Talk:Lamprey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

could someone get a picture of a lamprey besides its mouth as a portrait pic? i admit it's freaky and cool, but that's not the aim for an encyclopedia entry.

Is this OK? --83.253.26.39 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Business Question

Sould Great Lakes lampreys be harvested and sold in SW Europe? --D. G. Borkowski

Lampray mouth removed, because it makes some people feel bad in certain ways, to view it.

[edit] Locations

They are found only in temperate regions, except for Africa- that's why they're not in tropical regions? How does this make sence?


[edit] minor edit

I edited the piece on effects of lamprocide. Harmful effects on other species have been documented 01:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted 'horrifying'; no basis, subjective, pointless.Dmccabe

[edit] confusion about classification

This article cites a book about modern fish saying that classifies lampreys as the sole member of the class Cephalaspidomorphi, so the article for that class now redirects to the lamprey article. But the name Cephalaspidomorphi was coined to include a group of fossil armored fish, the cephalaspids, which in turn was named for the genus Cephalaspis. The cephalaspids are usually regarded as a synonym or subgroup of the Osteostraci, which is entirely extinct. Some other orders of fossil jawless fish have also been included in the Cephalaspidomorphi.

Now, it may be that lampreys are the sole surviving cephalaspidomorphs, since their anatomy of the lamprey brain resembles that preserved in fossil skulls of Osteostracans. (The exact relations of lampreys to other jawless fish are disputed, see below.) But it makes no sense to have a separate article about cephalaspids (Osteostraci) while assuming that Cephalaspidomorphi is synonymous with lampreys, which may be the sole surviving twig of that group.

The article on Agnatha compounds the confusion by separately listing as subgroups the Osteostraci (which does not mention it belongs to Cephalaspidomorphi), Cephalaspidomorphi (which redirects to lampreys), and Petromyzontidae (which rightly redirects to lampreys).

Since some workers do not regard the lampreys as close relatives of the cephalaspids (see the Tree of Life link below) and reject their classification as Cephalaspidomorphi, it might be best to classify them as Petromyzontiformes within the Vertebrata and leave it at that for now. I'll try to clear up these articles over the next few days, but I hope someone more familiar with fossil fish will jump in.

Here are some external links:

Cephal-odd 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older Fossil Found

Scientists recently discovered a fossil about three times older than the one mentioned in the article.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061025185208.htm

I'll let someone else edit the article. I'm not good at pretentious encyclopedia prose. The article cited may have some other useful ionfo. as well pertaining to this article.


  -Adam S.

[edit] vandalism

It appears we have someone who is not fond of these beasties and is taking it out on the page. I apologize if any of my reverting has removed anything useful, but there were too many pieces to fix by editing so I simply saved an older version back to the main page.Dmccabe 03:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/m/Talk%7ELamprey_7099.html"