Talk:Rainbow trout/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Is it true that based on recent DNA evidence current thinking on steelhead is that it is in fact a salmon?

I believe that in general, genetically there isn't a big difference between trout and salmon. -- Walt Pohl 18:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trout have white meat and salmon generally have pinkish meat. I'm no expert, but I generally remember being told that a steelhead was a type of salmon, and up until reading this article I had never heard of steelhead and rainbow trout being the same species. If that is indeed true it would be great if the author could add a source for that information. Tombride 03:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been fishing for almost half a century. I learned that steelhead and rainbow trout were the same species around the time I began fishing for them. It's common knowledge among most anglers. Salmon & rainbow trout are categorized in the same genus. What that fact means to a layperson depends upon whether that person studied high school or college biology -- from which one should have learned the concept of taxonomy: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom. It's a classification system for grouping living organisms by similarity.

Trout & char can have meat that is pink or even bright red. Four days ago, I caught, cleaned and ate a rainbow trout, a brook trout (which is a char) and a brown trout that had red flesh. These fish had been feeding on crustaceans. The color of their meat reflects what the fish eat, not their species. In other lakes or streams, I have also caught rainbow, brook and brown trout that had pale flesh.

In the case of farm-raised salmon, their flesh is pink from dye pellets they are fed so that they might resemble wild fish. Environmental issues aside, I would rather not eat farm-raised fish because they tend to be bland or tasteless. [[User:Trout Fishing in Amercia|TFA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.202.86 (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source from FishBase of all the common names in many languages for Oncorhynchus mykiss [1] Luigizanasi 06:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Tombride 20:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to a few articles I read, and most notably the BBC, there are several species that share the common name "Rainbow trout". But they do confirm that the genetic differences between the coastal "Rainbow trout" species and "Steelhead trout" species are sufficiently small to allow interbreeding... So it looks like the introductory paragraph is a bit misleading in addition to being technically inaccurate.

Why the move?

Why did you move the page? Rainbow trout and steelhead are equally common names (and most people don't know that they're genetically the same species because they look pretty different), so I don't see what's gained by moving it to rainbow trout. -- Walt Pohl 06:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) trout could in theory live for up to 50 years.

Merging Steelhead

I really don't think there needs to be two separate articles; "Steelhead" should probably just redirect to "Rainbow Trout" since any information on how some people differentiate "steelhead" could easily be contained in the rainbow trout article. Any thoughts? -Big Smooth 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to do that, since the steelhead page was already a redirect before someone started to duplicate the article. Noisy | Talk 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for fixing. -Big Smooth 16:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

NP. Noisy | Talk 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

suggested merger

Both are (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and a steelhead is a species of Rainbow Trout as stated in this article.

Furthermore, the Steelhead article was only recently created, it has a lot of info, none of which is wikified, the majority is not broken into sections or paragraphs, there are no references and it does not read like an encyclopedia article.

Steelhead use to redirect to this article.

The other article's info is questionable due to lack of citation and its copyvio status is suspect.

I suggest this merger unless things as stated above are changed. --MJHankel 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any formatting errors as this was the first attempt by a team of people to make a Wikipedia entry. Please give me a month before debating a merger and I will work towards making this article presentable to your standards. I will check this page regularly for formatting input. Thank you. Seabornehorne 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

there must be citation.--MJHankel 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to try and help clean this too, if I ever get time. Moonbug 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear god it isn't a mess... this is a decent article! Moonbug 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(from steelhead talk page)
This article is a mess! It really should be merged with "trout".

Steelies and rainbows are too different in terms of fishing to merge them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.143.236 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2007

These are two forms of the same species. They really need to be in one article. ENeville 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres the thing, the current steelhead article is not encyclopedic, it is not wikified, and it does not inform about the fish but more about the conservation. The section in this article about Steelheads can be expanded. If it (as an actual article about Steelheads) gets big enough it can than be separated into its own article. Currently things just do not work. Scientifically they are the same species (yes there are differences and they should be duely noted). Images of Steelheads would be a possitive.

The current steelhead article is just not proper. --MJHankel 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

steelhead and rainbows are treated differently by British Columbia fishing regulations. They behave differently, live in different habitats and taste different. They are not the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same. the fact that the article is a mess is not reason to eliminate it. It is reason to clean up the article. Moonbug 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moonbug, Steelhead and rainbows are also treated differently in US fishery management. I agree that they do behave quite differently. However, they offten occur in the same habitat. In both the US and Canada they are considered the same species just as Kokanee and sockeye are the same species even though they have very different life histories. I believe that the articles should be merged. However, I think that the management and recovery efforts for steelhead populations are interesting enough to warrent a key sub-section within this article. Or possibly there should be a separate article on Steelhead management (and maybe one on Rainbow Management. Would it work for you if there was a rainbow/steelhead article focused on the biology of the species and separate articles on fishery management?--Smartone100 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Steelhead should definitely be merged in rainbow trout. In fact the rainbow trout that are cultured are hybrids of steelhead populations. The wild freshwater form is called "redband trout". The wild redband trout are often endangered and protected 'species', as well as some steelhead populations. So rainbow trout should treat stealhead, redband and cultured rainbow trout.

