Talk:Colossal squid

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Hunterft99, ZachT99, Angelllllmoore, LegendOfWook, Janani sundaresan, Bpigz, Danielk1m1005.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LaurenAnderson1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton's Mesonychoteuthis[edit]

Does anybody have any information on who the aforementioned Hamilton is that the specimen was named after? I have looked up many reports on Robson, the man who discovered it in 1925, but no idea why he addressed it the name. Tnophelia (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest squid?[edit]

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)[reply]

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) .

this story is from the unmuseum: One night during World War II a British Admiralty trawler was lying off the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. One of the crew, A. G. Starkey, was up on deck, alone, fishing, when he saw something in the water: "As I gazed, fascinated, a circle of green light glowed in my area of illumination. This green unwinking orb I suddenly realized was an eye. The surface of the water undulated with some strange disturbance. Gradually I realized that I was gazing at almost point-black range at a huge squid." Starkey walked the length the of the ship finding the tail at one end and the tentacles at the other. The ship was over one hundred and seventy five feet long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.70.219 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largest invertebrate[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Captive? Two species?[edit]

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)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Naming[edit]

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)[reply]

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

77%?[edit]

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) .

Doesn't that also indicate that Mesonychoteuthis is more abudant than all the species of Architeuthis combined?--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It means the sperm whales are feeding mostly in Antarctic waters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.24.29 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Images[edit]

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

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

Quick work[edit]

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

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

Predator/Prey[edit]

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)[reply]

Google scholar it (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=colossal+squid+mesonychoteuthis+sperm+whale+stomach+contents&btnG=Search) - several articles from over 20 years confirming the presence of this species' beaks in sperm whale stomachs. Also, colossal squid are large (maybe up to 1000Kg?), but sperm whale are an order of magnitude larger (up to 50,000Kg?). Unless by 'power to kill' you mean they've got nukes, I cant see that fight going too well for the squid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.142.252 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 New Zealand specimen[edit]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Giant Microwave?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The citation for this tidbit is no longer valid. The page has been removed. Sarginitial 04:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pic[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Images[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I dropped a note [4] 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)[reply]

Length measurements[edit]

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)[reply]

Edible?[edit]

Can we eat them? Do they taste good? As good as the smaller squidz I eat? - Xvall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that they contain lots of Urea or something similar (maybe ammonia? Not sure) so it renders them quite inedible! --91.105.88.13 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot my account logon details and can't be bothered to find them yet)[reply]

Yes, I read the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racro 16 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

Is anything known about the evolutionary history of this specimen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.8.106 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It has got one. Zero Thrust (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of fossilized remains of the Mesonychoteuthis gladius (the only hard part of its body), and considering it spends quite a lot of time being eaten by other animals, or being fossilized in areas nearly impossible to excavate, it will take a long time to get any reliable fossil record of them other than the Yezoteuthis and Niobrarateuthis relatives. Even without that, there's more focus on the creature that is living in the oceans now, than those whose remains are buried somewhere. Tnophelia (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Sleeper Shark?[edit]

The artical states that pacific sleeper sharks are a predator of these squids. However, the pacific sleeper shark page says the shark only gets to around 23 feet long, not even close enough to eat one of these squids. plus, the artical also says that the sleeper shark is only found in the north pacific. someone really needs to fix whichever artical is incorrect. 72.77.93.75 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. The referenced article (http://www.cephbase.utmb.edu/refdb/pdf/8114.pdf) doesn't refer to the Pacific sleeper shark (Somniosus pacificus) but to a closely related species of "uncertain taxonomic status" (Somniosus cf. microcephalus), which may be the same as the Greenland shark. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understand something - these squid when hatched are smaller than a ping-pong ball. Animals start small and grow up. As juveniles, all sorts of predators prey on squid. Sleeper sharks live in the ocean depths where these squid also reside as adults - and shark teeth on a squid is extremely effective, even adults. 50.111.24.29 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calmarcolossal.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:Calmarcolossal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depth[edit]

'So how deep can it go. Well I than go to a depth of 7,200. Depending on what it chooses to do because some can go up to 3,300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyatron626 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beak references[edit]

This article claims that much larger beaks have been found in sperm whale stomachs, with two references (22 and 23). The first reference is a 404 and second just goes to the newspaper webpage. Perhaps this can be replaced with a primary source? 108.161.127.154 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image to scale?[edit]

