Talk:Candiru (fish)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Candiru (fish) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

BBC's "Earth" has episode about Candiru in "Deep Dive" series. It has footage of Candiru entering a fish and eating it from inside. While the program does it not address the belief regarding candiru entering the body through the urethra, it certainly confirms the candru's ability to enter a body. The current article focuses solely on the question of whether candiru enter bodies through an orifface.

It does not provide information about how Candiru attack and consume prey. It is through a disturbing process of spinning and cutting into its prey through the use of external teeth. The Candiru then proceed to consume the prey from the inside. The diver filming this process notes he is wearing a heavy wetsuit and can feel numerous fish attempting to drill into it. The truth about Candiru is just as disturbing (if not more so.) They don't require an orifice to enter a body. They creat their own.

Venture Bros

Season 1, episode 9 of the animated TV show, the Venture Brothers (https://venturebrothers.fandom.com/wiki/Are_You_There,_God%3F_It%27s_Me,_Dean) starts with the Monarch threatening to submerge the Venture family in the Amazon, where the Candiru fish lives. An argument ensues about the fish's propensity to swim up a human urethra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtorok (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely feels notable enough to add to the article, especially since it became a running joke, with it being referenced in Season 6 Episode 3, and in the movie Radiant is the Blood of the Baboon Heart Apolloreyes (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new physics

Given the new evidence that small items can float upstream, see e.g. http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/2013/07/tea-leaves-and-other-particles-can-sometimes-float-upstream/, perhaps the allegations that this fish could not physically swim up the urine stream should be reevaluated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badger?

Why is the badger classed as one of the most feared fish in the amazon? It's a funny joke but maybe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.231.16 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an urban legend

Just in case anyone sees an urban legend site, this fish has actually been listed on a couple in the past. It is _not_ an urban legend. Ow... Rgamble

yowza. --KQ

What's a buitach apple?

Does anyone have any clue as to what a "buitach apple" is? I found the "xagua plant" - it's even in ITIS, though spelled "jagua", and is in Rubiaceae - but I've seen no reference to the buitach that lists its scientific name or family. -phma

Excerpts here http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/urinophilic_candiru.html from an article from the March 1973 article of Urology, pages 265-267. "Candiru: Urinophilic Catfish Its Gift to Urology" by John R. Herman, M.D. - Mentions that "buitach" is used more often "for dissolving kidney stones, rather than the bones of candiru". If anybody can get a copy of the original article, it might well answer this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.87 (talk) 20:35, November 19, 2002

I've heard enough about the candiru to be pretty sure its not an urban legend, but I think I read somewhere that the bit about them being able to swim up a stream of urine into a man's penis is false. I read through the straight dope article and it doesn't appear to say that fish jumped out of the water and into the man's penis, so could someone confirm that and change the wikipedia entry? Briham 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm just going to remove the bit about jumping out of water now. I'm positive its false, but if someone produces evidence to the contrary, feel free to change it back. Briham 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, I guess I'm the asshole. I read the article again and it says it did enter a non-sumberged penis. I'm assuming the straight dope does its research, so I reverted my edit. I still can't beleive it though.Briham 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever stop to think that leaving questionable information in an article because you only assumed your reference "[did] its research" might not be a good idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.131.62 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Copyvio recommended reading section

The recommended reading section was lifted straight from this site:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/candiru_urethra.html

I'll just mention that and do nothing about it :-) I'm not in a mood for doing major edits. Tristanb 00:35, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ow. OW!

That is all. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. But it would make for a great horror film! - Some Random Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.247.212 (talk) 08:03, September 18, 2005

Or a great episode of a medical dramedy thursday nights on ABC! --AMK1211 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Wardenusa 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical accent is wrong

As far as I know, Candiru does not have the graphical accent. If anybody speaks Portuguese there, remember that: <portuguese> Palavras oxitonas terminadas em "i" ou "u" nao sao acentuadas, com excecao de casos de hiatos, como "jau", "bau". </portuguese> (sorry I'm typing in an American keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.159.15 (talk) 06:09, August 28, 2006

Yes, please remove the accent, it's *wrong* in Portuguese, would be correct in Spanish - I don't want to start an edit war, but once I edited it out and people added it back. - tatapyranga 200.96.234.99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.96.234.99 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other methods of removal?

