Talk:Ocean sunfish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOcean sunfish is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 25, 2008.
Article milestones
July 7, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted


I uploaded a PD NOAA photo of Mola mola. IMHO that's a better representation than the line drawing. —Tkinias 18:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone refer to the fact that the Sunfish is the most prolific of all fish? --Lone Isle 07:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, "bizarre?" Isn't that an odd adjective to be in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article? Especially since it's a rather common fish. Is bizarre more of an emotional word than belongs here? --asarkees

Cleaned up the article to use the word "fishes" as little as possible - this is an English language page and the word "fishes" is terrible English. Example: do a Wikipedia search on the word "fishes", redirects to "fish".TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure about terrible english, that two names redirect to the same article does not mean they are interchangable, did you actually read the fish article and saw the difference between fish and fishes, as you changed the article now, most of the changes are wrong, some might be right, I'm not sure now, and to change a title in a reference is for sure wrong! Even if it is bad english it should stand as is. I do not have time to figure out if all your edits should be reverted or not now but will check and revert later unless you can state that what is stated in the fish article is wrong, which I assume is correct?!?!! --Stefan talk 06:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite sure that if the definition of fish/fishes in the fish page is correct, then this articel is/was correct also so I reveted back to the original. --Stefan talk 12:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is wrong to say that it is a delicacy in Taiwan : local people don't know what to do with this fish. They usually can just eat their intestine because the rest of the flesh is said to be full of water. A few years ago, in Hualien the fishermen got a lot of those fishes in their nets. So officials invented the concept of a festival for eating those. Two years later, conservationists convinced officials and fishermen to abandon the festival due to the decline of capture of Mola mola. (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any reference to support this? It would be appreciated to correct the text of article. --Furado (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure about the size thing. Is there a reference for the fact that this fish is the most massive of fish? Even the whole oarfish thing is dubious. Let's face it, the Guiness book of world records is not an authoritative source. AFAIK, the whale shark is the largest fish. Good records put it at over 12m. How much does a 12m whale shark weigh in comparison to the largest Ocean sunfish? Is there a reference for any of this?

One thing I do know for a fact is that Mola mola is the most derived of the fishes. — Dave 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not correct. Characters can be derived or ancestral, but species cannot -- all species are a combination of ancestral and derived characters. I've changed the text accordingly.— Sonitus 19:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other thing on the size issue. There is a clear conversion error in the article and it would be necessary to know which are the original units in order to fix the error. 13'10" is 4.2m; 3.3m is 10'10". Which is it? — Dave 16:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked and found that Mola mola grows to 333 cm and 2300 kg. This compares to the whale shark which grows to 2000 cm and 34000 kg and the oarfish which grows to 1100 cm and 272 kg. Hence, the ocean sunfish is far from the largest of the fishes. I will alter the article appropriately. — Dave 04:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whale shark

I don't know who is right, but the whale shark dimensions given here are much larger than what is stated in the whale shark entry, which says, "The greatest size accurately recorded was 12 meters (39 ft) long, with unofficial accounts of 18 meters (59 ft)." It would be good if these articles were consistent and the figures given in both were definitive.

Metamagician3000 11:43, 23 December 2005

Well, 'twas I who made that edit to this article. All I can say is that I pulled that size info right off of I have no idea where the size info in the Whale shark article came from. — Dave 03:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

its the largest BONY fish sharks are cartilaginous but yeah the whale shark is the biggest fish --Moose15

Even if we can't agree that it is or isn't* the largest, we might be able to agree that it looks pretty WEIRD.Dinotitan (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure an average is a single figure, not a range. Ftumch (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accuracy and accuracy tag[edit]

I question this sentence:

Because of its very short and stiff body, it has no more than 16 vertebra, and the spinal cord is under 15 mm long (less than 0.5 in).

