From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Arthropods (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crayfish as pets[edit]

I uploaded an article with detailed information on how to keep and breed Electric Blue Crayfish, Procambarus alleni - probably the most popular aquarium crayfish in North America, but this person deleted it from this page. Then, I created a page especially for Blue Crayfish, and again Stemonitis deleted all the content and turned the Blue Crayfish page into a stub and it has remained so for the past 4 years.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwheeler (talkcontribs) 06:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Crayfish as pets needs a seperate article, this one just doesn't cover even the basic info on trying to keep them alive and health kept as pets.

i would like to question, about crayfish being shy, in the section of keeping them as pets. i keep crayfish (red claw). and from my experience, they are only shy when threatened, around the time of moulting, or are trying to rest. they don't make an effort to run off and hide unless actively chased. i would actually describe them as surprisingly bold and playful. or are mine just special?


Why the removal of the trivia section. The image on Link's shirt is in fact a crawfish, as it is referenced as one in the game itself... it shouldn't have been changed to lobster... and thus leading it to be deleted.


Sorry, my change was only "spelling". My copy/paste got confused, so my earlier edit summary is incorrect.Lisa Paul 22:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Any idea why this page is marked (though not actually listed) for cleanup? Looks pretty good to me. -- Juhaz 18:48, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are we looking for? LIke crayfish as pets.....anatomy? Crawldaddy888 20:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies to whoever will fix this, but I couldn't figure out what else to do. I found this deadend article — it's very long — which looks like something out of a 19c textbook, the language of it too old I think to be a copyvio, the subject of it, as far as I could tell, not likely to be a spoof so not a candidate for Vfd. The best thing I could think of was to dump it here in the hopes that a crayfish expert could decide what to do with it. — Bill 21:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== 100-year-old 'monster' cray emerges from NZ deep ==-- (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 27, 2003 When New Zealand recreational fisherman Brian Hoult felt something on the end of his line, the last thing he expected to haul in was a 100-year-old "monster". Particularly when he was fishing for snapper. But somehow he ended up with a 1.34m long crayfish weighing 6.3kg on the end of his line. The monster is now in a holding tank where it will be kept until it sheds its shell. Mr Hoult intends to keep the shell, and put the cray back in the water, where it will grow a new shell. Mr Hoult had only been fishing for 10 to 15 minutes on Saturday before the crayfish attached itself to a whole calamari bait. "It felt a bit like a gumboot and didn't fight at all as I reeled it in," Mr Hoult said. The cray was not hooked up and had just held onto the bait and wouldn't let go as Mr Hoult reeled in 32m of line. A net was used to make sure the cray did not let go of the line as it reached the surface. Mr Hoult has given the cray to former NZ Museum of Fishes curator George Campbell to look after until it sheds its shell. Mr Campbell said the cray was a female packhorse crayfish and was possibly 100 years old. "This is one of the largest caught in recent years and, for today's standards, it is a monster," Mr Campbell said. The cray could grow up to 16kg, he said. "It is possibly too big to go into the funnel of cray pots and in too deep a water for divers," Mr Campbell said. This story was found at: Here are a couple of links to a picture of Brian Hoult and the crayfish he caught:; (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Potentital for expanding the article[edit]

I have just removed the {{expand}} tag from this article. Since there was no indication as to what needed expanding (diet? taxonomy? economic importance?), it is not helpful to have it there. Feel free to replace it, anyone, if you have specific ideas as to how the article should be expanded. --Stemonitis 07:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. We need an article on the Red Swamp Crawfish (Procambarus clarkii, with a redirect from Red Swamp Crayfish), a major farmed species of crayfish. According to the FAO, some 34,000 tonnes were produced in 2003. The detailed FAO FIGIS statistics reveal that almost all of that was produced in the U.S., which is and has been for decades the major producer. There would need to be a sister article on Crayfish farming. Diseases of crayfish could be discussed. (We'd need to find out what caused the dip in production in the year 2000. Diseases?) In Europe, it seems that most crayfish are caught, not farmed. The FIGIS aquaculture statistics reports only some 20 to 30 tonnes in 2003... (would have to check the FIGIS capture databases, though). P. clarkii in particular is also a highly invasive species and is, as an exotic species, often considered a pest. I know that North-American crayfish escaped from small-scale farms or aquariums cause problems in Europe. This article could do with at least some mention of such things. Then there would need to be stubs for the families and genera, e.g. Cambaridae. Ideally, one would be able to naviagte through the taxonomic hierarchy down to P. clarkii. Oh, and before you ask me to do all this: I'm still busy writing up these farming issues we recently discussed. Turns out that there's enough material there for two brand-new articles, so I'll be occupied for quite a while! Lupo 28 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)
I have plans (not immediate) to write a bit about P. clarkii's role as a non native, invasive in Southern California. I was involved in a research project attempting to ascertain the effect of P. clarkii on three amphibian species, though we collected data on micro inverts as well. I need to research a bit about the history of their introduction to S. California though, and find time in my schedule. Shawn M. O'Hare 16:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
n.b. I have just created the article Procambarus clarkii (with redirects from a great many potential common names). Please feel free to add/amend at will. --Stemonitis 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I did not feel fully justified in wantonly editing, so post here. I have some objection to the statement made in the intro about the crayfish living in unpolluted waters. P. clarkii in Southern California routinely live in waters that are heavily polluted, at least to the degree that more sensitive species no longer exist (such as amphibians). In fact some streams I have personally surveyed will contain crayfish, algae, and little else. There is a marked difference though between crayfish in streams close to urban development and streams that are more removed from civilization. In both cases you might find few micro invertebrates, almost no amphibians, but in the more polluted stream the crayfish are extremely sluggish, almost as if drunk. They are much less aggresive. Shawn M. O'Hare 17:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for more info[edit]

