Jump to content

Talk:Squid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Teuthida vs. Sepiolida etc.

[edit]

I'm okay with just mentioning Sepiolida and other squid orders in the second paragraph, but should we also try to include them in the taxobox somehow? It's a messy issue at this point. --Chinasaur 17:10, 18 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's not messy at all. they are descendants of the article just higher than Teuthida/squid: Coleoidea. I hadn't had them listed in the first place because They are already mentioned higher up in the article tree, and they are shown in the classification listing. Someone looking for them will find them. - UtherSRG 18:30, 18 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. It's good. --Chinasaur — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 19 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title of the article is Squid which is a familiar and general term for a marine animal with 10 arms with suckers rather than Teuthida which is a well defined biological taxon, all living squid should be included. Adding Spirulida and Sepiolida to both the discussion and taxobox would make each more consistent with the overall subject. Let's not confuse article sequence with biological phylogeny or descendancy. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calamari Etymology?

[edit]

So this article says In American fish markets and restaurants, it is usually known by the Greek plural calamari. But Wiktionary:Calamari#Etymology says It. calamari also Fr. calmar, Int. calamar Which one is right? -Cjensen 23:38, 15 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

AskOxford says "ORIGIN Italian, from Greek kalamos ‘pen’ (with reference to the squid’s long tapering internal shell and its ink)." - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantle

[edit]

I didn't see any reference to the mantle in this article. I've added the word in the sentence "Like all cephalopods, squids are distinguished", but there may be a better place to mention it. Mantle (mollusc) does a good job of describing it, but has nothing specific to squids. - joe 19:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Physical description

[edit]

i need the physical discribtion of the squid. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkavuru (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular as food"

[edit]

If we're going to mention that they're "popular as food" in the first line of the article, ought we add a note about the popularity of tentacle porn? Njál 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think not. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly not popular in English cuisine and there are no known English squid dishes. Tastes great but only usual eaten in England in Italian, Spanish, Chinese dishes etc. Will edit main text. JDN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make info

[edit]

please make more info om the squid. i'm making a 5-page essay on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.131 (talk • contribs) .

We do not "make info". We read the various published literature on the subject and add it as we have the time and energy. You would do well to go to the library to do your homework, instead of trying to copy someone else's work. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God..! oh, I don't usually laugh out loud but that's pretty darn funny. Tentacle porn? "Please make me information so I don't have to type 'squid' into google?" lol! ... ... yea, you have the patience of a saint, sir UtherSRG. JimmmyThePiep 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan

[edit]

A mention of average lifespan should be added, I don't know anything about squids so I can't. --Plankton5005 06:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slang

[edit]

Squid is also used as slang for an underclassman, more specifically a freshman in highshool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.160.16 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ah; you should add a disambiguation page so that nobody misakes the sea creature Squids with the freshman Squids. It might get confusing otherwise. JimmmyThePiep 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or See Also --Kurtle (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also used as a slang for a person that knowingly breaks the law, litters and shows disrespect for others. Squids in this respect think only about what is best for them and not what effect they have on other people or groups of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.144.190 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One of the questions a Physics assignment I saw recently asked how squids are able to navigate below the "crush pressure". Personally I'd never heard of such a thing, but in case someone here knows it's another tidbit which could be added. I'll look on Google to see if I can find some answers. --Oreckel 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • edit* - has something to do with the fact that Squids have no air in them? You can squish them on all sides but there's nothing to "squish"? I don't quite understand it myself and perhaps it's meaningless, but in case this strikes a chord with someone who's determined to add it, go for it. Else this can be deleted - I doubt how many people actually care about this. --Oreckel 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

squids

[edit]

wht do s2quids eat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.255.81 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Saltwater Squids

[edit]

Can squids live in saltwater? (I'm asuming they can, but the article doesn't mention, so I thought I'd ask. It's for a project.) JimmmyThePiep 08:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there aren't any freshwater squids; they all live in saltwater. I could be mistaken there, but at the very least most of them live in salt water. The word "marine" usually refers to the Earth's oceans, which are all salt water. Hope that helps. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome; thanx! I haven't actually started drawing or animating the squid, but I'm going to do that now.
See, I'm working on a Flash Animation for school, and the teacher was very specific: 'Be Accurate! Don't mix saltwater and non-saltwater fish!" So far I've got a Blue Tang, a Yellow Tang, a pair of Clownfish, and some strange fish with huge eyes. (So 4 saltwater fish, 1 squid ; which is saltwater, and I'm hoping he won't notice the ambiguous fish.) JimmmyThePiep 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dens?

