Share Your Point Of View On Australian Arowana

[Colin_T]

geo7x
read Post 7 & 13, they tell you that I am talking about South American Arrowana vs Asian & Australian Saratogas.

The links to the images did show two different fish. Not sure what happened to it but it has been adjusted so should now show two different fish again.

In Asia they call their species of Bony Tongues, Saratoga. The Chinese, Indonesians, Japanese all call them Saratoga. The UK calls them Arowana.

Before you start trying to argue about Family, Genus and Species you should learn which order they go in.

Saratoga, Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Osteoglossiformes
Family: Osteoglossidae
Subfamily: Osteoglossinae
Genus: Scleropages
Species: leichardti, jardinii, formosa

Arowana, Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Osteoglossiformes
Family: Osteoglossidae
Subfamily: Osteoglossinae
Genus: Osteoglossum
Species: bicirrhosum, ferreirai

The Genus makes a huge difference. It is what separates different groups in the same Family that have some similar characteristics.

Angelfish, Discus & Oscars are in the same Family (Cichlidae) but different Genera (plural of Genus), it seems to make a difference to what they are called. Likewise Neon & Cardinal tetras are in the same Family (Characidae), yet they get different common and Species names because they are different fishes.

 

[andywg]

I can't believe all this over common names. The Americans call them all aros, so do the Brits. The aussies have their own name for fish which they have over there. The Asians call them dragon fish. For this very reason scientific names are universally the same in any language.

Frogfish can be from the genera Antennatus, Antennarius, Lophiocharon or Histrio. They are all collectively referred to as frogfish or anglerfish (though anglerfish appears to also be used to refer to the entire Order Lophiiformes as well).

Similarly, spotted doradids (Platydoras costatus) are from a different genus to the spotted doradids (Agamyxis pectinifrons) yet I don't see calls for them to have completely different common names. Common names come about purely because it is what people refer to them as.

Consider porcupinefish. People endlessly refer to them as puffers when they aren't even in the same family as puffers, let alone genus (Family Diodontidae rather than Family Tetraodontidae). In this case it seems everything can be grouped together at the Order level (Order Tetraodontiformes). Then there are the Green Wolf Eels that don't even belong to the Order Anguilliformes (likewise the spiny FW eels).

The above shows that you cannot rely on the scientific name for a guide on how the common name convention will apply.

Colin, you have one naming convention for the common names of these fish in Australia, Britain and America has a different one. It's as simple as that.

 

[Colin_T]

Then the Brits and the yanks need to change their common names to suit
Alternatively specify Australian, Asian, African or South American before they say Arrowana. That way we all know what is being talked about.

If people just say Arrowana then they could be talking about any number of different species from any of those countries.

 

[three-fingers]

"Arowana" is the name most commonly used for fish from the genera Scleropages and Osteoglossum in at least the UK and US, the users of this forum are mainly from these two places so that's what they are most frequently going to be referred to as on this forum

...Electrophorus electricus and Mastacembelus erythrotaenia are in different superorders yet share the name common name "eel".

Also the name "tetra" seems to be randomly applied to characiformes whenever someone feels like it.

Don't see why there's a little discussion here, each person can call any species of fish whatever they want - so long as other people know what species they are referring to. "Australian Saratoga", "Australian Arowana"...it's a common name, most people here will know what you mean either way - so feel free to call it whatever you want!

They are common names, they don't actually have to make sense, though it would be nice if they did.

That's what the scientific names are for.

edit: Was beaten to it. Fun thread to read though .

 

[andywg]

If people just say Arrowana then they could be talking about any number of different species from any of those countries.

Indeed they could, but even with your system they still have two options on each one, either a silver or black aro (not too dissimilar) or a jardini or asian aro (very different in ability to combine with other fish) hence why the most common reply when someone ask about an "arowana" will be to clarify exactly which species.

If one wanted to be a bit pedantic...

