Talk:Lagocephalus sceleratus

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 62.198.132.218 in topic External links modified

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lagocephalus sceleratus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to edit Wikipedia articles, but there's some dubious info. This species can get much larger than the 40 cm claimed in this article. In fact, the largest captured specimen referred to in a recent study was 78.5 cm long (Ref: Biology and toxicity of the pufferfish Lagocephalus sceleratus (GMELIN, 1789) from the Gulf of Suez, El-Ganainy, A. A.; Sabrah, M. M.; Zaky, M. A., Egyptian journal of aquatic research, 32(1). p. 283-297 https://aquadocs.org/handle/1834/1452 ). As this is almost twice the quoted size of the Wikipedia Article, the latter cannot be considered as accurate. Granted, this is a very recent study, but the size claim is wrong in any case. 62.198.132.218 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply