Talk:Bowfin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 4 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thidal1. Peer reviewers: EPLSU2022, Taufiq.khaled.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Terhaaed. Peer reviewers: Terhaaed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

American Caviar

Thought this was interesting, It produces the only true American Caviar, said to rival Russian. I threw in a link at the bottom. See if you like it, or delete it if too commercial.... Msjayhawk (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Edit in "Morphology" section

I have a proposed edit for the "Morphology" section in this article and an image addition. My proposed edit is in italics and the image is next to the content. Let me know if there are any questions!

The skull of the bowfin is made of two layers of skull, the Dermatocranium and the Chondrocranium. The chondrocranium layer cannot be seen because it is located below the dermal bones. The bowfin skull is made up of 28 fused bones, which compose the dermatocranium. The roof of the mouth is made up of three bones, the ectopterygoid, the palatine, and the vomer. The teeth are on two bones, the premaxillae and the maxillae. They have two sets of teeth, one set of larger sharp teeth coming out of the Mandible and Premaxilla bones to grasp and control the prey. Another set of teeth towards the back, called pharyngeal tooth patches that are connected to the Hyomandibula bone are used for sorting out nutrients and grinding down larger pieces of food.

Dorsal view of a Bowfin skull, showing the pharyngeal tooth patches which are connected to the internal portion of the hyomandibular bone. Acquired from Pacific Lutheran University.

White367 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

orange spot

this needs to say something about the orange spot that distinguishes males from females.

Nocturnal Feeders?

Whoever wrote this article doesn't know a thing about bowfin behavior, or has not observed them extensively in the wild. Bowfin are more apt to feed in the middle of the day as in the dead of night. Using the term "nocturnal" implies that the fish is exclusively a night feeder, and remains torpid or under cover during daylight hours. This is obviously false. While bowfin may occasionally feed at night, they hunt and feed throughout the daylight hours. An argument could be made that they are crepuscular, but even this is a stretch. Bowfin are sight feeders, attacking their living prey from ambush points.

Do you have a source to cite for all this? The ones in the external links don't seem to mention day or night, which suggests that the "nocturnal" should be deleted, but we need a citeable reference to add anything else. Stan 14:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember growing up and fishing the lakes of central Florida, Mud Lake in Polk City, Florida in particular, catching Bowfin (Mudfish is what we called them). We caught them typically from 2 hours after sunrise until the midafternoon. They would hit lures intended for largemouth bass in the areas typically inhabited by largemouth bass. We also caught a number of largemouth bass with bite scars from Bowfin (Mudfish). Many times we would find dead bass on the surface as well that had similar scars. This was about 1982-1985. These were not alligator bite scars either, the rows of teeth marks were two narrow, and alligators were still endangered at that time.Fyrdawg589 12:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Update to feeding patterns: I landed one tonight at 1945 May 16, 2007 on Lake Murray from a dock in Chapin, South Carolina. He was approximately 8 pounds and put up a tough fight. Scratched my lure all to pieces as well. He was caught on a 3/4 ounce surface popper that was marketed for catching striped bass. It does somewhat resemble a baby largemouth bass.

Sunset for tonight was forecast to be at 2021 EDT, and we have an approaching cold front that really has the atmosphere churned up right now.

Finally in true mudfish form he evacuated his bowels all over my dock when I pulled him out of the water as well.Fyrdawg589 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have an anecdotal account to offer as well, but I have often observed these fish active during the day. This occurs not only in the course of regular feeding, but during their spawn as well. They are a common sight in ditches, slow rivers, and lakes here in the Great Lakes Region. mr.trooper —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Splitting Ammiiformes

Granted, there is only one living member today, but, shouldn't we split Ammiiformes off, especially since we want to eventually get around to discussing the other, albeit extinct, species?--Mr Fink 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. These combi pages with both species and family (or order, etc) are fine when the latter is monotypic, but problematic otherwise (as is the case here). Any split, of course, would probably best be accompanied with a listing of the families the order contains (otherwise, per present article only: Amiiformes are a primitive order of ray-finned fish. It contains 7 families, 6 of which only are known from Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Eocene fossils, while the last, Amiidae, contains a single extant species, the Bowfin (Amia calva))... but I'll leave that to someone who actually has a decent level of knowledge about extinct fishes (i.e. not me). • Rabo³ • 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Support indeed. As a rule, as soon as prehistoric taxa of nowadays-monotypic lineages have own articles - split! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just created an article for the Family Amiidae showing the four recognized subfamilies, and known genera as of 1998.--Kevmin § 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Size

