Talk:Cleaner fish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Fish Portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Fishes and is associated with the Fish Portal.

[edit] Starting over

Merely a vandalised empty page. I've added some material now and removed the "speedy deletion" message. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Moved from Talk:Cleaning station, and slightly modified in the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest merging into cleaner station and cleaner shrimp to cleaner fish - this article is itself in need of greater detail. Richard001 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically the shrimp are not fish, but they are often treated as 'cleaner fish'. Something specifically more broad such as cleaner species or cleaner (animal) could be used if needed. All these articles cover the same phenomena though, as all species have a similar niche. Additionally, the two articles I've nominated to be merged here are particularly small. Richard001 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Against unless it can be shown that the distribution of cleaner-shrimp and fish are restricted to cleaning stations. This doesn't appear to be the case, as there are cleaners that follow whales and sharks in open waters. I think the subjects are clearly delineated. Bendž|Ť 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Against. Cleaning stations are used by a subset of fish that are cleaner fish. In other words, not all cleaner fish occupy cleaning stations. As far as I know, cleaning stations are completely marine phenomena. The cleaner fish that inhabit brackish and freshwater habitats do not use cleaning stations. So while the two articles should certainly be developed alongside one another, with editors contributing to both and use the one to explain aspects of the other, they definitely are NOT sensible merge candidates. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Against and please do not delete the rare images.--Mbz1 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Against 2 different subjects, should have 2 pages. --Stefan ^talk 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You still fail to convince me. The cleaner station phenomenon is clearly limited to cleaner species (fish and the few non-fish cleaners). It doesn't have to occur in all species - this can be explained easily enough in the article. Secondly, the cleaner station article is absurdly stubbish, and half of the material just replicates that at others anyway. Let me clarify things visually if you need it:

• Cleaner species (fish and shrimp)
  • Cleaner stations (used by some species)

If there were non-cleaner species that used cleaning stations, the objection would be more valid, but at present it's like suggesting Batesian mimicry should have its own article because not all mimics are Batesian (that will probably prove a bad example if anyone ever splits it off, but the logic applies, and these have much less potential, especially cleaner station.) Richard001 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My problem with your solution here would be that you end up creating an article for a term that (as far as I know) doesn't exist, "cleaner species". In the aquarium hobby at least, these animals are always referred to as either "cleaner fish" or "cleaner shrimps". Furthermore, we're talking about a range of behaviours here, not just one. Some fishes appear to be obligate cleaners (Labroides spp. wrasse) and depend entirely on their cleaning services for nutrition. But other cleaner fishes do not. Within Elacatinus spp. gobies you have a spectrum from species that live commensally inside sponges through to coral dwelling zooplankton feeders to species that perform cleaning services for at least part of their nutrition. The freshwater cleaner fish certainly do not maintain stations, and in the case of the brackish water Etroplus spp., the cleaning behaviour is a unique symbiosis between two species and the service by E. maculatus does not seem to be extended to any other host species. The shrimps are at least as variable as the fish. Finally, a cleaning station is a particular phenomenon observed on coral reefs. It doesn't seem to have a parallel anywhere else, even though cleaning behaviours have been reported across a wide range of taxa, both marine and freshwater. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Neal explained what I mean when I wrote '2 different subjects, should have 2 pages', I think to merge is to talk about two or three different things in one article. Sure all three are short, but still different. Cleaner species does exists, (I was about to prove that it did not but) google gives "Cleaner species" = 554, "cleaner fish" = 40,600 and "cleaner shrimp" = 105,000 hits, so I think that says that people would be quite unlikely to use that word. --Stefan ^talk 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the term I've been looking for is 'cleaning symbiosis' (see e.g. Cleaning symbiosis as an evolutionary game: To cheat or not to cheat?, Cleaning Behavior (Britannica) and others), which refers to the interspecific equivalent of social grooming rather than any particular species of cleaner (it seems to apply only to fish and shrimp, though I don't see why it wouldn't extend to birds cleaning parasites off ungulates etc). I suggest we create a new article cleaning symbiosis and consider merging cleaning station into it. We can then decide what to do with cleaner fish and shrimp - they could either be merged or kept separate. If we want to be really mergist we could even merge personal and social grooming and cleaning symbiosis into 'cleaning behavior', as with the EB article linked above, though I think that would be a bit much myself (perhaps a summary there would be an option, if personal and social were merged). If we are going to keep cleaning station though, I think we should seriously look at that option - four articles on the same behavior is a bit over the top. Richard001 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AGAINST. THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.30.252 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that cleaning station could be merged with cleaner fish, but not shrimp. Cleaner fish itself could be expanded upon greatly. There is a wealth of interesting and unexplained behavior these fishes, and the fishes they clean, have shown that could go into this article. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)