Talk:Electrophorus electricus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconFishes B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Epaulin7.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query about voltage[edit]

500 volts relative to what? How is this measured? - Omegatron 21:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are tools that can measure voltage, and experiments have been done. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably one end of the eel relative to the other. It would be good to have more on the physics of how it all works, don't have any refs myself. Stan 00:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When it attacks prey, I would expect the eel would have to contact the prey at two points to deliver a significant-enough shock. I shouldn't think that a one-point contact with a return path through muddy freshwater would deliver enough voltage or current. Does it flip its tail around to touch the prey, or at least to come close, while making a solid bite? Surely some zoologist has written about this creature. (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

River water has a resistivity of 200 Ohm meters, so for every meter of distance between the terminals of an electrical device, there is 200 ohms. Because water acts like a continuous resistor, it's slightly different at every point around the eel, but supposing that an eel is 2 meters long, and a fish is 1 meter to its side, then the electric field line through the point where the fish is would be about 4 meters long, or causing 800 ohms of resistance. The fish itself probably has an internal resistance of 1000 ohms, so altogether 1800 ohms. 500 Volts / 1800 Ohms = 227 mA of current. This is enough to kill pretty much anything. The eel, however, can only maintain this for a few microseconds. --Dusvb (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any ideas on whether electric eels actually shock each other? Been trying to dig up this little tidbit of information but haven't found much on it. SavannahLion 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, they can shock each other. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other species[edit]

You might want to include the Southern Stargazer as a marine fish with electric organelles. 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I am seeing that it says 650 volts at the top and then 600 in the section after anatomy. I really need to know as I am doing a report on it -HeatherLion Does the eel produce 650 volts or only 500? The top of the article says 650 and the bottom says 500 -- 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--depends on the size and age of the eel. around 6ft I hear they produce 600ish a smaller one of 3-4 feet will produce 4-500 episode 19. Was very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just saw on NatGeo that electric eels of 2m or bigger (usually never get larger than 2.5m) can produce electroshocks up to 750 volts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the aquarium of the zoo of Stuttgart, Germany, there is an electric eel with an voltmeter monitor outside for the visitors. On a frequent base it reaches shocks of up to 750 volts. I can't say how accurate this voltmeter is working but I don't think there is a point in fooling visitors. (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Guardian reported the finding of two new electric eel species, one of them delivers shocks of 860 V.Shocking news: world's most powerful electric eel found in Amazon. Retrieved 11 Sep 2019 Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric Eel song[edit]

Here's a silly lyric I wrote about an electric eel:

  • An electric eel, with the zeal of a seal
  • Was trying like me to get out of the sea;
  • When a mermaid appeared, and as we much feared
  • Began living her day in a lack-a-day way, singing:

  • "Electric eel, you have such a good appeal
  • That I just do not feel you are real.
  • So come to me here, I do need you near;
  • I do need your shocks on these rocks."

Matt Stan 08:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric eels do not live in saltwater.-- (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ROFL... strangest contribution I've ever seen to a talk page... and that's saying a lot62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes, when I'm sad, I come here and read this song. Then I'm a little less sad, and the worlds a little better. GhostJackal (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How long do shocks last[edit]

It says the eel can produce 1 Amp of current or 500W of power. These statistics do not make sense without knowing how long the shock lasts.. clearly they can't produce 500W continuously 17:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

power(watts) = volts x amps. What is being show is that at a rating of 500V at 1.0A, the eel is capable of producing 500 watts (ie. 500 joules of energy per second). So if it produces a shock of 500 volts at 1 amp for 10 seconds, thats 500 x 10 = 5000 joules of energy. Hope that clears things up. -- (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] episode 19 can shock for around an hour, as discovered by the conquistador that tried to discharge em to capture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There was a sentence that read: "The shock is not deadly for an adult human, while a large electric eel can shock a horse to death."

Now, that makes little sense. Firstly, I'm pretty sure that a horse can survive an electric shock better than a human. Second, the sentence originally did NOT include the word "not", that was changed later. Thirdly, if it IS "not", then the "while" makes no sense, and should be a "but" or something.

I've changed it back to "The shock IS deadly", and I changed the while to an "and" to make the sentence flow better.

I've done this mostly on grammatical comparison and what I hope is common sense. If someone knows better, please fix it, but make it read nicely. Thanks! Trainik 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently the article states without reference:

"(Electrocution death is due to current flow; the level of current that is fatal in humans is roughly 0.75A.)"

which is incorrect according to my source. Whether the electric eel is capable of producing a fatal shock in humans is a different matter. This should be cited from reports, rather than worked out based on 'theory' using the (also unreferenced) claim: "capable of producing a shock at up to 500 volts and 1 ampere of current" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fires Electricity[edit]

By doing that it creates electricity, and fires it at its prey

I don't believe you can "fire" electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To "fire" is a technical term often used in biology to describe what happens when a fast-acting organ or cell does its thing. For instance, neurons "fire"; so do nematocysts (the organs jellyfish and such use to sting prey). It seems reasonable that firing would also be the term for what an electric eel's electric organs do. (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For neurons it makes sense but I think in the context of an electric eel this word suggests some kind of exact aiming at prey in a form of an electric beam. In my mind this sentence produced the image of emperor Palpatine in Star Wars episode VI "firing" at Luke. I think many readers interpret the word "firing" as a form of beam instead of just discharging by touching the prey. (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The organs that an eel has are able to conduct electricity. Is it possible for a human to gain these organs and conduct electricity themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordinary humans already conduct electricity. That is verifiable by trivial experiment with a digital multimeter. It is not plausible that an electric eel's electric organs could be transplanted into a human and remain functional so as to give the human the eel's zapping powers. We don't have anything like that level of transplantation technology. (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


what did they call the electric eel before the discovery of electricity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i removed the following:

is deadly to an adult human

and a large electric eel can shock a horse to death

it is an obvious exaggeration of the truth. first, horses are known to be less resistant to electrical shock than humans. second, there are no known cases of humans killed by electric eels. none what so ever!! (this is incorrect episode 19)

lol at this person providing the River Monsters URL. Not only is it ridiculous to use Wikipedia as a source for another Wikipedia article, but Discovery network shows (such as Animal Planet) are the furthest from reliable nowadays. If you take claims made on River Monsters to be true, you must also conclude Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster are real, that aliens were responsible for every one of man's great architectural achievements, and that the bible is 100% historically factual (but with all the violence and sexuality removed, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the all theory behind Electrophorus electricus is severely misunderstood. the values are merely theoretical, the fish itself couldn't resist a 600W jolt. it merely uses it's abilities to stun small fishes. The fact that is has 10.000 electricity, gives a wrong impression. The fish doesn't use them all at once, in fact the number allows the fish a repeating high frequency set of small discharges, which are a lot more efficient against their prey: small, elusive fishes. If anyone is in doubt just consider the likelihood of a small fish having the power to deliver continuous 600W discharges just to kill a fish which wold provide less than that energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

to the guy stating that a horse can stand electric shocks better than a human! Guess again! Having a less isolated nervous system, horses, when submitted to shock conduct electricity directly to the brain, and so are, several times, less resistant to shock than humans. In fact, electric fences have to take this in consideration ,so they only output around 0,1A or less. A man can resist 1.000, 1 Amp CC discharge. Just to put things in perspective, an electric chair has 2.000v 5 amps AC. That's 10.000 Watts and usually it takes several seconds to guarantee death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


water is a good conductor of electricity. Electric eel lives on the sea, and sea is a body of water. When an electric eel discharges some 650 volts / 1 ampere of electricity is there a way that other than its prey some fishes might be shocked or stunned with its charge too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. The (conventional) current will flow from the positive termial of the eel to the neagtive terminal, travelling through the water near to the eel. Most of the current will flow close to the eel, and the current flowing further from the eel will decrease pretty fast as distance increases. However, technically some current will still flow at an arbitrary distance, assuming an unbounded expanse of water (this problem is non-trivial and is similar to an infinite grid of resistors problem), but this will become immesurable extremely quickly (I would hazard on a scale of a few metres).
This is in contrast to, say, a lighning strike on water, where a large quantity of current is injected into the water at a point and dissipates. hs This not a true circuit (the electric charge was built up in the clouds and released into the water, but does not return.*), the current will not flow in a locally identifiable loop, and so the current density (i.e. current per m^2 cross section of water) will decrease more slowly. However it will strill decrease further from the strike as the current carriers "spread out".
*Yes I know about the return path, but there is still a net transfer of charge. The initial stike provides a path for this to flow TO the cloud. This is the same as tranfer of oppositely charged particles TO the sea. (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric Eels do not live in the sea... (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are electric eels edible? (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) NO!!!! Don't even get near one, however the article does talk about a way to catch them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are edible, and are considered a delicacy by certain Amazon peoples. The method of catching them is very different to 'tiring' them as described in the article. The tribesmen will temporarily poison ponds by using a certain bark to cause the water to become very white and cloudy - I do not know what plant they use for this.(user from down under, its called the fish kill plant) They are careful not to get the water on themselves. The electric eel and other fish are then forced to the surface where they are speared. This fish is then clubbed when speared out of the water. The tribesmen make sure to never actually let the fish touch them until long after it is dead - for fear of electric shocks. Cerumol2 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is it, despite its name?[edit]

Despite its name it is not an eel at all but rather a knifefish. [...] Despite its name, the electric eel is not related to eels but is more closely related to catfish. -Koala man (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a knifefish, which are closely related to catfish. - (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anatomy image?[edit]

I think it would be really interesting to have an image of the anatomy of the fish. Shinobu (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garbled sentence[edit]

Just to draw attention to a garbled sentence in the text (current version)

These signals are what is thoughare emitted by the main organ [...etc...]

