Talk:Cymothoa exigua

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

Arthropods Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I find it highly interesting that this entire article talks about a parasite that eats and replaces a fish's tongue. Considering that Fish typically don't have tongues, they have a flesh covered bone called a 'basihyal'. I'd have edited the article but I couldn't find a trustworthy reference or point to a Wikipedia page as ref but I couldn't find one. The parasite does actually occlude quite a good amount of eating space for the fish and occupy's a space where the fish's tongue would sit, if one existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.9.196 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name tongue eating louse is innacurate and should be excluded from this article. Sl anon15 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common names are what they are and are not obliged to be accurate or in any way realistic. Unless you can provide evidence that 'tongue eating louse' is not a common name for C. exigua, it gets to stay, as currently available references use this common name. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about fish tongues, but I am confused by the debate over "common names". If a "common name" is how some layperson knowing nothing about the subject calls something, there is no reason to use this term in an encyclopedia, other than mentioning that "this is how it is sometimes/often (wrongly) called". The opinion of or the language used by people who know little about the subject can be safely ignored. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "common name" is any name used for a species other than its scientific binomial. Common names are important because most people don't use scientific names and even if they did common names are often more stable over time than binomials. For instance, "Douglas fir" is an important timber species, and you can buy and use it everyday without knowing that it isn't actually a fir tree. The common name Douglas fir goes back to 1833 when it was thought to be a new species of fir tree discover by David Douglas, but since then the tree has been reclassified multiple times into three genera using several different specific epithets. The tree has had at least 10 scientific names, all the while being commonly named Douglas fir.

In short, common names are important and be given consideration in encyclopedia articles. Idrathereatpie (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's copyrighted, so useless for Wikipedia (see here: http://www.tolweb.org/Isopoda, it says © 1989 Matthew Gilligan, Savannah State College, Savannah, GA). Jalwikip (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to observe that experts are worried that finding a possible victim of this parasite in the UK may indicate the expansion of its range if the parasite's range is not identified beforehand. Given that the only location mentioned in this article is the UK, readers must conclude that the UK is the only place they are found. 172.131.164.245 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)RKH[reply]

Well for those interested, I went deep sea fishing today(2008-10-12) on a charter boat off the coast of Plettenberg Bay, South Africa and was amazed to find a C. exigua on the tongue of a Silverfish. The parasite was approximately 6 cm long however the tongue of the fish seemed to be umharmed thusfar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdednam (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! You're certain it was indeed this particular species? - Vianello (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most certain, I failed however to photograph and document the specimen in the mouth of the fish but I still have it in my posession. Give me your e-mail address so I can send you a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.7.94.17 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll pass, but hey, that's nifty. - Vianello (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure they have these in New Zealand as well. I remember catching fish in the Hauraki Gulf that had these lice in their mouth. Tried to find some evidence of this on the net... [1] and at the bottom of the following article.. [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.157.95 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caught a fish with one of these about 1.5 inches long off the coast of Ngunguru, New Zealand. It was unmistakable basically, crawled out from the fishes mouth about 20 minutes after being caught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.253.6 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And off the East Coast of Australia (which I guess isn't that far from NZ when you think globally), I've seen these things in "Long Toms" - a fish similar in shape to a garfish but with upper & lower beak the same size. Swampy 143.238.113.176 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I caught a bunch of menhaden off the coast of Charleston, SC and about 50% of the fish had a tongue louse on it. The mullet we caught did not seem to be affected by the louse even though we caught them in the same cast of the cast net. The menhaden are a filter feeding fish so maybe that is why they had the tongue louse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.193.108 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this animal living inside of Pseudorinelepis species in fresh water rivers of eastern Ecuador. However instead of replacing the fishes tongue it was found inside the body cavity.

The reason that I looked for this article and followed it for quite some time is that I caught a small coastal fish with this parasite - or another one which uses the same trick of replacing the tongue - back in 2008 in Croatia. The article has not mentioned anything about its presence in the Adriatic Sea ever since. Several witnesses were rather traumatised by discovering this creature in our catch. 62.100.139.188 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC) ~Szymk[reply]

I live in Chile, and have found several tounge parasites in fish I caught here while spear fishing. I haven't been able to find any info on another species with that behavior, and since the range on here is to Ecuador, I have doubts. I will be hunting more in the months to come; if anyone is interested in photos or anything, let me know. You can find me at humberto, period, soriano, at google's normal address ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.131.157 (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to removing the promotional paragraph for this odd play? Has nothing to do with the isopod this article is about (and wiki doesn't have "trivia" sections) Alvis 00:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Maybe they should ask for a citation linking the play to this species of parasite confirming that is the source for the idea in the play (And maybe remove the additional stuff like where it was first performed which has little bearing), if one isn't supplied in due time then remove it? --85.62.18.3 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the entire section, as many species of Cymothoa attach to the tongue (though not replacing it), I see no use in keeping it in a piece on C. exigua. Jalwikip (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although one source lists the C. exigua as not eating any of the food of the fish, one of the referenced articles (http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=719) on the discovery of such a bug in a UK fisk cites a Dr Jim Brock says "Eventually the tongue is reduced to a stub. However, the parasite is now large enough to replace the tongue and as it manipulates the fish's food, it also dines out for free on the freed food particles when the fish eats." (emphasis mine) Any other references to what it does and does not eat? Jalwikip (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be checked whether the parasite has a shorter lifespan than the fish, because in that case its death would mean the one of the fish as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.231.69 (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject of this appears to be the only parasite that does this, this news article seems to show another case though in a different fish (Weever)? [3] Though I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable with editing the article myself.  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, to me it seems as though it may be a different species seeming as getting from the Pacific to the UK coast is quite an increase in range. The BBC article didn't name it as this species so it may not actually belong in this article. Again the fact that it is a different species of fish would back this up, generally speaking parasites tend to be pretty species specific, especially if they are replacing a body part! Smartse (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Parasitic isopod 600.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could one make an argument that this is commensalism? I mean, C. exigua is feeding on the blood of the fish, yes, but the fish appears to not exactly benefit nor lose anything (minus the tongue which the parasite replaces). The article also states that it does no other harm to the host fish either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.165.65.80 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. http://www.wired.com/2013/11/absurd-creature-of-the-week-the-parasite-that-eats-and-replaces-a-fishs-tongue/

