Talk:Anglerfish

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bpigz. Peer reviewers: Hunterft99, BellaSuccess1, Cathyyy97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edits for a Behavioral Ecology Class

In these edit I am focusing primarily on the "Behavior" section of the article. The 5th paragraph under "Predation" is very similar to all of the information you have recently put up. I suspect it was the paragraph present in the article before you made the edits... It's a little bit jarring to have that paragraph still there. I would recommend either deleting it entirely or taking the information that is present there and not present in your own research, and adding it somewhere in your contribution. I would also break up the section on reproduction into a few different subheadings, it's a bit difficult trying to find a specific piece of information in that section. In talking about sexual parasitism, I would leave the paragraph about other ways of sexual reproduction until the end of the section, after you have finished talking about sexual parasitism on the whole.

Edits I have made: I reworded the first sentence in 'swimming and energy conservation,' because the first part of it was a little bit confusing / wordy. I also added a hyphen between prey and scarce in the first paragraph. I also put a hyperlink to 'ceratioid' I corrected the spelling of "attachment" in the reproduction section.

On the whole, the writing was very good and the information was very relevant to the anglerfish's behavior. Nice job! Ldorn1227 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job on the introduction – I think it’s important to have a general summary at the beginning and this is great! The classification section is very comprehensive, but are there any significant differences between the different suborders? I fixed some formatting errors in the Predation section, and also created a new “Anatomy” section before the behavior section to include the information on the luminescent organ and mouth. The reproductive section could also be split up into subsections to make it easier to read. Overall a very comprehensive and well written article! JenniferReed1015 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniferreed1510 (talk • contribs)

Untitled

For example: search for anglerfish and male anglerfish

Merge proposal

The page on Monkfish explains that the name is used for two types of creature:

• Anglerfish
• a type of shark that looks like Anglerfish

The page explains that Monkfish is more the name for the fish as food, while anglerfish is the more technical name. Therefore, we should:

• leave a very short Monkfish page that keeps the text explaining that Monkfish refers to two types of creature, and that the name monkfish seems to be used more often about the fish as food
• have the monkfish page then refer to the anglerfish page
• merge the cool pictures and reproduction discussion into the appropriate parts of the anglerfish page.

This will reduce confusion, since the two names are mostly used for the same creatures.

I'm willing to do the work; how do we decide whether it's okay to do?

Riedl 12:56, Sep 13, 2006 (UTC)

The way to decide whether it's okay is to do what you did and announce your intent. If we apply the military philosophy "non-response equals concurrence" then we can assume that no responses in the past 3 weeks means that nobody objects (and I don't object as long as no useful content is lost during the merge). I'd say go ahead. =Axlq 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Axlq - I saw your initial query and had every intent of circling back around to reply; promptly forgot. Your proposal seems sound; monkfish as a short article with culinary conent, anglerfish as the primary taxonomic article. There's quite a bit of content in both places. Kuru ^talk 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the proposed changes this afternoon. Please discuss the changes before doing a complete revert of my work.

Actually this partial merge with monkfish is a bit of a disaster. "Monkfish" is a term used to describe Lophius species (and other unrelated fish) in the NW Atlantic. "Anglerfish" is a more generic term and can be used to describe the individual fishes of the order. Thus moving genus and species specific info to anglerfish from monkfish material relating to Lophius was an error as it wouldn't cover the generality which is being covered here. I have corrected some of this and restored some material back to monkfish. Tullimonstrum 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

BTW, while scanning for articles without categories, I came upon this one and noticed that it had been vandalized a few days ago. I've reverted it to an earlier version, but I may have inadvertently lost another "valid" edit along the way. If so, I do apologize, but I wanted to let you know, so that you could take a look at the article and ensure that everything's still in place. --Elonka 05:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hairy Angler

There is a new type of anglerfish called a hairy angler. It's name is from the hair like rods or antennae that protude from it's body. The tips are sensitive to movement in the water telling when the next food source comes by and like all other deep-sea anglerfish it has a antenna with bacteria that produce biolumenesence.

Odd financial sentence

In Japan each fish sells for as much as USD$1500000. The liver alone, considered a great delicacy, can cost USD$1.

