Talk:Lobster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Marine Biology, which collaborates on marine biology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. Start This article has been Assessed as Start-Class on its quality.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) This article contains plagerized information from this source [1]

Contents 1 Needs work 2 Diet etc. 3 Removed paragraph 4 langoustine redirect 5 legs 6 largest lobster 7 contradiction 8 The Blood of the Sea 9 First quality? 10 Lobster pain 11 US-centric view on the history of lobster as food 12 Symmetrically coloured lobster 13 Lobster Blood 14 Is "slaughter" NPOV? 15 size information 16 Pride? School? What? 17 Gastronomy 18 "lobster liberation" 19 Families of lobsters 20 Symbion

[edit] Needs work

it needs more about what the lobster looks like and what its charatericts are

This page needs work, I think there's a template for taxonomic information out there somewhere. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

--Dante Alighieri 01:04 20 May 2003 (UTC)

average lifespan? 01:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diet etc.

I was looking for their diet (which I know can be found in other places, but isn't Wikipedia going to be the repository of all human knowledge?). I guess this should be included when someone updates the biological information per "this page needs work."

[edit] Removed paragraph

Moved this paragraph from the article, it seems debatable at best, and no evidence is cited. How do you quantify the ocean bottom being a more competitive than, say, the African savannah? --Lexor|Talk 04:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Lobsters truly define the statement of “survival of the fittest” from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Only the biggest and the fittest survive the ocean bottom because it is a fierce world with fierce competition. Those that survive end up on dinner plates.

Removed reference to Norwegian study. The study is wrongly cited as determining lobsters don't feel pain. On the contrary, the study found that while lobsters "probably" don't feel pain, there is not enough evidence to determine this ("There is apparently a paucity of exact knowledge on sentience in crustaceans, and more research is needed"), and that "[E]fforts should be made to maintain these animals in the most appropriate way during handling and confinement, giving them the benefit of doubt in situations that have a potential to cause pain and stress".

[edit] langoustine redirect

Hi,

Langoustine redirects to this page, but I'm not sure it should do so. Unfortunately this seems to be a language issue!

According to [[2]] a langoustine is what is known as scampi in the USA. In England it is the same thing as a Norway lobster.

I know a langoustine as an animal about 6 inches long and looking like a cross between a shrimp and a lobster.

Can someone tidy this?

Cheers!

As far as I can tell, scampi is the same thing as langoustine (in the UK) - both refer to the Norway lobster, also called Dublin bay prawn, Nephrops norvegicus. This may also be what you describe as being like a lobster-shrimp cross; certainly Nephrops is slimmer than a Homarus-lobster. I think a separate page for Nephrops would be justified, and that Langoustine should redirect there. --Stemonitis 12:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know Russian, and there is a word, лангуст("langust",pronounced /lʌnˡgust/), definitely related to "langoustine;"it refers to the spiny (not clawed) lobster, however.Maybe "spiny lobster" should redirect from langoustine.--Crustaceanguy 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Langouste" is not necessarily the same as "langoustine", not to mention that Russian colloquial terms may not correlate exactly with English colloquial terms. If "langoustine" is used for several different taxa, then it would be appropriate to have it as a disambiguation page, although I really don't know which taxa might be included. --Stemonitis 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] legs

Hi,

Does anyone know how many legs a lobster has, and is it always that same number for any lobster? Would you count the claws as legs (i.e., did they evolve into claws?)? Thank you.

• Lobsters are of the order 'Decapoda', the arthropods with ten legs. Not all lobsters have claws (eg California spiny lobster), but of the ones that do, the claws are the first pair of legs. --Elijah 22:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Spiny lobsters are not true lobsters, in fact. Also, many people believe lobsters only have two claws(I thought so myself until very recently), but they actually have six. There are large claws at the two front legs and small, rather unnoticeable claws on the next two pairs of legs. Only the first pair of legs is not used in locomotion, however. Spiny and slipper lobsters are not classified as true lobsters due to the absence of claws.--Crustaceanguy 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] largest lobster

according to this article http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=817&e=1&u=/ap/leviathan_lobster

the largest lobster is a 25-pound lobster, not the 20-pound of the guinness book. also bubba the 22-pound lobster just died today.

somebody please update the article.

[edit] contradiction

In the article it says a lobster trap has bait and makes it impossible for the lobster to get out. The last line in that pragraph says that the traps are inefficient and that is why there is still such a good lobster industry. These two lines directly contradict each other. In fact I saw a segment on the discovery channel about how a university studied lobster traps and observed via camera on traps that something like 90% of lobster that enter the trap leave it with no problem. This should be verified and updated

The fact that the trap does not permit the lobster to leave doesn't make it efficient. The fact is that trapping is itself an inefficient means of catching lobsters. siafu 21:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the situation is that the mesh in the traps permits small, underdeveloped lobsters to escape while larger ones are trapped. This means that lobsters typically aren't taken until they have had a chance to breed at least once. Take a look at paragraph four of this article at the New York Times, for instance. I've altered the article to reflect this info. --Clay Collier 08:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Blood of the Sea

Is it true that lobsters have blue blood? Or am I crazy and/or thinking of something else?--Atlastawake 14:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, see Hemocyanin. The color is quite pale under normal circumstances, though, it only turns visibly blue when it comes into direct contact with oxygen. Aragorn2 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, lobster blood is indeed blue due to low oxygen content. Few lobsters are red until they are cooked. Apparently, on average, one in every hundred lobsters is blue, and will remain blue after cooking! Rusty2005 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First quality?

The first quality of lobster can be found in Britanny and along the Channel. Since the 16th century, the most famous has been the wild "blue lobster" (homard bleu) of Audresselles, in the strait between France and England, but this species, different from the canadian lobster, is now very rare.

What is this "first quality" - and what is the second quality?

Also, on whose authority is this lobster "first quality"? Food is very subjective, and there's quality lobster all over the world.

Actually there's quality lobster in very few places. Most of the world is littered with so-called "spiny lobster," also known as "not lobster." Tomyumgoong 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobster pain

I corrected the sentence about lobster pain, which siad a Norwegian report concluded they don't, and referenced a media article about it. The media article was incorrect, and I instead added a citation for the report itself. I can't find it online, but I have a copy, and here is an excerpt: "efforts should be made to maintain these animals in the most appropriate way during handling and confinement, giving them the benefit of doubt in situations that have a potential to cause pain and stress." (p. 37) Neither is the report representative, so I added reference to another report which concludes "the scientific evidence... strongly suggests that there is a potential for decapod crustaceans and cephalopods to experience pain and suffering" (p. 5).Pasio 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article on lobsters and pain.--Lzygenius 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-centric view on the history of lobster as food

It seems to me as that part of the article is written entirely from the perspective of American history, it doesn't mention anything about lobster being eaten prior to the European colonization of the Americas, nor does it mention its status in Europe in post-colonial times.

I pretty much came to this entry because I knew it was a food for the 'poor' in North America untill modern times, but the fragmented information about the outside world in this article seems to indicate this was a unique situation - since markets seemed to instantly open abroad as soon as transportation became feasible. It's interesting that lobster wasn't prized highly in the Americas untill this happened, but why not and where was it prized previously?

So, if anyone could please edit the article to perhaps go a bit further back and from a neutral rather than a uniquely American perspective, I would greatly appreciate it.

• I'd guess it's a Canada-centric view since the it touts theirs as the top quality and spells the word "colour" with a "u" like that indicating a non-US author. Disclaimer: I live in Maine, hehe :p (though I'm in the lobster industry). 72.224.187.170 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symmetrically coloured lobster

The reference for the last paragraph of the biology section can be found at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060720-lobster-photo.html. I would do the reference myself but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia citations.

Added, thanks. BFD1 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobster Blood

Can anyone find any information on the composition of lobster blood? I have searched for a long time and am unable to find any specific information on it.

165.121.144.66 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh

Have you tried a Google search for "lobster blood"? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "slaughter" NPOV?

Is it really NPOV to use the word "slaughter"? I'm aware that it is the correct term for butchering animals for food but it has very brutal connotations, on the other hand vetoing words because of what some people think of them might set a dangerous precedent. Any thoughts?

TheChard 06:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid is probably your best quide. Avoiding words that can cause contention in and of themselves is good for the article. We want to write in an encyclopedic manner, and choose the best words for the purpose. NPOV applies to content, and would apply to the choice of words only to the extent that the choice of words drives a particular POV. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the article so that the "Slaughtering…" heading no longer appears. The two paragraphs it contained were unrelated anyway. --Stemonitis 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. -- TheChard 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] size information

"An average adult lobster is about 230 mm (9 inches) long and weighs 700 to 900 g (1.5 to 2 pounds)."—does anyone know what species of lobster is intended? it seems applicable to the american, or perhaps the european; i doubt it's an average length and weight for all of them, and even if it is, such data seems pointless—extremes of size would be more informative. 65.95.37.193

never mind. this information fits the american lobster well, so i'm going to move it to that article. 65.95.37.193 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pride? School? What?

What do you call a group of lobsters in the same effect that a Gaggle of Geese is called? I cant find that anywhere. GreenCherry 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In general Lobster tend not to group together very much in the wild. They are not community animals, and prefer to live a more solitary life. When Lobster do get together, or more commonly, are forced together, it usually ends in conflict. The obvious exeptions to this are mating, and the Lobster march, but as they never really socialise in the same manner as geese or cattle, there doesnt seem to be a set term for a group of them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.49.162 (talk • contribs).

n.b. the "lobster march" is a phenomenon observed in spiny lobsters, not true lobsters. True lobsters do indeed seem to be mostly solitary. --Stemonitis 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gastronomy

The whole Gastronomy section bothers me. It reads too much like a cook book. I think the instructions on how to cook and eat lobsters needs to come out, while the article could use more on the development of lobster as a premium food and on the industry around its use as food would be appropriate. -- Donald Albury 14:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Using a microwave oven to kill a lobster would not heat it evenly, as a previous editor has "presumed." This is a common misconception, as the microwaves actually only penetrate a few millimetres--the internal heating is due to conduction, the same as in boiling water. 68.145.160.71 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "lobster liberation"

The "lobster liberation" link is obviously extra-POV, by and for "animal rights" ultras-it should be deleted.172.163.4.16 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Families of lobsters

The reef lobster page treats them as lobsters. Does this mean that not all lobsters are in the family Nephropidae? --Crustaceanguy 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. As far as I conceive of it, "lobster" would cover Enoplometopidae and Thaumastochelidae as well, i.e. all members of Astacidea that are not freshwater crayfish, but I'm not sure that anyone has ever really laid down the limits of what counts as a true lobster. Since Enoplometopidae has been given its own superfamily, there is no clade name available for such a group, so we either have to restrict our use of the term "true lobster" to just this family, or move the current article to Nephropidae, and have "lobster" as an article for the vague topic of all those things that have "lobster" in their name. I have seen the term "clawed lobster" used, but although it excludes the achelates, this tends to include all sorts of other things, like Polycheles, which are even more distantly related. I would much rather have lobster be a meaningful article (as it currently is) than a confusing disambiguation page, or an article along the lines of "A whole bunch of fairly dissimilar things are called lobsters. Nothing much unites them.", but I'm open to suggestions. We need to consider what the average reader expects when they look for "lobster", which may be anything from Homarus to all larger long-tailed decapods. --Stemonitis 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current "lobster" article is meaningful. Also, this is obviously what many people have in mind when they think of lobsters. Probably we should leave the article as it is now, even though it may not have the exact taxonomic coverage.--Crustaceanguy 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbion

I am removing "parasitic" from the sentence about Symbion, because it is not a parasitic organism. The Symbion page says the relationship between lobsters and cycliophorans is commensal, meaning that the Symbion benefits, while the lobster is neither helped nor harmed. I have heard that most lobsters don't even know when the Symbion settles on their mouthparts. --Crustaceanguy 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)