[edit]

Squids Live In Dens Right? I Dont Remember... -Alyssa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.162.53 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttlebone

[edit]

The only place the cuttlebone is mentioned is in passing in the Squid as food section. I definately think the cuttlebone deserves mention (or at least a link) in the anatomy of the squid, as it is one of the more notable structures a squid has. And don't ask me to write it, because I'm definately no expert.--Vlmastra 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttlebone is only present in cuttlefish, not squid. I have corrected the article. Mgiganteus1 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess that makes sense ;).--Vlmastra 04:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

calamares en su tinta

[edit]

Is squid cooked in its own ink a real dish, or fiction? It sounds, um, somewhat less than delicious. Chris 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is real and not uncommon in several cultures. I've eaten it in Mexico, and seen it on the menus in other countries. It was pretty tasty. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we getting a little off course J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images

[edit]

I removed some of the images in the classification to prevent image stacking, something that is expressly discouraged by WP:IMAGES and WP:IUP. I also added what is a Wikimedia Commons Featured Picture as the cuisine image. VanTucky (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Several of the external links at the bottom of the page do not work (Squidcam--I was disappointed--and the Scientific American Article). If several weeks go by from the time of this post and they are still inoperable we might want to remove them. 67.88.117.162 07:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that any link that doesn't work or goes to the wrong place should be unhesitatingly removed and replaced if possible by one that does work and is still relevant. Be bold. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

remove offensive text

[edit]

Can someone edit the offensive material in this article?: The mouth of the squid is equipped with a sharp horny dick that feels amazing in ur butt mainly made of chitin [1] and cross-linked ... 65.209.244.4 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases of sophomoric perversion don't hesitate, get rid of it when ever you find itJ.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

[edit]

What do squid eat? What role do they serve in the ocean ecology (other than as food for whales). How are they affected by global warming? What ocean environments are best/least suited for squid? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the Giant Squid

[edit]

I have a zoology textbook that says the giant squid (Architeuthis) is ~60ft in length. What should we do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.136.212 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, There is this recent review on the Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni that is more relevant than the current link[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki brain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rosa, Rui & Lopes, Vanessa M. & Guerreiro, Miguel & Bolstad, Kathrin & Xavier, José C. 2017. Biology and ecology of the world's largest invertebrate, the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni): a short review. Polar Biology, published online on March 30, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00300-017-2104-5

Appearance on American Dad

[edit]

On the February 8, 2009, episode of American Dad, a key plot point had Francine Smith get an article published in "Ocean Digest" magazine, ostensibly about the Colossal squid. In fact, the left page of the magazine had this chunk of text from Wikipedia's Squid article ("Squid have differentiated from their ancestral molluscs in such a way that the body plan has been condensed antero-posteriorly and extended dorso-ventrally. What before may have been the foot of the ancestor is now modified into a complex set of tentacles and highly developed sense organs, including advanced eyes similar to those of vertebrates. The shell of the ancestor has been lost, with only an internal gladius, or pen, remaining.") and the right page had a passage from the Giant squid article. - Dravecky (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and Communication Questions

[edit]

How intelligent are squid? How do they communicate. It might sound funny, but a CBS new clip on Giant Squid showed one being reeled in and it sounded like the squid was making a squeek. When I took a fish farming class we were told that lobsters yell when dropped into boiling water, so what is with this? What kind of brain do they have, how big is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.17.39 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

[edit]

I simplified the classification in the text to include just those groups referred to as squid, which is no more than a familiar term for a marine animal with 10 arms projecting from its head. Other coleoids can be linked from that page or from the Cephalopod article. If anyone really thinks that superfluous redundancy makes for a better article, go a head and revert. Regards J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chtenopteryx sicula2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Chtenopteryx sicula2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 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) 16:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True tales of dentistry

