User talk:Norr
|
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Alburnus vs Leucaspius
I lean towards identifying the fish as a bleak, primarily due to the length of the anal fin, which is much shorter in Leucaspius. Furthermore, Leucaspius has an incomplete lateral line, which is not visible in the photos. Etrusko25 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply and explanation (re: File:Alburnus alburnus cropped.jpg). But looking more closely I would now rather be more convinced about Leucaspius, referring for instance to the galleries of FishBase on Leucaspius vs. A. alburnus- Particularly, Alburnus has a complete and quite prominent lateral line, which is not visible in the photo. The line of Leuciscus is short and oblique, reaching to only about 7 scales (see the first FishBase image), and a ghost of such a short streak (on scales 3-7) actually seems to be present in both fishes of our photo. Leuciscus should have max 14 anal rays, Alburnus min. 17; I am not sure of the actual count, but it appears to be on the borderline anyway (14-16?) and not so decisive. Also, the eye is remarkably large. And if it would be Alburnus, the fishes would be remarkably young (small), and likely not something to be presented as (representative) females. - Norr (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)