Talk:Cephalopod size

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cephalopod size article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cephalopods B‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes

Section size for Cephalopod size (72 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,894	5,894
Size in teuthology	162	10,950
Mantle length	2,759	2,759
Total length	1,945	1,945
Mass	458	3,710
Arms and tentacles	1,078	1,078
Mantle	314	314
Head	408	408
Funnel	210	210
Internal anatomy	472	472
Historical and nonstandard	770	770
Methods of size determination	1,322	1,322
Bathymetric	74	74
Latitudinal	18	18
Evolutionary	960	960
Determinants of size	25	1,536
Environmental	20	520
Temperature	427	427
Pressure	53	53
Seasonality	20	20
Ecological	17	388
Competition	20	20
Predation pressure	107	107
Resource availability/Primary productivity	149	149
Habitat extent and stability	95	95
Ontogenetic	18	151
Hatchling size	133	133
Physiological	270	270
Pathological	66	66
Evolutionary	116	116
Allometry	14	109
Physiological scaling	62	62
Hydrodynamic relevance	33	33
Early life stages	484	3,946
Eggs	442	442
Hatchlings	3,020	3,020
Smallest adult size	1,227	4,144
Male dwarfism	2,212	2,212
Extinct taxa	705	705
Maximum size	17	159,866
Scientifically validated records	2,655	20,229
Colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni)	3,898	3,898
Giant squid (Architeuthis dux)	4,669	4,669
Other squid taxa	6,529	6,529
Largest octopodes	2,478	2,478
Extinct taxa	7,019	7,019
Historical claims	24	52,610
Misidentifications	5,129	5,129
Giant squid	3,534	39,042
Largest reported animals	22,184	22,184
Supposed sucker scars	8,519	8,519
Mass estimates	4,805	4,805
Giant Pacific octopus	240	8,415
Largest reported animals	5,935	5,935
Possible diminution in size	2,240	2,240
Largest species by measure	262	79,991
Mantle length	17,356	17,356
Total length	10,080	10,080
Mass	11,170	11,170
Shell diameter	15,823	15,823
Extinct taxa	25,300	25,300
Anatomical superlatives	32	8,429
Eyes	4,118	4,118
Neurons	2,319	2,319
Photophores	1,176	1,176
Reproductive organs	784	784
See also	275	275
Notes	44	44
References	15	169,676
Short citations	35	35
Full citations	169,626	169,626
External links	2,580	2,580
Total	367,449	367,449

Citations are somewhat distracting[edit]

I'm uncertain on wiki policy, but it would be somewhat helpful to have those citations turned into superscript foot/endnotes, with the citations moved to the end. EasterlyIrk (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. --Ubel (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a note[edit]

What a nice article! Communist47 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than 100x larger than what you list here![edit]

Wasn't a giant octopus beached in the USA in 1865? It was photoed and the ball of its body was larger than 2 meters in diameter. Its arms were over 28 meters long estimated and the entire spread of such animal was estimated at 60 meters! That one colossus is not mentioned in the article at all! 193.226.227.153 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See St. Augustine Monster. It was whale blubber. Mgiganteus1 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reports of giant squid attaining to 55-57 feet long. The way the article summarily dismisses such claims without even a citation is disturbing.65.81.28.227 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference: O'Shea (2005). Please also see the giant squid article. Mgiganteus1 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even National Geographic reports squid at long as 59 feet:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/photo4.html