• • There is no real difference between trout and salmon in the Pacific salmon and trout species. All species and subpopulations have different live histories which vary from the complete life cycle in the sea to a complete life cycle in streams and lakes. So some can be called salmon and others trout but taxonomically that is not of much interest.Viridiflavus 11:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this merger has taken place. Steelhead now redirects to the Rainbow trout article. So what's to discuss? Maybe the discussion notice is obsolete and should be removed? Just fyi. I'm visiting, trying to sort out how to put an internal link regarding steelhead into the List of city parks of Erie, Pennsylvania. (Cassidy Park is getting a new fishing pier on Walnut Creek.) --Pat 08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all the distinction between Steelhead and Rainbows is vast, far beyond physical. As mentioned above, there needs to be a clearer article on this. I find it far too confusing when one does a search on Steelhead, expecting a large gamefish and sees an artical primarily on small-ish trout. I agree with the proposal to create another article on for Steelhead and their unique lifespan. --nborders1972 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow trout and Steelheads are the same fish!

I just want to clariy something very important between a Steelhead and a Rainbow trout. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE IN DIFFERENT STAGES IN LIFE! As stated in the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Fish Regulation.

Sea-run rainbow trout over 20 inches in length except in Northwest and Southwest Zone streams where rainbow trout over 16 inches in length are defined as steelhead.

Block quote

Now that I got that clarified. A juvenile Steelhead is a Rainbow trout!!! A juvenile Steelhead is called a Rainbow trout because of its color. Once a Steelhead matures he loses his colorful rainbow colors and becomes completely silver thus given the name Steelhead. If you ever get the priviledge to go to Oregon, please visit the hatcheries there for Steelhead/ Rainbow trouts. You can see how the Rainbow trout turns into a Steelhead. There are some Steelhead/ Rainbow trout that migrate in the sea. Usually the ones that migrate to the sea are commonly accepted as Steelheads.

I believe that Steelheads and Rainbow trout are not accepted as the same fish because the common people never knew them to be the same fish. --Infozestguy (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does not address "landlocked" steelheads, such as those in the Great Lakes. Also, the discussion at this site http://www.naparcd.org/steelheadtrout.htm may help with some of the arguments about the distinction of steelhead vs rainbow. JohnMc, 4 Jan 2009

Steelhead and Rainbow trouts are not the same fish. They live wild and unstocked here in PA without any way to get to the see. Plus even Rainbow trout I have caught over 20 inches long still had that pink line down their side. 72.77.93.75 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Binomial name origins

The current description of the original scientific naming is confusing. For example, there's no statement about mykiss, until implicitly in "the original binomial name is now used". ENeville 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Confusing tag has been up for a bit without any changes on this section, so I'll propose a resolution. I think the article should cite just Walbaum, with a possible mention of Gibbons. Gibbons really didn't discover this species anymore than Columbus discovered America, so his relevance to the species is parochial and minimal on the world scale in which rainbow trout now exist. ENeville 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Range maps

I'm removing an erroneously limited range map, as I believe I've done previously. Such maps lead to substantial confusion, e.g. the recent erronous edit that removed the text on Asian range of the species (citing the map as basis). If we're going to have a map, it needs to be accurate. ENeville 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• In noticed the same mistake in the map, but lazy as I am I added the info about the missing Asian Population in the description on the Dutch page, because a map is always helpful for the reader.Viridiflavus 11:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A kitten and a cougar have about as much in common as a rainbow trout and a steelhead. Anyone who has caught both knows that. Only a scientist knows they are the same. A 5 pound rainbow is one in a million and a 20 pound rainbow is one in 100 million. 20 pound steelhead are realitively common even among hatchery stocks. That, if nothing else, makes steelhead deserving of a separate article.

(Cheney119 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Beardslee trout

The only latin name for this fish I've been able to find is salmo gairdneri beardleei, but it seems it should have an Oncorynchus name, being a subspecies of Rainbow trout. Anyone got any newer info than I'm finding? Murderbike 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Golden Rainbow Trout

The current Golden Rainbow Trout page is a straight copy and paste from: http://www.thejump.net/id/golden-rainbow-trout.htm However, this page:http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/pages/qa/fish/trout_golden.htm looks like a good resource for a re-write. It also suggests that this is basically a variation on the Oncorhynchus mykiss species. I can't see Golden Rainbow Trout ever making a very long article and I think it would fit quite well into this one. What does everyone think? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and merged. I wrote some original text. Do add to it as you see fit. ENeville (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Binomial name again

Hi, the Swedish article has Oncorhynchus mykiss as the rainbow trout's binomial name. Maybe the lead section should be edited...? It says Salmo gairdneri at the moment. --Kjoonlee 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Furtherance of Binomial name

You are absolutely correct, Oncorhynchus mykiss is the official name and I have attempted to change the above. However some admin fails to see the change. Its also evidenced at http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/rainbow-trout.html Furthermore, proper name is listed on right sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.207.69 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Farming Location Contradiction

The article mentions that farming occurs primarily in Chile and British Columbia. It then, just a few sentences or so later, mentions that fisheries are located mostly in Russia. This seems like a direct contradiction to me. Anyone know the true story here? Jefe2000 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

When First Identified as Species?

