Talk:Sturgeon

The meaning of this passage under phylogeny and taxonomy:

" While ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) have a long evolutionary history culminating in our most familiar fishes, past adaptive evolutionary radiations have left only a few survivors, such as sturgeons and gars."

This doesn't make sense. There are a lot of surviving families of ray-finned fishes. Pciszek (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You might read the cited source which states: In the ray-finned fishes, the skeletal support for the paired fins is inside the body wall, so that all you see of the fins externally are the ray-like structures in the webbing of the fins themselves. The ray-fins have a long evolutionary history culminating in our most familiar fishes. Past adaptive radiations have left only a few survivors, like sturgeons and garfish. The most recent adaptive radiation consists of the group Teleostei, which includes trout, bass, perch, goldfish, tunas, butterfly fish, and most of the fish with which we are familiar. They represent over 95% of all extant species of fish. If you are challenging the source, or that the material is not supported by the source, you can fix the part that isn't supported or find a RS that supports your challenge of that material. Atsme 💬 📧

Updating information

The Great Mule of Eupatoria (quite a handle), let's work at getting accurate information about the status of sturgeon. For example according to California Dept of Fish & Wildlife: "White Sturgeon are not state or federally listed, but they are categorized as a state Species of Special Concern." We don't want to conflate specific populations of sturgeon with the global population, either. You might also read this IUCN updated assessment. Atsme 💬 📧 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the reason I have done my edit was because the information in particular is mentioned by the IUCN, which certainly had stated 85% of all sturgeons are threatened but following their recent assessment all species were uplisted. This includes the white sturgeon, which is vulnerable. I was not aware that this took into account other organisations as I only took the IUCN red list as a source. Thank you for letting me know The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Outdated Info in Behavior Section

@Cam0mac: Hiya! I've never edited a Wikipedia article before, so apologies for any faux pas here.

You recently reverted a change I made to the "Behavior" section, stating that it doesn't align with the "Huso" article -- I'd like to respectfully rebut this. To quote the article itself:

"Until 2025, Huso was defined as containing two giant-sized species: the beluga from western Eurasia, and the kaluga from East Asia. However, this placement was long found to be polyphyletic, with the kaluga grouping with other East Asian sturgeon species... In 2025, this taxonomic conundrum was resolved by reclassifying the kaluga and other Pacific sturgeons into Sinosturio, while placing the genera related to H. huso into Huso itself." (Source: Huso)

The "behavior" section of sturgeon, however, refers to "both huso species," as in the beluga and kaluga sturgeons -- an obvious holdover from before the reclassification. As it now stands, the phrase "both huso species" does not make sense; there are more than two huso sturgeon, and only one of them is predatory (the beluga).

If it's all the same with you, I'd like to revise this issue once more to align with the current classification.

FishEmployee (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person, If I ever reverted this change, it was in error. I think your addition is very good and well reasoned! Your decorum is also appreciated.

If my opinion matters still, I do think you should restore your edit. If you bring over the source in the Huso article there should be no reason to contest the change.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Cam0mac (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I did get the wrong person! My bad, I must've mistakenly typed in your username instead of theirs lol. Thank you for responding anyways! :-)

FishEmployee (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: You're who I meant to tag lol. Does this sufficiently address your concern about my edit not aligning with the "Huso" article?

FishEmployee (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hrm... there are about a dozen Huso species listed in the genus article. So yeah, what I reverted to was wrong, and I think I was interpreting the statement to be that those other two listed species were the two Huso species. I see now where my confusion was. Under that assumption, it looked like you were saying there isn't two Huso species, only one, the beluga. That all said, I think there needs to be a little more explanation there, but yeah, I'm fine with a revert of my revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I restored my edit and reworded my edit summary to hopefully be a more clear explanation. I also noted this conversation for further context, just in case. Thanks for your help!

FishEmployee (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)