Agree that this article needs something on reproduction and anatomy. I came here to try to confirm a high school memory that crayfish are occasionally hermaphroditic - which would mean that the one I pulled out of a flood puddle will or will not reproduce in my aquarium all by its lonesome self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd like to see more information added on the classification, evolutionary relationships, and fossil record of crayfish. MrDarwin 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I just read 100 science facts which noted that crayfish have two hundred chromosomes. I think some summary about the rammifications of this trait as compared to say a species with a mere forty six. 06:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Crayfish anatomy is not covered at all. Like, tail fan, sensory hair... See my recent Lateral giant neuron; an interesting fact, but redlinked. mikka (t) 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Crayfish anatomy is covered at decapod anatomy. At the moment, it only covers external anatomy, and not in much detail, but it is there. It would be wasteful to repeat anatomical information at every article, which is why I tried to centralise it at decapod anatomy. I have now added the term tail fan to it, but have made no reference to sensory hairs or giant lateral neurones. Please feel free to expand it. Anatomy unique to crayfish belongs at crayfish, of course, but since crayfish are pretty plesiomorphic in terms of gross anatomy, decapod anatomy is a reasonable place for discussions of more general crayfish anatomy. --Stemonitis 08:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There are two problems with the article decapod anatomy: first, how an ignorant like me would know that I have to read Decapod anatomy and not, say Malacostraca anatomy. Second, no one suggests to "repeat". A common wikipedia tradition is to provide summaries of basic subtopics (Haven't you notice "Main article: Blablabla" after secton titles in longer aticles?). Currently even a "see also" link from "crayfish" to its anatomy is absent. mikka (t) 08:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Apart from US bias, is there anything to support: Crayfish are eaten in Europe and China, but they are perhaps most popular in Louisiana, where the standard culinary term is crawfish. ? --BarryNorton 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, though, from my experience growing up in Louisiana and now living in China (Beijing, Shanghai, and now Hong Kong), the crayfish consumption here is nothing like that in Louisiana. (Crabs, though! Shanghai/Zhejiang have some of the best crabs in the world and people across China can't get enough of them when they're in season. At least a shop a block for Zhejiang crabs in Hong Kong.) I've edited that pariticular section in attempt to remove some of the LA/US bias. --Alai
Having lived in Beijing over 10 years, I can promise you, crawfish are eaten in China and eaten widely. In Beijing, if you want crawfish, just go to "Gui Jie" they are called "Xiao Long Xia" which means 'little lobster.' The eating of crawfish is pretty ancient in a number of places, especially farther inland along the Yangtze river, like Hubei, Hunan and Sichuan. I've also had lots of crawfish in Shandong. I don't really have a source for it, but does something that basic need a source? Or can it just be considered common knowledge? I know it may not be common knowledge to everyone, but the question would seem absurd if asked in China. (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just saw something in China Daily referring to 600,000 tons of xiao long xia produced and consumed yearly in China. Seems reasonable, in light of all the places serving them.
Which makes me question the paragraph claiming that Louisiana produces 90% of the world's crawdads/crayfish/whatever. 50,000 is quite a bit short of 600,000. But Chinese statistics being what they are, I'ma notta gonna go there :) (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Back to the original question, perhaps the issue is not so much the popularity, as cultural prominence. Crayfish are extremely popular in parts of Europe, while almost completely absent from other parts, but it most of those places they are only used in a particular way (usually beer or hard-liquor chasers or vice versa). In Louisiana, crawfish are an inextricable part of the local culture and end up in a rather broad spectrum of dishes. Perhaps prominence is a better ward than popularity. Popularity seems much more subjective.

On the other hand, if you've shopped for crayfish (and that's crayfish, not crawfish) in Massachusetts or even in New York City and bothered to pay attention to the country of origin, the majority are imported from China (hence crayfish). Some specialty shops do get Louisiana crawfish seasonally (just as they get Maine shrimp that are unheard of in the rest of the country), but, as a rule, the market is dominated by cheaper Chinese imports. Also, if you review Russian sources (not Wiki.RU), most warn against buying the inferior Chinese imports and opt for Armenian, Kazakh and Turkish imports instead, if local or Ukrainian catches are not available. Speaking from personal experience, I tend to agree--although, of course, that's mostly subjective.Alex.deWitte (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Life on land?[edit]

Last night, I saw a crayfish walking down the street in front of my house (I live in Austin, TX.) There aren't any rivers, lakes or creeks very close, and it wasn't raining yesterday, though we've had a reasonable amount of rain in the last few days.

In any event, I was hoping to find some comments about where crayfish can live -- I was really surprised to find one just walking down the street like it was no big deal -- but the article doesn't talk about that, beyond a comment about how they can live underground. Procambarus clarkii says that this species can tolerate dry spells, so perhaps that's what it means -- they can live on land. dougmc 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering that the street-walking crayfish you saw might have lived in the sewerage or come with the flood water. --Purpledragonfly 04:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Crawfish will live just about anywhere there is water including drainage ditches. Is there any wastewater ditches in your vicinity? --jacksjb

Potentialy Crayfish can live anywhere that has a water source. they're water demands usually aren't too high and i've found some in even the nastiest water water where no other creature lives. Crayfish a slightly different from fish. They don't have to stay underwater all the time and they can typically walk around on land for a while as long as theres some water source even if it's just a little puddle of water. they'll find a way to live. That's why they're are rather impressive little creatures, if you ask me.--Dillon239

One thing sorely lacking in the article is how crawfish can burrow up from underground (that is what I'm told they do). I'm assuming that they travel underground streams, but they can be found building "burrows" (like chimney stacks made from mud - perhaps four inches in height) in a person's backyard. I lived in Pearl River, Louisiana and in certain times of the year I would find many of their "chimneys" in my backyard. I'm assuming that they create these burrows when they rain has turned the clay-like soil rather mushy. As "Dougmc" states above, I've seen a crawfish walk across a parking lot once - it was a strange sight, but I let him be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out the following link to see images of these "chimneys": — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Astacus fluviatilis[edit]