First, how can its spinal cord be only 15mm long? And second, 15mm is NOT less than a half inch. Also, we know that the length of a body doesn't necessarily correlate to more vertebrae, so is it actually true that the fish has 'only' 16 vertebra?--Anchoress 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another questionable sentence: "They are reported to jump up to ten feet out of the water." Really? I have seen these fish. They are slow and sluggish. They have poor hydrodynamics. Elsewhere the article even says they are weak swimmers, as does the fishbase reference cited. How are they supposed to jump out of the water, let alone ten feet?! I have added an accuracy tag, as well as tagged sentences that cry out for citations. =Axlq 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, they're more like non-swimmers. The "ten feet out of the water" is pure BS.

The information I noted above has not yet been either verified or removed, so I'm adding an accuracy template. Anchoress 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what happened when I tried to add this the other day - apparently, all that got added was a "homeless" link. notes that "sunfish can also breach, clearing the surface by up to 3 body lengths—presumably as another tactic to dislodge parasites." The site seems reputable enough - I'd say that this activity is confirmed (although, to be truthful, I can't see how they do it). PaladinWhite 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Monterey Bay Aquarium website also notes that they "occasionally jump from the water." PaladinWhite 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of February 22, 2007, the article says that their spine is less then 25mm, (up from 15mm) so it is an improvement. However, that still doesn't seam long enough. Fusion7 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Montery Bay Aquarium claims: "Sunfish have the shortest spinal cord of any fish—a seven-foot sunfish has a spinal cord less than one inch (2.5 cm) long." [1] Ahibara 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the ocean sunfish could be the most massive fish; whale sharks don't count since they're cartilaginous fish, whereas this contest is restricted to fish with bone skeletons. as far as i know, it seems reasonable to me.

I question the accuracy of this sentence, in Phisiology: "It is able to change color rapidly from spotty to even-colored." I've searched and been unable to find any confirmation of color-changing abilities in mola mola - anyone else care to contribute a source? PaladinWhite 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After much discussion with a biologist working in Monterey Bay, California, information about this ability was added to I've re-added the section to the article, this time with a citation, so it looks like we're good to go. (Thanks, Tierney!) PaladinWhite 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of accuracy tag[edit]

I have removed the accuracy tag from this article, as I don't see any ongoing disputes. Priorly disputed facts were:

  • The size of the fish and its status as "the largest (bony) fish" - both have been corrected and referenced.
  • The length of the spinal cord and number of vertebrae - the length has been referenced, and I have edited the vertebrae count to read simply, "contains less vertebrae than any other fish."
  • Breaching behavior - the behavior has been referenced.
PaladinWhite 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am deeply concerned that this April 2007 National Geographic article you cited for jumping 10 feet out of the water, appeared 10 months after the original unsourced claim was inserted into this article by an anonymous editor. Prior to April 2007 I could find no sources verifying this claim. This suggests that National Geographic got it from Wikipedia. I asked National Geographic for the source of this statement but never received a response. Notwithstanding the respectability of National Geographic, it wouldn't surprise me if an author trying to meet a deadline used Wikipedia as an information resource. =Axlq 17:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Great work! This article has come a long way since I last looked at it. Fred Hsu 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I question this sentence: "It has an average adult weight of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb)" One kilogram is generally referred to as equaling 2.2 pounds, which is accurate enough in non-professional settings. However, if accuracy counts, one thousand kilograms is equal to 2,2046 pounds. Since the sentence is talking about average adult weight, there are several ways it could be edited to avoid the current inaccuracy. One would be to insert the word "about" before both numbers, ie: "It has an average adult weight of about 1,000 kg (about 2,200 lb)". Why does this matter? It matters because someone could read the article in it's current form, and having no scientific knowledge of weights and measurements, deduce (wrongly) that 1,000 kg does equal 2,200 lbs. Other sentences containing metric and U.S. standard conversions have the same accuracy problem. I have no problem with the intent of the author of those sections, I simply believe that accuracy demands some revision, or at least making it more clear that the measurements are rounded up or down by up to three decimal points. If the scientific classification and binomial name are presumed to be accurate, the measurements and conversions of those measurements should be as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THUMOV (talkcontribs) 05:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've just gone through and spent quite a while copyediting the article. It has the potential to be a great one and already includes lots of good information, but to be quite honest, some sections read like a 6th-grade science report.