The article mentions identification from trout in Kamchatka, but there is also a claim that it was actually first identified as a distinct species in the 1800s from specimens in the San Francisco Bay Area. Redwood Regional Park, East Bay Regional Parks District. This requires clarification. Tmangray (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The description referred to by Redwood Regional Park was Gibbons' description of Salmo iridia taken from San Leandro Creek. The article correctly states that Walbaum's type description was conspecific and therefore had precedence. Unfortunately Gibbon's type specimen, deposited at California Academy of Sciences, is missing and was presumably lost in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

Isolated above two dams and in East Bay Municipal Utilities District's closed watershed lands, remnants of this population have been verified through genetic analysis to be pure coastal rainbow trout suitable for reestablishment of steelhead populations. Despite being taxonomically marginalized, it remains a very significant population. Salmo13 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Length and Weight

Doesn't this section belongs in the Fish article instead of one for a specific species? Without objection, I'll move it.Lfstevens (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The info is specific to rainbow trout and well sourced. I say leave it.Fishgeek (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been fishing rainbow trout for many years and have tried applying the above formula however I believe it is flawed as it doesn't take into acount the fishes girth. It says every 18" rainbow will weigh ~2.5 lb this of course is not true ! The formula that I use is Length X Girth X Girth divided by 850. This formula may not be absolutely acurate to the gram but it is quite close in measuring 1 - 20 lb rainbows. I hope this helps!Flonner (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

added external link to factsheet

New link to Glansis database.Thanks. Greatlakesavenger (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New Work

I am a student at the University of Washington and for one of my courses we are creating Wikipedia entries and pages. Over the next few days I am adding some entries on the Southern California Steelhead DPS. This my first go at this, so bear with me. ThanksHbstriker (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hberna4. Peer reviewers: Ccoult2, SDuncan123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I find the statement in the section Fishing to be biased:

These excellent qualities have resulted in the Rainbow Trout being introduced to many countries around the world. In their new homes Rainbow trout are a revered and highly prized sportfish whose value to the community vastly exceeds that of the poor eating and poor fighting native fish that they replaced.

Such a subjective statement on the value of the fish without substantiation seems especially flagrant considering the species is considered one of the top 100 invasive species (source: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=103&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by67.160.151.1 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the offending paragraph to make it more realistically reflect the situation, or at least remove the offending pro-sports fishery POV.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring content for more balance between freshwater and steelhead forms

Using this section as a placeholder for content while moving it around.

Several other fish in the salmonid family are called trout; some are anadromous like salmon, whereas others are resident in freshwater only.

--Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In 2010, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife hatchery expects to more than double its take over 2009. The 2009 population grew 60% over 2008. Hatchery-taken fish will spawn tens of thousands of juvenile "smolts" that will be released to swim downstream and mature in the Pacific.

--Mike Cline (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The snail has no natural predators or parasites in the United States, and consequently has become an invasive species. Densities have reached greater than 300,000 individuals per m² in the Madison River. It can reach concentrations greater than 500,000 per m², endangering the food chain by outcompeting native snails and water insects for food, leading to sharp declines in native populations. Fish populations, including rainbow trout, suffer because the native snails and insects are their main food source.

In March 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported the New Zealand mud snail had infested watersheds in the Santa Monica Mountains, complicating efforts to improve stream-water quality for the steelheads. According to the article, the snails have expanded "from the first confirmed sample in Medea Creek in Agoura Hills to nearly 30 other stream sites in four years." Researchers at the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission believe the snails' expansion may have been expedited after the mollusks traveled from stream to stream on the gear of contractors and volunteers. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

http://blueocean.org/documents/2012/03/trout-steelhead-full-species-report.pdf

References

Seafood Watch reliable source?

The article cites two Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) Seafood Watch sources (a webpage here and PDF here) a total of 11 times.

Seafood Watch recruits "Business Partners" and "Business Collaborators" to steer suppliers and retailers toward more sustainable seafood sources. However, while they don't publish terms of the agreements, it's possible that their business affiliates are paying Seafood Watch, effectively becoming clients. Affiliates can use MBA/Seafood Watch's names and logos in advertisements, and the MBA endorses and promotes the business affiliates in various ways. A normal arrangement for any trade group, and a good way of self-regulating a notoriously poorly regulated industry.

However, it calls into question Seafood Watch as an independent, reliable source for some information. For example, they tout farmed trout as being "relatively efficient" compared to other carnivorous species, which is true, but a more neutral 2001 Pew report stated it as farmed trout were fed 1.46 pounds of wild-caught fish per pound of trout.

I'd also watch for US-centric bias in their information, as they only represent US business interests. The Wikipedia article cites Seafood Watch for the not-very neutral claim “While the U.S. rainbow trout industry as a whole is viewed as ecologically responsible,[34] trout raised elsewhere are not necessarily farmed with the same methods.[32]” The second part of that is obvious and accurate, but it's also a subtle form of scare-mongering.

