Talk:Irukandji Jellyfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Irukandji Jellyfish is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Most poisonous?

Unfortunately, that award goes to the poison dart frog of South America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Poison_Frog

[edit] Darwin Award?

As a bit of trivia, this animal is related to a Darwin Award "Honorable Mention" [1] claiming that Dr. Jack Barnes tested the stinging effects of the newly discovered jellyfish on himself and his son. While the account is shown as "confirmed," the date on the event is in 1966, the reference on this article has Dr. Barnes publishing in 1964, so something is inaccurate somewhere. — Eoghanacht talk 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Any pictures of it?

[edit] LOLWTF?

This article is ranked seventh in the most viewed articles of August 2006. Is there some sort of mix-up here? Floaterfluss 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And it's on there again, under 11th...XD 86.136.198.176 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it looks like the Discovery channel mentioned it in one of their shows, so depending on when it aired, that might account for the high number of hits this article got. That, in addition to this being just another example of the briny horrors of the deep, small enough to hold in a hand and with venom enough to make you regret closing that hand. --HassourZain 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The hit MMORPG Guild Wars: Factions features jellyfish-like monsters named Irukandji. This may be why the page is recieving so many visits. Crenel 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an episode of CSY:NY with this jellyfish as the murder weapon. I've just added that reference to the pop culture section. I think this is a possible cause, but I don't know when that episode was originally aired. Leonelm 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About merging

I don't think we should merge it. Irukandji jellyfish are animals. The Irukandji syndrome is a result of the sting. However, although they are closely related, they are different things. Otherwise, I would merge the Irukandji syndrome into the jellyfish part.


--Heero Kirashami 04:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a section on animal-toxin induced syndromes, the Irukandji syndrome article might belong there. 68.42.11.109 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references

I just finished standardizing the references... let me know if I stomped on anyone's toes. I couldn't find bibliographic information for two non-linked citations, so I removed them. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jellyfish to invertebrate

I changed the opening line from "The Irukandji is a small, extremely venemous jellyfish" to "a small, extremely venemous invertebrate". It is a species of the box jellyfish class, Cubozans, and according to the article on them Cubozans actually aren't true jellyfish; they are a similiar but seperate category of creature. Therefore this is more accurate. 124.180.60.168 (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up

I just went through the article and changed around the opening segment to make it flow better, as well as fixing a few minor grammatical points. If no-one has objections, I'll remove the cleanup tag.

James.nvc (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New species of Irukandji jellyfish poses a problem for Wikipedia

A new species of Irukandji jellyfish, Malo kingi, has been identified. This poses a serious problem for this article, as Irukandji jellyfish is turning out to be a type of jellyfish (two species, seperate genera) rather than a species.

The best idea I have to to move this article to the scientific name's own page and keep any text about Irukandji Syndrome here. We definitely need to get rid of the taxobox as it no longer applies.

Here is a free excerpt from Zootaxa: [2] Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved this to Carukia barnesi, and created a brief article on Irukandji jellyfish as a non-taxon.[3] This move was immediately reverted by SqueakBox, although for some reason he reverted to a title with a capital-J. SqueakBox then merged the Malo kingi article into this one, creating an article with two taxoboxes, on different species, in different genera no less, related only by an accident of morphological convergence, and a shared common name. This is, in my opinion, an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Hesperian 02:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Mine, too. C. barnesi and M. kingi are seperate species, and, as such, need their own separate pages. Note that the M. maximus, another species of Malo, is not an Irukandji jelly. This is obviously a per-species classification, and should be written in the same style as Vegetable (as opposed to Fruit). We all know that it's possible for something to be a fruit and a vegetable at the same time (such as tomatoes, cucumbers, etc). Why, then, do we treat Irukandji as a taxon? It's not, so it shouldn't keep the two species from having their own decent articles. In fact, this article shouldn't have any species-specific information at all-- that belongs on each species's own page. Okay...I'm ranting. I'll stop now. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support having two seperate articles, one for each species of Irukandji form jelly fish, ie one for each of C barnesi and M kingi. In addition, the current article page should be an expanded disambiguation page, explaining Irukandji as a 'form' of jellyfish, with at least two different species as members. Miscellanous material such as 'pop culture' section could be included on this expanded disambiguation page. Perhaps a move request should be posted on this article .. to facilitate debate/discusson? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't go so far as to say it should be a disambiguation page... I'll go so far as to say that not only should there be two separate articles, this should also be an article. There's a lot of information on this page already that isn't species-specific, and it needs to stay here. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)