I left the Sightings section alone, because I wasn't confident in editing it - some of the entries sound trivial ("A dead fish floated into a river, and some students saw some fish... at an institution designed to watch fish... So what?") but I thought I'd leave the opportunity for someone else to add information expounding on the significance of the sightings. Obviously, these things aren't all that rare, and just seeing one doesn't really qualify for an entry on Wikipedia - I think we need to eliminate those which aren't significant in some way.

Other than that... If you feel like it, please take a couple minutes and read the diff, see if I screwed anything up in the process! PaladinWhite 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a few more things with the article; in the near future I'm planning on organizing the Phisiology section a bit better and completely citing all references (rather than just providing an external link). I removed the Sightings section and moved all relevant information and links located there to other, more appropriate, sections of the article. PaladinWhite 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good work. Now if only we could get some actual verification of that ridiculous claim that molas are capable of leaping 10 feet into the air. These fish are weak, slow swimmers. I've seen them. They may be able to propel themselves barely clear of the water, but no further, let alone 10 feet! I strongly suspect the referenced sources used Wikipedia as their original source (the "10 feet" claim was originally unsourced in this article, a long time ago), and now the myth has propagated. I challenged National Geographic to tell me where they got this information from, and got no reply. =Axlq 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't discount the fact that also reports mola breaching by "up to 3 body lengths" (second link under Note 8), and the photo appears to show at least a couple feet of clearance (although admittedly it could be edited). Of course, verification "in person" by an expert would be most reliable. PaladinWhite 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've spent the past couple of hours doing another extensive copyedit. This time, I focused on two things:
  • Collecting information into coherent sections, including removing repeated information
  • Citing everything that needed a reference, and standardizing references so they could be easily verified
To that end, I tracked down references for just about everything in the article, and removed two statements that had been tagged as controversial and for which I couldn't find a source:
  • A specimen of 200 kg may have a brain no bigger than a nut.
  • It is able to change color rapidly from spotty to even-colored. (I have an email out to an expert on this one, waiting on a reply.)
What still needs to be done? I didn't do anything with the introductory section or "Name," so if someone wants to take a look at those it would be great. I'll do them later if not; right now I'm just too tired. The external links section could also use some shortening.
But I think this article is coming along pretty darn well, myself! PaladinWhite 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I almost forgot, I also changed the taxobox image to (a little more closely) conform with the standards of WikiProject Fishes. PaladinWhite 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. I see the information on breaching disappeared from the Behavior section. It deserves a mention, as there are sources confirming it, as well as a photo. The silliness that's been propagated in other sources about leaping 10 feet souldn't be propagated here, though, because all the sources are hearsay or secondhand accounts (and may have originated with Wikipedia). =Axlq 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved information on breaching to Physiology - Skin and body; it seemed most relevant as it related to parasites on the skin, as that is the reason for breaching cited as most probable by the sources I could locate. To include it in Range and behavior on its own would beg the question "Why?", and to answer that question would simply re-duplicate the information, as it had been duplicated before.

A photo of the behavior would be fantastic. The only one I saw was copyrighted, but if we can get ahold of a clear, closer-up image, that would be great. PaladinWhite 21:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image needs a home![edit]

Ocean sunfish.