––Agyle (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This was legacy content before the GA so I am not as familar with it as I should be. I suspect we will find that Seafoodwatch.org is a reliable source. We know it is a notable organization: Seafood Watch. As for the POV/NPOV of the content I will review. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I added some links to this in the food section. It's not all legacy. The organization is legit, so I suspect their site will be as well, but other eyes than mine best for review. The point for our article is that it's illegal to sell wild-caught trout in US restaurants, so farmed is what is served, so how does it stack up in the eyes of outside sources... Montanabw^(talk) 01:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI these sources: [2], [3], [4] not currently cited in the article, confirms the Seawatch content. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In case this complaint arises again it might not hurt to eliminate some of the Seawatch refs and replace them with the ones you found...spreading the wealth around on references is a good thing.--MONGO 14:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The more, the merrier. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw, there's no question about Seawatch's legitimacy or stature; even the NY Times cites them. I raised the question only in regards to their impartiality. Like you might not quote an apple grower's marketing association about the safety of apples or treatment of apple pickers. While Seafood Watch won't reveal details of their business agreements, they publish an apparently comprehensive list of business partners and collaborators, and no trout aquaculture facilities stood out to me, so there's not an obvious conflict on this species. Chilean sea bass would be murkier; Whole Foods, perhaps their most significant business partner, had huge demand but couldn't sell farmed Chilean sea bass until Seafood Watch reached an agreement with an organization to approve only their farm Chilean sea bass for sale by their business partners, opening up millions of dollars in business. Then there's the issue of even the approved fish being counterfeit, but that's a separate issue. Some 20,000 metric tons of rainbow trout and steelhead trout of unknown/untraceable origin is sold in the US each year as wild salmon. Agyle (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

,

Seafoodwatch is an advocacy organization. As with ALL advocacy organizations, large or small, prominent or obscure, there is bias and partiality in what they say. Advocacy organizations profit from their advocacy, not from their impartiality. This is a universal truth. This however, doesn't make information that flows from them, un-encyclopedic or inappropriate for WP. But your last sentence: Some 20,000 metric tons of rainbow trout and steelhead trout of unknown/untraceable origin is sold in the US each year as wild salmon. is interesting. Do you have a reliable source we can cite for this? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Steelhead not a rainbow trout subspecies

Your recent edits to the Rainbow trout article asserting that steelhead are not a subspecies of O mykiss are unsupportable with reliable sources. As the Rainbow trout article is a WP Featured Article, it has undergone a lot of scrutiny. Please discuss such changes and assertions on the article talk page before making unsupportable edits in the future. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Before reverting edits by asserting they are 'unsupportable with reliable sources', on my talk page (not the talk page for rainbow trout), please check the sources I cited. Citations for steelhead not being a subspecies of O.mykiss are plentiful. Steelhead is a life history of O. mykiss, not a subspecies. Anadromous O. mykiss = steelhead, freshwater O. mykiss = rainbow trout. I thought my inline citations in the edit from NOAA and WDFW were enough but here are more:

"no subspecies are currently recognized within any of the species of Pacific salmon"

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/brt/steelhead041905.pdf

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/steelhead.html

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm

Quinn, Thomas P., 2005, The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda MD; University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E08D

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_kingdom=every&search_span=containing&search_value=161989

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/cwcs/pdf/Steelhead%20(Snake%20River%20basin).pdf

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/wdfw00150.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Publications/FP124.pdf

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/449.full.pdf

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/regarding_salmon_esus.pdf

Klolo9 (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klolo9 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the the 2nd paragraph of the first source you cite above. Clearly, there are no recognized subspecies of the five original Pacific Salmon (Onchorhynchus). But the remainder of the 2nd paragraph of the first source you list above clearly states that steelhead are anadromous forms of three different subspecies of rainbow trout as per Behnke. The article does not assert that steelhead are a subspecies, but rather steelhead (an anadromous form) occurs in three subspecies (O. m. mykiss, irideus, and gairdneri). Your edits, although cited, do not convey the correct information about steelhead/rainbow trout.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazing so much web based info is incorrect or at least misleading. That's why we have Wikipedia...I guess.--MONGO 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying you are amazed by misleading information on the internet, implying the information I cited is incorrect, is misleading in itself. The information I cited comes from NOAA, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Game, the peer reviewed ICES Journal of Marine Sciences, publications of the American Fisheries Society and University of Washington. I cited this information because all of these talk about steelhead with no mention of it being exclusive to specific subspecies of O. mykiss. A couple of these do talk about subspecies but they list different numbers of subspecies, so they don’t even agree with eachother (Idaho says 5, ITIS says 8, NOAA says none are recognized). Klolo9 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of what the first report I cited says and I think you are misinterpreting my concern with the article saying steelhead are the anadromous form of 2 subspecies. The article clearly states states that Behnke has proposed 2 subspecies of O. mykiss but “NO SUBSPECIES ARE CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED WITHIN ANY OF THE SPECIES OF PACIFIC SALMON”. Thus is it misleading to say in the opening paragraph about O. mykiss that steelhead are the anadromous type of two specific subspecies when the existence of subspecies are not universally recognized by those who study them. The NOAA report also says steelhead is the common name for anadromous O. mykiss and goes on to say that there are additional subspecies (again after saying that subspecies are not officially recognized) that exhibit anadromy beyond the two you have listed in the opening paragraph. I wasn’t going to bother getting into the subspecies debate, I just wanted the opening paragraph to not assert that steelhead only occur in specific subspecies. Steelhead is merely the common name of any O. mykiss that exhibits anadromous life history while rainbow trout (et al.) is the common name for O. mykiss that exhibits a freshwater life history. Also all the ESA listing information makes no mention of subspecies of O. mykiss. If steelhead were associated with only specific recognized subspecies, wouldn’t that be stated in the thousands of pages of documents from scientists at NOAA and USFWS relating to listing of O. mykiss populations? ESA criteria says they can list species by subspecies if warranted but in the case of Pacific salmon (including O. mykiss) the listing agencies have decided that DPS is a more accurate classification than subspecies.