"They can grow up to 10 meters in length, and weigh 7 kg" Hmm... that's one lightweight bowfin. Also considerably a lot longer that what fishbase reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.142.154 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

contradiction with Leedsichthys

The intro specifically says the Bowfins are an order (Amiiformes), with one extant species (the species treated in this article), but also six additional extinct families, where one of them includes Leedsichthys. Assuming this is correct, Leedsichthys should also be ín the order Amiiformes, but according to its article, it is in the order Pachycormiformes. • Rabo³ • 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, Pachycormiformes is the sister group of Amiiformes. We need to doublecheck and amend the articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Csmith1's additions

I am moving Csmith1's edited version here for now until citations and formatting can be figured out.

Csmith1 is trying to assert his ownership of Bowfin with his edits. On my talkpage, he's demanded that I stop "deleting (his) changes to amia calva." He then justifies by saying "i work for the university of tennessee and am making updates to all of our ocal fish for our ichlyology class. your unknowledgalbe deleting of my changes is only hurting others who want correct information on these fish." Thus directly implying that other editors are unfit to make contributions to Bowfin. If you'll examine the history of Bowfin, all of Csmith1's edits have been rewriting and undoing all other editors' contributions so that the page is like this, complete with misspellings, typo's and kludgy wordiness. In fact, I tried to work with Csmith1's edits, and he undid all of them, even reinserting his silly typo of "my most" --Mr Fink (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bowfin
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Actinopterygii
Order:	Amiiformes O. P. Hay, 1929
Family:	Amiidae Bonaparte, 1838
Subfamily:	Amiinae
Genus:	Amia Linnaeus, 1766
Species:	A. calva
Binomial name
Amia calva Linnaeus, 1766

‘’’Bowfins’’’(‘’Amia Calva’’) are in the order Amiformes, which is a primitive ray-finned species. The bowfin is the only species in the family Amiidae that still survives(Etnier 1993). The list of local and alternate names the bowfin is known by is lengthy, but common ones include "dogfish", "mudfish", "grindle" (or "grinnel"),"swamp muskie", "black fish", "cottonfish" "swamp bass", "poisson-castor", "Speckled Cat" "beaverfish", "Cypress trout" and "lawyer". In parts of Louisiana they are called "tchoupique" or "choupique. Bowfins are found throughout Eastern North America. The Bow fin is a top-level predator that preys on fish and larger aquatic invertibrates by ambush or stalking their prey. They prefer shallow, weedy waters of lakes or protected back waters of rivers. Bowfin are able to breath air, using their swim bladder and can be seen coming to the surface and gulping air even in well oxygenated water. This air-breathing ability allows them to utilize habitats along shorelines that are not accessible to other predator fish. Bowfin are generally regarded as trash fish by sportsmen, because they eat more desirable species including crayfish. The bow fin is not considered a good eating fish compared to more popular game fish. The bowfin will however strike a lure just as good as a bass or pike and grows as large as a bass and will fight just as well when hooked. The Bowfin as a species is in the least concern category. Future management for the bowfin looks as though it has not been considered by many. The bowfin is a thriving species where it is found and considered a pest my most.

Geographic distribution

The distribution of the Bowfin in the united states encompasses the St. Lawrence River, Lake Champlain drainage of Quebec and Vermont west across southern Ontario to the Mississippi drainage in Minnesota.

Ecology

The bowfin preys on fish and larger aquatic invertebrates. In their weedy habitat bowfin hunt from ambush or can stalk prey. The bowfins diet includes crayfish, insects, frogs and bony fish. They are extremely maneuverable in heavy cover, swimming both forward and backward with no disturbance in the water by passing undulations along the dorsal fin. The bowfin prefers shallow, clear, weedy water of lakes or protected marginal waters in rivers. It is tolerable of turbid water and does well in backwaters of large rivers like the Mississippi. The bowfins ability to breath air with their swim bladder enables them to survive in habitats that are cut off by falling water levels and become hypoxic. It also allows them to forage for extended periods in densely vegetated habitats that are subject to oxygen depletion due to restricted water circulation and decomposition of organic debris.

