Talk:Rainbow trout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
Rainbow trout is within the scope of WikiProject Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the assessment scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
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.
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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))
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