I've recently acquired two new images of the ocean sunfish which demonstrate aspects mentioned in the article, namely, the resemblance of its fin to that of a shark and its basking behavior. As a result of adding these to the article, I removed an image, and it's now homeless. Let's find a (meaningful) place to use this beautiful (and large!) image. PaladinWhite 07:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's OK. Notice how the article already has a link to the Common category page Mola mola. That image is already on that page. I also edited your image text so your two images appear in the cateogry page too. But can you possibly upload an image with higher resolution? See other similar images here. Fred Hsu 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks! Unfortunately, those are the best-resolution and best-framed examples I've encountered. I wish the basking picture were larger, but I thought the other was pretty good. PaladinWhite 06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14 June, 2007 changes[edit]

I just finished another group of big additions... I guess the best question would be, "What didn't I change?"

  • Researched a bunch of new references so there aren't any questions about reliability of information
  • Added images to liven up the page a bit
  • Added quite a bit of information on range and reproduction
  • Expanded the human interaction section, and added a subsection on sunfish in captivity
  • Lots and lots of added links, tweaking awkward phrasing, etc etc etc

Anything I missed? I've really enjoyed working on this article =D PaladinWhite 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me. Nice work! Mgiganteus1 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I split the citation template text into multiple lines, begining with the pipe characters, as I copyedit the article. I find that this exposes inline citations clearly, making the main text easier to find, while I am editing. Fred Hsu 04:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I haven't read it, yet, but if anything is a FA, it should be this (and, of course, the god of the narine rhelm, the bluefin tuna). Glad to see we have folks dedicated to editing an article on this awesome fish. KP Botany 05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a featured article now! I will submit a request for "Today's Featured Article". Fred Hsu 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, request page has been created. Feel free to edit the text. Fred Hsu 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional references[edit]

Banned in the EU[edit]

If anyone finds a reference for the "banned in the EU" statement I'd be interested. Back in the early 1980's we had sunfish served at a meal at college. I think the point was that the chef wanted his photo in the local paper, standing next to the individual fish concerned. Philip Trueman 10:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chapter V - E from states:

Fishery products derived from poisonous fish of the following families must not be placed on the market: Tetraodontidae, Molidae, Diodontidae and Canthigasteridae.


I think that Image:Enormous_Sunfish.jpg does a nice job of illustrating the animal's scale, but I don't know where it'd fit in the article. Anybody have any ideas? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great picture! It'd be really nice to add that to the article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the image of the specimen at the Monterey Bay Aquarium already served this purpose, it was near the bottom of the article, and I agreed that it might be nice to demonstrate the fish's size a bit nearer the top, so I inserted the image. Cheers! PaladinWhite (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't see any information in the article about how common this fish is. Is it very common, threatened, endangered, what? That would be useful information to add to the article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately it is hard to find, when I looked months ago I couldn't find it. It's not on the redlist, so it can be assumed to be least concern, but of course without a citation it can't go in the article. -Ravedave (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did some research and this is the criterias for red list, for VULNERABLE one of the criterias is less than 10,000 individuals and this link estimates 18,000 mola mola the northeast United States in offshore waters. There are many other criterias also like how much decline in population, but my guess is that there is not that much data calculate from. --Stefan talk 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have semi-protected this article as long as it remains on FA; it is in the midst of a revision-attack. As soon as it comes off of FA, I will delete the revisions being used in the attack. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nakon, please do not remove the semi; this page has been targeted by vandalism from off-Wiki and it will continue until the article is off FA. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll endorse it for the crap it's taken from 4chan alone. It'll blow over by tomorrow. seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse for now, but I don't think it needs to remain protected for the rest of the day. I would recommend at least trying unprotection in about four or five hours; even vandals need to sleep, or go to work or school or whatever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it sits, Bongwarrior, the article is going to need some revisions deleted. I fear unprotection at 01:00 or 02:00 (I live in Washington State) would only attract sleepless channers. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may attract some, but hopefully a more manageable amount. These FAs have been getting hit a lot lately, but the socking usually drops off in the wee hours. I just don't like leaving them protected longer than necessary while they're on the main page. If you don't object, I'd like to try unprotection again at some point. If they start up again, I'll re-protect. Also, I wonder if it might be useful to have someone with oversight access keep an eye out for this sort of thing from now on. If the diffs are deleted early on, it would probably slow them down enough that protection wouldn't be necessary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried asking oversight on similar things (involving a helluvalot more combative edits), and they won't act for some reason. However, I have no objection to any reduction in the wee hours, but I will restore if things go heinous again. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 06:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speed and conservation status?[edit]