Far from being scientifically accurate, this article instead ingages in 'recentism,' forgetting past claims in order to concentrate on recent finds. Also, using just one source (a skeptic) is hardly a balanced approach.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic also reported Archaeoraptor. Mgiganteus1 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they just found a colossal squid 33% larger than the previous one indicates we haven't come close to matching the 'true' size records here. There is a problem of gullibility (I should know...I deal with claims of '140' year-old persons, totally false) but there is also a problem of 'recentism,' for example when it was recently claimed that the 'oldest mouse ever' was 4 years 12 days old (oops, not a record). That the skpetics' view for this article is in fact based on just one expert (O'Shea) gives one person too much influence. Most sources agree the 1887 specimen DID measure 55 feet long. How would O'Shea know if it were 'stretched like a rubber band'? Was he alive in 1887? NOT. There have been actual photographs as well.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources simply repeat the same claims. None of these monster squid have been scientifically documented. There are no photographs of 18 m long giant squid. The new colossal squid specimen is well within the estimated maximum size of this species (which has been included on this page months prior to this new discovery). Mgiganteus1 14:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking this out:

http://zapatopi.net/cephnews/colossalsquidcaught.html

Over the past 8 years we have done everything we can to reduce the reported lengths and weights of Architeuthis, not exaggerate them. Similarly, when this specimen of Mesonychoteuthis was first brought to our attention we expected that it too had been exaggerated. When examining it we expected it to be fully mature, we expected the beaks to be as large as those (or very close to in terms of size) those reported from stomach contents of sperm whales. We were amazed that they were not. If this animal does attain a mantle length between 4 and 5 metres then it truly is one most formidable monster; it was frightening enough at 2.5 metres!

With kindest regards Steve O'Shea

Steve O'Shea might be a world's leading expert, but he is also a skeptic with an agenda, having done 'everything (he) can to reduce the reported lengths and weights of Architeuthis." While this campaign has been largely effective, it has also led to a one-sided approach.

Similar attempts were made to downgrade the idea that whales could live 100+ years, or that the panda is not a bear, but in reality there is no scientific consensus. In recent years, scientists now believe that whales can live to 210+ years (based on the contents of a whale stomach dating to 1790). Actual photographs of the 1887 55-footer have been made, and I again call this 'recentism'...there is an attempt in many fields to forget past research and begin anew, with new 'records'. The article here should provide a balanced approach...no 'live' specimen in the past doesn't mean that dead specimens were not measured. How hard is it to measure a tentacle?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length units[edit]

Tables should make things easier to compare. Is there a reason behind writing 0.69 m, 60 cm, and 500 mm, all in the same column? Otherwise, someone should (and I will if I have time one of these days) clean up the measurement units in the tables. Shingra 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Note: Measurements are listed as they appear in the cited references and original units are retained." PenguinJockey 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I had missed that note. Well, those tables look strange to me anyway - is there a precedent or guideline for keeping units like that? Shingra 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Largest Octopus[edit]

I just want to toss this out there before I do any editing. I feel there should be an expanded explanation on the controversy between E. dofleini and H. atlanticus as the largest octopus. The explanation currently on several pages stating that the Seven-armed octopus is the largest "based on scientific records" is ambiguous and slightly misleading (there is a bit more explanation on the GPO page). There is disagreement among cephalopod researchers. I feel it would be useful to lay out a small paragraph detailing what the records actually are, and why there is disagreement, and link related pages, such as the Seven-arm octopus and the North Pacific Giant Octopus pages to that. My question to those monitoring these pages would be: Is the Ceph Size page the appropriate place for such a paragraph. Taollan82 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Haliphron atlanticus.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Haliphron atlanticus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cephalopod size. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523152104/http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/28451 to http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/28451
Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogov.zwz.ru/Frebold,1957_Jurassic_Fernie.pdf

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) 14:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting article[edit]

Hey Mgiganteus1, what would be the best way to split this article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering a similar thing. It does seem to have all of the relevant information for discussing cephalopod size. There is no "Mammal Size" article because it isn't something that has much debate around it. But if there was, it would probably be a pretty long one since there are a lot of mammals.

Might this just be an article that needs to be long? I did shorten the lead section, but I've read almost this entire article and while there are probably edits to make it briefer, it's still going to end up very long. Charlie Teuthis (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ommastrephes bartramii1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ommastrephes bartramii1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]