Talk:Arctica islandica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marine life
Portal
 This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Marine life.
Marine life To do:

Contents

[edit] Quahog

Is "Ocean Quahog" an actual name of it? It sounds very similar to a Family Guy reference? --86.139.208.128 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Quahog comes from the Narraganset Native American word poquanhock, for the common round clam, Venus mercenaria, first attested in North American English in 1794. So I guess the word beats Family Guy by a couple of centuries. (sources: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Macquarie Dictionary) --Iacobus 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does, however an unfortunate happenstance of our times is that the internet is rife with trolls, pranksters and vandals. I imagine more than a few would get a kick out of having a joke article linked from Wikipedia's main page. But even without taking that into account, Quahog is a somewhat obscure word that most would assume was simply made up for Family Guy. Sort of like how some youths might look at the Elk's Lodge and wonder if it wasn't simply an offshoot of The Water Buffalo Lodge from The Flintstones. 75.59.177.91 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Puh-leeze! It's the other way around. "Quahog" is an Indian word, that's where 'Family Guy' got it. Further, I've heard of it in school and in books (as in "McWhirter's Encyclopedia of Facts") long before I heard it on 'Family Guy'. It really is a testament to how uneducated the American populace is that "everything I know about the world I learned from 'Family Guy'." Again, pathetic.Ryoung122 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Info

OK this obviously started with the longvity info, but when you get here from the new section there's nothing more to tell about it. So can someone please find out a few more things: 1. In the longevity section we could have a figure of the next oldest creature- I put some things in for comparison, but theu are unsourced. 2. Some idea of its size, weight, relatives, distribution; how long its group has been in the fossil record, reproduction- these are just a few suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.57.165 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will try to see what I can find. —Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion editing

It is not I aver customary to REMOVE material from discussion pages. It may well be that some material here constitutes general comments and is inappropriate; in such cases, it is typical to add the appropriate header to the discussion page, that this is discussion about the article, not the subject.

However, I it is NOT appropriate to REMOVE those comments from the discussion page. Who are you to so fully decide what is or is not acceptable? Unfortunately, where the removal was done anonymously, I can't actually discuss the issue with the person in question. Toby Douglass 11:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not my comment, but I think I saw what was said. The commenter was upset that such an old relec of an animal was destroyed. I can understand the sentiment. Reserving judgment on the issue, some questions I have are, how common are these clams and how many are of compareable ages? I certianly question the ethics of destroying somthing that could be completely unique or at least very rare. Beyond that, if these clams are very common and this is a median age for this type of animal, we may be falling for some media hype. <<KV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.237.2 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Help The Aged

I don't trust that reference for Help The Aged donating £40,000. If they did then i wouldn't imagine many people who donated would be happy. The reference is from a blog style page. I don't trust it at all, lol. Cls14 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will put your mind at ease: telegraph.co.uk,[1], Times Online,[2][3], Daily Mail,[4]. —Viriditas | Talk 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, that's pretty ironic that a group called "Help The Aged" is donating money towards an effort that will kill the oldest living animals on Earth, though I do understand the reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.254.200 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with those references! Cls14 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Vandalism, or just an Error?

In the first couple of graphs we have:

In October 2007, researchers from Bangor University in North Wales determined that an ocean quahog clam dredged off the Icelandic coast was between 405 and 410 years old by drilling through and counting rings on its shell (a technique known as sclerochronology), a process that promptly killed it. This made it the longest-lived animal on record. The clam was nicknamed "Ming" after the Chinese dynasty that ruled when the clam was born.[1][2] The researchers are uncertain how long the clam may have lived had it been left on the ocean floor.[3] (The animal died during the dredging process.[4])

My question is the inconsistency between the first graph's "a process that promptly killed it" (which sounds like a punchline) and the next graph's "The animal died during the dredging process.")

Whaddya think? --starfarmer 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From Coast To Coast AM's Headline page, 10- 31- 07: Long lived clam found, Researchers KILLS it. 65.163.112.104 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murdered at 410

If they had left it in the sea it would still be alive.Ryoung122 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought exactly the same thing when I read this article, and vowed never to eat mollusks again! That's just SO wrong. 210.49.15.52 (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If they had not removed it, we would have no idea about how old the species can get to. There is every possiblity that that is a typical age for the species; they have a very slow metabolism due to the fact that they are oxyconformers in a low-oxygen area. Captain Crush (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahogany?

Is it correct that Arctica Islandica are also known as Mahogany Clams? There's no mention of this in the article, and I don't see another Wikipidia article under that name.155.49.95.90 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; it should be added to the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 13:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect added. Will work on adding a source for the syn. —Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Arctica islandica is also known as the Icelandic cyprine,[1] mahogany clam, mahogany quahog, black quahog, and black clam.[2]. —Viriditas | Talk 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of category questions

Can this article be added to Category:Bivalves? Is this clam eaten by humans? If so, could it also be added to Category:Edible molluscs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.73.252 (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already appears in Category:Arcticidae, which is a subcategory of Category:Bivalves. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I see that the NOAA report cited as a reference for the article is a "National Marine Fisheries Service", hence I am inclined to think that this article could be placed into Category:Edible molluscs. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)