The article says that this squid up to around 12-14 metres long. the image makes it look like they are 3=4 times longer than a guy in a scuba set (2m tall with flippers, at best. this doesn't look like a good indicator of the squid's size. Can anyone clarify/ rectify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.109.204 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Have to agree. That image is terrible, not least because of the weird juxtaposition of a very angled 3D representation of the squid at an oblique perspective angle versus a 2D "ClipArt"-like rendition of a human diver side-on. No useful sense of relative scale whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.8.174 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defenses[edit]

this massive squid known as Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni (colossal squid, not to be mixed with giant squid) has many defenses, including swiveling hooks on tentacles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracoyt (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni[edit]

"hamiltoni": the article doesn't explain the etymology of the binomial name. This should be included...96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colossal squid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

If the squid is estimated to have an average size of 12 meters, then the size comparison in the infobox is way off. I could edit and replace the picture if necessary. -Throast (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the squid appears to be about 2.5 times as long as the average human is tall. Even assuming the latter is a 6-foot male, which would be a little high for an average, that would make the squid just 15 feet long. Note, however, that the article gives 12-14 meters as the *maximum* size for the Colossal Squid, not the average. AmigoNico (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colossal squid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cephbase.utmb.edu/refdb/pdf/8114.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605011459/http://www.sgisland.gs/pages/main/news23.htm to http://www.sgisland.gs/pages/main/news23.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318232842/http://squid.tepapa.govt.nz/exhibition to http://squid.tepapa.govt.nz/exhibition

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Size Picture[edit]

The article says 46 feet in length.

The size comparison with a person shows the squid to be about 4 feet long.

Which is it?2601:806:4301:C100:E0AA:BDCE:7537:4484 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking respectively of the total length and mantle lengthWiki brain(talk)

Maximum length[edit]

The page claims "current estimates put its maximum size at 12–14 m (39–46 ft) long", but is this really supported by any evidence? According to the site of Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, the longest known colossal squid was 5.4 m long, and the heaviest one was 4.2 m long.[5] (second source: https://peerj.com/articles/715/) The 12-14 m estimate seems to come from https://web.archive.org/web/20100523152104/http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/28451, but the text doesn't really explain the estimate and doesn't cite sources. We need that to put this information in the article. I think it's better to change that part to "it is known to reach a length of 5.4 m (17.7 ft)". Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bioluminescence[edit]

This article states that the colossal squid is a bioluminescent species, quoting Peter J. Herring's "Systematic distribution of bioluminescence in living organisms" as a source. However, this source has Melancholicus sandalops (I think the sandal-eyed squid/ melancholy cranch squid) mentioned as a bioluminescent species, not Melancholicus Hamiltoni, the colossal squid. I want to double check that I'm reading this correctly before editing-- is there any other source that verifies the colossal squid as a bioluminescent species? Otherwise, I don't think there's any reason to believe this squid is bioluminescent.

You were right, thanks, I checked the paper too. I have removed that sentence and reference. Mountain^cirque 08:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we might have missed a spot referring to the colossal squid using bioluminescence to hunt. The citation is a paper titled "Distribution and biology of the colossal squid, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni: New data from depredation in toothfish fisheries and sperm whale stomach contents" that from my review did not seem to reference the term bioluminescence or any related term at all, so I'm going to go ahead and remove that information. The additional light research I did doesn't seem to offer any information on where this could be coming from, but if anyone takes issue to this and can find the original source this might have come from, feel free to revert my edit :). Ralex1005 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Type specimens from winter of 1924-25?[edit]

I was only able to read the first page of Robison (1925), but it simply states the type specimen(s) were obtained "in the winter of 1924-25" off the South Shetland Islands. The Southern Hemisphere winter would've been in June-September 1924, not in 1924-25. Whaling occured there in the southern summer (December 1924-March 1925). Can someone access the paper in question to verify this? BulbousCow (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Deep Sea Biology== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cece44444, Kylevee0924 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lmoberley, Claudioleyva.

Vision[edit]

I deleted the sentences in the Vision section that did not have citations. I then added more information to this section. Cece44444 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding[edit]

I added two sentences about a different study to add some info about Feeding. Cece44444 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing[edit]

I added a hearing section based off of two sources calling squid essentially deaf. Cece44444 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to tell us every time you edit the article. That's what edit summaries are for. I really wish schools would stop this nonsense. BulbousCow (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eye position?[edit]

Hello everyone,

I've noticed that it's specificied nowhere this squid's eyes face forward unlike most squids which eyes are located on the sides. Where should it be added though, morphology or vision?

This is the source I would like to include, too: https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/colossal-squid/anatomy-colossal-squid/eyes-colossal-squid 2A02:A03F:A5B4:1D00:148A:FCD2:2D2:8F68 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eye diameter incoherence[edit]

The introduction of this article states an estimate of 27cm for the eye diameter of colossal squid, whlle the morphology section directly contradicts it, stating 30-40cm instead Bvlampe (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]