Jump to content

Talk:Clownfish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organization

[edit]

I came across this article looking for some info on starting an aquarium. I have no issue with the information presented, but I believe that this article could be improved with some organizational improvements. The top section of this article is too long, and contains too much. Only general info should be left here. The table of contents should be moved up in the article. The information on clownfish habitat, diet, etc. should be moved to it's own section of the article with links from the table of contents. This would make the article easier to use, as people could jump the the relevant sections easily instead of having to read most of the article to get the info from a large block of text. Pharaoh02 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Species"

[edit]

"Some environmental protection activists regard this as a catastrophe as the species [...]." That makes no sense, since the clownfish are a subfamily, not a species. What did the author refer to? The whole subfamily, or just one of the species of the subfamily? If it's a species, then which one of all?

Reproduction and Sex Change

[edit]

I am a biological scientist working with sex changing fish. I also have some experience raising clownfish. I really like this wikipedia article. I added some information and removed a word in a sentence which said that the fish ate the "undigested excrement" from the anemone. If its undigested, it is probably not excrement! I believe the writer meant undigested food particles that the anemone released. I will add more when I have a bit more time. I want to include a bit more about the clownfish behavior and its reproduction in captivity. I also think that this article should link to an article about marine ornamental aquaculture, which has yet to be written.--Reefpicker (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool😎 193.210.165.119 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

Is there a reason for the word "clownfish" to be capitalized? It seems like most of the occurrences in the first section are and most in the second section aren't. I'd tend towards not capitalizing it (do we capitalize "dog"?), and I'll make those edits in a couple days if there's no objection here. cluth 11:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anemonefish protection

[edit]

The text about anemonefishes and clownfishes is a very good beginning but are currently (19 December 2005) not up to any particularly high standard. E.g. the text about how anemonefishes are protected from the host is biased and only mentions one out of several hypotheses. A popular summary of many recent findings within biology and ecology is not present. The whole page about anemonefishes needs a major revision. I will get back with some suggestions when I can find some time. Dr. Mike Arvedlund (michaelarvedlund@hotmail.com).

Hi Mike, A quick google search seems to indicate that you know a lot more about this subject than most of us. In case you don't know, you can - and are greatly encouraged - directly edit the article. You may want to register first, but it is not required. Janderk 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have read many hypotheses and will have to dig through some of the papers to cite some of the research. I agree with Dr. Arvedlund. The consensus from what I remember was either an immunity to specific host anemones or anemones in general, rather than the theory about the protection of mucous secreted after stimulation from the nematocysts of the anemone. Esoxid (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthahotha (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) With respect to the info on the symbiosis between clown (damsels) and anemones, there seems to 2 different popular hypothesis on why the fish isn't stung and killed. Mucus coating on the fish, and natural immunity.[reply]

I did some impromptu experiments on this as a diver many years ago. With a gloved hand, you can cause an anemone to sting the glove just by contact. After a time (a few seconds, the anemone will stop stinging. Wipe the glove off and you will start receiving stings again. Move to a different anemone and you will start to receive the stings again.

I believe the coating is 100% supplied by the anemone and that the coating is unique to each individual anemone.

Having spent time watching the clown fish adapt to host, you can see him quickly and carefully coat his scales. As mentioned in the original text, if the fish is cleaned, he will be stung (no i didn't do this my self). While coating I have seen them get stung, but float free and the venom wears off. I don't believe there is a natural immunity to the poison, but there may be some level of resistance, or possible thicker skin???? Cuthahotha (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section gives a false impression. There are 29 species of clownfish, and 10 species of host anenome. There are at least two methods by which clowns become acclimated to their host anenomes, but all of the methods for for the interactions between all of the fishes and all of the anenomes is not known. Clarks clown (Amphiprion clarkii) becomes acclimated by coating itself in the slime of the anenome. Perculas (A. percula) seem to have a slime that is adapted to it's host. It's not all done in the same manner. I have seen a tomato clown (A. frenatus) adapt to a long tentacled anenome (Macrodactyla doreensis) by swimming in and out, and yes getting stung, but eventually gettig accustomed to the hots. But this anenome is not the natural host for this species clown, so this may not be how it works in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.75.21 (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato clownfish, red saddleback anemonefish, fire clownfish

[edit]

The binomial names of tomato clownfish and red saddleback anemonefish fish did not match the consensus of net sources. I have fixed them. The fire clownfish seems to be the same as cinnamon clownfish; if so, the articles should be merged.
Jorge Stolfi/Jorge Stolfi 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the fire clownfish and the cinammon clownfish merge. The cinnamon clownfish says on the first line, also known as the fire clownfish...Sidious1701 03:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) what are the predators?[reply]

Commonwealth spelling

[edit]

I've changed the word 'behavior' to 'behaviour' as all other words in this article are commonwealth English.

Atlantic

[edit]

Is this true: "Clownfish are not found in the Atlantic Ocean."? Manuel Anastácio 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clownfish or anemonefish

[edit]

I was under the impression that the proper name for these fish was anemonefish as a subfamily and that two of these species were named clownfish. Specifically, clown anemone fish and false clown anemone fish. The orange one with white stripes with a black shading being the clown anemone fish, and the same orange and white stripes without the black shading being the false clown anemone fish (The one made famous by Nemo). Is there a general consensus that all anemonefish are now known as clownfish as a subfamily? Jnpet 05:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in this has caused me to look into this further and I find different sources seem to vary considerably in naming fish. From what I understand, Wikipedia is going with http://www.fishbase.org/search.php as the authority on the official English names. At any rate, will look into this further and may do some editing accordingly to this article. Jnpet 07:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common names can be very regional in usage, so it is good practice to use scientific names when writing about them. For example, Jnpet was talking about the common clown or false clown (Amphiprion occelaris) and the Percula (A. percula). There are 28 species of anenome fish, and they are all referred to as clownfish in common usage. The common clown and percula are virtually impossible to distinguish in a picture. The melanistic markings (the black) can appear in either species. In the wild they have different host anenomes but that is not true in the aquarium. They swim a bit differently, and I have seen percula larger than I have seen common clowns, so if you have seen a bunch of clownfish you can generally tell, but not always. Counting the spines on the dorsal fins or DNA tests help, but are impracticle (and the spines are not always conclusive). Nature made two species that are twins. I am quite fond of clowns and plan to update this article soon to be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree using fishbase as a good source, but http://www.itis.gov is the source used by the US Park Service for verified data. Fishbase is good because it will list the different available taxonomic names that other countries might use, as well as common names. Esoxid (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fishbase is far from being entirely up-to-date (as numerous discussions on the talk of various fish-related articles will reveal), but in most cases ITIS is further behind and use more "questionable" names and taxonomy. Nevertheless, this is only indirectly relevant to the question of clownfish/anemonefish. Both names are used widely for all but a few of the members of this group, and both names should therefore be included in the intro of this article (as also described in the guppy/millionfish example in section Article titles on WP:FISH. Should someone wish to change the individual names in the species-list in this article, I would suggest they add a quality WP:V reference (the current list follows Fishbase, as also indicated by its reference). Otherwise, such a list can rapidly become a total mess. 212.10.77.239 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in Finding Nemo

[edit]

It is not clear to me why users keep removing sentences regarding the sequential hermaphrodism of clownfish in the Finding Nemo section of the article, but not the sentences regarding jellyfish and amemone. Before reverting again, can someone please justify the edit here so we can have a discussion about the article, rather than just editing. Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.252.247 (talk • contribs)

Fair point, that was inconsistent. I think this information only has a place in the Finding Nemo article as it is not important in gaining an understanding of Clownfish. As such I will remove the whole section. |→ Spaully₪† 22:26, 8 March 2009 (GMT)

Another photo

[edit]
Pez pasayo, or Clownfish

This is a really impresive photo from an excellent Spanish photographer I posted on the es.Wikipedia. If it can be used here, please, do. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol ok --190.158.215.220 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste from other websites

[edit]

This article seems to be the target of consistent attempts at "improving" by copy-pasting info from the countless websites on clownfish spawned by Saving Nemo. On what basis does an article get the semi-protected status? Numero4 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material

[edit]

A clownfish appeared in a 1989 Maybelline television commercial featuring Lynda Carter.


