From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fishes (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


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


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


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


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

Class rank- Osteichthyes vs. Sarcopterygii & Actinopterygii[edit]

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

Paraphyly (again)[edit]

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)

Please delete the statement about dogs.

swim bladders[edit]

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)

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)

Please see this link[edit]

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)

New Edit[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 ( 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 (talkcontribs) 22:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)