"The liver alone" implies it has great worth relative to the rest of the fish, but is actually worth a whopping .00007% of the fish? This sounds ... fishy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.37.169 (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Consumption

Can the author, or someone else provide any references for this section? None of it makes sense. I find it hard to believe that a fish that lives in aphotic zones are 'widely used in cooking' in Europe. Also, with a fish that costs $150 USD, why would it be refered to as 'the poor man's lobster'? And furthermore, if the liver of the fish can sell for $100USD, why is the rest of this fish only worth $50? All of this is highly suspect. SJM 26 February 2007

I would say that the $150 and $100 figures come from the Iron Chef Anglerfish Battle (just happen to be watching it at the moment) Vertigo Acid 05:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

where in the world is the labling of th anglerfish body partd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.63.96 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 19 April 2008

Why wouldn't Europeans be able to eat deep-sea fish? Europe has extensive Atlantic coastline, and in any case transportation is a thing. Devgirl (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

I for one question the factual accuracy of this article. I removed a photo of a Monkfish from the article and found other fishy edits in the history. I see that there's also mention of this fish being called "Poor Man's Lobster", which is a common name for Monkfish, so unless I'm misunderstanding something pretty fundamental (are Anglerfish and Monkfish the same animal?), it seems like readers should be put on alert as to the accuracy of this article. tonyboy 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. Monkfish is a term which can be used for anglerfish of the genus Lophius (primarily around the British Isles). "Poor man's lobster" is a description not a name. Tullimonstrum 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the information on this article may not be about anglerfish, but other animals in the Lophiiformes order because "Lophiiformes" redirects to the anglerfish article. B3nnic33 5:56, 05 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "monkfish" is also used in the U.S. Kostaki mou 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The section about reproduction contains false or misleading information. When male angler fish merge with the larger females, they do not typically dissolve down to the gonads, but stay alive in a mutually beneficial parasitic relationship. This is at least the case recorded in the academic journal articles I have found, and the only semi-academic mention of the dissolving that I can find is in a national geographic article (http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/anglerfish/). I have changed the section correspondingly. See sources below, including the first one cited in the very article, even before my edits: -http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v256/n5512/abs/256038a0.html -http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1443462?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101727142907 -http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Anglerfish#p00dhhdq 4:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.184.74 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What does it eat?

The Angler Fish eats................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.145.212 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 April 2007

Where is its range?

At the moment I am doing a coursework over hydrothermal vents and wanted to ask if the Anglerfish lives in ths range of deep sea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittchen20 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2007

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Candice Stewart

Candice Stewart is said to be the one known expert on the Anglerfish. She also calls Anglerfish the Dracula Fish which causes concern about her mental stability.

Is that sentence really neccessary? Is it factual? Thank you for any clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbthunder20 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous?

Are they dangerous? Can they bite? Those sharp teeth look formidable. -Rolypolyman (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

anglerfish are cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.234.70 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How big are they?

Some information on the size of these fish would be nice... even if there is a great deal of variance among the anglerfish, a mention of what that range might be would be much appreciated! 24.177.122.165 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of size, the metric system police (Mgiganteus1) converted the English units in the original article to metric--poorly--without understanding or respecting ubiquitous scientific conventions for representing uncertainty in measurements. I tried to fix this but he's intent on reverting my changes. If something is "between 25 and 30 feet", that represents an uncertainty of 5 feet for either bound. Mgiganteus1, if you convert that to say "7.6 to 9 meters", that represents an uncertainty of 0.1 meter, or 0.3 feet. You've collapsed the implied uncertainty by a factor of more than 10. Moreover, by changing the statement that they are a few "inches" long to a few "centimeters" long, you imply that they are 60% smaller. I suppose it's pointless to raise this point; Mgiganteus1 clearly does not care about accuracy so much as "metric good, English bad", and he has the determination to see that his way prevails.

98.207.248.145 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What's more, someone seems to have removed the size reference entirely. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject give us some idea? Are these a few inches or a few yards long?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reproduction

The whole article, but especially the part about reproductions is completely different from the german version of the article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.6.154 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the atrophying happen?

Is it some kind of programmed cell death triggered by the male or female or is it more a kind of use-it-or-lose-it scenario? Also, how do the sperm travel to the eggs? Through the bloodstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.53 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oatmeal Illustration on Reproduction

There is a comic strip about the reproductive cycle of the angler fish at The Oatmeal. Can we link this page to it for the illustrative explanation some users may find helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.75 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does light attract prey?

Is there anything in the deep sea that is actually edible, also gives off light, and is more common than anglerfish? Because if not, it doesn't really make sense that the light would work to attract the anglerfish's prey. One would rather expect the prey to flee from "suspicious" lights. -- 77.21.99.8 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. Is there a reliable source for this claim? Part of me wonders whether someone named it "anglerfish" and the "lure" idea was just never critically examined. I wonder if the light actually acts more like a flashlight that lets the fish see prey for itself in the dark depths.--Clevera (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

General Updates

As part of my Wikipedia course work, I have added and edited several sections on this page. First I made a new behavior section and moved reproduction under it as a subsection. I have also added a section on swimming behaviors and some additional information about alternative reproductive strategies. I also added and corrected some information in the section about parasitic reproduction.

I have also added some information about anglerfish diets and I will likely revisit this page to add some information about the fossil record, phylogeny, more general morphology, and evolution. Any feedback is greatly appreciated! Andrewkamel (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Updates and Suggestions

I changed a good amount of wording and sentence structure, and took out some unnecessary phrases. I took out the phrase “like the one found in angling” after referring to the anglerfish’s lure, because I felt that it was poorly worded and unnecessary. The sentence structure here was not so good, so I changed it so it would have more clarity: “Anglerfish occur worldwide, some arepelagic, others benthic; some live in the deep sea (e.g., Ceratiidae) others on thecontinental shelf (e.g., the frogfishes Antennariidae and the monkfish/goosefish Lophiidae).” Some of the things the author put in seemed unnecessary and redundant. For example, in one place, the word “laterally” was hyperlinked, but then the word “sideways” was written in parenthesis, so I took out the word “sideways” due to its redundancy. I also took out this sentence because it was redundant: “Because males are no longer capable of acquiring nutrients on their own, they are considered to be parasites”.

I changed the poorly worded sentence: “Observation of many species of anglerfish's behavior poses challenges to ecologists because many of these fish are deep-sea dwellers” to: “Many anglerfish species are deep-sea dwellers, which poses a challenge to ecologists that hope to study and observe the fish.” I changed the phrase “energy conservation” to “conserve energy” because it made more sense this way in the context of the sentence. I also completely reworded first paragraph in Reproduction section and reworked the paragraph about illicium in the predation section.

Overall, the page needed a lot of writing work in terms of sentence structure, run-on sentences, and grammatical errors.

Suggestions:

1. The evolution section was good, but it didn’t offer me very much information about evolution of the species. Either expand on this or change the name of the section.
2. The author really needs to go back and rework some sentences. I fixed up a lot of things, but the clarity of the writing could definitely be improved.
3. The predation and reproduction sections are extremely long, and should be further broken up into subsections within these categories. I made some paragraph breaks in the Reproduction section, but I still think the author needs to split up the sections better.
4. In the paragraph in the Predation section that begins with: “In most species, a wide mouth extends all around the anterior circumference of the head”, which needs a citation. There are various other places where you should also be adding in citations (end of first paragraph in Reproduction section).
5. The author should explain what causes the male to be so much smaller than the female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgolds1203 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert

@User:Epipelagic

Many anglerfish species are deep-sea dwellers, which poses a challenge to ecologists who hope to study and observe the fish. Anglerfish morphology reflects the value of energy conservation for these organisms, which often live in extremely prey-scarce environments.[10] Many ceratioids may minimize their energy use by remaining lethargic and using a lie-and-wait hunting strategy.[11] Anglerfish are particularly well-suited to conserve energy because they are able to hunt and forage while remaining lethargic, devoting just 2% of energy intake to swimming.

"Many anglerfish species are deep-sea dwellers, which poses a challenge to ecologists who hope to study and observe the fish." The lead already states that they live in either the deep sea or the continental shelf. "Poses a challenge" is a subjective statement, rendered both obvious and unnecessary by the description of the ROV at 1500 metres depth.