In your note explaining why you deleted my edits you said “Your recent edits to the Rainbow trout article asserting that steelhead are not a subspecies of O mykiss are unsupportable with reliable sources.” Prior to this I never was trying to explain that steelhead weren’t a subspecies. After reading your comment, it seems you were claiming that there are no reliable sources that say steelhead are not a subspecies. This simply is not true. Since this is getting into the subspecies and classification debate, the subspecies section could use some editing to reflect the differing opinions among scientists on classifications of this species. Even for those that do say there are subspecies, this page lists more subspecies than most reliable sources. It seems as if this page is relying exclusively on information from Behnke (or others that cite him) and ignoring information from other reliable sources.

Additional quotations from my 'misleading' sources that I am misinterpreting:

WDFW-Steelhead and rainbow trout are the same species, but rainbow are freshwater only, and steelhead are anadromous, or go to sea.

NOAA/NMFS-They are a unique species; individuals develop differently depending on their environment. While all O. mykiss hatch in gravel-bottomed, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated rivers and streams, some stay in fresh water all their lives. These fish are called rainbow trout. The steelhead that migrate to the ocean develop a slimmer profile, become more silvery in color, and typically grow much larger than the rainbow trout that remain in fresh water.

WDFW - Two genetically distinct groups of O. mykiss inhabit Washington (Allendorf 1975; Phelps et al. 1997), a coastal form native to the area west of the Cascade crest, and an inland form native to the area east of the Cascades. Both the coastal and inland forms exhibit anadromous and resident life histories. Behnke (1992) considers these two groups different subspecies, O. mykiss irideus and O. mykiss gairdneri, respectively.

NOAA - The capacity of O. mykiss to exhibit two quite different life histories is an interesting and important evolutionary feature of the species. The anadromous life history appears to be the ancestral condition in salmonids (McDowall 2002). Resident populations of O. mykiss have often been established from resident, steelhead, and mixed stock sources (Behnke 1992). However, even though resident populations can be established easily behind migration barriers, the reverse process has been documented to have occurred just once (Pascual et al. 2001). In this case anadromy has evolved from a stock introduced to the Santa Cruz River, however it is unclear whether the introduced stock was composed of pure resident genotypes (Behnke 2002; Pascual et al. 2002; Rossi et al. 2004).

You also keep removing my edit of the size of steelhead. NOAA and ADFG say they reach up to 55 lbs, not 20 lbs. WDFW says on average they are up to 40 lbs, ODFW lists the Oregon state record as 35 lbs, and IDFG lists the Idaho state record as 30 lbs.

Klolo9 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you asserting that O. mykiss irideus coastal rainbow trout, O. m. gairdneri (Columbia River redband trout), and O. mykiss mykiss (Kamchatkan rainbow trout) are not recognized subspecies? [5] would argue otherwise. And are you asserting that steelhead are not the anadromous forms of these three subspecies despite all the evidence to the contrary? Simple Yes or No please. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Sorry to not just answer yes or no but I was actually making an effort to improve this article. I could write a peer reviewed paper with the citations I provided yet somehow I am wrong while everything in this article is correct regardless of evidence that shows classification of O. mykiss beyond the species level is not uniformly agreed to within the scientific community that studies these fish. How is attempting to belittle me and turn a complicated scientific debate on speciation into a yes or no question helpful to this article or Wikipedia in general?

When there is legitimate scientific debate over species classification, it is disingenuous to pretend it doesn’t exist. You pointed to one US government site that lists 8 subspecies, the Wikipedia page lists 11 subspecies. I pointed to a US government site that says there are no recognized subspecies and a state government site that says 5 subspecies. I also pointed to a myriad of citations that don’t use a subspecies classification but instead use a population segment classification for variations within the species. I am not saying there are not subspecies of O. mykiss, I am saying scientists are not united on the existence of subspecies and/or how to separate or classify them, so this article shouldn’t treat it like a scientific fact. I am ‘asserting’ that steelhead are the anadromous form of O. mykiss. Completely separate from steelhead, I am 'asserting' that information on the classification of O. mykiss beyond the species level should be presented in an unbiased and accurate way.

I am not going to bother trying to improve this article anymore because it is pointless. There is lots peer reviewed literature I didn’t cite here because access to major fisheries journals tends to be cost prohibitive for those who do not work in the field. But really how much more evidence do you need than a joint paper by the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service on the status of salmonids that says “Although no subspecies are currently recognized within any of the species of Pacific salmon, Behnke (1992) has proposed that two subspecies of O. mykiss with anadromous life history occur in North America,” to show that the subspecies are not universally accepted by the scientific community that studies salmon?

Klolo9 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Klolo9 – I still believe you are completely misinterpreting the statement Although no subspecies are currently recognized within any of the species of Pacific salmon, Behnke (1992) has proposed that two subspecies of O. mykiss with anadromous life history occur in North America,” contained in the NOAA source. NOAA is citing Behnke’s 1992 work “Native Trout of Western North America” a monograph he published through the American Fisheries Society. It became the basis for his more comprehensive, and considered seminal work “Trout and Salmon of North America” (2002). In that work is contained the following text in the chapter “Genus Oncorhynchus” (pages 13-21). It is available online via [6].