— Alan 20:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed non-English name "temblador"[edit]

Removed mention of the non-English name "temblador" from the lead. This is English-language Wikipedia. AFAIK, good en Wikipedia practice is not to include non-english names in articles. No mention of the name "temblador" (relative to this fish) found in English Google -Wikipedia. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was it called by locals? Electricity being european concept. (Electrophorus electricus (Linnaeus, 1766) ) ( (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Edit request from Gymnotus, 31 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following citation to the section on reproduction:

Assuncao, M.I. da Silva and H.O. Schwassmann, 1995. Reproduction and larval development of Electrophorus electricus on Marajo Island (Para, Brazil). Ichthyol. Explor. Freshwat. 6(2):175-184.

Gymnotus (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks! haz (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request from, 18 July 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} At the end of the article, reference number 5 has, right in the middle, "Expression error: Unrecognised word "jean"" in red. Why is this? Needs to be fixed. (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Algebraist 10:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request[edit]

In the section Anatomy: "Electrophorus has a well developed sense of hearing. " There is no need for Electrophorus to be bold and italic there. Also I don't see why the subject has to be "electrophorus" instead of "electric eels" or "the electric eel"... This looks quite weird as it is. Rorrima (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macro-scale Energy Synthesis[edit]

It can be deduced that since the electric eel is just the result of genetic information that is carried out through cellular dynamics..that this same genetic infomration can be utilized to synthesize a genome of a macro-scale organism that is capable of generating a virtually limit-less wattage potential (an immobile non-intelligent biochemical powerplant)..depending upon the glucose input. It should also be noted that it is theoretically plausible to encode biochemical pathways that are capable of creating the glucose necessary to run the processes of the organism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitterinsewield (talkcontribs) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rubbish (again) about Volts and Amperes[edit]

Saying that an eel can deliver 1 Ampere current does not say it will generate a current of 1 Ampere to humans. The current is always calculated using Ohm's I = U / R. The error is often seen where certain sources have a max current. I believe this should be edited. Wezkoh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Edit request from Iclemens, 3 February 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Last link in the article (to is incorrect. Iclemens (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the shocks widly spreadable??? No. they are not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithine (talkcontribs) 14:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Electrocution is due to current flow"[edit]

"Electrocution is due to current flow" isn't this phrase redundant? Current is already a flow of electrons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AC or DC?[edit]

I see a lot of argument among amateurs and even sort-of-professionals as to whether the electric eel's current is AC or DC. The article doesn't seem to cover this mystery; which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that you will find that these creatures create pulses of voltage and not a constant voltage of either AC or DC. What I would love to see added to one of these electric fish pages, in general, is an oscillograph of the pulses. The pulses could be bipolar, i.e. one positive and the next negative which would be more like AC. I also have a feeling that the 500V or 650V created is open circuit voltage and when they supply 1 amp, that this may be loaded down somewhat and not actually at that high voltage. So, what would be needed would be an I-V curve, such as you would find from a photovoltaic solar panel. This information might be located in a marine science journal or something I am guessing. I wonder what their MPP (Maximum Power Point) voltage is ?


boB K7IQ (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There's plenty published on this. As you'd expect from theorising about their electrochemistry, the overall waveform is a pulse with an AC aspect to it and little overall DC current flow.
Evolution of electrosensory and electromotor systems
Proximate and ultimate causes of signal diversity in the electric fish Gymnotus
W. G. R. Crampton, A. Rodríguez-Cattáneo, N. R. Lovejoy, A. A. Caputi
Journal of Experimental Biology 2013 216: 2523-2541; doi: 10.1242/jeb.083261
has an interesting comparison chart between species. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defensive behavior[edit]

Article about electric eels rising from the water to deliver a stronger shock, apparently in response to their perception of any conductor as a threat: (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poor vision due to eye damage?[edit]

I was trying to confirm that the electric eel has poor vision. Remember reading that the repeated shocks damaged its own eyes. Long time ago, but I think the same source mentioned that the electric field could help sense the prey. Shanen (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It lives in turbid conditions that are pretty much "liquid mud". Even perfect eyes wouldn't see well. Animals in such environments rarely bother with good eyesight. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The eel never sleeps? How can it avoid death from exhaustion that way?[edit]

> As obligate air-breathers, electric eels must rise to the surface every ten minutes or so to inhale before returning to the bottom. Nearly eighty percent of the oxygen used by the fish is obtained in this way.

If that was true than the electric eel couldn't ever sleep, needing to run its brain and muscles continously for the frequent surface/dive cycles, but lack of sleep leads to death eventually? (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fish show some signs of behavioral rest and physiological "sleep" but it's not the same as in mammals. See Sleep in fish. If you have sources that would be relevant to electric eels, feel free to add a tidbit about rest. I didn't see anything promising in a very quick search. Rhinopias (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two proposed new species[edit]

An article in Nature Communications proposes two new species, Electrophorus electricus, E. voltai, and E. varii. E. electricus primarily occupies the Guiana Shield, E. voltai the Brazilian Shield, and E. varii the lowland Amazon Basin.

Primary source:

  • de Santana, C. David; Crampton, William G. R. (2019-09-10). "Unexpected species diversity in electric eels with a description of the strongest living bioelectricity generator" (PDF). Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11690-z. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-09-10. Retrieved 2019-09-10.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Suggested secondary sources:

*Hussain, Danyal (2019-09-10). "Electric eel with an 860-VOLT shock has the highest charge of any animal on earth, scientists reveal as they discover there are at least three distinct species of the fish". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2019-09-10. Retrieved 2019-09-10. This source is not considered reliable davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took the liberty of adding the proposed names of the new species [1]. If that's not ok, feel free to revert. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Somebody should tell C. David de Santana et al. that in Latin the genitive of Volta is Voltae, not Voltai. Sigh! Pasquale (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

footnotes and references[edit]

I notice there's a section 'footnotes' and a section 'references'. The footnotes are nearly all references which makes it quite a mess, in my opinion. I don't know how to fix it, don't know what is the right way to merge them. Maybe someone can look into this. Cheers. Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this article exist?[edit]

Can anyone provide a link to this source or confirm that it is real?

Wheeler; et al. (1995). "Practical considerations in the handling and care of electric eels". Journal of Experimental Zoology. 43 (9): 53–57.

I've been trying to find it somewhere online but had no luck so far. The volume/issue numbers in the citation don't seem to make sense, considering the journal started in 1904 and was in the neighborhood of 270 volumes by 1995. So unless I'm looking in the wrong places, I'm not sure we can rely on it or the information about the shock being equivalent to that of a stun gun. --StarStuffScience (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StarStuffScience: nice catch. This is the list of articles by "Wheeler" in the journal - no dice. And I can't find any mention of that title anywhere, except in Wikipedia mirrors. So this looks to be a fake. Feel free to remove the passage entirely, or I can do it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elmidae: Thanks! I knew that biology degree would finally come in handy. If you could remove the passage and the fake reference, I would appreciate it. I just made this account so it doesn't yet have permission to edit semi-protected pages. I suggest deleting everything after the first sentence of the paragraph that starts with "In the electric eel, some 5,000 to 6,000..." and then merging that first sentence with the paragraph below it. Feel free to ignore me though and change it however you see fit. --StarStuffScience (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While you're at it, you may or may not consider removing reference [10] "The Guardian: Shocking news: world's most powerful electric eel found in Amazon. Retrieved 11 Sep 2019" if you want. It's just a guardian article about reference [2] "de Santana, C. David (2019)", so it may just be a redundant secondary source. I'm still learning wikipedia's best practices so I apologize if that's a silly suggestion. --StarStuffScience (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

Since there are three species is is only logical that there be two more articles created — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkMaster2 (talkcontribs) 01:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not necessarily. Not every named species gets its own wikipedia article. There are about 1.15 million names species, and enwiki has 6.26 million articles..if one sixth of all the articles on enwiki were individual biological species, that would be a bit ridiculous. Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with TheDarkMaster2. There is now content which refers to only one of the three species (and I'm sure more can be found), and IMO this article should now be renamed to the species name, the general stuff moved to the genus article, and "Electric eel" should refer to the genus. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 23 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved, with Electrophorus (fish) also being moved to Electric eel. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric eelElectrophorus electricus – See above. I think this one needs to be species-specific, and "Electric eel" should redirect to Electrophorus (fish). It'll only get worse over time if it's not done now. Also, large sections of this article probably rightly belong in the genus article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, good point, Rreagan007. I think that this article would probably first need to be moved to Electrophorus electricus, then the appropriate content moved out of that one into the genus article, and then get the genus article moved over the remaining redirect (i.e. this page - Electric eel). This way all article histories will more accurately reflect what's occurred. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.