Why do Astacus fluviatilis redirect to this article? It has been removed from the Astacus article (see the early history of that article, when I created it). Why? Kricke 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

crayfish as pets[edit]

My brother caught some crayfish in his yard and put them in his freshwater aquarium. It's about a 5 gallon tank and feeds them why the guy at petsmart said to feed them, but it appears that they are just dying out of the blue for some reason and we are trying to find out why. Can they live completely summerged in water at all times or do they have to have a way to get dry occasionally? 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they killing each other. The main casualitys I have had with Crayfish is that Adult's are very aggresive and they may kill each other at times. So it's possible if you have several of them for htem to be eating each other. Or even some fish such as cichlids will go after Crayfish. They can live being submerged in water I've kept Crayfish for years in Aquariums. Also what did the guy tell you to feed them? none of that expensive pet food crap I hope... because if they did you got jipped. Crayfish work well with eating things such as peas, or carrots, or corn... or anyother vegetabile. but they also like meat. I used to feed mind little slices of turkey and they loved it, but now I feed them either vegetables, those shrimp pelets, algae tablets, or even standard fish flakes. Crayfish really aren't picky eaters.--Dillon239

I added a different photograph under the Pets section, the one that was there was very small and not very clear. Enziarro 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, most crayfish are quite sensitive to water quality, and will be stressed (and sometimes die) to levels of ammonia that barely register on home test kits. It's best to fishless cycle their tanks or use tanks matured with fish. Keeping them in an uncycled tank usually doesn't work out. They're prone to stress from overcrowding (I go by about 1 square foot of tank floor per cray), as well. When stressed, they often fail to molt properly. After molting, even healthy crays are vulnerable targets to tankmates. My red swamp crayfish would stalk other crayfish that were about to molt and pull their legs off while they were still soft.-- (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Central America?[edit]

I came to this article because I was looking to see if I could identify something my Salvadoran husband refers to as "camarón del río," which translates as "river shrimp." I thought it might be crayfish, but he indicates that what is pictured here has a different name in El Salvador (chacalín) and that this river-shrimp thing is bigger than the crayfish in the first picture. I'm asking because if camarón del río" IS crayfish, we need to edit the article to include the Central American type (and if not, I'll still be looking for what a camarón del río is). Lawikitejana 05:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Camarón del río" usually refers to Macrobrachium rosenbergii, which is a large (up to 12") freshwater prawn.-- (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Brain Butter?[edit]

How can the brains of crayfish be referred to as a butter when the brains of standard sized crayfish [for eating] are presumably practically miniscule in size? The next sentence says that after eating the shell, it can either be discarded or used as decoration. . . . We could say that about KFC, but we would not because it's frivolous and obvious, not to mention unappealing. This article is good---and I don't mind that the 'Crayfish as Pets' section lies within its main body---but we should tighten and polish it more. --PLK

Quite right. The brain section has gone, as has the "discard or decorate" sentence. I'm sure the food section could be improved a lot more (there could be a long article just on that), but it's not my speciality. --Stemonitis 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Crawfish have Iodine?[edit]

My step dad is allergic to the iodine in Shrimp and said he thought Crawfish had Iodine in them also. Does anyone know if that is true? He has never tried them because of what he thought. He has an allergic reaction to shrimp. He swells up, his eyes, face and looks awful, so I did not want to expose him if they are the same. (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Sherry

I am not a doctor, and Wikipedia is not place to solicit medical advice. That said, here's a nice article regarding your question. Better safe than sorry, have him order the filet. Keegantalk 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What do they eat?[edit]

Of course, we like to eat them, but what do they like to eat? Please add that to the article. (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything, literally. Mine mostly eat sinking catfish pellets and frozen bloodworm, but virtually any aquatic pet food will work. Fresh vegetables, culled fry (especially if they're not free-swimming yet), some snails, and live shrimp all work as well. You want to avoid anything with copper, which is toxic to them, as well as sick fish or fish that died from illness. -- (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps we should add what their primary diet is in the wild. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If most of the world's crawfish come from Louisiana, where we call them crawfish, then shouldn't that be the term?[edit]

It currently reads: "98% of the crayfish harvested in the United States come from Louisiana, where the standard culinary terms are crawfish or écrevisses." If most of the world's crawfish come from Louisiana, and we call them crawfish as always have and always will, then why not call them crawfish in the article? The most common species eaten around the world, is what we produce here, as crawfish, is it not? I just Googled and found that Louisiana produces 90% of the World's Crawfish, and there is reference to government studies. When we ship them to other nations and elsewhere, are they still labeled crawfish? What do most of the people that eat them worldwide call them? Dream Focus (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have NEVER heard them called "crawfish" before reading this article. Perhaps 90% of the world's crayfish comes from Louisiana, but the majority of the world's English speaking population call them crayfish. (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done some looking into this, and I do remember Alton Brown on an episode of Good Eats saying something akin to this "The name crawfish was used in 1817 by Thomas Say, the first American zoologist to study these animals. Crayfish was coined by the English scientist, Thomas Huxley, about 50 years later." which i read here. If this information is accurate wouldn't it mean that Crawfish is the first, and proper term and that Crayfish is simply a deviation or secondary name, akin to Crawdad? I've always heard them called Crawfish, and heard Crayfish referred to as an incorrect pronunciation of the name.--Kahn Iceay 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahniceay (talkcontribs)
It is absolutely irrelevant who coined which name first. The issue is how they are named by the majority of English-speaking population and whether they would recognize the name. As such, crawfish redirects here, so it's not like there is a shortage of references to "crawfish". But the head corresponds to common nomenclature and is thus accurate. Besides, Alton Brown is just wrong--Huxley is by no means the first person to refer to them as "crayfish". In fact, in the OED, crayfish redirects to "crayfish" as a variant. There is an 1830 dictionary citation that mentions both forms. And earlier forms--from which "crayfish" is derived--include "craius", "crevis" or "crevises", which is closer to the French original that now mostly refers to shrimp. In general, I would recommend not using cooking shows as your source on etymology and lexicography. I watch them regularly and they are wrong more often than not. Alex.deWitte (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Google has 7,360,000 results for "crawfish" and 5,980,000 for "crayfish". Google news shows About 10,700 for "crawfish" [1] and only 8,690 for "crayfish"[2]. List of countries by English-speaking population shows how many English speakers each nation has. The United States of America is the largest one, and here everyone calls them crawfish. Click on the "total English speakers" tab to sort by that. 335,164,058 people worldwide speak English as their first language, and 215,423,557 of those are in the United States. So most people looking up information would be looking for crawfish. Dream Focus 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
However, we follow the usage in reputable sources, and scientists, even those from the United States, refer to them predominantly as "crayfish". Arguments based on numbers of speakers carry no weight. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I probably should also clarify what I meant by "majority of English-speaking population". What I meant is that the term should be understandable by the majority, not that they should be using it themselves. There is absolutely no evidence that "crawfish" is the dominant term in the US, although it certainly is such in Louisiana and nearby states. But even literature by agricultural centers in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas (Texas A&M) uses the term "crayfish" as a general reference, explaining what they mean by "crawfish". Similarly, several different types of crayfish exist in Australia--all from a genus that is distinct from both the American (crawfish) and the European varieties. Each has an indigenous name, e.g., yabby. But this does not mean that the all-inclusive article should be called "yabby" (there is a separate article for yabby and for each of the other major Australian species). The technical term is "crayfish" and this is what an encyclopedia should reflect. "Crawfish" is either a subgroup (genus) of crayfish, if you wish to interpret it that way, or a dialectal pronunciation of "crayfish". Either way, it should either have a stand-alone article only about Louisiana crawfish or it should redirect here. Alex.deWitte (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
A large chunk of this article is about the two species that are used as food, and those are officially referred too by the scientific community as crawfish. See the discussion below where I asked someone at Louisiana State University to clarify things. [3] Dream Focus 19:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no "officially". Some people do indeed use the term "crawfish", but they are neither more nor less "official" than any other authors. That aside, I think it must be clear by now that there is no consensus for moving the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dream_Focus -- after reading some of these posts, may I suggest the program, "America's Crayfish: Crawling In Troubled Waters"? I would include a link but it would only be deleted as it has so many times before even though it is a valuable resource that may answer many of your questions, and clear up some of the confusion I'm seeing here. Just trying to help...*smile* Atsme (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Every single person who commented on your actions so far said you were spamming to your own site to sell things. Keep that conversation at [4] please. Its only a valuable resource if people don't have to give you money to see it. Dream Focus 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes it a free resource, not a valuable one. You get what you pay for....just sayin'. FYI - I actually wasn't trying to start anything about the link on this talk page, rather I was simply making a valid point about trying to post a link here. Atsme (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Per the claim of American pronunciation, the data used in the citation is not a representative sample, considering it is on the order of one three-hundredth of one percent of the population. It does not state how the respondents were polled (spelling and pronunciation are often different in the United States; if this was a questionnaire, it would explain a few things). The samples from each state, themselves, were not representative of population density, nor were they equal numbers. More than a few states had little to no data. This cannot be considered a reliable source or study. This study goes on to poll people about the usage of the words "frosting" versus "icing", which are two separate confections. Further, the distribution of the terms "crayfish" and "crawfish" appear to be relatively equal, and this is certainly not the case by any stretch of the imagination.
Just because it is the only available data doesn't make it good data. Just because it is hosted on a Harvard domain doesn't make it a reliable source. Without opining on which word is correct, I am going to purge the entire line of statements from the article. It is unfortunate, and will raise questions, but it is better than falsehood. 2601:281:C701:D07:E861:7D08:C7C4:FECB (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

pictures in the article[edit]

I like the pictures in the article, instead of a gallery, it just making more sense. I tried to upload one from a government website, showing how the ecological disaster of the zebra muscles, spread on crayfish used as bait, but its not lining up quite right. I believe this event is an important in the history of crayfish. Got to show the good with the bad. Dream Focus (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Our class is learning about crayfish. We need some info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling war: "crayfish" versus "crawfish"[edit]

This is a common battle and drive-by correction for this article. Obviously people have strong opinions on this matter. The article title uses a 'y' so demands the spelling be the same. Conversely, there are more Google hits for 'w' than 'y', with 1.3 uses of 'w' for every usage of 'y'. Please tell me what you think. Craig Pemberton (talk)

Wikipedia policy for variant spellings is not to change the status quo. See WP:RETAIN: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." However, it is important that the article is consistent in its usage, which it isn't at the moment. In addition to WP policy, the Harvard study cited in the article suggests that usage is split about 50:50 in the US. The OED, Merriam-Webster, and all favour crayfish giving crawfish as a variant spelling. —Jeremy (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

90% of the world's crayfish from Louisiana?[edit]

The article mentions that 90% of the world's crayfish comes from Louisiana. It also mentions that Scandinavians "traditionally" eat crayfish, that China and America are "the biggest sources of import today" (in Scandinavia, true), that crayfish was once very important to Mexican nutrition, that Australasia is a major source of crayfish, and that China has become a major consumer of crayfish.

Further, the source article proclaiming the 90% statistic was a document written nineteen years ago. Come to that, there's not much in the way of sources for the "Crayfish as Food" section.