How fast can these fish move? If they can breach by three body lengths, then they must be pretty fast (despite the obvious disability of not having a tail)! Also, what is the conservation status of this species? Are they endangered in any way? (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I was going to ask the same questions! Velho (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As for conservation status, see comments in section "Commonality" above. --Stefan talk 05:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to report one Sunfish, over a meter long has been washed up on Aegina Is in the Saronic gulf.  Seems to have been killed by a propellor blade.  This is the second one in two years.  one alive was seen last summer in the Epidaviros Bay

Banned in the EU again[edit]

I can find no reference to sunfish or sun fish being banned the the EU. The inline footnote is wrong and refers to "31991L0493

Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products", which is about keeping boats clean, and does not refer in the text or any attached appendix or schedule to sun fish (either spelling). We should surely be able to rely on a featured article to be definitive. (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article links to the relevant document, "Article 5" appears to be the relevant part. It is a fish of the Molidae family, and according to the article it is disputed whether it is poisonous. --Snigbrook (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death by Sunfish?[edit]

I read the reference for the "man killed by sunfish" statement. It only mentioned a boy being knocked over by a sunfish, but not death. Is there some other reference that can verify this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's at the bottom of the article:
"They're not considered dangerous. In fact, only one man has ever been killed by a sunfish - and that was because it landed on him and squashed him."-Wafulz (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the reference says nothing about the sunfish killing anyone. It only talks about a boy who came away with some cuts and bruises. -- (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does "only one man has ever been killed by a sunfish" say nothing about sunfish killing anyone?-Wafulz (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No tail?[edit]

I know nothing about sunfish, but judging by the pictures (article and linked), it seems to me a more accurate description would be a fish with a head and a tail, but almost no body, rather than a fish with no tail. Awien (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having almost no body doesn't make sense to me because I'd imagine "the body" is where the bulk of its mass and vital organs are stored. That being said, I'm not an expert on this. Is anyone here a marine biologist?-Wafulz (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I does in fact have a body, and a head (no neck), and no "real" tail, it has a clavus, or "pseudo-tail". The article is correct. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be noted that the species Masturus lanceolatus (a member of the same family) has a more substantial tail then the Mola Mola. this means that it is safe to assume without knowing for sure that the Mola Mola has at least a vestigal caudal fin (a clauvus).Lemming42 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Live and learn! What looks like a tail and functions as a tail but isn't a tail? A pseudo-tail! (That's not sarcastic, btw. One of the delights of Wikipedia is stumbling into the weird wonders of life, the universe and everything). So what's the difference between a tail and a pseudo-tail, I wonder? Awien (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well i suppose it means the although the Sunfish does have at least part of a tail it used to hve in it's history in the same way that a Rabbit's tail would have once have been much larger. The Sunfish does not use its tail to swim (as most fish do) but it does possess a trace of a tail from its evolutional past. Therefore, the title "pseudo tail" seems appropriate. Lemming42 (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, much like we have a "pseudo-appendix" (vestigial) even though it doesn't work anymore - thus why we can't digest cellulose like other herbivore mammals. What appears to be a tail is, in fact, the dorsal and ventral fins. (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistent units[edit]

There are some instances where the units are inconsistent with the rest of the article, which I assume is metric/imperial. One under "Skin" (eticulated collagen, can be up to 3 inches (7.6 cm) thick on the ventral surface,) and another in the caption of the first picture under "Description". I don't know if they should be changed, so I'm just leaving a note. ALTON .ıl 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

90% of catch being by-catch?[edit]

"The by-catch rate is even higher for the Mediterranean swordfish industry, with 71% to 90% of the total catch being sunfish."