Life History

The bowfin spawns in April, May, June and July. The bowfins eggs are adhesive, attached to decaying vegetation and upright weeds by thread like extensions of surface. The eggs are color variable, with white to yellowish brown animal pole and charcoal gray to dark, grayish brown yolk; egg possibly becoming darker with age or varying in color with locality. The eggs hatch 6 days after being laid, with water temperature of 16.5 degrease Celsius. The bow fin will live from 3 to 5 years reaching their maximum size at 3 years of age. The male bowfin is smaller than the female only reaching an average length of 45 cm, while the female can reach up to 61 cm.

Current Management

The bowfin is not considered in any managemet currently. In all of the areas the bow fin inhabits it is the dominant predator that can control niches that most species can. the bowfin is still a thriving species and is not listed as endangered anywhere in its distribution. the bowfin is not a poplular sport fish or commercial fish so overfishing or harvesting is not hurting its populations. The wide variety of habitats that the bow fin can thrive in assures thats its numbers will not decline due to habitat destruction.

Management Recomendations

Recomendations for management of this pecies would be hard to apply. Since there is lttle t no interst in the species for sport or commercial use it would be hard to find funds to manage this species. Te best way to estimate the number of bowfin would be to tfnd away to intice anglers to catch the bowfin. T is technique would also be usefull for gnetic tesing if the anglers bring specimens back for analysis. There are other species in states that are considered a neisenc species that anglers are reworded to ctch them and turn them in to the local wildlife and fisheries biologits. The bowfin does not need to worry about invasive species taking over its habitat since it can breat air i can inhabit water that most fish cannot.

References

6.^ Nelson, Joseph S. (2006). Fishes of the World. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0471250317

7.^ Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2009). "Amiidae" in FishBase. January 2009 version.

8.^ Berra, Tim M. (2001). Freshwater Fish Distribution. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-093156-7

9.^ Meyer, C.P. "Home." Bowfin Anglers Group. Bowfin Anglers Group. 21 Mar 2010.

Alternative Names

The article should have the other names of this fish; choupic/choupique is a relatively common one. I've heard 'grindle' as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by204.38.54.56 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, so long as you provide sources and references to verify these other names.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Statements I can't find in source

In the section "Fishing", I cannot find the parts underlined in the provided source [1]:

"In some areas of the United States where elevated levels of toxins in aquatic environments have raised concern, it is not unusual to see warning signs posted about the consumption of fish caught in those areas. Bowfins tend to accumulate high levels of toxins, such as mercury, because of their longevity thereby making them less safe for human consumption."

All I see is that bowfin is listed as a mercury-rich fish. Where can I find sourcing for the other information? Atsme, if I understand correctly it were you adding this; maybe you can help? Thanks! --cyclopia^speak! 22:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Added. AtsmeWills☯ talk 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a bit. I can't see yet where it is said that bowfin accumulates mercury due to its longevity -it makes a lot of sense, only it would be better to have an explicit source.--cyclopia^speak! 18:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I reworded most of the section, provided a brief explanation as to why bowfin tend to have higher levels of mercury, and properly sourced it. Added quite a bit more info, too. I also found a couple of reliable sources that claim there is evidence that bowfin actually do mud-up for brief periods of time, but I don't have access to the reports, or notes.

1. Dence, W.A. 1933. Notes on a large bowfin (Amia calva) living in a mud puddle. Copiea, Ichthyological Notes 1: 35.
2. It's .pdf file but my internet is slow today, I can't get it to download [2]
3. Missouri Dept. of Conservation [3] - "some evidence the bowfin can aestivate for short periods of time"

And there are several more - all pdf files. *sigh* AtsmeWills☯ talk 06:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with PDF files! Thanks a lot, I'll have a look --cyclopia^speak! 11:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay, thanks! I removed however some statements that were peacock-y; while I understand the pleasure of somewhat more engaging reading, we tend not to introduce personal ornaments into the writing. Another minor note: master dissertations should not be used as reliable sources (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not peer-reviewed or else). However the one you added (which I also found yesterday but didn't use yet) is a treasure-trove of further reliable references, so for now I think it can stay, but let's try to substitute the actual sources the thesis refers to. --cyclopia^speak! 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

About aestivation: The sources you provide do not add much to what is already present in the article: there is positive anecdotal evidence and contrary physiological evidence, so the question is uncertain, at least from the sources we've found so far. If you have access to it, I would add the Dence 1933 source -even if outdated, it is an interesting primary source on the anecdote, possibly. There is a 1950 source on aestivation also referred in the books I've used as sources. But it would be more interesting to find something recent about the issue. --cyclopia^speak! 13:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Great new paragraph on aestivation, Atsme. Sorry if I nitpick, but is this concept: "It is not unusual for riverine species like bowfin to move into backwaters with flood currents, and become trapped when water levels recede" in some of the sources? I can't find it. Apart from that, good!--cyclopia^speak! 18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

...I also noticed you removed the "citation needed" tag from As a result, efforts were taken to reduce their numbers. Would you be so kind to put the inline citation right after the sentence? Thanks!--cyclopia^speak! 19:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

TY re:aestivation. It involved some pretty intensive research, but was well worth the time. The movement of fishes into backwaters, oxbows, and sloughs during flooding events is quite natural, particularly during the spring when snow melt and heavy rains raise flood levels. The problems are a result of man-made alterations to the river including dams, dredging, levies, and wing dikes that negatively affect riparian ecosystems. But to answer your question, yes, it is explained in reference 15, and it is not a concept, rather it is a natural occurrence. I think we've done well for the bowfin article as a result of our collaborative efforts. Question: what do you think about sidebar video of an article subject?

As I was saving my first response, I encountered an edit conflict, and saw where you had another question, this time about the removal of your citation request. It appears as though you may not be reading the citations provided. Both instances involve sequential sentences, and both were properly cited. It is not necessary to include a citation after individual sentence in a sequence, especially when it involves common knowledge. AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme::

But to answer your question, yes, it is explained in reference 15, and it is not a concept, rather it is a natural occurrence. - With ref.15 you mean [4]? I must have some difficulty because I cannot find the concept (meaning the concept expressed by the sentence, not that it is some kind of philosophical theory!) expressed in the sentence. Would you mind quoting it here, so I am sure? I understand that all what is expressed there is reasonable and natural, but we need to have it sourced, otherwise it is original research. I am sorry to be pedant but if we want to raise this article to GA one day, there is no other way.

Question: what do you think about sidebar video of an article subject? - That'd be awesome! Is there one under a free licence? I didn't find one on Commons.

It is not necessary to include a citation after individual sentence in a sequence, especially when it involves common knowledge. - There is no "common knowledge" on WP, only sourced knowledge. No matter how obvious it may seem. However you are right, the one about reducing numbers was in the source -my fault, I'll try harder next time. I will add the citation. --cyclopia^speak! 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about the advantages of citations on every corner, especially corners that don't have traffic signals. Smart move. It's better to avoid hit and run editing whenever possible. PS: I have some free license video. AtsmeWills☯ talk 21:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit overzealous with citations, honestly, but it's that I like to know where every statement comes from, and it is good for readers as well, that can easily check the accuracy of what we write. About the video, cool! You should upload it to Commons, and then we can have it in the page.--cyclopia^speak! 21:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Great video, and thanks again Atsme. However, can I ask you to be a bit more careful about introducing speculation or "puffery" when writing? I had to clean up a few little things from your latest edits because the meaning intended was beyond that indicated by sources. It is possible that something has simply escaped me from sources, in that case please correct me. In general, just a friendly reminder to take care: editors have been grilled for less.--cyclopia^speak! 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhh, grasshopper - I am being careful. I've been working on this article for the past 8 hours, and the reason it's taking so long is because I'm trying to include the best reliable sources that hopefully have at least 5 other sources to corroborate the main source. Everything I include in an edit has pretty much been thoroughly researched, and cited with reliable sources. If not inline cited, there's a general reference that supports it. You just happened to catch me in the middle of editing. Look at the time date stamps in View History. When I hit save to publish the updates, I received an edit conflict message indicating changes were being saved at the same time I was in the process of saving mine. It happens, so may I ask that in the future, you apply the "citation needed" template rather than reverting, deleting, or changing what you presume to be sourceless? There was no "speculation or puffery" involved. It is quite acceptable to general reference sources that support content, but are not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. See WP:GENREF. It is not necessary to include an inline citation for every single sentence in an article. Patience and a little confidence in fellow collaborators will go a long way.

Wish there was a way we could lock down an article during editing in an effort to avoid edit conflicts. Know anyone who writes code? Atsme☯^Consult 00:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Patience and confidence in fellow editors are surely required, but I was worried because I noticed creeping inaccuracies in stuff that I remember to have added, when reworded. Mind you: rewording/modifying stuff I add is absolutely fine -it's the point of Wikipedia- it is just that I recognized it more easily. For example, here I fixed the statement " It is common for a male to spawn with successive females". I didn't find that it is common. Sources seem to merely state that it happens. But we cannot jump to the conclusion that it is common. It is very easy for everyone to end in this trap of adding apparently innocuous qualifiers when trying to reword statements.

About citations, WP:GENREF actually states that they should be avoided unless for very short articles. The proper guideline is WP:CITEFOOT, which makes clear that citations should make it clear which source supports what text: The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. -Even if it is not strictly required to have citations immediately after the supported material, doing so only helps clarity and accuracy.

About locking down articles, I don't think it is possible (nor advisable). If you are doing some major work, there are tags you can put on the article, but I would honestly avoid that too unless it is a very big rewrite (in this case, it should be announced before on the talk page for discussion). I would learn to live with edit conflicts. --cyclopia^speak! 00:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, here I fixed the statement "It is common for a male to spawn with successive females". I'm sure it was a good faith edit on your part, but the alterations, changes and/or modifications I made were not "creeping inaccuracies".

Sources seem to merely state that it happens. But we cannot jump to the conclusion that it is common. Ironically, you just jumped to conclusions like you did with the aestivation reference. It is not just common (meaning not rare, or unusual) for a male to spawn with 3+/- successive females, it occurs "often", and I cited the source that supports it. I asked you to please add either "citation needed", or "better source" before you edit anything.

I know you don't trust Oxford or Webster, but your statement begs the question, what do you think "common" means? Might want to look it up. I've decide to go with "often" instead, and added yet another inline citation to the numerous others that have inundated the article with unattractive numbered footnotes that distract from the prose. [5] During mating (springtime) males and females alike move into spawning areas. These areas are shallow, vegetated waters in lakes or ponds. Females often lay eggs in several nests, and as a result, males often have eggs from more than one female in their nest (Scott and Crossman, 1973). (Scott and Crossman, 1973) Reckon that qualifies as "common"?

WP:GENREF actually states that they should be avoided unless for very short articles. You apparantly misunderstood the reference to short articles. Here it is again...The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short. We are not, have not, and will not be using general references alone.

Edit conflicts - I can live with them. My concern was focused more on other editors wondering where their edits went after I click on save. Atsme☯^Consult 08:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying where the "often" qualifier is used, Atsme. That is all what I was asking.

About general references, my advice is to avoid using them at all. There is no good reason to use them -that they are permitted do not make them a good idea. Please use in text references so that it is clear what source supports what fact, as WP:CITEFOOT advises.--cyclopia^speak! 12:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And here. The sources support that bimodal respiration is an adaptation to hypoxia, but they do not state, as far as I can read, that it is impossible to have a non-bimodal fish surviving in such condition. --cyclopia^speak! 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the source I cited. [6] In water-breathing fishes, aquatic hypoxia limits their ability to raise metabolic rate (Fry, 1971) and perform aerobic exercise (Dahlberg et al., 1968; Bushnell et al., 1984; Jourdan-Pinet et al., 2010). Various studies have demonstrated that, in deep aquatic hypoxia, fish with bimodal respiration can maintain their metabolic rate at routine ‘resting’ levels independently of oxygen availability in the water by breathing air... Atsme☯^Consult 01:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read them. That quote, nor anything else in the sources you provide, does not support at all that they "could not survive", unless I am missing something. Do you have full text access to this? I can only see the abstract.--cyclopia^speak! 01:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you're getting at, but you're focusing only on hypoxia when the key words in the statement are "warm" and "acidic" which takes it to a whole new level. It is generally accepted that a major selective force in the evolution of the air-breathing habit was aquatic hypoxia (Packard 1974), enabling those animals with air-breathing organs to remain in the warm, O2-deficient waters that are thought to have existed in the Upper Devonian (Inger 1957). Indeed, the intermittent use of air-breathing organs by extant vertebrates is indicative of this, where constraints on aquatic gas exchange lead to a periodic need for supplemental forms of gas exchange. Non-bimordal fishes that may have stood a chance at surviving in hypoxic conditions are unable to do so if in combination with warm temps (warm may not be the right word) and high acidity. It's the combination that makes it deadly to them. Regardless, I'll tighten up the sentence to better accommodate the realm of possibility. Atsme☯^Consult 02:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Already tightened. I've seen that quote as well, but it still doesn't mean that every conceivable non-bimodal breather dies in such waters. "Enabling to remain" could also simply mean that it gave them an evolutionary advantage that allowed them to cling to that habitat. Without further explanation it cannot be said. I am sorry to be pedantic but we cannot elaborate on our own the meaning of sources, we are bound to stick to them.--cyclopia^speak! 02:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent additions

Cyclopia The additions to the "Diseases" section were great. I was trying to find more information to include in that section because it seemed rather bare. Last evening I came across an article that mentioned something about bowfins having a high resistance to disease, and thought it would be an interesting addition, but I was distracted by outside influences, and haven't been able to find that article again. Atsme☯^Consult 19:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed something about the mollusk larvae in a source, and I tried to dig a bit deeper. If you find more, please add! --cyclopia^speak! 20:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also: thank you for the "Mistaken identity" paragraph, that's a clever one. I just wonder if there can be a better title, but I can't think of anything.--cyclopia^speak! 20:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Headers and sub-headers are a toughie for me because they need to be short. I don't do "short" very well. I agree, the current header is not very "encyclopedic". It sounds more like a chapter heading for a mystery novel, but it's better than "Morphological look-alikes", or "What bowfins are not".<---maybe those headers will get the wheels turning. How about "Bowfins, snakeheads, and berbots", or does that sound more like a tune from the Wizard of Oz? Atsme☯^Consult 23:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we add clade diagrams?

Cyclopia - once the prose in the evolution section is satisfactory, I think it would serve a beneficial purpose to include "former - current - proposed" clade diagrams. Your thoughts? Atsme☯^Consult 16:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Clade diagrams would be a great thing. I can try to do them in the next week(s).

On an unrelated sidenote, I would really love having a map with the current geographical distribution. --cyclopia^speak! 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh brilliant! thanks! --cyclopia^speak! 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Our collaborative efforts are paying off. Hopefully this article isn't too far down the list for a GA review. Atsme☯^Consult 21:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Cyclopia Will you include or combine some info on taxonomy in one of the sections, or maybe add a new section? Atsme☯^Consult 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bowfin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this good-looking and longstanding GAN on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments on Evolution and phylogeny section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok; layout: see comments; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Perhaps too much on similar-looking spp.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	all free (one ought to be copied to Commons)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	ok but see Comments.
	7. Overall assessment.	This has been a lively process but there's no doubt the article is sharper and clearer now, and I'm sure it's up to the required standard for GA. Well done to all concerned.

Comments

Morphology:

Dark reticulations: are these normally in young fish? ✅

Please wikilink to eyespot (mimicry). ✅

A diagram of the fish from the side showing the distinctive features mentioned in the text would be desirable. Not a GA requirement. ✅

Fishes similar in appearance:

this gets very high prominence (and is rather long, I wonder if WP:UNDUE. Perhaps this material should be shorter, with possibly a footnote (you could use {{efn|Northern snakeheads ...}} and then a {{notelist}} for this.) ✅ Trimmed.

Physiology:

Please link hypoxia, as in lead. ✅

Swim bladder lung: I thought a swim bladder was an alternative to a lung? Then you say "gas bladder" as well, followed by parentheses, not nice. This isn't a true lung then? Needs explaining. A diagram would be nice, actually. And, is the feature unique to bowfins? Isn't it found in other primitive fish like the gar? Better mention that.

"They are referred to as physostomes which also includes the bichirs (Polypteridae), the gars (Lepisosteidae), and the lungfishes (Dipnoi).[23]" Not clear what this is doing in the physiology section; it certainly doesn't answer my question about whether the related fish have gas bladders; and I am not objecting to the term "swim bladder" but asking why it's called a lung. Please try again.

To clarify: the quoted sentence here fails to make the vital connection between being a physostome and using the swim bladder as a kind of lung, but it is the place in the article where that connection is required. I've rearranged the material to make sense.

