Talk:Swordfish

Taxonomy and etymology

This section only contains information on how it gets its name (from the sword shaped bill). There is no taxonomy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.168.158 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Distribution

hi this is cody This article is lacking in the distribution of the species. It is a global species with a large distribution, larger than other tunas and billfish (and most likely due to them having a larger heater organ). They also have the greatest vertical distribution, swimming to depths of 650m as opposed to 200m for other billfish species. They are capable of being at those depths for several hours. Also, it is believed that there are four stocks - Mediterranean, North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Indo-Pacific. Some good references:
Chow, S., Okamoto, H., Uozumi, Y., Takeuchi, Y. & Takeyama, H. 1997. Genetic stock structure of the swordfish (Xiphias gladius?) inferred by PCR-RFLP analysis of the mitochondrial DNA control region. Marine Biology 127: 359-367.
Boyce, D. G., Tittensor, D. P. & Worm, B. 2008. Effects of temperature on global patterns of tuna and billfish richness. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 355: 267-276.
Sedberry, G. & Loefer, J. 2001. Satellite telemetry tracking of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, off the eastern United States. Marine Biology 139: 355-360. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.84.186 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Scales

This article doesn't seem to cover the scales found on swordfish, which (as far as I know) do not fit into the normal categories of fish scales. Since they are (apparently) unique, this deserves some attention. However, I don't know anything about icthyology, so I do not want to attempt any changes to the article without advice. RK 19:49, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Ichthyologists recognize four types of fish scale. The kosher variety of scales are cycloid (round) and ctenoid (comblike). The ganoid scale found on sturgeon, or the placoid scale of the shark are specifically excluded from the Biblical term kaskeses since they are not 'removable' scales without tearing the skin from the flesh. Even an educated layman would not see any similarity between the heavy bony plates of the sturgeon or the needle-like projections on the shark skin and the classic kosher scale of the whitefish or carp.

"In Fishery leaflet #531, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Wash. D.C., it states 'swordfish during early juvenile stage of life (up to 8 inches long), have "scales" that are markedly specialized and rather unique. They are in the form of bony tubercules or expanded compressed platelike bodies. These scales are rough, having spinous projections at the surface and they do not overlap one another as the scales in most fish do. With growth the scales disappear and the adult fish including those sold commercially have no scales.'

Excerpted from a Jewish article on the kosher status of swordfish.

Why swordfish in unclean

Sword

I was disappointed that the article doesn't mention the purpose of the sword - or is this not known? (cf this article) 0utsider 03:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does say it's for fighting, though maybe it didn't when you posted. I recall reading that it was covered with toxins or bacteria that would make fish or people sick if it cut them. Dunno if that's true, though. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions the fish being known as the gladiator (gladius) but gladius just means "sword" in latin, not gladiator. i guess i'm not understanding the connection between gladius and gladiator, besides having the same root.

---

IIRC, the swordfish hunts other fish by spearing them by the sword, shaking their bodies off, and then eating them. It weuld be great if someone could confirm that and place it in the article. Ppe42 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Does the sword re-generate, if it breaks off, and is that question or detail important enough and pertinent enough to be included in the article? Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)theBaron0530

Weight

From the Florid Museum of Natural History link given in the article:

"Swordfish reach a maximum size of 177 in. (455 cm) total length and a maximum weight of 1,400 lbs. (650 kg), although the individuals commercially taken are usually 47 to 75 in. (120-190 cm) long in the Pacific. Females are larger than males of the same age, and nearly all specimens over 300 lbs. (140 kg) are female. Pacific swordfish grow to be the largest, while western Atlantic adults grow to 700 lbs. (320 kg) and Mediterranean adults are rarely over 500 lbs. (230 kg). The IGFA all tackle record is 1182 lb. (536.15 kg)."

Why does the article list maximum weights more than twice as great as anything given by one of its own sources? PenguinJockey 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooking should have a separate category

Could someone give me one reason that the section on swordfish reporduction also contains a few paragraphs about how it is cooked? How do those to things relate? In my opinion, the paragraphs on cooking and its image should be grouped with the section on harvesting, if not grouped into their own section. Fusion7 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism

The "Recreational Importance" section is plagarized. Most of it is word-for-word out of the source, with some of the article cut out, and a few edits removing the first-person storytelling perspective out of the original article. Read that section and then the article it's copied from. Jdkkp (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarised from where? From what source? I would gladly read the article you reckon it is plagiarised from if only you would tell us the name, author, publication etcetera. I mean really. Arbo (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hydrodynamics of the sword

Has any research been done to determine if the sword confers a hydrodynamic advantage? The very high speed of the swordfish suggests that the sword could provide a means of reducing turbulent flow by creating a "bow wave" considerably in advance of the body of the fish. --APRCooper (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Weight record

The max. weight is listed as 650, yet the record is like, 530. I've noticed this on loads of fish pages, but what sense does it make? 88.107.41.70 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it's a good point. The maximum reported weight is the maximum weight that anyone has ever reliably reported. Mostly, these figures are reported by the fishing industry as part of a commercial catch, and are usually recorded by FishBase, which is the defacto official source for the overall maximum weights. However, this figure is often separate from, and never lower than the record weight recorded by a recreational fisherman. The official guide to world salt and freshwater recreational fish records is the World Record Game Fishes, published annually by the International Game Fish Association. You are right that many of the fish articles don't make the difference sufficiently clear. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecology

The chapter about Physiology contains much that's ecology. This chapter is missing anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.162.198 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What is that meant to mean? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The chapter was a mix of a whole range of matters, many not really fitting under 'Physiology'. I have moved some parts to the 'Reproduction' and other to a new subsection, 'Behavior and ecology'. Unfortunately I had to trim the original 'Reproduction' subsection since most of it was an exact copy (added here) of the 'Reproduction' subsection in the Florida Museum of Natural History reference. I rewrote some of it with the use of additional citations, but more info provided by the Florida Museum of Natural History reference could be used (especially juvenile developement). As long as people don't make an exact copy. RN1970 (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Physiological difference?

This article says that the Istiophoridae are physiologically, "quite different" from the family Xiphiidae, but the only differences I can detect are that Xiphias gladius loses its teeth and scales at adulthood and the lobes of the caudal fins do not appear to be as long, relative to body depth, as those of the marlins. Could someone who knows this material please clarify, in the article, the ways in which, their physiology is "quite different" as the article claims? Cheers. Cottonshirtτ 09:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Conservation status

The image states the species is "least concern" but in the text its listed as endangered and on the Seafood red list - if appropriate please change the image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.167.2 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2014‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swordfish. 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/20120426081914/http://nuke.prolocobagnara.it/BagnaraCalabra/Storia/LaPesca/LaPescadelPescespada/tabid/495/Default.aspx to http://nuke.prolocobagnara.it/BagnaraCalabra/Storia/LaPesca/LaPescadelPescespada/tabid/495/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Swordfish. 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/20071231113316/http://www.fenton.com/pages/3_ourwork/4_casestudies/environment/swordfish.htm to http://www.fenton.com/pages/3_ourwork/4_casestudies/environment/swordfish.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714231946/http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_SwordfishReport.pdf to http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_SwordfishReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714231946/http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_SwordfishReport.pdf to http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_SwordfishReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420075231/http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/mercury.html to http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/mercury.html

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) 23:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Temperature Regulation.

The temperature conversion from Metric to Imperial measurements is incorrect. It should display 50ºF to 64ºF if the original metric data is correct. EffortlessSuperiority (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The conversion template wasn't being used correctly (it's confusing). I've fixed that. The numbers are 50ºF to 59ºF, which I've checked manually.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)