I don't think 90% of total can by definition be by-catch. Should probably be 71 to 90% of the total by-catch but I don't have any sources. Still, if no one objects I would like to change. Pukkie (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Monterey Bay Aquarium reference for the preceding statement (about by-catch in California) has been updated. It now reads, "In the Mediterranean Sea, the Spanish gillnet fishery catches up to 93 percent molas." It does seem like an awfully high number, but that's the point - they're by-caught a lot. Seems like a pretty reliable source. PaladinWhite (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So is this by-catch being thrown away to rot in the ocean? I find it very confusing that the fish is a delicacy in Asia but somehow there is no market for it. If anyone knows please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously. Jump?[edit]

This sluggish fish that has trouble maneuvering well enough not to scrape the edges of its aquarium... which can't chase after fast fish to eat, and must be hand-fed... can LEAP OUT OF THE WATER AND SQUISH YOU? .. that'd be an awesome way to die, but I find it very unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scientific Classification (Main)[edit]

Common Name: Ocean Sunfish

Kingdom: Animal

Phylum: Chordate

Class: Vertibrate

Order: Tetraodontiformes

Family: Molidae


Species: M. mola —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

range map[edit]

por favor. (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunfish in captivity[edit]

There is sunfish in Acquario di Genova too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskybar (talkcontribs) 08:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming and taxonomy[edit]

This section seems to be getting bloated. It was useful at one point to illustrate how various names for the sunfish recall its odd appearance, but now it's just becoming a list of every name for the sunfish in every possible language. I feel that this is the weakest section of the article, and I'm at a loss as to how to fix it. Pare it down? Are any names more important or informative than others? Or eliminate the first paragraph entirely, and replace it with a short statement like "Names for the sunfish in various languages refer to characteristics X, Y, and Z"?

This section could probably also use some style cleanup. Some names, when referenced, are italicized, some are enclosed in quotes, and some are neither. Consistency is lacking. PaladinWhite (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be difficult to non-arbitrarily trim this list to include only the most "important" names. We could, however, move them to a notes section, which would appear directly before the references, at the end of the article. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a bad idea. I think we'll still have to monitor included names with an eye for notability; for instance, I already removed one reference to a county that had voted for a county-wide name for the sunfish. PaladinWhite (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More detail on avoiding predation[edit]

The article says, "Adult sunfish are vulnerable to few natural predators, but sea lions, orcas and sharks will consume them."

I assume they have few predators because of their sheer size. Is this a correct assumption? How do juveniles avoid predation while growing? How do adults avoid being completely wiped out by large predators? My main curiosity arises from their strange body shape. They look very slow and lumbering. Can they swim fast when chased? Do they have an unusual defensive strategy?

I want to know more.

--Loqi (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Molidae[edit]

I'd do it myself but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't do that, Molidae is a family with 4 species, and only 1 of them is the mola mola.SuperPayara123 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ocean sunfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ocean sunfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verification of lines in "In captivity"[edit]

@Yaquifox: I've added a tag to a source in #In captivity that you added with this edit in 2012. Curious to know if you have a copy of the brochure from 1957 and the newspaper articles from 1965 and 1941, or did you access them online somewhere? Rhinopias (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pelvic or anal fin?[edit]

on other pages on wikipedia i have seen the lower fin referred to as the pelvic fin, which i believe is correct. however the source used for the clavus refers to it as the anal fin. as such i have made no changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sunfish in the Lisbon Aquarium died in early September 2022. We visited on 9/23/22 and were disappointed to miss it. RIP 🐠[edit]

The sunfish died. (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming and taxonomy meaning of "Tetraodontiformes"[edit]

This doesn't quite make sense: "the four fused teeth that form the characteristic beak and give the order its name (tetra=four, odous=tooth, and forma=shape)". But "dont" is tooth, and "odous" doesn't appear anywhere in the name. So how is this right? (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map please[edit]

Can a map be added please, showing their range? (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]