Evolution and phylogeny:

I found this section probably correct, but really quite difficult. I'd have found it easier if there was a discussion of hypothesis A, followed/accompanied by cladogram A, then B with cladogram B, etc. I accept the competing hypotheses are quite tricky to describe, but somehow the description at the moment left me floundering. One reason is that different names are used for the same thing, eg Teleostei = teleost fishes = Neopterygii, or so the section seems to say. Another reason is that the paragraph "Based on a mitogenic..." talks about "basal actinopterygians" in 4 major lineages ... which are almost not mentioned again (though it seems that garfish belong to Lepisosteidae = lepisosteids), and worse aren't in the diagrams. So it feels like the reader is getting multiple fragmentary stories. Phrases like "the second major occurrence in the evolution of ray-finned fishes" don't make it easier, either. Anyway, it made my head spin, which isn't good.

BTW the fact they have the intact ParaHox genes reinforces the point in the lead that they're "primitive fishes". Maybe tie these things together. You might even use this to introduce the evo/phylo section, i.e. start the reader off with the idea these are not ordinary teleost bony fish but something old and special. Just a thought.

Also you say garfish are "distantly related", but hypothesis A says they're close... ✅

Distribution, habitat and feeding behavior: ✅

This is an odd combination of sections. Generally it's ok to merge Dist and hab. but behavior as well? Perhaps best separated. The question of introductions could be a subsection of Dist, but doesn't really belong with habitat and certainly not with feeding. It might be better to move the Introductions paragraph to a renamed "Interaction with humans" section, which could then include Uses (sport fishing, aquariums, food, caviar as 4 paras/subsections) and Nuisances (or some such name) (trouble to sports fishing, possible harm from introductions), perhaps.

Images:

In the "Fig 1. Four hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships among ray-finned fishes." (A: not sure why it's Fig 1. ?) the word "Teleost" is printed (B:) "Telsost" 4 times. ✅

Also, (C:) the cladograms would be much nicer as Wikipedia cladograms (see e.g. Crocodilia#Phylogeny for what they're like) than buried in a bitmap image.

Distribution in the USA. This is a bit like the old joke about looking for your keys under the streetlight: you're there because that's the only part of the street where you can see... but if the fish occur in Canada, etc, what is needed is a wider distribution map, really. I do understand the problem, but... (actually there's a simpler map you could base a new one on in ref 1 (Wisconsin DNR), it would have to be redrawn.)

PS but if the fish occur in Canada, etc, what is needed is a wider distribution map, really. The USGS map includes the extent of their Canadian distribution which is basically around the Great Lakes, and St. Lawrence River basin. I also tweaked the paragraph to include a more detailed description. Atsme☯^Consult 05:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the map shows the entire global distribution of the bowfin, and (less important) it is unusual in style for this purpose (generally we use just one colour for where a species occurs, unless it's seasonal of course. Further, the caption says "United States" not "Global", so which is it? Please study the Florida Museum of Nat. Hist. map, noting especially the long tongue pointing Northeastwards into Quebec; that doesn't seem to be shown on your map. Please also check the Wisconsin map in Ref 1 as already directed; you may also need to check Canadian sources in case the maps are inaccurate wrt Canadian distribution, and then draw a new map (there are plenty of base maps available on Commons) representing the evidence from all the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The caption for the anchor worm isn't enough for me to understand which bit is fish and which is worm. Are there 2 fish there, or what?

As someone who edited this article a bit, I think the phylogeny description should be rewritten. It mostly relies on old sources and it is confusing even to me (a biologist, thus not a phylogenetics specialist). I always hoped to do that but it requires quite a bit of time to peruse the (conflicting, as often phylogenetics is) literature and condense a reasonable "state of the art" from it.--cyclopia^speak! 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia I can make most of the changes requested by the reviewer, but need your collaboration for the phylogeny portion. Will you handle that part so the GA review can be completed? Chiswick Chap I hope it's ok with you if I simply add a green checkmark after I make the changes you suggested. --- OK

Chiswick Chap - sorry about the strike throughs. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Atsme☯^Consult 07:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC) --- OK

Questions

Chiswick Chap, I have a question for you - considering Wiki already has an article on swim bladders, complete with diagrams, and the bowfin article pretty accurately describes how bowfins utilize the gas bladder to breathe, do you really think it's necessary to expand on it further? There is also a Wiki article on physostomes which bowfin are considered because of the pneumatic duct, so again, do you still feel it is important to provide that much detail on physiology? Atsme☯^Consult 03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC) PS: I had already deleted the term "swim bladder", and for consistency, stuck with "gas bladder". Gas bladder redirects to Swim_bladder. Also, the function of the gas bladder would belong under the physiology section, and so does the reference to physostomes because it classifies them as air breathers via use of a pneumatic duct which is explained in the article just before the classification is made. I don't think we should include that much detail because then we would have to explain those species that breathe air but don't have a pneumatic duct. Atsme☯^Consult 03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the task of a reviewer is to report truthfully where the article tripped them up, to ensure it doesn't go on to trip up other readers. Therefore, it is almost always necessary to modify places in the text - let's call them trip hazards - which a reviewer has commented on, even if editors thought the text in that place adequate. Therefore it's hardly ever a good idea to argue.

Aye, aye, Captain. I just wondered because such detail wasn't requested by the GA reviewer for Alligator gar with respect to their physiology as air breathers. I'll see what I can do to eliminate the trip hazards you mentioned. Perhaps with your help this article can go right into the FA que after meeting GA requirements? That would be wonderful. Atsme☯^Consult 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, I already fixed the (very minor) bit of problem text. The general rule is that the time to fix something is generally inversely proportional to the square number of words expended on discussing it, plus or minus a few hundred percent. (#hashtag wikimathhumor) Let's get on with fixing the article.

To answer your question, the right level of detail here is just enough to help the reader. You can't totally rely on the presence of wikilinks because that would require the reader to read another article (and he'd have to read another six articles to understand that one, ad infinitum). Of course you must not reproduce the level of detail in all the other articles. Your job is to say just enough on physostomes and gas/swim bladders to make the topic of bowfish clear, which frankly it wasn't (either to a general reader, or to one with a biology degree). You need to refer to physostomes in a way that shows your "because..." clause above, which again the sentence didn't, it just hung there vaguely suggesting there ought to be a connection. You are not being asked to write at vast length and detail, just to write briefly, clearly, and to delineate the main aspects of the subject. In a nutshell, put the relevant facts in the relevant places to make your message clear.

Re: the hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships - are Wiki cladograms already available that can be used instead of the bitmapped chart? Atsme☯^Consult 03:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

They're surely not here on Wikipedia, and if they're outside, you'll need to be careful with copyright. But the hypotheses represent such small cladogram trees they really won't take long to edit. Please study the one I indicated; you could edit a copy of it in your sandbox or user page.

Ok. Atsme☯^Consult 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've glossed over, the physiology section is adequately detailed so far, though, perhaps a diagram of the bowfin's bladder would help visualize things.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, that section is now fixed. Please devote energy to the phylogeny section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will try to get phylogeny section ready to go by Wednesday, if not sooner. The very first sentence in that section tells us there are competing hypotheses and debates, and that we should have held off including them. I'll rewrite it based on the information provided at the following link: [7], and will validate it with several other sources. Atsme☯^Consult 04:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the map shows the entire global distribution of the bowfin, - good point regarding the caption. I uploaded a similar US Geological Survey map with a different heading, and changed the caption. The USGS map is the most recent (July 2014), most accurate, and easiest to read of all distribution maps. It accurately shows Amia calva distribution, including the fringe distribution in adjacent southern Ontario and Quebec which includes the Great Lakes and drainages of the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain. I also cleaned up the prose to include "adjacent", and added IUCN inline citation. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and doing the update. That leaves the anchor worm question and the phylogeny. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank YOU for all the time you've contributed to the GA review, and for helping me make this a better article. I believe in the process, and am convinced it makes Wikipedia better for all of us. I fixed the phylogeny section, and you will be happy to know it passed the grandkid test for trip hazards.

Aw, cute. That's great. Well done all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The article may need a check for proper use of written numbers vs list numbers, and plural vs singular references (fish or fishes, bowfin or bowfins, etc.). Atsme☯^Consult 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowfin. 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/20090220223520/http://strata.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/jack/showgenera.php?taxon=611&rank=class to http://strata.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/jack/showgenera.php?taxon=611&rank=class

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Anatomy

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Anatomy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): White367 (article contribs).