Talk:Short-finned eel

claims of aquaculture require evidence

This article is contradictory. It says that eel farming is incredibly complex and difficult, and the attempt was unsuccessful in NZ, then says that Aboriginal people and Maori's were eel farmers without any sources to back up this claim. Aquaculture involves the ability to be self sustaining & therefore the ability to breed the species, which is why eel aquaculture is quite rare. I have never read any evidence that Aboriginal people and Maori's solved the riddle of breeding eels in captivity. Alabama81bornandbred (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I am the first talk contributor on this page! What an honor. I read the short finned eel piece today after ordering eel at a sushi bar. Reading the piece I noticed the two references to eels making "good eating" which seemed funny. I mean, they are good eating if you like eating eels. Dioxinfreak (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming page and references to short-finned eel

The spelling actually used by McDowall, McQueen, and the NZ Department of Conservation is "Shortfin eel". The spelling here needs to be changed and the page moved. One complication could be the large number of Anguillids that have a name containing "shortfin" or "longfin"; there are Pacific and Indonesian shortfin eels—this one is found in both New Zealand and Australia, so can't be the NZ shortfin eel. Perhaps Southern shortfin eel, or Australasian shortfin eel? References needed. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. "Shortfinned eel" is more common. The spelling does not need to be changed. In any case, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide on the nomenclature of biota. We follow the sources. Currently there is at best a minority of sources that use "shortfin" for this species and the current name is well supported by reliable sources. Some relevant examples using "shortfinned" or a variation:

• Shortfinned eel - McDowall R. (1996). Freshwater Fishes of Southeastern Australia (revised ed.). Sydney: Reed. p. 39. ISBN 0 7301 0462 1.
• Shortfinned eel - Biological Imformation for Management of Native Freshwater Fish in Victoria. Melbourne: Arthur Rylah Institute. 1990. p. 37. ISBN 0 7306 0590 6. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Short-Finned eel - Australian Freshwater Fishes Biology and Management. Sydney: Merrick. 1984. p. 56. ISBN 0 9591908 0 5. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Shortfinned eel - Allen G.R (1989). Freshwater Fishes of Australia. Neptune City, NJ: T.F.H. Publications Inc. p. 24. ISBN 0 86622 936 1.
• Short-finned eel - Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia. Perth: Western Australian Museum. 2002. p. 60. ISBN 0 7307 5486 3. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Short-finned eel - "Anguilla australis australis". Fishbase.
• Shortfinned eel (first listed synonym) - "Anguilla australis". ITIS.
• Short-finned eel - "Short-finned eel (Anguilla australis) or matamoe". Museum of New Zealand.

I agree with Nick that "shortfinned eel" gets the nod. Nonetheless, "shortfin eel" is also widely used, compare for example, these Google Scholar results: [1] [2]. Accordingly I have added shortfin eel to the article as an alternative name. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, short-finned eel seems to certainly be a valid name; my apologies. Looking at the sources, I suspect the New Zealand usage is "shortfin", following McDowall's usage, while Australians prefer "shortfinned", which is why it's more common in a Google Scholar search. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative name

Nick Thorne, I added the name to the lead before adding a significant piece of history re the first known aquaculture of the short-finned eel, and because I have just made a redirect from that name. You have also undone my copyedit, to bold the scientific name, as per WP:LEAD. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: nevertheless, the lead is entirely the wrong place to insert an indigenous name that is only used in a very small proportion of the range of the fish in this country. If you want to add a section about the very interesting history of eel aquaculture in souuth west Victoria, please do. You might also want to include some infformation about the recent discoveries regarding that, since the fires. Such a section would be the appropriate place to mention the local indeegenous name for the animal. All backed up by RS, as usual. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nick, I have been working on Budj Bim for quite some time and still busy on it, amongst other things. I have included information about the aquaculture, recent discoveries since the fires, etc., but there is plenty more to do on that and related topics. Kooyang is fairly frequently mentioned in the literature about this World Heritage Site, and as this is one of the earliest known farming of this particular fish, it seems significant and worth a mention in the lead (you will see that I mentioned it in the History section yesterday). The redirect needs to point to the animal it actually refers to, not a related topic, IMO. Anyway I will get back here eventually. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a potted summary of the article. A name that is only used by some people from a very small proportion of the range of the animal is not approproate there. If the redirect from the indigenous name points here, it is the animal it actually refers to, not some other, related, topic. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)