"It appears that the parasite does not cause any other damage to the host fish" There are studies showing that Cymothoa harms "isopod replaces language and feeds on the blood or mucus master ', while the fish may stick to their usual diet . it was suggested that the isopod acts as a true "functional" replacement for the language of the fish. however, there are some studies pointing to the negative effects of parasitic infections in their hosts, such as height, weight, or causing damage to the tissues. yet However, parasites can remain attached to the fish in a few years, growing with the growth of the fish and then separated. There are, in fact, many examples of fish experiencing them isopod parasites "[1] Damage to gill filaments and the formation of scar tissue at the site of attachment [2] (old source) said in an interview with a decrease in weight mentioned here even if, on the fish parasitic isopod more than one different sex is likely to be a lack of mass [3], but it was not found in this study. Just notice the excessive secretion of mucus, which leads to problems with respiration [3]

"There are many species of Cymothoa, [3] but only C. exigua is known to consume and replace its host's tongue .." does not correspond to reality, there are several other species of isopods are parasitic fish in the same way (eg , Cymothoa borbonica, Ceratothoa imbricata, Glossogobius SP) [1]

As for the functional replacement of the language should probably say that this assumption [1]

I hope that will be useful for further details.

1 https://www.aaas.org/blog/qualia/tongue-eating-parasites-inspire-new-horror-movie

2 https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=G6MWAQAAIAAJ&hl=pl&num=11&redir_esc=y

3 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261700036 Олексій Стукальский (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Олексій Стукальский, You can make changes to the article yourself to include the information you suggest. I have checked the references and they look fine, although I could not get access to the second reference. Otherwise you can suggest improved text on this talk page and someone else may transfer it into the article. If you do this, please specify the reference used for each statement. If you cannot work out how to use the wikipedia referencing system, just link to the url and another editor will fix the formatting. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pbsouthwood I do not speak English adequately for editing, so please make the changes proposed by me.

1 Edit "This is the only known case of a parasite functionally replacing a host organ." we must add that this assumption, it says here [2] and in the source of the phrase. "We herein hypothesize that these isopods serve as mechanical replacement for the fish's tongue and represent the first known case (in animals) of functional replacement of a host structure by a parasite." [2]

Done, please check if suitable. I will check against source [2] when I get it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 Edit "It appears that the parasite does not cause any other damage to the host fish." [2] indicate that there are some studies that say that the causes other damage "However, there are some studies pointing to the negative effects of parasitic infections in their hosts, such as height, weight, or causing damage to the tissues," [1] Now here it refers to some of these "reports the damage caused by male parasites include hematophagous (Morton, 1974; Brusca, 1981) and excessive mucus secretion in the gill chamber surfaces, which ultimately affect the breathing process (Smith, 1983. ) Lanzing. and O'Connor (1975) found that Infested fish usually underweight, but only for the hosts that carry two or more isopods. "[3]

3 Edit "There are many kinds Cymothoa, [3], but only C. exigua, are known to consume and replace the language of their host." correct to say that "Only cymothoid isopods were found to replace the hosts organs. However, there are several other species of isopod parasitic fish in the same way (as C. exigua) (eg, Cymothoa borbonica [4], Ceratothoa imbricata, Glossogobius sp.). "[1]

Done, but removed Glossogobius from the list as it is a fish. Possibly a typo in the source. Please check if satisfactory. I will check against source [4] when i get it, but is covered by source [1]

If you do not have access to any of the links please write to stykalski@gmail.com I will throw you a PDF

1 https://www.aaas.org/blog/qualia/tongue-eating-parasites-inspire-new-horror-movie

2 RS Brusca; MR Gilligan (1983). "Changing the language in marine fish (Lutjanus guttatus) parasitic isopod (Crustacea: Isopoda)". Copeia. 3 (3): 813-816. DOI: 10,2307 / 1444352. JSTOR 1444352.

3 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261700036

4 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-013-2284-7 Олексій Стукальский (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find the original link 74.77.118.11 (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing "This is the only known case of a parasite assumed to be functionally replacing a host organ." as it is from a 1982 source and is contradicted by "Other species of isopods known to parasitize fish in this way include C. borbonica and Ceratothoa imbricata." which cites a 2013 source. Idrathereatpie (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]