"Anglerfish morphology reflects the value of energy conservation for these organisms, which often live in extremely prey-scarce environments" is clearly just an unsubstantiated comment vis-a-vis morphology, and my edit retains the energy-poor environment info.

"Many ceratioids may minimize their energy use by remaining lethargic and using a lie-and-wait hunting strategy" this is retained after my edit (reworded), except for the "many ceratoids" part - the ref is about only one species.

"Anglerfish are particularly well-suited to conserve energy because they are able to hunt and forage while remaining lethargic, devoting just 2% of energy intake to swimming." This is retained after my edit, reworded, but without the 2% figure which is unsourced (and likely made-up or wrong).

I removed an interspersed bit from a general textbook not about anglerfish, from 1983, long before the behaviour of anglerfish had ever been observed, and therefore most likely misleading and irrelevant.

Other than that, my edit added the most important missing information from the abstract, which had been inexplicably omitted. zzz (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I realise that the above is a lot to process (I think I'll avoid large edits in future), that is why I have left it a couple of days. If there is no objection, I'll restore the edit. zzz (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglerfish. 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/20100820034707/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723131237/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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Parasitism or Symbiosis?

The article describes reproduction as "sexual parasitism", and the males as "parasitic" on the females.

My understanding is that "parasitism" refers to a member or members of one species living off a member or members of another species, to the detriment of the parasitized individuals. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on Parasitism begins:

"In biology/ecology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species,

where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

The relationship between male and female angler fish is actually one of symbiosis. In symbiotic relationships individuals of the same, or different species live in close association and derive mutual benefit from the association. The male angler fish derives his sustenance from his connection with the female, and the female derives her reproductive capability from her connection with the male.

"Symbiosis can be obligatory, which means that one or both of the symbionts entirely

depend on each other for survival, or facultative (optional) when they can generally live

independently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Several Orders of Magnitude"

The introduction claims that male anglerfish can be "several orders of magnitude" smaller than their female counterparts. Using a standard definition of 5-9 for the word "several", this means females are 100,000-1,000,000,000 times larger than males. If this is true, their difference in size is incredible enough to justify mentioning it explicitly. Otherwise, perhaps the word "magnitude" (or "several") should not be used here.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/order_of_magnitude#English

GJM (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Humpback Anglerfish (Melanocetus Johnsonii).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

'energy-poor environment of the deep sea'

Under 'Behaviour' >> 'Swimming and Energy Conservation', it mentions this in passing. I know this is what I was always taught growing up but I'd been under the impression that recent work had shown that the deep oceans actually have a fairly large amount of energy that falls from above as marine snow, as reported by the BBC's Blue Planet II. Am I just mistaken? I'm very far from knowledgeable about this subject, it's just something that struck me as I was reading Devgirl (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Angrelfish

Where live? 178.143.164.5 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Deep Sea Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 4 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Latkanybrian, NemethrBC, Lauraellis4, Kcilley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Erinkiley23, TrevorCameron, Dude1107, Cp31201.

— Assignment last updated by Dude1107 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sweetheart thanks again and yea for this purpose but I’m sorry for not responding back in the text message was sent to me this week and this one has been sent to me and my friend has sent it back on Facebook to confirm it was on my account so I’m waiting on it for now it to cancel my appointment on Friday thanks again and again I’m not

sure if this was a message from my 2600:6C5E:507F:6F7C:E1D4:3037:A602:DBC1 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Gvcfvccccvg 2600:6C5E:507F:6F7C:E1D4:3037:A602:DBC1 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Anglerfish → Lophiiformes – Anglerfish is only used for some species in this order. It also contains batfishes, frogfishes, handfishes, toadfishes, fanfins, spiny sea devils. The order name is more precise Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: many sources appear to refer to the whole order as Anglerfish. See the following sources. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Whilst the name "anglerfish" is used to refer to the order as a whole, the term is ambiguous. William Avery (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per YorkshireExpat's very good research and per common name and most recognizable name in English. The proposed name is little known or recognized, as the present name is the known, and literally accurate, descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and my comment contesting the technical request. (I am still waiting for some evidence/citation for the RM's central claim: "Anglerfish is only used for some species in this order.") SilverLocust 💬 15:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.