Talk:Blackfin cisco

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Extinction Low‑importance This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Fishes Low‑importance 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.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The blackfin cisco is not extinct, regardless of the IUCN classification. It persists not just in in Lake Nipigon but in widely distributed smaller lakes with no possibility of gene flow between them. This is not anecdotal information but a well documented fact. I hesitate to edit the article because somebody will inevitably decide that the IUCN is God and remove the changes, but this article (and the whole cisco complex set of articles) does not reflect the current state of understanding about these very interesting fishes. However reluctant the old-school fisheries crowd might be to acknowledge it, it is clear (unambiguously) that the various cisco forms have emerged/evolved repeatedly in many lakes and that the blackfin ciscos in Lake Nipigon (for example) are more closely related to northern cisco in Nipigon than they are to blackfin ciscos elsewhere.

This is not just fact, it is interesting. It gives insight into the complexity of evolutionary processes. It should be featured in Wikipedia's articles on the subject, not buried as a rather muddled afterthought, which is, respectfully, the state of the current species account.

Peter3 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reliable sources for the above contention please. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contention, huh?

Anyway, perhaps you'll accept this quote from Muir,A.M., P. Vecsei, M.Power, C.C. Krueger and J.D. Reist. 2014. Morphology and life history of the Great Slave Lake ciscoes (Salmoniformes: Coregonidae. Ecol. Freshwater Fish (23): The North American ciscoes do not easily fit into the current framework for resource management, which is based on the concept of the ‘biological species’. For this reason, understanding how ciscoes evolve and their functional role in energy transfer within the food web comes to the forefront as a prerequisite for determining appropriate means of categorising and conserving diversity within this group of fishes. The ciscoes typically form complexes that show ecological and morphological variations that can be both genetically- and environmentally based. In an extensive mitochondrial and microsatellite survey of North American cisco phylogeography, Turgeon & Bernatchez (2003) reported that the taxonomy of the C. artedi complex better reflected geography than evolutionary history. These authors found that, based upon the genetic characters used, C. zenithicus was genetically more similar to sympatric or nearby C. artedi than to C. zenithicus from other drainages, indicative of multiple independent origins of morphs. Turgeon & Bernatchez (2003)argued that C. artedi should be recognised as the sole legitimate taxon for North American ciscoes and that unique ecomorphotypes be recognised as evolutionary significant units (ESUs).

Identifying, characterising and managing locally adapted cisco morphs that reflect important ecological and bioenergetic linkages are critical to conserving the ecological integrity of northern food webs and ecosystems. The latter approach has been embraced by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).''

As for the particulars of the Blackfin Cisco, their presence in Lake Nipigon has been acknowledged by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2007) in a report that listed the "species" as Data Deficient, which is not quite the same as Extinct. The local folks smoke them and eat them. If that's not reliable enough I'll leave Wikipedia to do as it will. Peter3 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links:

Harkness Lab report: Allan Bell

Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada Blackfin Cisco Report

IUCN listing (ENDANGERED)

--Peter3 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of C. nigripinnis being a separate species, or either a subspecies or ecomorphotype within the C. artedi complex is not really the point. It's great stuff and should absolutely be included into this article, but are there any reliable sources that this sp./subsp./ecomorphotype still exists? The IUCN declared C. nigripinnis as Extinct in 1990, upgraded to Endangered in 1994, then demoted to Extinct again in 1996 (that designation hasn't been reviewed since). A COSEWIC designation of Data Deficient does not mean they still exist, it just means they don't know. They don't know because of the taxonomic uncertainty you raised. FUNgus guy (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section dealing with ciscos, including the individual species accounts, should reflect the current state of understanding. I'm not going to do it. I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia a long while ago. I got very sick of the uninformed and parochial editing of Wikipedia articles by people whose understanding of the material is most charitably described as limited. I couldn't begin to estimate the number of times I read something that had obviously been written by a knowledgeable person and returned later to find the article fundamentally altered by the inclusion of baseless assertions, antiquated conclusions, cultural biases or garden variety BS. This is unfortunately not surprising in a context that defaults the term cisco to a corporate brand name that isn't actually a real word. There are some good folks contributing here, but I found the painfulness of arguing with USA-centric and high-tech-centric elements that dominate the community here and have no desire to hear other perspectives pointless beyond any real justification for continuing. I only commented on this at all because I was directed to the site by a staff member who happens to be working on a blackfin cisco project and was bemused by the content. Do as you will.Peter3 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just read the COSEWIC report, and they say this taxonomic-whatever is still extant in Lake Nipigon (based solely on by-catch reports, and personal communications with the OMNR and USGS). It definitely deserves a mention, but not a change of the official IUCN designation. Only they can change that. NatureServe declares the blackfin cisco Presumed Extinct, and the Ontario NHIC says they are still extant in Nipigon, but designated them Extirpated anyway. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN can say what they like. They are wrong. As a large bureaucracy, they take a long time to get around to acknowledging errors, if they ever do. I have held Lake Nipigon blackfin ciscos in my hands. I have seen them in boxes of smoked fish. I have discussed their conservation with people who fish in the lake. They have been known by government and academic biologists to exist in the lake in substantial numbers for years. They have been found and assessed by competent biologists in several lakes in Algonquin Park and have been reliably reported elsewhere. The continued listing by IUCN speaks to nothing more meaningful than problems with the IUCN process. IUCN is not, has never been and never will be a competent taxonomic authority. They exist for primarily political purposes. They are perhaps the ultimate arbiter of some things, but ichthyology and fisheries science aren't among them. Insisting on giving their conclusion prominence and referencing other conclusions as subordinate to theirs is not justifiable. This is reminiscent of the scene from The Holy Grail in which a character keeps trying to interrupt the conversation to say "I'm not dead." Peter3 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you like the changes I made to the page. I added details about its relation with the C. artedi complex, its taxonomic history, the Turgeon/Bernatchez proposed merger of species, and the possibility it may still be extant. This fish may exist or may not exist, either because of overfishing, or because they are just an ecomorphotype of artedi. This article could certainly use some more references that discuss this issue (please feel free to add any you might know of). The IUCN is the most authoritative supranational authority on the subject, but this article can (and should) discuss how they are wrong. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the Wikipedia entry for blackfin cisco is maddening. I have edited it in the past and have given up. Somebody else corrected it and it was reverted by some know-it-all. The fact that any bird ecologist with an opinion can revert changes to agree with the IUCN's ridiculous assertion that blackfins are extinct speaks to the problems with how this place works.

The 2007 report on C.nigripinnis by the the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada, which is cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, states very clearly that the species (if it is a species) is extant in Lake Nipigon. The Harkness lab in Algonquin Park, Ontario has been conducting studies on the species(?) in lakes within the park for years. Bell (2017) defended a thesis on their feeding habits at Trent University. The Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre has found blackfin cisco in Lake Memesagamasing and conducted a survey on the species in that lake in collaboration with the Harkness lab.

This entry is egregiously wrong. The IUCN is not a primary source for anything. These fish are part of a very interesting discussion on the nature of species and ecomorphotypes. The inabilty of Wikipedia to reflect that is frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter3 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why that says unsigned. Pretty sure I typed the tildes just as I will now. Peter3 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]