All things considered, the 90% statistic seems very odd given some of the other information in the article. Can somebody confirm that this statistic is still accurate today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe, I've finally solved the problem of the LSU 90% figure from 1987. Note that the report specifically refers to "crawfish". Nowhere in the rest of the world are crayfish referred to by that name--this is the nomenclature reserved for two specific species of crayfish in the US. While the same species have been exported to other countries for aquaculture, in much of the rest of the world both crayfish collected in the wild and those harvested through aquaculture may well be of other species (European or Australian). Even then, back in 1987, Louisiana was virtually the only place that had crawfish aquaculture developed. This is not longer the case. So, it seems there might have been two reason why the figure appeared so inflated--it was specifically identifying only the Procambarus species and even then only those grown through aquaculture. With these restrictions, the 90% figure does not appear at all surprising. Alex.deWitte (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

that is the talk on ray fish peace!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofpwn (talkcontribs) 14:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do crayfishes thrive in waters highly polluted with heavy metal???[edit]

I just read a report about the safety of eating crayfish from an e-mail. It says that crayfishes thrives in waters heavily polluted with heavy metals. So much so that crayfishes are used in Japan (and now Taiwan) as the first line treatment of waste water. Unethical merchants even feed additional heavy metals, such as lead, to the crayfishes to accelerate their growing, and to harvest it for food market.

The article gives no reference as to its source.

Does anyone know whether any of the above is true? (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

crawfish versus crayfish name[edit]

This is a reply to an email I sent to the LSU AgCenter. Thought it worth posting here. And I created the article White river crawfish since it is produced in significant amounts commercially to be listed. Dream Focus 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is really a reply to an issue raised in your comments below, but I thought it best to keep this rather tangential topic separate. The concept of a "scientifically recognized common name" is at best a conceit, and at worst simply false. Common names are not governed by any kind of rules, and anyone is free to call any group of organisms by any name they like in their own language. The problems that that can cause are exactly the reason that we have scientific nomenclature, which is tightly governed by detailed prescriptive rules. I found at three different common names used by respectable authorities for that one species, and I was intrigued (and indeed surprised) to see that the Alabama government uses the spelling "crayfish" in its publications (or at least the one I saw when updating Procambarus zonangulus). It seems that the -w- spelling isn't all that widespread, even in the South. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Crayfish picture removed, despite email permission given by site holder[edit]

  • Apparently there is a tagging issue, something not filled out properly, and no one sure what to do, so one editor has decided to remove this image from the article. [5] If anyone wishes to discuss this, please go [6]. Dream Focus 17:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese crayfish farmers[edit]

  • I undid the recent edit [7] since you don't erase a referenced fact, without putting up a new reference proving your claim. I know that in China the pollution levels are so high that their crayfish are not allowed to be sold in most nations. Also the species being bred is different than the two species of crawfish(proper name for these two species, read other discussion) raised in Louisiana. Pollution laws, and the size and flavor of the different types of crawfish, as well as price, determine where they can be sold, and what people will buy. Dream Focus 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Look here, for example, at the second graph down. The most definitive source on fishery statistics is the FAO, and their article specifically dealing with Procambarus clarkii is here. The enormous change in aquaculture production, starting in 2003, is due to China's reported output. However, currently there are issues with China's reported statistics, and you will notice that the FAO is glossing over China's role here. I have an article in preparation which addresses these issues, and when that is written, I'll come back and rewrite the relevant area of this article. In the meantime, the patently stale and misleading statements I removed should not be reinstated, though you could update it with something more recent, if you like. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) says that production in China rose do to unusually good weather, and they were found guilty of "dumping" so a tariff was placed upon them by the American government to keep them from being less than the cost of Louisiana crawfish. It also says they imported some when Louisiana had a bad season years later. The department of Agriculture in America probably shows the worldwide production year by year, or at least what is imported into America. Dream Focus 11:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
How accurate is the information at ? There should be a government webpage somewhere that states the figures. Or perhaps Google news will give some results, since surely this would've been in the news. Dream Focus 12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The data used on that website page is sourced to the FAO data, as stated at the bottom of the page. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Statistics are always dated, as they take time to collate and publish. Statistics for all periods are welcome as we present material with a historical perspective rather than as current news. I have qualified the disputed material accordingly. I have also provided more structure and sorted the existing material into it. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

crayfish popular in China[edit]


I came here looking for sizes of the various species. I grew up in Texas where the crawfish are rather small and was surprised when a friend from Poland told me of crawfish that approach lobsters in size. Could you include size information? JKeck (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation 18[edit]

Citation #18, "Kosher Defined". Retrieved March 25, 2010, that URL link is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketchupstan (talkcontribs) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Article spelling again[edit]

This is not a matter of two variant spellings for the same word pronounced identically, such as centre and center, but of two different regional words pronounced differently. No one who pronounces the word /kroffish/ spells it crayfish and no one who pronounces the word /kreyfish/ spells it crawfish. This is a matter of local usage for a word, not a regional variation in spelling.

Furthermore, in the case of a dispute, priority is given to the source. The relevant source says: "Louisiana produces 90 percent of the crawfish in the world and consumes 70 percent locally."

μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As you say, it is not a mere matter of spelling. It is a matter of two alternative (albeit related) terms for the same thing, and like with alternative spellings, we must be consistent within an article. Internal consistency is the first principle of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. This article establishes very early on that "crawfish" is a frequent alternative, and does not attempt to conceal that fact. However, it must be consistent, even when dealing with sources that use other terms. It doesn't matter if the sources say "crayfish", "crawfish", "freshwater crayfish", "crawdads", "Astacoidea" or whatever else – provided they're talking about the same group of animals, we refer to them by the same name throughout the article. Were your examples part of direct quotes (i.e. between quote marks with inline attribution), then it would be wrong to alter them. However, they're not, and changing them to be direct quotes simply to introduce your preferred spelling would be inappropriate. The article is titled crayfish, and as long as it is called that, that's the term we should use. In order to use "crawfish" across the article, there would have to be a move debate. No such debate has occurred, and no consensus for moving has been demonstrated. It will come as no surprise if I say that I would strongly oppose such a request. "Crayfish" is much the best term from an international perspective; articles on local species may follow different usage. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm from New Zealand, so calling the freshwater species a crayfish just seems wrong, but in most of the world it is called a crayfish so I just have to accept that fact and for most of the article so will you. On the other hand, within the two paragraphs of the United States section (which seems to be entirely about Louisiana) I can't see any reason why it can't exclusively use the local name (as it does). We both just have to accept the consensus decision to call the creature by a name that doesn't match our local usages. Obviously when giving a quote from any external, referenced, source we should quote verbatim. Kiore (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you can't see a reason for internal consistency, but the Manual of Style can. It is explicit on this point. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not about to change anything else in the article or, for example, use crawdad when talking about the animal in Spain. I do understand the idea of consistency, but I am sure you are familiar with the Ralph Waldo Emerson quote. Yes, there are various potentially applicable rules, but again, this is not a mere matter of a word like tyre or gaol which has different spellings but one pronunciation. It is a case of two words with different pronunciations. There is no rule that, for example, in the article on taximeter cabriolets one must refer to taxicabs only as taxis and not as cabs. But as Kiore notes, these arguments are moot when we have verbatims. The rule is that in such disputes, one defers to the attributed source. No one can or should dispute that the USDA said what it is quoted as saying. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You have missed my point. I freely accepted that they are different words. You ignored that and continued as if I had not. You insist that we follow cited sources rather than being internally consistent, but provide no evidence to support that view. I showed you the Manual of Style which clearly contradicts you. Consistency within articles is paramount. Please provide some evidence to support your assertions or concede that you are wrong. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you have most certainly not demonstrated your point. First, there is no policy that requires that only one word be used to refer to a subject throughout an article. Crayfish, crawfish, and crawdad are three separate, if related words. They are not three different spellings of the same word in the way metre and meter are two different spellings of the same word pronounced in the same way. It is in such cases as metre and meter where the policy you quote applies.
And, second, the policy follow the source (or see MOS measurement, which say that when editors cannot agree, one follows the usage of the source) is widespread and speaks for itself.
But in any case, this is irrelevant since we are dealing with a quoted source. The disputed sentence is a verbatim quote from the USDA source which uses the word crawfish. Maybe the fact that the quote is indirect (John says that Mary is pretty, rather than John says "Mary is pretty") is throwing you off? If the verbatim indirect quote:

According to a 1987 USDA report, Louisiana produces 90 percent of the crawfish in the world and consumes 70 percent locally.[20]

bothers you so much, we can change it to a direct one:

According to a 1987 USDA report, "Louisiana produces 90 percent of the crawfish in the world and consumes 70 percent locally".[20]

But I think adding the quote marks is unnecessary myself. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That clause on "following the sources" is intended to establish general usage. (In this case, there are reliable sources that use each of "crayfish" and "crawfish", so it doesn't help us much.) It does not mean that we should switch usages during an article simply because different sentences or clauses are supported by sources that originally used different terms. That would be an absurd misinterpretation of that guideline. The argument about whether or not to include the quote marks (we really should do if it is verbatim; otherwise, it's plagiarism) is irrelevant if we simply revert to the way the article was before you made the unnecessary change. That is the way the article should be; your misunderstanding of the Manual of Style doesn't change that. Feel free to ask other experienced editors, but I doubt you will find much support for peppering different names across an article just because the sources vary in their usage. (What would one do if a clause cited two sources with different usages, for instance? What if the source wasn't consistent?) --Stemonitis (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in answering irrelevant questions about what if there were an inconsistent source. Nor have you provided any policy which says one cannot use different words within an article like taxi and cab, both of which and many other variants are used in the article taxicab. Nor did I change what the article said, nor the reference, I simply added "according to a USDA report" which is entirely appropriate. And no, the use of quotation marks or an indirect quote has nothing to do with whether it's plagiarism - plagiarism is when you don't identify the source. (You can add them if you like.) I do not intend to keep repeating myself. This is a verbatim quote attributed to its source - there is nothing more to say. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It is plagiarism because, even though the source is identified, you are using their words as if they were your own (you are not the author of "Louisiana produces 90 percent of the crawfish in the world and consumes 70 percent locally", and do not have the right to release that text under a free license). You have not provided any compelling reason to overrule the Manual of Style's clear preference for uniform terminology throughout an article. Since you have nothing more to say, I can see no reason not to undo your changes, for which no consensus has been demonstrated (cf. WP:BRD). --Stemonitis (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you can find another source which duplicates the USDA data then supply it. Until them the consensus of myself, Kione, and the original editor outweighs you, And further reversions will be treated as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stemonitis, per the MOS internal consistency says to follow the first spelling/term used. As the different names all refer to the same thing the first one used is the one that should be used, rather then jumping between terms.--Kevmin § 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume that Medeis' reference to "Kione" is meant to refer to my earlier contribution to this discussion. That was clearly rebutted by Stemonitis who pointed out the relevant policy and I no longer completely agree with my comment so please don't use it to indicate consensus. Kiore (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry bout the misspelling.
The problem is that Stemonitis is referring to a policy regarding alternate spellings of the same word with the same pronunciation, not different regional words with different pronunciations. And adherence to the source, which is quoted verbatim, is most relevant. What we have is an imagined policy that only one word (not one spelling) can be used for a subject overriding accurate regional usage and a verbatim source. There is no such policy. If anything, given majority usage and world consumption and production, the article should be named crawfish. But I see no need to go there. I am reverting the edit based on faithfulness to the source, the USDA. If there is some other source that supplies this information, let's have it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Medeis (talkcontribs)
No worries. I just wanted to make it clear that I no longer fully agreed with my earlier comment & didn't want to be taken as agreeing with either side of the discussion. Kiore (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus, and the policy noted by Stemonitis is applicable as the words all refer to the same crustacean group and thus there is no reason to break with policy and switch between different names in different sections. You are editing in the minority on this issue. Please stop reverting to an unsupported version of the page.--Kevmin § 20:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Again there is no such policy, the only policy is regarding variant spellings of the same word such as metre and meter. Crawfish and crayfish are not the same words. No one pronounces them the same. No one argues at the article taxicab that that word must be used throughout the article and that taxi and cab cannot be used. But this is a simple matter of the source. The USDA, which is quoted verbatim, and to whom the statement is attributed, is the definition of a reliable source. No competing source for the information has been provided. According to the policy quoted above, one goes by the source. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is such a policy. It does apply here. ("The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting." [my emphasis]) Even if there weren't, there is a long-standing consensus here to use a single term throughout the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert War?? Over documented vs. undocumented info?[edit]