--Cut & pasted here until a ref can be found. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a similar assertion on article Paracanthurus. William Avery (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. A mere glimpse that is hardly notable. Don't blink or you might miss it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be2CvBbEqj4 (About 13s in) William Avery (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, predictably enough, on Yellow longnose butterflyfish William Avery (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amphiprioninae. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphiprioninae. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2019

[edit]
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: no consensus to move the page to either Clownfish or Anemonefish at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amphiprioninae → Clownfish – Move per WP:COMMONNAME. According to this google trends page Clownfish gets almost 100 times more searches than the current title. The case is similar for google search results with clownfish yielding 14 100 000 results (admittedly a not insignificant amount being from the skype application) while amphiprioninae only giving 105 000 results. Trialpears (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 09:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, per nom, common name. Thanks for the nomination, as too many common names on Wikipedia are submerged into titles like this that most people have never heard of. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move to Anemonefish - Whenever this pops up on my watchlist, I have to double-check what taxon this is, and why it would be receiving so much drive-by attention from people who are clearly not your average polysyllabic Latin types. Common name is very prominent here, it should be the article title. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to reflect discussion below. Yes rename, but to the appropriate term. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck support post-relisting after some discussion, instead supporting a move to Anemonefish. The 2015 and 2018 papers I linked below (in response to Nessie/Elmidae) had authors residing in a few different countries (and hopefully peer reviewed by others), so that's at least demonstrating this isn't solely American vs. British English nitpicking (in fact, none of those countries were the US or UK). Can we say that no national varieties of English prefer "clownfish" for the subfamily, despite an apparent scientific consensus? No. For the Latin name of a subfamily seemingly only referenced in scientific contexts (e.g. 50k ghits for only "amphiprioninae" vs. 350k ghits for only "anemonefish"), I think we can choose a vernacular. The subject of this article is a taxon, and so reliable scientific sources seem to be in some sort of agreement that Amphiprioninae = anemonefishes. The reality that a hundred million humans could look at any remotely orange fish that resembles a species within the subfamily and call it a "clownfish" (if, impressively, not "Nemo"...) means nothing. A separate article should be created for Clownfish based on claims in reliable sources that have been presented (whether or not the two species of "clownfish" and Premnas do form a clade). Rhinopias (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of and expecting "anemonefish"; read the proposal to quickly. Yes, if this was moved to a common name, it should be anemonefish, of which clownfish proper are a subgroup. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In literature it's clear that anemonefishes is preferred. This 2015 paper opens with "Anemonefishes (Pomacentridae Amphiprioninae) are a group of 30 valid coral reef fish species". The article is suggesting in the lead that anemonefish and clownfish are interchangeable terms. Are any of the species in the list not referred to also as "clownfish"? If they are all also called "clownfish", that's the clear common name outside of literature: 6.3m "clownfish" + 65k clownfishes vs. 500k anemonefish/anemonefishes. Rhinopias (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect (but can't prove, naturally) that most of these hits refer to the orange clownfish, which is THE aquarium species of the lot... and of course Nemo. That alone probably accounts for a few million, and makes it difficult to assess what the larger group is called. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're onto the right course here. I am very familiar with the Pink skunk clownfish being referred to as a clownfish, which is pretty different in appearance, but this paper published in 2018 says:
