This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

FishesMid‑importance This article is part ofWikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related toFish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further atWikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of theWikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Hello you all. This first time I make contributing for Wikipedia. I make user naming to talking with you all. I visit some friend in France and using his computer to make the contact with you all. I be study the fish call Sparisoma cretense for longtime and but my English is not so good so I try to help.

Skaros, name gave to the fish by some writers in antique time is nowadays existing off coast of west part africa and in mediterranean sea, but alone in east part, most of time in Aegean sea and south part tyrrhenian sea and some of the island greeks. It no be on Mediterranean coastal part of Morocco, not coast Algeria and alone sometime in Tunisia only but it found near Lampedusa. Reporting 1 fish come from Cadix in Spanish (Otero y Galeote) is no usually and nowadays you go Barcelona you no find the fish. It never be on coast France. More 1000 year ago Lucien makes report from ‘Mauritanie’ and this make some confusing being cause that was ancient name for today Morocco.

You all can look to D’Arcy Thompson book on the greeks fish. Too, the book today talking about the greeks fish don’t make the mention skarosOther hand, this fish living in the seagrasses most of time down towards the 15 meters not 50. Going around ashore island and canaries island it maybe go more deep so it seem like both the correcting is good just the different ideas.

Specially though but the west part of Africa there no be some coral that make the reef. In the Caribe sea some time sparisoma take the food on reef but sleeping in the seagrass near by to a reef (Bruggemann) such coincident with molecule data to saying that the eating on reef is recent evolution (Streelman).Also too a closer fish Leptoscarus no live in Mediterranean but I study the fish from red sea and at that place it not big alone 20 cm. I never seen one more big that, so I thinking, yes it one of most small parrotfish. I study too one most big parrotfish 1 meter 65 cm of the Bolbometapon and that fish no eating all of the times the alive coral – only some of the times.

The Skaros no eating rocks but taking up of the organisms that do growing on the plants and they are like chewing up the food makes the jaws to and fro moving. That why the ancient peoples give the name ruminant of sea and calling the Skaros sea cow. (Look to Aristote or Martial)I making the small commentaries to try helping to the peoples do correcting text. I hoping it worked good, get you all more happy. I say too I am knowing personal the one people who make the life study of Skaros with man named Liem, now died, so yes good expert. The other peoples making to try correction I don’t know.

I give the big apologize for mine bad English. In next times I write greek and make the translating with computer. You want write me be using the google mail, so good. My address is greekfishgeekt@gmail.com Good-Bye you all.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGreekfishgeek (talk •contribs)11:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't figure out how to fix the citation error - the author's name should be Alfonso (with an 'l') and not afonso and it should be in connection with the little paragraph on development of the species Sparisoma cretense - the text is there but I don't see the reference listed and can't see how to fix the citation - can you help thx— Precedingunsigned comment added byThescarid (talk)16:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. His name is Afonso (without l,not Alfonso). I strongly suggest you check the actual reference where the name is written repeately (there's a working link to Afonso's article in the reference section) or hisofficial page. Additionally, you made some edits to various sections with references (incl. Afonso's) and it was quite evident that you had not actually read them. Please don't do that. Info in wiki articles should always match their references, especially sentences that use inline references (WP:V). If you want to change such a sentence, please provide a new reference that supports your change.80.62.116.136 (talk)12:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, was just watching Jeopardy, apparently these fish blow mucus bubbles from their mouths as protection at night? Any fish experts want to confirm?99.233.134.104 (talk)01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been vandalized, but can't simply revert. Someone please fix. Incidentally, is there a template box (or something similar) so that complex vandalizations can be reported w/o having to fix them yourself? --Thiseye (talk)07:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I've edited this page to regroup the information on taxonomy (which was repetitive and included in two different sections with the same heading. I've been careful to ensure that the references are all included. If anyone takes issue, please note my pseudonym - it should give you an idea of my expert knowledge about these fish. Cheers— Precedingunsigned comment added byThescarid (talk •contribs)14:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your claimed "expert status", you should never make changes that do not match the refs. You've done it repeatedly elsewhere (seeTalk:Sparisoma cretense). Now you've done it here:[1]. If people actually check the reference Bellwood & Choat 1990 (it's easily available onresearchgate) they will notice that it does not support the change. In fact, it directly contradicts it. Page 208:

• "All species fed primarily on epilithic algae that covers the coralline reef substrate. Live corals formed a major part of the diet of only one species, Bolbometopon muricatum [then it mentions a few other species that occasionally feed on corals]".

Algae are plants, i.e. herbivore. There is absolutely no mention of detritus (or detritivores) anywhere in the Bellwood & Choat 1990, and certainly nothing that supports your addition of "more accurately described as detritivores". Thereare sources that mention detritus (I have now added one, but seeWP:BURDEN), but nothing that suggests "detritivore" is a good primary description for parrotfish feeding in general. If you want to add it, provide a ref that actually supports it.RN1970 (talk)02:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below do not appear to be related to the editions made by thescarid. It appears that the user RN1970 is personally offended by the useful contributions made by others. To clarify the comments on feeding it is maybe better to include them in the section on feeding. Also, just a suggestion, but it is usually better to remember that everyone is entitled to edit wiki articles. Also I just happen to know that the citation included below refers to tropical species and not to the mediterranean species Sparisoma cretense. Why don't both thescarid and RN1970 try to calm it down a bit and work together rather than creating an editing war. Just a suggestion. Keep it cool and have fun!— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnteRN1970 (talk •contribs)20:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnteRN1970: A completely new user just finding two talk pages where the first actions were to delete my comments (something user:Thescarid had just been warned about), making unsigned posts (like user:Thescarid), French languaged ([2] vs. language of google bookslink), evidently a single-purpose account and your user name (AnteRN1970 vs. mine RN1970). All very interesting and rather contradictory to your comment "Keep it cool and have fun!"

