Talk:Paedocypris progenetica

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal 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.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Against merging. The two articles should remain separate due to the special nature of Paedocypris progenetica. It's currently the smallest known fish in the world, and deserves its own article.--85.49.234.93 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether P.progenetica is the smallest fish is debatable - see here for description of Photocorynus spiniceps (6.2 mm) Lejean2000 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. progenetica is described as the smallest species. P. spiniceps has small male individuals but the females reach 50.5 mm, 5-6 times larger than the largest documented P. progenetica - see [1] for comparison of the two species side by side.

Paedocypris progenetica?[edit]

What is the literal meaning of Paedocypris progenetica? Latin anyone? --anirudh 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation from the paper describing this species is this:

(iii) Etymology

Paideios (Greek), children; Cypris (Greek), Venus, common suffix for cyprinid genera; gender feminine.

and

Progenetica, progenetic; an adjective.

Isfisk 18:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) could you mention the source? you talked of a paper. Do you have the link? --anirudh 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its the paper mentioned in the article under references from Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Isfisk 09:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! :-D I had checked that link before, but I saw the login page and I left it there. --anirudh 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog vs fish[edit]

The length of the frog excludes it's legs, so even if it is (just barely) shorter, I don't think it's right to call it smaller. The fish should win. If I get a chance I will try to find an outside opinn... surely there are record books that have chosen between the two. —Soap— 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a better strategy, I think, would be to just try to get body weight measurements. Of all fish in this category. Maybe schindleria is the real winner, maybe it's this fish, or maybe it's the frog. But length is not size. —Soap— 03:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests that the body weight of a generic carp with the length of P. progenetica might be about 0.50 grams, but I'm skeptical, since this fish looks to be even thinner, proportionately, than a goldfish. They give the dimensions of the goldfish as 10x * 7x * 5x. I found the weight of the Barbados threadsnake to be a mere 0.6 g, despite the fact that the snake is vastly longer than this fish, indeed by a ratio of more than ten to one. This fish is somewhere between the goldfish and the snake in terms of the ratio of its three measurements. —Soap— 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]