• On page 13 – The genus Oncorhynchus is recognized today to include ten species and some 28 subspecies worldwide. This book covers nine North American Oncorhynchus species and 25 subspecies. …Included are the species of Pacific Salmon, the rainbow and redband trout, the cutthroat trout, the golden trout, the Gila and Apache trout , the Mexican golden trout and a group of rainbow like trout … from Mexico.
• On page 13 – The terms “salmon” and “trout” as used in this book may be confusing. … In this context, the term “salmon” usually means the large bodied fish that live the bulk of their life in the sea and returns to fresh water to spawn. Five species of North American Oncorhynchus have traditionally been called salmon—chinook, coho, pink, chum and sockeye salmon.
• On page 13 – ”Trout” has traditionally meant a usually smaller bodied fish that typically resides its whole life in a freshwater streams or lake and can spawn more than once. The rainbow trout, cutthroat trout and all other members of the genus Oncorhynchus discussed in the species accounts in this book are named in this context, even though two subspecies of rainbow trout and one subspecies of cutthroat trout have a sea-going life history. The sea-run rainbow trout-called the Steelhead-may like the five salmon, live most of its life in the sea and can become quite large.
• On page 18 – After a lengthy discussion of why there are so many Oncorhynchus subspecies for rainbow and cutthroat trout, Behnke makes this statement. For example, there are no subspecies among the five species of Pacific salmon, because without a geographical barrier isolating adjacent populations, a fully anadromous species does not typically partition its diversity into discrete units that might be classified as subspecies.
  • Whether the NOAA author paraphrased or copyvio’d Behnke’s 1992 statement on Pacific salmon subspecies, I can’t tell because I don’t have the 1992 version handy. Clearly, the 2002 work makes it unequivocal that according to Behnke, there are many subspecies in the genus Oncorhynchus, including two that are called steelhead in their anadromous forms. If there are not, as you are asserting, then even Behnke contradicts himself in his seminal work. Although not everyone agrees with some of Behnke's ideas, I know of no source that explicitly contradicts Behnke and explicitly states there are no subspecies in the genus Oncorhynchus, or more specific within O. mykiss. If one interpreted the statement in the NOAA article as you have, then the 14 or so recognized subspecies of cutthroat trout (‘’Oncorhynchus clarki’’) would not exist as well (equally unsupportable with reliable sources).

Here’s the content in question:

• Sentence in lead prior to Klolo9 edit: The steelhead (sometimes "steelhead trout") is an anadromous (sea-run) form of the coastal rainbow trout (O. m. irideus) or Columbia River redband trout (O. m. gairdneri) that usually returns to fresh water to spawn after living two to three years in the ocean.
• Sentence in lead after Klolo9 edit: The steelhead salmon (sometimes called "steelhead trout") is an anadromous (sea-run) form of O. mykiss that returns to fresh water to spawn after living one to three years in the ocean.

Klolo9’s edit does not improve the article for two reasons. It implies that steelhead are not anadromous forms of two rainbow trout subspecies [unsupportable with reliable sources as demonstrated above] and it refers to steelhead as steelhead salmon. The latter reference, although it does appear in some sources, is a much far less used colloquial usage. Steelhead is the accepted common name for anadromous forms of rainbow trout. The use of “steelhead salmon” confuses many issues associated with this trout species. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This gets back to my point which perhaps sounded a bit snide. Newer information overrides the older information but much that is on the web and in print doesn't keep up with the most modern information. My reading of the latest info is that Steelhead are trout only and only trout of the subspecies Mike Cline mentions.--MONGO 19:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The rainbow trout is trout or The rainbow trout is a trout? —George8211 / T 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed --Mike Cline (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand Mud Snails: why in this article?

The two paragraphs about the mud snail would be OK as a stub article about the snail itself. They say nothing about the mollusc's impact on rainbow trout. Why are they in this article? IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

True. Therefore should be removed. Olaff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, you don't remove two sourced paragraphs, you get off your duff and go find more source material to strengthen the section. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I do not understand this logic. There is no reference to the rainbow trout in these paragraphs (neither in the New Zealand mud snail article). The justification for this material being here has been questioned in a very explicit way, and evidently this question was targeted to the "lead authors". There has been no response for two months, and Montanabw either is not suggesting any justification. I would see the burden is now on the defense. One week more to go? Olaff (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the article, I just added the relevant material. That said, a drive-by account with fewer than 50 edits and no involvement in the article here is generally going to be ignored. You have some editing experience with fish articles and know what a good FAC needs, thus you have a responsibility to make an effort to correct a situation rather than be lazy and remove material. A quick look at the relevant article on mud snails provided the information needed, it took me five minutes to fix. You should have done this yourself instead of deleting an entire section of material on a major threat to the rainbow trout population in certain areas. That was lazy. Very, very lazy. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but your addition or these sections still do not refer directly to rainbow trout in any way, and from that point are not justified here. You may be hinting that the educated reader should make some conclusions from the text? That is not how an encyclopedia is supposed to be written. Anything you imply should be directly stated in the source. And any sentence should be relevant to the topic? Or are there guidelines to the contrary? Olaff (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This article passed FAC and has appeared on the main page of wikipedia as is. Yes, educated readers can infer that the problems generally with this snail and its appearance in rivers hosting rainbow trout does mean it is a problem, particularly when you read the entire article instead of cherry-picking one section. Frankly, I was not the primary editor on this article, though I contributed to it. For that reason, I think it more appropriate for @Mike Cline: to comment further as he has access to more source material. But your actions in removing the entire section was out of line. Frankly, if you don't like what I added, then go find better material. here's a google search to get you started. Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added relevant support. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

lake-dwelling and anadromous forms may reach 20 lb (9.1 kg).

