Talk:Colossal Squid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Cephalopods
 This article is part of WikiProject Cephalopods, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use cephalopod resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] Giant Microwave?

In the section about the NZ specimen, it mentions a giant microwave. Can I just go ahead and remove that? EDIT: never mind found the source, that really sounded like vandalism. EvilMuppet 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe microwaves were used to thaw out a frozen specimen to prevent its outer extremities from decomposing during the thawing process. --82.7.120.95 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest squid?

On comparison to Giant squid, which is listed as having a total length of 17-20m, how is the Collosal Squid the largest squid known? This article lists a total length of 6-12m.

I think the difference is in mantle length (not counting tentacles) versus total length—Colossal Squid have shorter tentacles but larger bodies. —No-One Jones (m) 03:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I had the same question. I think this should be clarified in the files. --137.22.22.129 16:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I had the same question too. Is mantle length different to body length? From the article: "Colossal Squid may have a body length of 4 metres and total length of around 12 metres" - looks like its tentacles account for three quarters of its length, or am I missing something?
8/12 = two-thirds. Be that as it may, I believe the Giant squid sizes to be incorrect, based upon [1], but also on [2]. I will endeavor to update the numbers to be more accurately descriptive. - UtherSRG 12:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I added a small sentence at the end of the first paragraph about this. just something quick to clear up the dispute, as so not to confuse people. --Zeerus 20:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Is that sentence entirely accurate? Now it says that the giant squid is bigger, which it really isn't, it's just a little longer if you include the tentacles. As far as actual mass of the creatures, the colossal squid is considerably bigger. -GamblinMonkey 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is the giant squid even longer if you include the tentacles? The diagrams illastrating compartive lengths linked to above (as well as on the BBC article today about the photographs of the giant squid[3]) all have the colossal squid larger in all three mesures. Dalf | Talk 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact the largest kown giant squids with UNSTRETCHED tentacles were only about 13 in length, the longer specimens had overstreteched tentacles, making them much longer than they actually were. Even if the largest giant squids are a bit longer in complete length than the largest colossal squids, the colossal squids are much heaver. http://www.tonmo.com/science/public/giantsquidfacts.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.158.91.28 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Largest invertebrate

There is a possibility that the colossal octopus at 30m is the largest invertebrate. Should this be mentioned? Joelloughead 28 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)

No, it's fictional. - UtherSRG June 29, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

You don't know that, though. It has not been proven, but it has not been disproiven either. On another note, since the Giant Squid is Architeuthis Dux, shouldn't the Collosal Squid (larger) be called something like Architeuthis Rex or, even better, Architeuthis Imperator? -Alex 12.220.157.93 04:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the colossal octopus is fictional. As for your naming questions, again no; the Colossal Squid is in a different genus (Mesonychoteuthis) than the (up to 8) giant squid species (in genus Architeuthis. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I still think "Architeuthis Imperator" sounds cooler. Anyway, as I said, you conservative northerner government types have never proven the nonexistance of any cryptids. True, no one has produced evidence of its existance either, but the fascist government-funded organization has never disporven anything, either. -Alex, Confederate 12.220.157.93 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Can we also include the hyper colossal octopus, which is close to 7,000 m stem to stern? I don't know of any evidence of its existence yet, but it has not been disproven either. --Fxer 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but I'm not for it. If you put it on there, citing it as a rumor or something, that's okay...but the Colossal Octopus has at least some possible evidence, here: http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/coloct.htm. -Alex 12.220.157.93 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

the facts are that the estamated size of a fully grown female colossal squid is larger than anything we have ever seen in the invertabrate world, the one blobster found in florida that is suposed to be the colossal oct, may or may not be what they claim it to be, and since so little evidence supporting the c oct orther than the florida blob and the as yet unknown to science large oct beak found in the belly of one of the sleeper sharks caught recently, the colossal squid still stands as largeest invertabrate.--Manwithbrisk 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captive? Two species?

A rather unclear reference is made to a captive specimen. http://www.tonmo.com/science/public/giantsquidfacts.php refers to two species. A female of one species (Kondakovia longimana) was kept in captivity till it died. This is not the species refered to in this article, though perhaps it should be mentioned here. Panzuriel 06:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Recent edits

Nice job on the additions, XQ Fan, but now there are too many images squeezing the text. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have commented out all the images inserted by XQ Fan due to their disputed copyright status. See here for more. I think it is fair to leave them commented out (but not deleated) until XQ Fan replies. The bellman 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Why is this article named Colossal Squid where as it's Giant squid? Either this article or the giant squid article should be changed. I think using lower case is more in keeping with general wikipedia conventions. Thoughts? The bellman 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Colossal Squid is one species. Giant squid is a genus. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 77%?