re: this--

I'm trying to add some cited info about when the terms appeared. We're not talking about etymology; I'm using the OED's method (when the word first appeared in print). If you want to talk about the word's roots, fine. Post the etymology. Trace it back to its Indo-European origins, whatever. But in all fairness, "it's simply wrong" is NOT a good enough reason to keep reverting an edit in which i provided info and citations.

Stemonitis, I see that you have a background in science, and apparently you know a lot about crestaceans. I have a background in linguistics and I live in the area that supplies the bulk of the world's crawfish...where most people originally spoke French. If "crayfish" was first, you'd think that the Louisiana French (Cajuns) would have retained that form, no? But ask any Cajun, even ones who speak mostly French in the home, and they'll tell you "crawfish."

I know that the British have a long history of trying to invalidate elements of the language that originate in the U.S., but I really don't understand what the big deal is about this. I've provided a source. Again, if etymology is important to you, include it, but it doesn't invalidate the info I've posted. Also, cite your source while you're at it. (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. The problem with your edit (I'm assuming all those IPs are from the same person) was that it attempted to state something that was backed up by no reference, even though references were cited. Thomas Henry Huxley did not coin the term "crayfish", and any source that states he did is not a reliable source. The OED, which is an extremely authoritative source on the English language around the world, makes it clear that the word (and indeed the spelling) crayfish is much older than that. It may be somewhat condescending towards crawfish, but that was never the issue here. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may please interject here - first, would you consider an educational video with on-camera interviews from crayfish experts, inclulding a world renowned expert at LSU to be a viable enough source to validate a reference?

Atsme (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

  • Nope. See what Alex.deWitte wrote here about your videos at 17.47: [8] Smarkflea (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What about video documentation from Virginia Tech University, along with research papers by academia, and fisheries biologists? Would that be sufficient?

  • Please read what people write instead of bringing up the same arguments that have already been answered, and sign your posts with four tildes...Smarkflea (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Smarkflea, the tildes can be slippery, and tend to escape me from time to time. I was focused on productive input but will apply the "magnanimous 4" in the future. In response to your comment..."please read what people write" etc., are you referring to a particular sentence or paragraph you think I missed in this section? If so, please reference it for me. Your comment about what Alex deWitte wrote on the External Links Noticeboard has nothing to do with this section, although some very good suggestions were made during that exchange, including adding the link in the reference section of a page rather than as an external link....and that's why I asked my initial question. I'm also thinking about uploading segments of interviews with experts for people to use for validation purposes, and would be happy to put a rush on it if it will help clear up some of the issues presented here. Four tildes follow. Atsme (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

I was wondering if you would misinterpret what I said. I did not suggest that you can just put the links under "Additional References". What I said is that you might be able to put the bibliographic information for the program there, just as you would with a book whose content is not available on-line. Only after you had done that, would I consider adding a link--and, even then, preceded by the comment "Available at..." DVDs that you have are the primary source of information. The links are not. Even then, I am not sure how much good will you have left from others, following your insistence that you were following the guidelines, when everyone was telling you that you were not. I suspect that, if you only place Earthwave links as "Additional References", people will delete them. Perhaps you can do a small bit of research and find some other information, e.g., book titles, that would serve the same purpose. In other words, make it clear that you are trying to make a positive contribution and not merely promoting the Earthwave site and products. Alex.deWitte (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

NYT article[edit]

Just an FYI for watchers of this article: The Crayfish article was quoted in today's (8/12/11) New York Times, in this article about the Lobster Salad at Zabar's. The owner of Zabar's quoted the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article to justify their labeling of a salad made with crayfish as "Lobster Salad". Although Saul Zabar's logic is undeniably faulty (resemble and related are not equivalent to is), I leave it to others to decide if any clarification is needed in the WP article.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Zabar's Lobster Salad--which has now been transformed into Zabster Zalad--is interesting in its own right, but has little to do with either lobster or crayfish. Indeed, if you track down dialectal variations, "crayfish" is an occasional reference to marine species and "lobster" is an occasional reference to crayfish and other fresh-water crustaceans, but these are fairly localized and don't contribute any encyclopedic information to the articles on either. Still, it may be of interest to some because the controversy has lasted now for several months. However, the issue is already covered (briefly) under Zabar's. Alex.deWitte (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New Sections Needed[edit]