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-29-2004-51087.asp

"One way to expel the fish would be to drink the juice of the green fruit of the Jagua tree, Genipa Americana L. The juice of this fruit is brewed into a tea and drunk hot, supposedly causing the skeleton of the fish to dissolve and resulting in its expulsion from the victim within a couple hours. A synthetic version of the brew has been used in the past by urologists to dissolve bladder "incrustations" and kidney stones. The Candiru can also be removed surgically. But both these processes are time consuming."

ugh..."removal" FG Fox 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to believe

The Candiru sounds almost too horrible to be believed. Can anyone produce an actual photograph of one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenwarlocks (talk • contribs) 18:26, September 28, 2006

Inconsistency

The whole second paragraph explains how the fish can attack humans, but then the last sentence in the third paragraph states: "There have been documented candirú attacks on humans, there is no evidence the fish can survive once inside a human."

This sentence is grammatically incorrect, and contradicts the previous material. Could someone please clarify the situation? IronC hris | (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's completely contradictory. I'd change it, but I don't know anything about this fish. Hollerama 03 December 2006

I don't see why it's contradictory. The fish could attack and then, finding no sustenance, die. 88.110.113.61 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fish apparently can not swim backwards and the standard life cycle involves swimming into gills and then advancing forward out of the fish. The presumption is that this is impossible in a human. I was provided with this opinion primarily from reading "The River of Doubt" describing Theodore Roosevelt's last great adventure. Autkm (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a myth, despite denials

I don't know anything about this fish either. It appears to exist, however despite Rgamble's protestation, I strongly suspect the whole thing is a long-running hoax, or cultural myth. I seem to remember a similar legend about sexual danger from some small snouted South American animal if one slept too close to the ground in the wild, but I've forgotten the details.

Source page http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-29-2004-51087.asp contains at least two rather suspect statements:

There are moves to ban the import of these fish into the United States because of fears that some of them might find their way into American rivers and wreck havoc.

As of now there are no known predators of the candiru and apart from their feeding habits there is very little information available about them.

Nothing else I could find was much better:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/catfish/candiru.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000519.html

The much mentioned 1973 edition of Urology doesn't appear to be well-regarded. Urbanlegends.com links mentioned by Tristanb and others above are dead. Professional journals can be wrong!

This para on the page is laughable: A traditional cure involves the use of two plants, the Xagua plant (Genipa americana) and the Buitach apple which are inserted (or their extract in the case of tight spaces) into the affected area. These two plants together will kill and then dissolve the fish. More often, infection causes shock and death in the victim before the candirú can be removed.

Could some biologist please edit this article to fit the facts? Centrepull 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first leaning about this fish was from a documentary on either Discovery or National Geographic channel, and that program featured a man who had had a candiru fish surgically removed from his urethra. So it probably isn't a hoax even if documentation for this article seems scarce currently. __meco 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. This page is at the least extremely inaccurate. Neither National Geographic nor the Discovery Channel are scientific bodies of any standing. Was the removal operation or specimen removed from this unlucky man preserved or shown? I think not. I would also be surprised if the documentary mentioned actually shed any light on the habits of this mysterious fish.

This article reflects badly on Wikipedia, and needs to be fully revised.

The problems:

Every single one of the cultural references is from fiction or pop culture.

The resources and links are all either doubting, doubtful, or go round in a circle.

The wording is generally unscientific and suspect (is it an 'infection'?).

Even worse, the article is making claims that are not justified even by the small amount of scientific literature available.

It is difficult to see how the candiru is both very rare, and feared more than piranha by the local people?

If the candiru isn't very rare, then its attacks on humans must be extremely rare, given the lack of proper evidence.

If it isn't rare, then one would also expect more knowledge of its habits and predators, more pictures etc.

The candiru doesn't 'feed on the blood and body tissue', it feeds only on blood, and only a small amount of that (what it can get in 30s- 145s, according to fishbase.org)

'The candiru is then almost impossible to remove except through an operation' - hmmm, if this fish has managed to force its way into your ass, then either you or the fish has a big problem. This sounds like a scare tactic. Surely the fish withdraws (as usual), or gets stuck and dies. Or has it inflated itself with your blood to block the passage?

'These two plants together will kill and then dissolve the fish' but not dissolve your own membranes?

'More often, infection causes shock and death in the victim before the candirú can be removed' shock and death to the reader, I suspect! More scare tactics.

'The fish jumped out of the water to enter his urethra following the trail of urine'. Unlike the action of gills, urinating is a one-way flow. This event is unlikely to say the least.

The issue at question is not the existence of this parasite, or its parasitism on fish, but the idea of it managing to wedge itself into penises, anuses, vaginas etc, and kill as a result. I have not made the changes myself as I have only scientific and technical knowledge, and insufficient specific biology background.

Details

http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=8811

illustrations

http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/ThumbnailsSummary.php?ID=8811

candiru mentioned by photographer, but no picture

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0205/feature4/assignment2.html

candiru pic (rather more spines than as described in article)

http://www.realtimetv.co.uk/junglehooks/amazon_gallery7.shtml

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrepull (talk • contribs) 12:40, December 27, 2006

Yeah, it's real. Check out the Youtube video I just added.

As said below, not a myth: :::http://web.archive.org/web/20051218092711/http://www.internext.com.br/urologia/Casosclinicos.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.149.229 (talk) 05:45, February 1, 2007

Not a myth

I actually saw a special I think was on National Geogrphic Channel regarding this fish and a story where a man was urinating into The Amazon and one of these fish went right into his Penis. THe guy had to go to a hospital to get it removed and was quoted saying "It felt terrible, I thought I was going to die." they actually got the doctor who performed the surgery on the special. Seriously made me uneasy in the pants. I don't know where to find the info on the special unfortunately. CharlieP216 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very exciting and frightening, but not relevant as to whether this fish can really fly up a urine stream into a man's urethra. There is much more 'wanting to believe' than actual proof of anything going on here - at National Geographic as well as on this page. Please read 'Surely a myth' above. Centrepull 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no it's real or at least credible sources support it. I checked for scholarly respectable cites on urology and ichthyology. I can't link to all of them, but here's a few Urology: Ohio State University Department of Surgery and Department of Vertebrate Zoology (Smithsonian). People up to 1951 did doubt it however and some sources say it is more likely to go up the anus, but has become more famous for being able to go up the urethra. (I normally don't use words like that, but I'm being medical)--T. Anthony 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the SAS Survival Handbook, by John Wiseman published by Collins Harvill. On page 53 it's reported there under the section surviving in tropical regions. Lady BlahDeBlah 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.archive.org/web/20051218092711/http://www.internext.com.br/urologia/Casosclinicos.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.149.229 (talk) 05:46, February 1, 2007

Pain?

