Talk:Osteichthyes

Osteichthyes
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Subphylum:	Vertebrata
Superclass:	Osteichthyes
Class:	Actinopterygii; Sarcopterygii

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Midbrain#Corpora quadrigemina|optic lobes]] Anchor Midbrain#Corpora quadrigemina links to a specific web page: Corpora quadrigemina. The anchor (#Corpora quadrigemina) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M4TT262.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox?

I suggest we don't give t to avoid using paraphyletic groups, what difference does it make that there is a

Largest

If we are going to refer to the largest bony fish, it looks like the ocean sunfish takes the prize. It is more massive than any marlin or sturgeon, according to its entry, which says: "Specimens of ocean sunfish have been observed up to 3.33 m (11 ft) in length and weighing up to 2,300 kg (5070 lbs)." If "largest" meant "longest", we'd refer to oarfish, but I take it to mean "most massive". In any event, marlins and sturgeons are not the largest bony fish in either sense.

Metamagician3000 11:36, 23 December 2005

Cross-references

Should ostracoderm be listed as the (only) cross-reference? Ostracoderms are jawless fish, not bony fish. Homo sapiens 04:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class rank- Osteichthyes vs. Sarcopterygii & Actinopterygii

Sarcopterygii and Actinopterygii are listed as subclasses of Osteichthyes here, but are described as classes on their own pages. Which is right? Jerkov 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Osteichthyes should be a superclass and it's right that Sarcopterygii and Actinopterygii are listed as classes. I'd like to change the taxobox in this article (and any other relevant places). But I should check that I'm right first.HappyVR 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and done this, altering the taxobox.

I've also changed the wording of the introduction, (perhaps dumbing it down a bit), making it easier to read and clearer. (At least that's what I tried to do.)HappyVR 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

I've tagged this as needing a reference: "The Osteichthyes are paraphyletic with land vertebrates." which may seem a little odd as the article doesn't cite a single source. However a general source that can used to at least verify the infomation can easily be found - I'll try to do this (as time allows).

However I think the statement above is a little debateable - I wouldn't easily accept it as 100% certain, I don't know what other people's view is. It seem to at least need a reference. So a reference would be excellent.HappyVR 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been generally accepted for a while. For instance a quick web search finds this, this, this, and this as some random pages that mention their paraphyly. The accepted phylogeny is here, which shows that Osteichthyes are a monophyletic group only if they are expanded to include terrestrial vertebrates. I don't think we should be using it as a superclass; as far as I can tell this only appears in ITIS and a few related sources. Josh

ok - this means that the (extinct) ancestor of the tetrapods would be classified in osteichthyses (and probably lobe-finned fish)?

The page Osteichthyes categorises it quite early on as a taxonomic class. Clearly at the moment taxonomic classification and phylogenetic classification are not entirely compatible in certain areas. I can't find much guidance on this - clearly the taxobox represents the taxonomic scheme - I don't know if we should have a separate 'evo-box' or what - I can't think of a really sensible way of doing this. The phylogeny would be easy to deal with if there was a standard proceedure laid down for it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life only covers taxonomy at present. Would appreciate it if anyone can find guidlines for issues surrounding taxonmy/phylogeny confusion.HappyVR 19:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a source, but the claim is simply that tetrapods diverged from other fish, and thus all tetrapods, including mammals like us or secondary aquatic animals, such as whales. I'll explain this more when I have time, but a source to start with is Phylogenetic tree#Coral of life 174.2.69.60 (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphyly (again)

I was hoping that someone could supply a link that explains why the Osteichthyes are considered paraphyletic. User:Josh (above) has shown that the info. is verifiable but I was thinking more in terms of the reasoning behind this fact. Perhaps with reference to the fossil record, or by reasoning that tetrapods have evolved from something simialr to a lungfish and that lungfish and other ray finned fish have a common ancestor?HappyVR 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the statement about dogs.

swim bladders

The Ocean Sunfish is a bony fish and does not have a swim bladder. This articles says "They also have swim bladders which help them to create a neutral balance between sinking and floating." -Ravedave 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a lot of the info provided in this article does only apply to a number of bony fishes. Sentences such as "unlike most fishes, bony fishes can see colors" are just plain confusing, as most fish are bony fishes. I will look into this article further later.--Gunnar Mikalsen Kvifte 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this link

The link below lists prehistoric orders of Osteichthyes. Unfortunately, when I tried to add them to the taxobox, I was not successful. Bob (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=101119&is_real_user=1[reply]

New Edit

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I added a hyperlink for Amphiprion ocellaris into your article. I am a part of a Behavioral Ecology Class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Washington_University_in_St._Louis/Behavioral_Ecology_%28Fall_2013%29) Washington University and our assignment was to create hyperlinks from our articles to other articles as examples. Best of luck with your article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseehra123 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram

For the cladogram, given that we have articles on subsidiary clades like the Teleostei with their own cladograms, why don't we just stop at the teleosts? It would make the picture more readable, without really losing anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap, I intended to continue the Osteichthyes cladogram as a second tree starting with Acanthomorpha, so having two trees might have extended the page too much so I opted to hide it. However I did not get time to start the second tree, so that's why it looked like it was unnecessary to hide the cladogram. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! But I think two medium-sized trees well worth showing in an article of this type. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the trees are now in too much detail, and they cover several subsidiary clade-articles' worth of cladogram (for example, the articles which already have cladograms such as Teleost. Why not stop with Teleost or if you insist Neoteleostei as a leaf, and leave its internal details to that and other articles? I really can't see the value of the overlap. When the trees were of moderate size it was all right, but the overlap is now excessive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The picture used for stomatiformes is actually a lophiiform. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Osteichthyes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Osteichthyes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Anatomy