, among others). The halfbeaks, Hemiramphidae, are found in both marine and freshwaters and those species that are marine produce eggs with extended filaments that attach to floating or stationary debris, while those that are found in freshwater are viviparous with internal fertilization. The Bythitidae are also viviparous although one species, Dinematichthys ilucoeteoides, is reported to be ovoviviparous."
So squaliform sharks and poeciliids are both ovoviviparous and viviparous? IAmNitpicking (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)