As far as I can see from the article, the fish injects itself to the penis. Is this the only pain it will give? If then I don't see how it can be more dangerous than a vampire bat or other leechers. A pirahana biting on you penis would technically be more painful as it'll bite it continuously.--sin-man 08:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell (from either the Straight Dope or Damn Interesting article), they reportedly swim up the urethra, wedge themselves in, then gorge on blood. They get so big they get stuck/can't get back out. Urine is also blocked. I cringed the whole time I wrote this :/ 65.196.220.2 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the episode of "Grey's Anatomy" (April 26, 2007) where a man returning to the US from a trip to the Amazon has this parasite in the urethra and it is surgically removed. As a person with an MD degree, my impression is that this case - like a few others I've seen on the show in the past - is based more on myth than medical science. The screenwriter may have heard of this fish swimming up the human urethra from gossip or perhaps a personal trip to the Amazon. But it was not mentioned at all in my parasitology course in medical school (you can bet that if it were, all of us would be sure to remember it), although many other exotic parasites found in underdeveloped areas of the world were. Nor is it mentioned in Harrison's, a standard comprehensive textbook of medicine. Nor are any of the references to the Wikipedia article directed to any articles in a scholarly medical journal. Conclusion: Until further evidence is produced, this fish should not be considered a human parasite. Rightallwrongs 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)rightallwrongs[reply]

Part of this is because Wikipedia often doesn't use scholarly sources. See links I listed above. Also you could check through some literature on urology. I tried to online, but I do not have access to that stuff as I'm not a medical doctor so never signed up for Urology journals.--T. Anthony 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Fishy

A nice story but doesn't bear examination. Why would a freshwater fish that evolved to attach itself to another fish's gills, where there is a ready flow of oxygenated water, swim up an oxygen-free tube against a flow of salty ammonia laced fluid only to die of asphyxiation before it had a chance of a meal? This story belongs in the "hamster and cardboard tube" category of urban myth. NBeddoe

Intent to remove pop culture section

I'm going to remove all the cultural references from this article unless a compelling defense of them is presented here. Many Wikipedia articles contain these pop culture reference sections, and I don't feel that they add anything of value to the articles. There are no criteria for determining what to mention and what not to mention; they tend to be based on the personal tastes of the author and nothing more. They do not contain scientific information. If you look at the more well-developed articles in Wikipedia they do not contain pop culture trivia sections. I'll check back in two weeks and remove the entire section unless someone would care to justify it, and provide criteria for determining what is worthy of mention. James A. Stewart 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the entire section, for the reasons stated above.James A. Stewart 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this section should be removed. It is pretty much comme il faut for Wikipedia articles on subjects that kindle a fascination in popular media to have this type of section. See also controvery regarding this at Talk:Ibogaine. __meco 08:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent Grey's Anatomy episode, I am taking out the parenthetical remark, "(the patient had a prosthetic urethra and therefore did not feel the fish's presence)". The surgeons on the show said that the fish was lodged in the patient's prostatic urethra (i.e., the segment of urethra that passes through the prostate), not a prosthetic urethra. Stu21202 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jumping story

Is it possible that the story of this fish being able to swim up a urine stream occured because the victim was too embarassed to admit he'd been stupid enough to urinate in the water in an area where he knew these things to be? --JamesTheNumberless 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more credible sources I've read gave me the strong sense that you have to be urinating in the river while swimming. You might be right that people would be reluctant to say "well I figured yeah why not get naked and swim in the Amazon? I'd had a lot of beer in me at that point so I had to pee and figured why not pee in the river? How could I know this would turn bad?"--T. Anthony 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why it gets stuck in humans

I think its worth noting that the reason the Candiru doesn't leave is that it gets stuck after filling up with blood. When it attacks the gills of a fish, it can just slip out, but obviously once it fills up with blood, it won't be able to back out of a urethra.

Also, this fish is definitely real (unfortunately). I've seen pictures of it feeding in the gill slit of another fish. Apparently the host fish sometimes dies due to blood loss. Anyway, I would caution against urinating in the Amazon, even if it does sound impossible for a toothpick fish to swim up the urine stream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.20 (talk) 15:47, April 9, 2007

You have to be in the Amazon River and peeing. The fish then swims into the urethra. You're in no danger when you're out of the river. These fish can't fly. Azn Clayjar 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis, and personally, I think only a baby candiru (no matter which species) would be able to escape after feeding. The only penises that would be spacious enough for a well-fed adult would be one of a rhino or bear, or even a dinosaur at least the size of a sauropod!.184.186.4.209 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be just a fluke ...