The article needs to be expanded to include a section on the life-cycle of the crayfish (including variances between species) and a section on aquaculture. Alternatively, aquaculture can be incorporated under Food. I am gradually trying to clean up the rest of it, but it's going to take some time. Also note that most individual species have their own articles, so some information can be gleaned from these. It might also be useful to cross-check with non-English Wikis--I did that for Russian Wikipedia, but my other language skills are not sufficient to do that. Also much more information needs to be found on Asian crayfish--both native and/or endemic species and those introduced for aquaculture from Europe and North America. Please help as much as you can--if you're unable to perform actual edit, just send me the source links and references and I'll take care of the writing. Alex.deWitte (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crayfish are absent from most of Asia, at least natively, as they are from all of mainland Africa (see ToLweb for a map). Asian crayfish would be better covered in detail at Cambaroides, which is just the barest substub at the moment. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree, except where it comes to exports and aquaculture. Kazakhstan and Turkey are two of four main suppliers for Russia and Ukraine and China has notable exports to the US. Other than Kazakhstan, I don't believe any of those are native species. Furthermore, if you inspect some packages of what is being sold as "shrimp", some of the larger ones that come from Bangladesh and India appear to be "tails" of freshwater species--and it is not clear if these are really shrimp or crayfish. I don't know anything about Asian crustacean zoology, but I do have some economic information on aquaculture. I did get what I could on Russian crayfish and Mexican crayfish out of the Russian and Spanish Wikis. The problem is sourcing--I can either transfer their sources (which I am hesitant to do, as I have not seen the originals) or link to those articles. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a template for non-English Wiki links either as direct links or as citations. Alex.deWitte (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No, you cannot use user-generated content (including other language versions of Wikipedia) as a source. You will need to check the sources before you can cite them, too. It's all too easy for someone to claim a source backs up a claim when it doesn't; that's why we've got {{failed verification}}. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I used other Wiki to verify some naming issues, which are more likely to be handled there (in fact, they were in Spanish), and for native cooking traditions which I then verified in some cookbooks and cooking sites, but have not updated the references on a couple (most are backed by citations now). We still have a standing issue of South American names which have been challenged. I am still looking for sources on that.--Alex.deWitte (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a link to fws, and info on Cambarus aculabrum with photographs. Helped document some of the research, and don't want my contributions to be misconstrued as COI. Think it should have its own stand alone article, but should also be a consideration here. Should be able to start work on its own page tomorrow when I have access to desktop, and can scan/upload photos. May also upload a brief video file for readers to see. Will do same for commercial aspect, including harvest, sorting, peeling, packaging, etc. Atsme (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Crayfish as Food[edit]

I would support moving this to its own page (at least the subsections about regional cuisine), as it tends to dominate the current page. Any thoughts on this? plcoffey (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that --Epipelagic (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I can see advantages to either method. If you do split it out, be sure to leave a (well-referenced) section in summary style in its place. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In either case, I think the issue of eating them raw should get a bit of attention. Apparently, there is a huge risk of lung fluke infestation.[9] o0drogue0o 09:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talkcontribs)

Weird reference...[edit]

I know nothing of Crayfish, and only looked them up since I remembered some passage about them in a Dumas novel; but I was surprised by Ref 4.

^ a b c "crayfish". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 3rd ed. 2001. Kittens are the cutest monsters in the world as seen in asdf movies the cute kitten killed the man who looked at it.

The link just goes to the OED main page.

I shouldn't like to mess the reference sequencing by elimininating this; but to be honest it merely seems ( pleasant ) babbling, which could be the result of wrong copying rather than vandalism... Claverhouse (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the template at [[10]]. Good catch! Pinethicket (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Giant crayfish of Mozambique[edit]

I've seen from a number of sources (Tony Bourdain for one) that crayfish larger than even the biggest Maine lobster are a staple of the Mozambique diet, but I don't see mention of them here, and a quick googling doesn't turn up anything useful that could be cited. If anyone has a source on them, it would be nice to include in this article, even if they're not true crayfish. (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about freshwater crayfish. The crayfish you are referring to are a species of spiny lobster, a marine animal. - Nick Thorne talk 04:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Name Change to Crawfish[edit]

As per the points raised in previous discussions on this topic and due to the etymological information presented below, I have changed the name of the article to 'crawfish' from 'crayfish'. As with other articles on WP, regardless of editors' preferences for usage, majority usage wins. With Google and other reputable sources exhibiting far greater occurrences of 'crawfish' over 'crafish', this makes 'crawfish' the desired article title.

Wikipedia articles in English also are meant to use the native English word when there is an option between a name of native derivation and one of foreign derivation. 'Crawfish' is a the native English word deriving from the older 'kravven' and being a combination of 'kravve' and 'fish' (with the older 'vv' becoming modern 'w'). 'Crawfish' gets its 'fish' ending from the Norman French 'crevisse' just as 'crayfish' does. However, 'crawfish' is a construction that is much older and created natively within English by English speakers. 'Crayfish' is a much much later English introduction that is merely a corrupted transliteration of modern French 'crevisse', added to English vocabulary via the tradition of using French words in culinary circles. This makes 'crawfish' the "correct" English form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talkcontribs) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume that what you wrote includes a typo, because a Google search for "crafish" [sic] would inevitably produce few results. The second part of your argument is interesting, but not relevant. Wikipedia does not use etymology to decide articles titles; I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm also not sure that the etymologies you present are accurate; I would have to check, but I don't recall it being at all clear-cut as to which was the older formation in English. (Not that it matters at all for this debate.) The most important factor to bear in mind is that both terms are rather ambiguous, and are used in different places to refer to different animals (chiefly spiny lobsters). If you do a Google search designed to pick out those pages that use the terms in this definition, such as 'crayfish + "Astacoidea"' and 'crayfish + "Parastacoidea"' versus 'crawfish + "Astacoidea"' and 'crawfish + "Parastacoidea"', the "crayfish" usages wins out. Since this is a contentious issue, it would be best if you discussed major changes before implementing them. I have therefore undone your recent edit. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

German Flusskrebse[edit]

Hi, I added an inter-wiki link to de:Flusskrebse but it was removed again because "according to, "Flusskrebs" is only Astacoidea, not Parastacoidea, and there is no equivalent to this group". I am not competent to judge the scientific merit of this claim but I find the closely related link preferable to no link at all. What do others say? --EnOreg (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Europe and UK[edit]

It would be very useful if someone could provide a Europe/UK section in the main article - we are told that there are seven species, but not what they are. I've looked elsewhere and it's a bit of a minefield - the UK has its own species, plus some 'invaders' and there are various laws surrounding the catching and trapping of crayfish. I was expecting Wikipedia to have all this covered, but was surprised to find it wasn't. Thanks in advance! Jaycey (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)