User talk:Norr

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Norr!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ລາວ | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

-- 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)