"The orange clownfish is one of 30 species of anemonefishes belonging to the subfamily Amphiprioninae within the family Pomacentridae (damselfishes). The two clownfishes, A. percula (orange clownfish or clown anemonefish) and A. ocellaris (false clownfish or western clown anemonefish), form a separate clade, alongside Premnas biaculeatus, within the Amphiprioninae (Li, Chen, Kang, & Liu, 2015; Litsios & Salamin, 2014; Litsios, Pearman, Lanterbecq, Tolou, & Salamin, 2014). The two species of clownfish are easily distinguished from other anemonefishes by their bright orange body coloration and three vertical white bars."
So maybe this indicates the consensus within the scientific community is that there are two species of clownfish that belong to the group called anemonefishes, with it being in an introductory setting here and then multiple publications cited. (This would involve the article title "Anemonefishes" and reviewing common names of all the species to reflect that only those two are referred to as "clownfish"...?) Rhinopias (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as discussed above anemonefish is the correct common name for this subfamily, clownfish is a common name applied to some of the species but not all. The article uses anemonefish throughout as the primary term. The use of Google trends is not appropriate here given Nemo which skews the results on the basis of one species (though it is never made clear whether Nemo is an Ocellaris or Percula clownfish). Fishes of the World doesn't even reference clownfish for this group, which supports the assertions above that the scientific community consider anemonefish correct. |→ Spaully ~talk~  21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pretty much the same reason as Spaully above. The first book to comprehensively deal with the family was Anemone Fishes and their Host Sea Anemones. ISBN 9781564651181., reflecting the defining characteristic of symbiosis with anemones. Clownfish was limited to A. percula. A. ocellaris is commonly known as the false clownfish because it resembles the A. percula, not because it isn't an anemone fish. The importance is because of the on-going debate as to whether Amphiprioninae is monophyletic or paraphyletic, with the clownfish, A. percula, A. ocellaris & p biaculeatus in one group & the rest in another, as the quote Rhinopias indicates. This debate is touched on in the Taxonomy section of the article As for common, there are numerous fish within this family that are not commonly referred to as clownfish. This is an article that refers to a group of fishes based on their scientific classification & the article name should reflect that classification. To put it another way there is consensus that all of the fishes are anemonefish, there is no consensus that they are all clownfish. Find bruce (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the name should be anemone fish per the discussion above. I oppose as proposer. Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the vernacular, appropriated from what someone once called some species, is split between user pov that is utterly convinced that "clownfish" or the awkwardly pluralised "anemonefishes" is the common name. "Now debate me." The most common name is the present title by that observation alone. The question is "how does one move it away from this accepted and verifiable title", crucial to any meaningful communication about anemonefishes/clownfish, to keep discussion about which terminology—rooted in eighteenth century British biology for the common man—is going to be: "correct!, and for ever hold your peace". Not how Wikipedia, or the real world of factual literature, works in actuality, despite the outcome of this RM (and its winners and losers :(). Look to the sources, and taxonomies, it has all been laid out centuries before we were born and we have no say about that. Call them clownfishes, make a redirect, none of that is the business of factual and neutral presentation of content. cygnis insignis 15:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Anemonefish - I mentioned this below. Just making sure my vote is in the right place. --Nessie (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' Do not change the article name, where a family or subfamily has more than one "accepted" common name then the taxonomic name should be used. The name Amphiprioninae is unambiguous whereas the terms clownfish and anemonefish are, at least, partially interchangeable. I also suspect, subjectively, that one is more common in some forms of English while the alternative is preferred in other forms of English. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to page move

