Talk:Cynodon gibbus

Cynodon gibbus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 27, 2025. (Reviewed version).

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Fishes Low‑importance 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cynodon gibbus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OceanGunfish (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should be longer. It should summarize the entire article; for example, description is not summarized.

 Done Expanded.

• In the taxonbox, Agassiz, 1829 should be in brackets I think, because he named Rhaphiodon gibbus, not Cynodon gibbus.

 Done Yes, good catch.

• C. gibbus is the type species of the Cynodon genus, which was erected by Agassiz in 1829. – Not needed; you already say "described" (which links to species description) in the first sentence. It is incorrect, too: Technically, the type species should still be Rhaphiodon gibbus.

Comment The ICZN decision says Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and Cynodon gibbus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species. I rephrased and placed this information with the addition of the text from the next point.

• I hope you like Taxonomy sections as much as I do, because this one could be improved. You mention the neotype, but that is not explained and comes out of the blue. What was the original type (the holotype)? Was there any? Why had a neotype to be selected? When was that decided? Selecting a neotype requires a formal decision by the ICZN. Here is the case, and here is the decision. The case contains some very nice and interesting historical background information; you could try to expand the Taxonomy section with that, and it should be great.

 Done I moved the type specimen information into its own paragraph and expanded with information from the Toledo-Piza source. I also added an additional paragraph using these ICZN sources about the background of the description of Cynodon and Cynodon gibbus.

• I think the article needs a "Biology and ecology" section. The last sentence of the "Distribution" section could be moved to there, and the food info from "Description". You could also state where it is sympatric with its close relative of the same genus (stated in the Toledo-Piza paper). If you can find some more, that's even better (Maybe there is something on predators?).

 Done I moved this information to the new section and added its sympatry with C. septenarius. I could not find any information about predators of the species, but I added the diet of the fish's larval form.

Sources I obvioulsy looked at quite a few already, but here some specific checks:

• C. gibbus is assessed as a least concern species on the IUCN Red List. It is abundant in its range and has few identified threats. – This doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source. I think we need the IUZN source here ([1]).

 Done Thanks, I had gotten that information from there but seem to have missed a citation.

• and the fish's distinctive teeth make their heads of interest to artisans – I would say that this is inaccurate. The source says "due to their long and sharp canines", it doesn't say anything about being "distinctive"; the teeth are long and sharp and that makes them useful.

 Done Rephrased.

• Cite 5 is a database entry, and it says "Ex Neotype", not neotype. Please check, and I suggest to use better sources like those I linked above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See above.

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you so much for all your guidance in improving this article. I believe I have addressed all your points. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to look at. Thanks again. OceanGunfish (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This looks good now, so I am promoting; congrats! The last paragraph of "Taxonomy" is somewhat unclear and confusing, as if some information were missing that would be needed to really understand it. That could be a point to improve it further. Thanks for the article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Cynodon gibbus

• ... that the original type specimen of the fish species Cynodon gibbus may have been destroyed in a bombing raid?

• Source: The rest of Spix and Martius's specimens remained at the Zoologische Staatssammlung München but were destroyed during a bombing raid in 1944 (Terofal, 1983 and Kottelat, 1988). I was unable to locate any specimen of Cynodon gibbus potentially used by Agassiz as a basis for his description and it may have been destroyed. [2]

• ALT1: ... that the fish species Cynodon gibbus has canine-like teeth? Source: Cynodon gibbus is a piscivorous predator that uses its canines teeth to hold prey [3]
• Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by OceanGunfish (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

OceanGunfish (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• starting review--Kevmin § 13:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Where are you with this?--Launchballer 17:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanGunfish and Launchballer: Apologies, life tackled me for a bit. I will continue this now.--Kevmin § 17:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article new enough and long enough, GA passed soon after. The article is neutral and well cited, Alt0 is cited, verified to source and interesting. Alt1 is not actually present in the article as presented in the hook. No copyvio issues. Looks good to go.--Kevmin § 19:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]