Before you continue, please readWP:SOCK and note that this can and often does result in the block of both accounts.

Regarding your other comments: Absolutely true, everyone is free to edit wikipedia. But everyone also has to follow the Core Policies, like providing citations. I don't take offence in any edits, but I will remove additions that clearly are contradicted by their references. RegardingSparisoma cretense, see below.RN1970 (talk)21:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern by user:Thescarid continues: Info added in article does not match references. A review of the latest edit:[3]

• Cryptotomus isthe smallest, as clearly noted in refs. Just checkthis (just below center in Traits paragraph on first page).
• Leptoscarus isnot among the smallest. This was first added by youhere without citation, thenhere with reference Westneat & Alfaro 2005 (easily available atresearchgate; no it does not support claim added by user:Thescarid), then refwas changed to Choat et al 2002 (chapter available atresearchgate; no it does not support claim added by user:Thescarid), and younow claim it is supported by Sale 1991 (I have it, it doesn't say anything about its size; the most recent edition is also on google books where anyone can search it; the only placeLeptoscarus is mentioned is on p. 127; nothing about size). So, is the claim factual? Let's check FishBase:Leptoscarus vaigiensis [note correct spelling of specific name; you misspelled it both in the above edit and twice in anearlier edit]: 35 cm. This is supported by Lieske & Myers 1999 (see full among refs alreasy used in article), Randall 2005 (Reef and Shore Fishes of the South Pacific) and Allen 1999 (Marine Fishes of Tropical Australia and South-East Asia) has 38 cm. I've checked a wide range of other source and none are below 35 cm. This is far larger thanCryptotomus, larger than all three species ofNicholsina, larger than three of five species ofCalotomus, etc. This should come as no surprised as I clearly explained it in myedit summary yesterday.

Review of[4]:

• Sparisoma cretense isnot a good example of a browser in the context used here. The provided citation Bellwood & Choat 1990 (easily available via link in article) directly contradicts the addition, page 7 (emphasis mine, highlighting info forSparisoma cretense):

The diet of Cryptotomus, another seagrass dwelling species, andthe sub-tropical rocky reef species Sparisoma cretense and S. strigatushave not been determined quantitatively. However, the former appears to feed primarily on seagrasses and associated epiphytes, whilstthe latter two species include algae and a large amount of inorganic material in their diet (DRB unpublished data).

So, you want to add this species as a good example when the reference says they don't have quantitative data, but do have (previously) unpublished data that directly contradicts your addition. Furthermore, we now have reviews of its diet and, as noted in its own article, it feeds primarily on various types of algae (epilithic, coralline (Papoutsoglou & Lyndon, 2003), epiphytic (Kalogirou, Corsini-Foka, Sioulas, Wennhage & Pihl, 2010)), but may also take other plant material and invertebrates (Papoutsoglou & Lyndon, 2003).
Finally, to repeat my comments from Talk:Sparisoma cretense (which you've evidently seen since you've tried to delete them): Please only mark trulyminor edits with “minor” (this is minor;this andthis are not minor).RN1970 (talk)21:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone can check this section. As far as I understand there are only two entries in the paleolntological record that date to 10 mya (see Bellwood 1994 for example). One is an extant cryptotomus like species and the other is Bolbometapon. No remains for Scarus have been validated as far as I know. The graphic that is displayed shows both Sparisoma and Scarus extending to the eocene.thx— Precedingunsigned comment added byThescarid (talk •contribs)19:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I revisedf the timelie according to Bellwood's monograph. Can't see how to add the reference. Just inser as a sline of tet after the image?? oops sorry70.76.232.129 (talk)09:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many things have happened since the 1991 review by Bellwood & Schultz, which formed the basis for the fossil section in Bellwood 1994. First, neitherBolbometapon norCalotomus are Oligocene and consequently the direct replacement was incorrect (they are, as described above, mid-Miocene). As far as I know, there is only one reported Oligocene parrotfish and that's theScarus in Merleet al. 2002 (Comptes Rendus Palevol 1(2)). A few other Miocene/Quaternary species have been reported since 1991/4, but nothing Oligocene. I'm not aware of any fossilSparisoma (not in Fossilworks either) and I've removed it from the Timeline of genera, leaving onlyScarus. If someone wants to add the other fossil genera with their correct age ranges please go ahead. Timeline of genera in most wiki articles have generally been based on Fossilworks. It's a good place to start for anyone that wants to expand the section, even though FW has its issues too (not my main field of knowledge and I'll leave it to others to expand the fossils section).RN1970 (talk)23:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between20 January 2023 and3 May 2023. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Ashleyphan922 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated byAshleyphan922 (talk)05:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• C-Class Fishes articles
• Mid-importance Fishes articles
• WikiProject Fishes articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles