Talk:Lungfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This page as it currently stands reflects the accepted understanding of the position of the Dipnoi within the vertebrate order. Uninformed edits by people who can't be bothered to even parse sentences correctly will be quickly reverted. Abiola Lapite 22:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page needs to be fixed. Your statement, lungfish are thought to have evolved from ray-finned fish is very poor. Lungfish as a unit could never have evolved from ray-finned fishes because lungfish are but one unit of sarcopterygii. One could replace lungfish in that sentence with coelacanth or even humans! Scythian99

Dude, it doesn't say "evolved", it says "diverged", which just means lungfish and rayfins have some older common ancester, and that they have developed along separate lines since then. "Diverged" is the most correct single word to describe the situation. Stan 05:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is the problem. It is not the lungfish that "diverged" from rayfins, it is the lobe-fins as a whole that "diverged" from them! I could say for the human article, that humans diverged from rayfins...so what is that saying, nothing! Also, that sentence implies that lobefins diverged from (meaning the source) the rayfins. What would be better to say is that lobe-fins and ray-fins diverged from X, not that one diverged from the other for clarity. Scythian99

Saying that "lobe-fins diverged" is a little more complicated, because then the reader has to know what "lobe-fins" are - they would have to stop reading this article and link to another one. The key point for the reader is to know that despite looking "fishy", lungfish are very different from the "usual" kinds; there are lots of ways to say this, some clearer to a wider range of readers than other, but all basically acceptable. In any case, I take it you understand this is a point of expository style, not of factual correctness? Stan 16:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article above all else should be accurate. Perhaps the first sentence should read that lungfish are a group of lobefinned "fishes"... Also, what do you mean by the "usual kinds", this is an encyclopedic article so language should be precise. By usual kinds I assume you mean rayfins or specifically teleosts? This article needs to be polled or be reviewed and edited by people who are experts in the field. The article is deceptive as is. I would like to edit it, but some scary sysops are out there who shouldn't be able to ban people who do not agree with them, whatever there agenda. Scythian99

Experts are handy, but since we base all our work on published literature, anybody who can read and understand that literature is capable of making the info just as accurate. If you're worried about editing the article, then propose a replacement text here, we can discuss, then apply it to the article. People get banned for starting fights and deliberately messing up articles, I don't think you have much to worry about if you can engage in rational discussion before deciding how to fix a problem. (By "usual kinds" I meant rayfins, but I double-quoted it to indicate I was talking about fish as understood by non-experts. We do have to be precise in articles, but at the same time accessible to someone whose fish knowledge may be limited to salmon steaks and goldfish in bowls.) Stan 05:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is my edit: Lungfishes are sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish that can breathe air (and in some species are obligate air-breathers), and have limb-like appendages instead of fins.

Although their taxonomy is still in flux; many put all of the lungfishes in the subclass Dipnoi. However, there seems to be agreement that there are two orders.

The information about ray-finned fishes (actinopterygian) is unnecessary in a a lungfish article. The article is about lungfish not sarcopterygian as a whole. Leave that information in the fish or sarcopterygian article. Does every article on individual species need such higher level classification disputes? Humans are sarcopterygian too... The article needs to be encyclopedic giving information that is based on a consensus from the experts. This information is NPOV. How can we put misinformation out? Who can take wikipedia serious with this kind of information! Scythian99

So let me get this straight: you're saying that the statement "Lungfish are generally believed to have diverged from the ray-finned fishes early in their evolutionary history" is factually incorrect and should be removed? Also, there is going to have to be some classification discussion, because lungfish have been reclassified several times; we need to inform readers that there are several different systems, so they don't attempt to "fix" the article with information from a 1909 textbook or something. Finally, repeated ranting about misinformation and wikipedia being taken seriously isn't going to make anybody do anything differently. Stan 13:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the statement: "Lungfish are generally believed to have diverged from the ray-finned fishes early in their evolutionary history" is factually incorrect! Lungfish are but one species of sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish that have evolved after the ray-finned and lobe-finned fishes already diverged from some common source! Do you understand? So how can lungfish diverged from ray-finned fished? This sentence is commiting a great fallacy in understanding evolution. Like I said I can replace "lungfish" with "human", "panda", "turtle", "frog", "coelacanth", etc. You can't say that one species in a larger family have diverged from another larger family. For example, synapsids diverged from reptiles early in their evolutionary history is correct, but humans diverged from reptiles early in their evolutionary history is incorrect! Also, lungfish internal classification may be in flux, but lungfish have always been considered sarcoptergyian. This is the classification that there is a consensus on. Stan, you need to ask some more people about this! This lungfish article is a joke and any evolutionary biologist would cringe. Scythian99

I understand perfectly what you're getting at - it's not exactly a complicated concept. But I suspect you lack fluency in English - "diverged" is a generic word that can be used in more ways than you seem to think. Take a look at the other uses of the word in Wikipedia, particular in the articles on evolutionary theory; you'll see that it's used to refer to a variety of situations. Ditto for the net at large. If you have an authoritative reference that formally restricts the term "divergence" to only refer to particular kinds of comparisons, I'd like to see it. Stan 06:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I am perfectly fluent in English, I am 26 and I have been speaking it for nearly 26 years. My argument is not with the term !!!"diverge"!!! which I know means to go in different directions from a common point. The concept of divergence in evolution also means something else, as with the divergence of the digits in whales, humans, birds, bats, and horses, etc. I don't think you see my point no matter how many times I have said it. So if you understand my simple concept, restate it so I know you understand. And if you understand this simple concept, why don't you change it in the article. Writing that lungfish have diverged from ray-finned fishes isn't saying anything than the obvious. I can put in any article on any species that they have diverged from ray-finned fishes. In the elephant article, I could write that elephants have diverged from ray-finned fishes. It is redundant, unnecessary information. Ok, I will state the problem once again. First, the article says lungfish early in their history diverged from ray-finned fish is a problem. What does that mean, early in their history??????? IMPORTANT: Before the species even became lungfishes they had already diverged from ray-finned fishes! I can't say lungfish anymore than elephants "early in their history" diverged from ray-finned fishes. It makes no sense. Is it "early in their history" as opposed to "later in their history"? This is sloppy careless writing. Do you even know the latest phylogenetic tree of Osteichthyes?:

I Actinopterygii (Ray-finned) II Sarcoptergygii (Lobe-finned) A Coelacanth B 1 Dipnoi (Lungfish) 2 Terrestrial Vertebrates

You don't seem to be able to grasp what I am getting at. I swear I will never get on wikipedia again, if there aren't any people who can understand what I am saying about this aweful sentence! Scythian99

First you say it's factually incorrect, now you're saying it's "obvious" but "sloppy careless writing". Does that mean you now no longer think it's factually incorrect? I'd certainly like to accommodate your concern, but it's hard to pick it out from the ranting. Stan 14:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that I read it many times and pondered it, perhaps it is not factually incorrect, but I didn't like how they used the term diverged because it is misleading. Yes, one can use it that way, but an implied meaning is that lungfish diverged from actinoptergii and not sacrcopterygii. This is why I had a hissy fit. In any event, others need to look at the article and fix it because when I do some overzealous sysop bans my IP for a day (after reading his bio, he doesn't seem to be a qualified authority on lungfish or anything pertaining to evolution! Read between the lines here...). Ray-fins need not be mentioned in an lungfish article. Any knowledgeable person in animal classification would have a problem with that sentence and yes I am a qualified authority on the matter... Why don't you fix it Stan? Scythian99

I think I understand what to do now, will make a pass over the article. If this is an area where you have qualifications, why don't you make a user page and mention it there? Stan 22:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

This page reflects current understanding of lungfish biology and systematics as seen in the literature. The phylogenetics are from Schultze (2001) and Schultze (2004), and while those studies may be problematic, that needs to be addressed in a peer reviewed journal and not on Wikipedia. Uninformed edits will either be reverted or re-edited to maintain the scientific accuracy of this article. Many thanks. --Dlx2b 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fixed some taxonomy issues and added a few references. --Dlx2b

Contents 1 minor problem 2 Lungs? 3 Lungfish as food 4 Lungs??

[edit] minor problem

"Changes in physiology allow the lungfish to slow its metabolism to greater than 1/60th of the normal metabolic rate..."

Shouldn't this read "less than 1/60th"? Gary 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lungs?

I am not sure what the rights and wrongs of this are, but discussion does not belong in the article itself so I am moving it here:

Lungfish do not have lungs but breath through external gills.

Not true: they have a basic lung (check out http://bio150.chass.utoronto.ca/animals/vertebrata.html)

--DanielRigal 12:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I would add that most the African and South American lungfishes primarily use their gills to excrete waste. They can tolerate extremely muddy, anoxic conditions. See "The Biology and Evolution of Lungfishes", eds. Bemis, Burggren, and Kemp 1984.Biologistchica (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lungfish as food

Unlike many fish articles this does not mention its subject as food although a web search shows that they are eaten. That is not a great criticism of the article but the following method of catching them might be worth confirming. In the seasonally dried Tana delta in Kenya a hunter would stab a pole with a long metal spike into the ground and it was said that the groan given out revealed that a lungfish had been found.--SilasW 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lungs??

Huh. Currently the page doesn't mention lungs or gills. Seems like something of an oversight. The facts about the lungfish's occluding dental blades and fleshy pelvic fins are fascinating, but as a casual reader (and a non-biologist) I'm really here for the lungs (if any). Please help if you can! —Jorend (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

wow, you're right! what's up with that? i'm not a member of WikiProject Fishes, but i can certainly try dig up some pertinent sources. (but so can you, for that matter! i'm not a biologist either, fyi.) - Metanoid (talk, email) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)