[edit]

I do not believe the above discussion generated consensus - the last 3 comments and the majority of the actual discussion was not in favour, and probably moving towards a consensus to move to Anemonefish. This article is now simply incorrect in that Clownfish is not a common name of Amphiprioninae. While numbers suggested consensus for move this is not a Vote, much as common name is not simply a matter of Google trends.

I think it would be most appropriate to reopen the above discussion, as simply proposing a move now to Anemonefish accepts that there was consensus for the first move, which I dispute. Any thoughts? |→ Spaully ~talk~  13:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm moving down my comment from above, as this is the appropriate heading: May I suggest that this close and move were somewhat premature, as the issue of Clownfish vs Anemonefish has not been resolved yet; and the latter choice had a lot more reasoned argument behind it. I'd suggest opening this up again. I don't believe we are looking at a really contentious issue here, but the move to "Clownfish" does strike me as sub-optimal, and not the likely outcome if this had been allowed to gather some more comment (or been evaluated based on arguments rather than vote-counting). - I did my part to muddy the waters by letting my above "Support" stand while specifying, somewhat obliquely, that what I was supporting was a move to Anemonefish. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZI Jony:, please relist/reopen the move discussion and move this article back to Amphiprioninae for the duration of the discussion. I had intended to comment here, but had a busy few days when the move request was initiated, and minimal internet access over last weekend. Seeing a burst of initial kneejerk "COMMONNAME" supports followed by more involved conversations considering anemonefish as a potential title (before I lost internet access), I assumed this would get relisted and I would be able to comment when I had more free time and internet access. I really don't want to drag this to the drama of Wikipedia:Move review, but vote counting bold Support comments is not how move requests are supposed to be evaluated. Further comments in this case did not support the move. Plantdrew (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that the current evidence suggests the genus Premnas is embedded within Amphiprion, the subfamily has only one genus, so the article should be about the genus as per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. It's not clear which of "clownfish" or "anemonefish" is the most used English name for the genus, which is a good reason to have it at "Amphiprion". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, curveball :() But monotypy notwithstanding, I think the arguments made by Spaully and Find bruce, above, do make a good case for anemonefish over clownfish, whether that subsumes two genera or one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking into the position of Premnas after seeing the page move - it seems likely it is embedded in Amphiprion but the secondary literature I have found is not universally supportive of that at the moment. I think either Anemonefish or Amphiprionae would be correct, and accept that common names are preferable so endorsing a move to Anemonefish, which includes the 1/2 species correctly called Clownfish. |→ Spaully ~talk~  21:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both WoRMS and FishBase list Premnas biaculeatus as an accepted species, so maybe this is premature to combine it with Amphiprion when the two species there could eventually be reclassified? Rhinopias (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also noted as current and monotypic at the Australian faunal directory, AFD. This listing gives a variety of common names that includes a reference to Seafood Services Australia 2008. Australian Fish Names Standard. http://www.fishnames.com.au/. (Spine-cheek Clownfish). cygnis insignis 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

clarkii species complex

[edit]

Hi @Xboxsponge15: Shouldn't clarkii be lower cased and ''''? I assume it's a name for a species and also for a species complex. Not Clarkii. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Apologies if I did something wrong. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lower case, as clarkii is a specific name it should be lower case. Quetzal1964 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY2

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kurioverrice (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kurioverrice (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information about clown fish

[edit]

Hi 122.179.98.64 (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this page was moved to Clownfish

[edit]

I note that this article was moved from Amphiprioninae to Clownfish by Loopy30 in October 2022 with the summary "Subfamily no longer recignized. Swap with common name.". It is not clear to me what has changed to prompt this move, and I would consider from the move discussion above from 2019 that Anemonefish is the more correct common name with a stronger consensus than clownfish - which only refers to two of the species.

@Loopy30: please could you elaborate on the classification of the subfamily, the article remains unchanged in referencing this.

More broadly, if we are to use a common name here, is the consensus still that Anemonefish is more appropriate? |→ Spaully ~talk~  11:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent phylogeny of damselfish by Tang et al (2021), Amphiprioninae was no longer recognised. The genus Premnas was synonymized to Amphiprion and this combined genus then placed in the subfamily Pomacentrinae. As the subfamily name appeared to no longer be in use, the page was moved to the first common name listed in the article lede and changes were made to reflect this new taxonomy.
However, since the standard reference used by the project for taxa above genus level (FotW 5e) recognizes the subfamily Amphiprioninae (as of 2016), and the project standard taxonomy for genus and below (FishBase) still currently recognises the genus Premnas, the following day I undid any taxonomic changes I had made in the article. Given the previous RM discussion here in May 2019, it would appear that my Oct 2022 move of the page title was also too hasty and should have been reversed and discussed here first.
We now have four possible page titles for this article:
  • Amphiprioninae - currently still supported by project taxonomy refs
  • Amphiprion - most up-to-date taxonomic classification
  • Clownfish - most "popular" common name
  • Anemonefish - most "correct" common name
A new RM may now be necessary to reach consensus on the most appropriate page title. Loopy30 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tang does recognize Amphiprionini as a (monotypic) tribe. While Catalog of Fishes is apparently following Tang (Premnas is listed as a synonym of Amphiprion, and Amphiprion is placed in subfamily Pomacentrinae), Catalog of Fishes is not a source we usually follow for taxonomy. Fishbase is placing Premnas and Amphiprion in Pomacentrinae. I'm not sure we should wait for a 6th edition of FotW to stop recognizing Amphiprioninae, but I'd feel better about deprecating Amphiprioninae if Fishbase synonymized Premnas (at which point a monotypic tribe/subfamily wouldn't really be a contender for the article title). Plantdrew (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clownfish&oldid=1247765467"