Even if someone used a combination of what is usually used and what you want Colin (say, Australian Saratoga) it can still mean two different species. Jardini Arowana is far more clear as a common name as it includes part of the scientific name so narrows it down to species level straight away. Maybe you Aussies should change to the more generally accepted (and accurate) way

 

[Colin_T]

Which way is that Andy? Scientific names only
Ok, let's do that. From now on everyone must use scientific names when talking about fishes.
The Scleropages jardinii also comes from New Guinea so how does that get classed? Is it an Australian or Asian saratoga/arowana.

----------------------------------------------------------

For three-fingers
just because this is a UK dominated forum does not mean the UK common name should be used. After all, internet forums are used by people all over the world. 3.5billion people here, only 360million living in the UK & USA combined. So why should the rest of the world have to accept the common names used by two countries when there are hundreds of other countries out there that use other names for the same fish.

Tetra is used on Characins but they usually have something in front of the tetra, ie cardinal, rummynose, etc.

I spose Andy's way is probably best for this place. Jardinii arowana/saratoga so people know which species is being talked about.

I'm still gonna call them saratoga tho

 

[three-fingers]

Ok, let's do that. From now on everyone must use scientific names when talking about fishes.

Nooooooooooooo, look what this thread has done!

Though that would be great, spelling mistakes and invalid names would be causing confusion all over the place!

Well, OK..I'm just lazy.

For three-fingers
just because this is a UK dominated forum does not mean the UK common name should be used. After all, internet forums are used by people all over the world. 3.5billion people here, only 360million living in the UK & USA combined. So why should the rest of the world have to accept the common names used by two countries when there are hundreds of other countries out there that use other names for the same fish.

I never suggested anyone should use any name over another, In fact I said people should use whatever they want .
I merely stated the fact that 'arowana' will be used more frequently than anything else here due to the demographics of the forum .

Tetra is used on Characins but they usually have something in front of the tetra, ie cardinal, rummynose, etc.

As does 'arowana' - I most commonly encounter 'silver arowana', 'Asian arowana' and 'Australian arowana' when I see them in shops or people talk about them, but there are other commonly used prefixes in front of 'arowana' and lots of them are more specific.

Though 'tetra' is used on way more than just the characins, loads of people miss out the prefix and just say "I have tetras in my tank" the same as people miss out the prefix and say "I have an arowana in my tank", due to laziness and/or ignorance.

 

[Colin_T]

Ok, let's do that. From now on everyone must use scientific names when talking about fishes.

Nooooooooooooo, look what this thread has done!
Though that would be great, spelling mistakes and invalid names would be causing confusion all over the place!

yeah that would be interesting. Spell check freaks out enough as it is and I mainly use scientific names for rainbowfishes. It would spit the dummy if I tried to type in all the different tetras, barbs, cichlids, etc.
I think my computer would pack up and walk out

 

[OohFeeshy]

just because this is a UK dominated forum does not mean the UK common name should be used. After all, internet forums are used by people all over the world. 3.5billion people here, only 360million living in the UK & USA combined.

This is however a British-owned forum, so what we say goes

 

[Colin_T]

This is however a British-owned forum, so what we say goes

oh fine back at you

lol

 

[CFC]

and if you don't like it go and join an Australian forum and call fish silly names to your hearts content

 

[Colin_T]

I'm already in 4 Australian fish forums.
Anymore bright ideas

 

[DiscusAngel]

to get a life

 

[geo7x]

geo7x
read Post 7 & 13, they tell you that I am talking about South American Arrowana vs Asian & Australian Saratogas.

Oh right so you call asian arowanas saratogas as well? It just gets more and more confusing.

Before you start trying to argue about Family, Genus and Species you should learn which order they go in.

Touchy
I am fully aware of the order they go in tyvm, but the way I see it is that it is the family (i.e. Osteoglossidae ) that determines the second part of the common name (i.e. Arowana)

Using your discus-angel thing, yes they are both cichlidae, hence we call them both cichlids, even though they are different fish. Arowanas are all osteoglossidae, hence we call them both arowanas, even though they are different fish. That's my view on things anyway there seems to be some confusion here.

But I now I understand we obviously have different opinions on how common names are made so I think we could probably leave it at that.

 

[cheesy feet]

He must have one to be typing on t'internet...