... a worm that causes Schistosomiasis http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec11/ch149/ch149a.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.109.194.116 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fluke infection is through its larvae, or more accurately its cercaria, a second larval stage only released after the worm's first larval stage (miracidium) undergoes the first part of the worm's life cycle in certain species of freshwater snails. Unlike candirus, cercaria are microscopic and initially cause only mild skin irritation, if at all. Furthermore, only placid lakes and very small streams would have a sufficient concentration of cercaria for them to cause infection. I don't even know if the snail (to which the worm is very specific) can survive in the waters of the HUGE Amazonian rivers (usually several kilometres or miles across, and with a water flow large enough to push the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of kilometres away at low tide in the mouth of the Amazon!), or if it can be found in that region at all. Schistosomiasis is endemic in other regions of Brazil and South America in general, where candirus (not "candiria") are not found. --UrsoBR (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivia" vs "Popular culture"

The "Popular culture" section again has been tagged as being a "trivia" section, so a quick mediation on what this means: the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag is to alert that the content of a trivia section should be relocated and integrated elsewhere in the article. The question here would then be: where to move the current contents of this particular section, which in this case happens to be exclusively references to this fish in popular culture? The only logical place would seem to be a section of their own.

I have therefore moved all these references to popular culture from the trivia-tagged section to a new section of their own, and removed the old trivia-laden section. I've named this new section "Popular culture", consistent with innumerable other Wikipedia articles.

Since I had previously removed the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag, to avoid controversy I retained the tag in this new section, but I would like to suggest that since there is no longer a trivia section, this tag be removed.--NapoliRoma 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The urethra is not in the vagina

If the fish is to swim into the vagina, it is not swimming into the urethra, as the vagina and the urethra have two separate and distinct openings. It should be clarified whether the fish enters the vaginal cavity or it enters the urethra. Not specifying this makes it sound like the opening to the urethra is located somewhere inside the vagina, which is incorrect.24.177.110.210 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to vulva for accuracy. Technically the fish is still capable of entering a vagina which, like the anus, has no urethra in it. Vulva accounts for both the female urethra and the vagina. Tegrenath (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture, the ruler, and all that

So this keeps coming up. As it were. The article leads with an explanation that the candirú "has been known to grow to a size of 6 inches", and the photo shows a fish that, if the ruler is in inches as the photographer says it is, would be somewhere around 5 inches in length.

An internal comment added to the article today protests:

the canonical proof, is that there are 10 marks between numbers, metric is 10 based imperial is not. Get it right people there is no way a 5" fish could swim up your penis.

Since there are indeed rulers hashed in tenths of an inch, as a quick Google search for ruler tenths inch should demonstrate, that isn't exactly canonical. And (reluctantly avoiding the easy "well maybe not your penis..." riff) since the candirú isn't really designed for willy-jumping, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the incidents that make this article so goshdarned popular involve the younger, smaller, stupider ones, while the older ones such as the one in this photo leave that kind of stunt to the young fry and spend their time more sensibly ravaging the gill cavities of other fish. Hence the saying: "There are old candirú, there are bold candirú..."

To sum up: Rulers marked in tenths of an inch exist. Five-inch candirú exist. The photographer has said the ruler is in inches. Unless you can document that you know something about the photo and its subjects that even the photographer doesn't, you should believe him and leave this article and the photo in inches, not centimeters.--NapoliRoma 20:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other consideration to think about though, is that the alleged "photographer" is some punk teenager from the northwest USA, who may or may not know one measurement from antoher and there are some serious doubts the bloke actually took this picture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.221.80.214 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, there is that. I've been assuming good faith on his part all along, which I still think is/was the right thing to do, and I am perfectly willing to back off as soon as someone shows that there are in fact serious doubts as to his claim, which none of the "centimeter" edits have done (most or all being done anonymously, on top of that).

That being said, I've always been a bit suspicious about the white strip along the top of the ruler, which looks a whole lot like something -- like an attribution? -- has been pretty crudely wiped out.--NapoliRoma 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...annnddd there we go. It's a copyvio: see http://www.angelfire.com/biz/piranha038/candiru.html , under the heading "WHAT THE SPECIES ACTUALLY FEEDING ON" [sic] .

I wasn't even looking for it; I was looking for a cite to verify "up to 6 inches" and there it was -- except this one says "Photo used by permission of Dr. Peter Henderson, PISCES Conservation Ltd", right where the white strip was. Argh.

But you know what? It still doesn't say whether it's centimeters or inches :-). However, since Dr. Henderson is from the UK, I'm more inclined to believe centimeters now. Not that it matters for the article, since the photo is now toast.--NapoliRoma 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Candiru is REAL, as is its parasitism.

SEE THE YOUTUBE VIDEO I JUST ADDED! It's *REAL*, and will inject itself into the penis, if not other bodily orifices.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.173.127 (talk • contribs) 16:44, July 25, 2007

"Welcome to the party, pal."--NapoliRoma 00:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite Simple Really

Theres really not much controversy around this, the fish exists. It feeds off blood. I travels through water into a host, usually the anus or vagina - or less commonly through the urethra while it is open (ie. while urine is being passed). Human attacks are rare, but this does not make it insignificant (not the least for the victim!). Simple google search or reading at a university library will yield plenty of referenced information on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icemotoboy (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree. Not Simple At All

The persistence of the unsubstantiated sections of this entry are an insult to wiki-ism, and a weapon in the armoury of those who seek to undermine Wikipedia. Consider. The fish, vandellia cirrhosa exists, and is a bloodsucking parasite that definitely attacks other fish, and may or may not attack humans, possibly genitally or anally. To make things more difficult, the candiru is shy, rare and poorly understood in its lifecycle, habits and taxonomy.

A candiru genital attack may have happened before, but there is insufficient proof. This is what Wikipedia should report, not what people would like to have happened.

The candiru attacking humans is the main point of the controversy. I have looked around extensively online for reputable and biologically qualified comment on Candiru diving into penises, and can only see a lot of rubbish written by men who want to make other men squirm and cross their legs. It is especially not true that 'Simple google search or reading at a university library will yield plenty of referenced information on the topic'. Most of the references lead round and round in a circle, with no original source.

Some of the pages and quotes on this subject in fact refer to this Candiru page as a source.

Some links I have found: http://www.somednat.org/site/spip.php?article55

The most recent book on the Candiru is an admitted mix of the scientific, the journalistic and hearsay: Candiru: Life and Legend of the Bloodsucking Catfishes by Stephen Spotte (available on Amazon.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrepull (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A candiru genital attack may have happened before, but there is insufficient proof."

There are at least three references I would call credible, but they're all under "External links" ( including Article on removal of Candiru from a male patient with pictures.) Do you find these to be insufficient? If not, feel free to convert them to references.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual prey?

So, no mention of how it normally feeds? I doubt its usual source of blood is the human wang. Fish gills, maybe? Noclevername (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not documented -- stop the flaky claims!

As this page proves, some people like to giggle about penises (at least one was drunk), but if Wikipedia is to be worth anything, it should err on the side of skepticism, not credulity. The claim of a fish swimming up a urine stream is doubtful on its face. Such a claim requires real evidence, not pop culture sources. I agree with centrepull above -- all the claims are circular and anecdotal, i.e. stories. There is only one valid reference, not "at least three". The Wilderness Medical Society reference contains a "report" and is otherwise unreferenced. There is a French language pdf; untranslated foreign language sources are not accepted Wikipedia sources. The external references are ridiculous. The only valid reference says there is only one documented case, which cited evidence that the fish entered through the scrotal sac. The second is a YouTube video of a TV show. The third was a dead link (deleted). This is the kind of garbage that makes Wikipedia such a joke. Use valid, established references, according to Wikipedia standards. Stop with the flaky claims. J M Rice (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... *chuckle* In this tent here, watch two-fisted academics engage in their usual bitter rivalries, and professional one-upmanship, documented online for your enjoyment! In the next tent, watch Naruto fans transcribe each tiny detail of every episode onto a digital format, while anything more than 'Dnd is an RPG' is edited away as 'too much information'! In yet another tent, watch the self-appointed Terry Brooks Militia defend their beloved god-king from anyone daring to point out his plagiarism!!

People talk about 'insults to the spirit of Wikipedia' and so forth, but the editorial attitudes shift so vastly and so rapidly between different areas, that the spirit of Wikipedia will always be an unattainable work-in-progress. Some may be frustrated by this, but I personally find that it makes the discussions into the Best Circus On The Web!! -Mike198.111.161.34 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm joining this conversation several years later, but They showed a more recent case on the Television show River Monsters, which has a video of the thing inside the guy's penis. It's realEricl (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

The section titled "In popular culture" has been tagged for a while now with little to no attempt to incorporate it into the article. None of it seems to be of any encyclopedic importance, so I removed it. --Travis Thurston+ 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One documented case, but...

While it may be technically true that there is only one documented case (that depends on your standards for "documented"; I'd say that to say there's only one is applying an over-strict standard to what is inherently a non-exceptional, though sensational-sounding, phenomenon), that statement gives a false impression if unqualified, implying that the event is some incredible fluke. Most people in candiru territory will have little or no access to doctors, so few cases will ever be medically documented.

The attitude here is beginning to slip from skeptical to overly incredulous. Looked at from an objective (i.e., not "That's gross!") perspective, there's nothing really strikingly unique here. Plenty of very small animals of similar size (cockroaches are known to enter the ear canal, as are earwigs: note that this is not normal behavior and no, they do not lay eggs there!) crawl into orifices, and these are not (unlike the candiru) parasites! For an animal with an instinct to enter body cavities, it's not at all surprising.

(Note also that 'candiru' is not always used to refer only to Vandellia cirrhosa. This has led to much confusion, with people looking at a 5-inch-long, 1+-inch-thick fish that was being called a 'candiru' and pointing out (quite rightly) that it couldn't fit up an urethra.) Vultur (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it too that it is too defensive to say "only one documented case", especially since this video popped up recently: River monsters --JoakimLarsson (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eat human from the inside

On the animal planet show "River Monsters", Jeremy Wade visits with a pathologist in the Amazon who presents a corpse with a number of these fish bored inside and feeding from within. According to the pathologist, the man was alive while they were feeding on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.40.74 (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifecycle?

Though there are several references to this creatures supposed ability to attack the human urethra, there's nothing about what its normal lifecycle is. I remember hearing that its normal attack method is to enter another fish's gills, but is that true? Does it has a particular fish preference? What's its lifespan? Breeding grounds? True, most people will come here just to learn about human attacks, but the article should contain more. 174.70.117.125 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one case; alternative explanations

I'm skeptical of the single case of urethral candiru. I know I'm using OR to counter peer reviewed... oh wait, I have yet to find a journal article by co-authored by Samad as the Straight Dope article promises. Admittedly, I haven't searched super extensively, and Samad does have a website where he mentions it, but the sources on this aren't as solid as the could be. Straight Dope says the fish was 11.5 mm wide (~1/2 inch), Samad's website says 15 mm. Either way, that's pretty wide. The largest urinary catheters are 8 mm. A soda straw is 5.3 mm. I'm sure a urethra could accomodate a 11.5 mm object, but it wouldn't get in there easily; it would take some cooperation from the insertee. The patient shows up at the hospital 3 days after the fact and claims half inch wide fish jumped into his urethra. If the fish had some "help", I very much doubt the patient would have admitted it. It seems far more likely to me that the fish was inserted into the urethra. It could have been a stupid bet/prank/show of machismo. This is the "most feared fish in South America" in spite of no previous hard evidence that its reputation was deserved. What better thing to stupidly attempt to prove your immunity to pain? It could have been something sexual. It does sound pretty unpleasant, but there are people who like sticking things in their urethras, and with 6 billion people in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one thinks taking urethral sounding to that extreme is appealing.

As far as the urologist is concerned (whether or not he gets around to actually publishing something), removing a candiru from his patients penis is an awesome story no matter what. There's no need to question his patients explanation of how it happened. 70.249.221.89 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you wholeheartedly. I've been monitoring this article for a long time and that one story always stunk to me somehow (I even suspect the entire incident could be a hoax). I just have been unable to prove it as false with a source. Sometimes I wish that even when we have no source, that OR could be accepted by the force of pure logic. For example, I have long been pushing for a section about how many people still think the fish can swim through a urine stream in mid-air, which is utterly one the most absurd things I have ever heard in the realm of fluid mechanics. Which reminds me of one other point of suspicion to add to yours: The man claims it "jumped" into his urethra while he was peeing in a river thigh-deep. A half-inch wide fish jumped up, latched onto the end of him (interesting in that it has no grasping limbs) and carefully pulled it open far enough to pull itself inside? And he just stood there with his hands right in the area and let it do that?Legitimus (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the same anon as above, different IP). I think it would be fair to make the language of the article a little more skeptical. Dr. Samad Anoar's website (or is it Anoar Samad (http://www.institutodeurologia-as.com.br/)?) as linked in this article says that the patient came to the clinic "with a story that..." and that the patient "reported...". Since the source qualifies the statements, surely Wikipedia can say the "patient claimed....".72.215.32.188 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. http://www.mnhn.fr/sfi/cybium/numeros/pdf/272pdf/01.analysecarvalho.pdf It's a review of Spotte's book, which discusses the case. The reviewer says "Unfortunately, however, the doctor’s account of the attack itself, as told to him by the victim, does not seem credible". The victim's veracity aside, Spotte's book sounds like a better source for information about the incident than the Straight Dope article if anybody has access to the book.72.215.32.188 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out Spotte himself is skeptical. Some quotes from the book are here: http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette45.html. "We have only FBC's [the patient] story filtered through Anoar Samad." 72.215.32.188 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about some mention of its natural history apart from humans? Presumably humans aren't the Candiru's usual prey. OR ARE THEY??1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.148.220 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their natural prey is the gills of larger fish. DS (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Monsters

There have been several cases, and that brings us to the question of what about that first season episode of River Monsters that has the footage of the thing in that poor guy's penis? Do you think Jeremy Wade is LYING in this case? http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/river-monsters/videos/fish-swims-up-urine-stream.htm Ericl (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are not several cases. There is one purported case. Wade is interviewing Anoar Samad, the doctor whose "case" is already discussed in this article. Somebody is indeed LYING. It could be the unnamed patient, Samad, or Wade. Maybe it's not Wade lying, but he certainly isn't interested in investigating facts that might get in the way of a sensational TV show. See Talk:Pacu for another case where the "facts" presented in River Monsters are at odds with the (already suspicious) original story. Plantdrew (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact same case, exact same doctor. All the details match. The River Monsters clip also employs an actor to portray the alleged patient as a dramatic device for TV. No one has ever met the real patient. The only "evidence" in the clip are the doctor's words (as retold by Wade in English) and the cystoscope video that Spotte also reviewed in it's full length. Should be noted that cystoscopy videos are relatively easy to fake, as Spotte said in his books.Legitimus (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:)

People never call these fish vampire fish. --DontYouDareBlockMe88 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the fish

The article says that some Candiru species can reach 40cm, while "Extraordinary Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals" and "FishBase" (both used as sources) say they reach 15cm-17cm. Maybe centimeters was confused with inches (16in≈40cm). --Malore (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]