In the article, someone posted that "14% of the squid beaks found in the stomachs of these sperm whales are those of the Colossal Squid, which indicates that Colossal Squid make up 77% of the biomass consumed by these whales". Could you find a source for that? Because that seems really odd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.106.9 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, that definitely needs a source. I put {{citation needed}} on it. —Keenan Pepper 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting that citation, I've added it now. I got it from TONMO.com. Wowbobwow12 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! —Keenan Pepper 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article now has two fair use images. We really need to delete one. --Robdurbar 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The images illustrate two of the most significant specimens, both of which received considerable international media coverage. Mgiganteus1 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick work

Wow, very impressive work getting the new catch up so quickly. Well done all concerned.Lisiate 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, damn good work. Kotare 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Predator/Prey

I understand this animal has limited information due to study difficulties. Scientists themselves dont understand everything about the Colossal Squid, their beaks may be found in whale stomachs however they should have the power to kill whales especially females squids. I'd like to see more facts from reliable refrences before they're placed into a certain animal's prey list. Gunis del 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nooners!

I love you Nooners.

143.229.182.13 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)inthelibrary

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Thank you. (I love you too, though) PenguinJockey 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Says you [4] =P Mgiganteus1 06:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 New Zealand specimen

Is it a giant squid or colossal? Because it's written up in the giant squid article also. Anchoress 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Nice to see your name on my cephalopod watchlist!) Most reports I found say it's Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, the Colossal Squid. (for example: bbc, National Geographic). I couldn't find any information at The University of Auckland's website yet. It looks like it should be removed from the article on Giant squid. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I won't be making those edits, but I'll leave a note on the talkpage. Nice to see you too - I hear that Bogie and Bacall met over a giant squid too. You know the 'pucker your lips and blow' line? Clearly a whale reference. :D Anchoress 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

I say w switch out the black and white current taxbox image for the good-quality photo at the bottom. It looks way better.–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 20:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That colour image illustrates a specific section ("Largest known specimen"). The B&W image has no relevance to that section. Also, it is the only one that shows the arms and tentacles clearly. Mgiganteus1 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I recognize that Image:Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni 2003.jpg is fair use. Currently it is in a section that is just a timeline of discoveries. I don't see how moving it to the taxobox would violate fair use, so long as the caption continues to mention the specific discovery. The animal is so rarely seen by humans that we are unlikely ever to find a comparable free alternative. The mere fact that it was captured and photographed in 2003 is notable. Could you explain how moving the image to the taxobox weakens the fair use argument?

Incidentially, there was a caption in the taxobox for an image that was not present. Digging through history I found Image:Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni.jpg with that caption. They didn't seem to go together, but I brought the image back. You said it seemed to be a copywrite vio, but the image is on commons and is tagged as pd-self. It's used in 3 projects. What makes you think it's a copy-vio, and if it is, why isn't it tagged as such on commons (anyone can edit there, just like here)?

As for the mystery caption, what image was originally linked to it, and where did that image go? (Probably a copyvio - reading the caption it would make sense.) 206.246.160.29 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, Image:Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni 2003.jpg is used to directly illustrate a specific section. In my opinion, it is more logical to place the image next to the relevant text. The original image under the name "Image:Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni.jpg" was a fair use image that was deleted several months ago. Concerning the current taxobox image, it appears to be copied from here: http://www.tonmo.com/science/public/giantsquidfacts.php. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a note [5] on the commons user talk page of the person who uploaded it. If there's no response in a couple days (say, by the weekend) I'll look into e-mailing the owner of the website, and seeing if it needs to be deleted off of commons or not.206.246.160.29 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length measurements

The estimated 10m length of the famous Mesonychoteuthis specimen seems to have shrunk to 4.2m. See NZ Herald May 1, 2008 for example. An editor made the according change, though without updating the references (see diff). What are the standards of length measurements and how should they be specified in the article? Somewhere (can't find it right now) I once read that only the body or mantle length should be measured, without tentacles (but the 10m/4.2m seem to include the longest tentacles). Also, is it possible that the specimen shrunk during its deep freeze, or was the overestimate really that fishy? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)