The lede contains the above conversion from 20 lb to "9.1 kg" that seems inappropriate precision to me, and I suggest rounding to "9 kg". I would have made this change myself, but I don't know how with the 'convert' function. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

fixed --Mike Cline (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

New Steelhead trout article

While doing new page patrol, I found that User:TF1013 has created the article Steelhead trout from a redirect. I think it's reasonable to have an article on the topic, so I've tried to correct some inaccuracies there (e.g. calling the steelhead a "species"), but my knowledge of ichthyology is limited at best, so I thought I'd put up a notice here. --Slashme (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Splck listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Splck. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Some comments

Here are a few points in response to a request for comments. The section on taxonomy could do with an expanded discussion of the recent reclassification of Oncorhynchus mykiss as salmon, rather than trout. The article needs a distribution map, perhaps based on the FishBase map. There is no mention of the ocean ranges of different steelhead populations. The section on the life cycle talks about the spawning sites for freshwater resident rainbow trouts as though they are somehow different for steelhead. The aquaculture or farming of Oncorhynchus mykiss is commercially important and is not up to date. It needs a time production chart broken down by countries. The section on fishing omits the commercial capture of wild salmon and, again, needs a time production chart broken down by countries. There should be some accounting for the decline in wild caught salmon. Y Discussion of the species along the coast and inland for the west coast of the US is adequate, but is almost non-existent for Alaska and Russia. On the other hand, the details about the New Zealand mud snail and whirling disease are perhaps more than we need to know, and could be trimmed and relocated to more relevant articles. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Reclassification

Thanks for the comments. I'll be asking for some clarification in separate subsections. Re the 1988 reclassification of salmo to Oncorhynchus, the comment Oncorhynchus mykiss as salmon, rather than trout is technically incorrect as I think the reclassification referred to "Pacific trouts". The rainbow trout is still a trout, not a salmon. It just shares the same genus as the Pacific salmons because of genetic similarity. That said, I can certainly expand the taxonomy section with this source: Gerald R. Smith & Ralph F. Stearley (1989) "The Classification and Scientific Names of Rainbow and Cutthroat Trouts" in Fisheries v14, #1. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes you are correct. It's not an uncommon error as these Google Scholar results show. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Y --Mike Cline (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Distribution maps

Probably need some help here. Can the fishbase maps be loaded into the commons with a suitable license? Mike Cline (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried unsuccessfully to negotiate that some years ago. Those maps need to be redrawn using something like Inkscape. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Added a couple but need a global distribution of Rainbow map. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/programs/kamchatka/steelhead_project_report.php

The rainbow trout is also rather common in France's streams, from my personal experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.195.249.14 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Snails and disease

Agree. Most of this content came from the respective articles so nothing needs to move back. I'll trim some, especially on the snails which have much less unique impact on the rainbow than does whirling disease. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Y Trimmed a bunch and reworded slightly. Maybe some more should go, but I'll wait and see what the GA review says. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Life cycle

I've added a sentence to the steelhead section to clarify. The breakout resulted from the original text wholly ignoring the existence of resident populations of rainbow trout in freshwater. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Time production charts

Going to need some help here. Don't have a clue where to start. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do these at some point over the next few days. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Exercises effect on Rainbow Trout reproduction; Exercise and Reproduction trade offs in Rainbow Trout

I will be adding to the lifecycle page which this info when I have more sources. Here is the main source I will be drawing from

Palstra AP, Crespo D, van den Thillart GE, Planas JV. Saving energy to fuel exercise: swimming suppresses oocyte development and downregulates ovarian transcriptomic response of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2010 Aug;299(2):R486-99. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00109.2010. Epub 2010 May 5. PMID: 20445157. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hberna4 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox main picture

Why is the specimen in the infobox not displayed in its natural habitat (or an illustration of such)? I feel like a fishing picture is a bit out of place for the main picture even for a commonly caught fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.115.216.114 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA Review

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Rainbow trout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) My first opinion of this article is a positive one - well-written, comprehensive. after inspection, my comments and suggestions (I go section-wise): Lead Y Look at the first two sentences. Is the steelhead a form of and not just a synonym of the rainbow trout? If it is a form, don't write steelhead in bold, and if it is a synonym, mention it in the first line as The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or steelhead is a species... Y at sea-''in sea - "in the ocean" Y Delete the duplicate links North America and Great Lakes. Y References are not needed in the lead if the facts are already mentioned in the body of the article later on (with references, of course). I haven't checked that, just a thing to remember. Y Please add more to the Lead. This should look like a mini-form of this article. Include all aspects discussed in the article in a systematic manner in the Lead. Taxonomy Y Firstly, clearly mention the scientific name of rainbow trout (let it be the first line). Y Who are Richardson, Gibbons, Gerald Smith and Ralph Stearley? Give their professions clearly. Y I would suggest to make the section "Subspecies" a sub-heading under this section, as they are much related. Description Y Convert pounds into kilograms everywhere. Range Y coastal waters and tributary rivers and streams - How about using the comma here? Y Delete duplicate links Pacific basin and Kamchatka Y pacific coast. "p" in upper case. Y southern most-southernmost YLast part has no reference. YI think the image with the caption Native range of anadromous form of Oncorhynchus mykiss, steelhead should be used in this section. Y I suggest shifting this article below the "life cycle" section. The description and life cycle go well together. Life cycle Y Don't write steelhead in bold again. Y Atlantic salmon,smolts,Pacific basin, brown trout, salmon, brown and cutthroat trout are duplicate links Y Once steelhead enter riverine systems and reach suitable spawning grounds, they spawn just like resident freshwater rainbows. no reference. Y Spawning sites are usually a bed ... area, habitat, life history and quality and quantity of food. totally unreferenced. Y Use references in "Length and weight" Not sure I can do anything with this. This section is legacy text from the original article before I began re-writing and re-balancing the content. Not quite sure it is actually relevant or encyclopedic in the context of the overall article. I would much prefer it was removed from the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Same here. I re-read the section, I believe it seems out of place and full of obscure and unnecessary stuff. I have removed it.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Can we have a caption for the graph used? See above comment Y Write one-third rather than 1/3 Y at sea-''in sea - "in the ocean" YI would recommend Feeding to be made an independent section Y Illustration of a rainbow trout is an unnecessary picture. It seems to be crowding the place. Artificial propagation Y and introduce rather write for their introduction Y Hatchery, Germany are duplicate links Y Introduced rainbow trout in regions outside their native range have established wild, self-sustaining populations where healthy conditions exist for spawning and growth unreferenced. Y and recently in Chile Not sure what recently means here. Can you mention what time you are speaking of? This was legacy content. My review of the sources indicate that the use of the word "recently" was a bit of vague OR on the part of the contributor. I removed the adverb, as regardless of when Chile became a producer, sources confirm they are the largest. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Good that you removed that vague term. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Fishing, As Food YI would suggest to you to make these two sections sub-headings under an independent section "Uses" or under some other appropriate name. Let this be the last section in the article. Y Other introductions to ... the Great Lakes. unreferenced - references moved from lead Y Washington Coast Link the whole phrase properly otherwise don't link Washington at all. Y Columbia River, farmed duplicate links Y favor-flavor Conservation YColumbia river redband trout have -Columbia river redband trout, have Y EPA-approved What is EPA? Y Duplicate links: Alaska, British Columbia,threatened,endangered,Cutthroat trout,brown trout, Montana,invasive species, Idaho, Firehole River,Yellowstone National Park,game fish,Enteric redmouth disease,fish farms,Southern California DPS. Y No reference for Trout Unlimited (Advocacy Groups) Y No references in Didymo Y The parasite infects its hosts with its cells after piercing them with polar filaments ejected from nematocyst-like capsules. No reference Subspecies YMy earlier suggestion about shifting this section Y Why don't you use an image or two of some subspecies here (if available)? So most problems are with verifiability and duplicate links. Please use my suggestions and respond soon. This is an article worthy to be a GA. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Initial response to GA review Thanks, all good comments. Will work through them as soon as possible and highlight above as I fix. Am traveling this week so am away from my library, but I think I have or can get sources for all the needed areas as nothing here is not verifiable. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Great! We have most of the things done, just a few things left which you need to do. I do not find any more problems in the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC) @Sainsf - Take a look at it now. I think I've addressed all the issues you raised. Please note there's one exception on the "Length-Weight". --Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC) The "exception" has been addressed. A few minor trifles that I noticed (Subspecies). *Y Again, who do you refer to in Carl et al. (1994)? Remember, in whatever article you write, you must not just mention names of the persons you are referring to, give their professions clearly as well. *YThe palomino trout ... golden trouts of California. No reference. See that every fact is referenced throughout the text. Rest is well. I believe that once you see to these things, the article can be passed. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Got the last of it done. Thanks for all the comments. It definitely made for a better article. I will apply these types of comments to every article I work on. Thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Final review Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; Initially a few problems, but now ✓ Pass (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Perfect, ✓ Pass Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; ✓ Pass in verifiability. (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); ✓ Pass (c) it contains no original research ✓ Pass Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Perfectly. No doubt ✓ Pass (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Initially a few unnecessary things, now removed. So, ✓ Pass Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✓ Pass Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✓ Pass Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; ✓ Pass (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions ✓ Pass Therefore, Y GA promoted. I appreciate your quick and efficient hard work. The next big push for this article would be FAC. But no need to hurry, add more relevant and interesting literature, and with the efforts of such a good editor as you are, I have no doubt that this article will soon adorn the main page. Good luck! :) Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

I agree with the post above, here are some better choices and the category on Commons.

Pinging major contributors/maintainers @Mike Cline and Horse Eye's Back:

1

2

3

Category:Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout)

• I like 1, but any would be better, I think. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No responses', changing to image 1. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Added image 2 instead. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)