[edit]

A story in the news about a woman who ate squid and got a surprise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penis size

[edit]

Is this particular detail really relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.235.185 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teuthida

[edit]

According to the WoRMS [1] Teuthida is a nomen dubium (includes [Myopsida + Oegopsida] which are not demonstrated to form a clade). So Myopsida [2] and Oegopsida [3] are no longer suborders but orders. Any comment? DenesFeri (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction

[edit]

The article states that male cuttlefish pretend to be female by hiding one pair of arms as females have 3 pairs. Surely all cuttlefish have 8 arms thus 4 pairs. Either editing or correction is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error

[edit]

I always thought squids had six legs. Is the first paragraph in error? I would attempt to correct the apparent error, but the article is protected. So I am asking if it is an error. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squid have 10 tentacles, hence the order's name translation as "10 feet." The eight shorter tentacles are termed "arms," and the two longer tentacles are the "tentacles" proper.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article about Decapodiformes, squids and cuttlefish has ten arms. This article claims the number of arms is eight. This claim should be corrected in one of the articles. The name Decapodiformes suggests ten arms. !-- End request --> 81.191.82.225 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Don't see a conflict here, both Decapodiformes and this article say that there are a total of 10, 8 pairs of shorter arms and 2 longer tentacles Cannolis (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link under "evolution" to the article for "foot" gives the article for the human foot, not mollusk foot, which is this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusca#Foot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levhatorah (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Squid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • I'm gonna read this out of order
  • ref no. 57 isn't right
Removed stray params. Source supports the figures stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Said 10 m, updated NZ ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed three. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As systemic blood returns via two vena cavae to the branchial hearts," so does blood go systemic heart → body → branchial heart → gills → branchial heart → systemic heart? You should probably give a brief sentence charting the course of blood   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the most direct way possible, and will be familiar to anyone who's done basic human biology in school... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what kind of advanced biology classes you're taking, but where I'm from, we stick to mitochondria is powerhouse of cell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brit kids do it at age 14 or 15... I've added a gloss in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both defence and offence, i.e. for the visual systems of both the squid's prey and predators. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the Defence section deals only with ink, you should probably just change it to Ink squirting or some variation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really should have the word "ink" in there because if someone's trying to find information on squid ink, we want it to be easy to find. You could call it Ink, Inking, Squid ink, Ink ejection, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'ink'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...groups of Humboldt squid hunt cooperatively, using active communication," this seems to me to belong more in the Behavior section somewhere. Is there enough information out there to have a section on squid hunting behavior? You could also conceivably put it in the Feeding section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the information and expanded it slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this on. I will get onto it tomorrow, being distracted at the moment by expanding Coronula diadema so as to better understand whale barnacles! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing the same thing with belemnites. They may not be squid, but close enough   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was quick! Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added ink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do species that produce light not produce ink?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the taxon Decapodiformes appears to be a clade, the taxobox fits the bill perfectly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So are all Decapodiformes considered squid then?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section. If it's accepted that cuttlefish are a kind of squid, then yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then should we merge Decapodiformes into this article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Straight after this GAN, it should be proposed. If accepted, we merge it to here; if not, we use the other template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, that's a beautiful photo. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which images are you concerned about? Articles can use images with any of the many kinds of PD or CC license acceptable to Wikipedia, and even fair-usage images at a pinch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the giant squid one, but it should be fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Let's use File:Giant Squid NASA.jpg instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember unit conversions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the clutter messes up the caption format nicely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Small toothlike structures. Added a gloss to that effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the entire second paragraph of Development just about the Hawaiian bobtail squid? It seems a bit off-topic to put so much detail, so you should probably limit it to maybe a sentence or two. Are there are lot of bioluminescent squid or is that the only one? I imagine deep sea squid have this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor might like to reply to this one. However, yes, there are many bioluminescent squid species, and this one has been well studied. I'll add a brief lead-in to the paragraph which may more or less sort this one out, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay because the entire thing seems to imply to me it's just the one species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the diagram of the light-producing organ to Development to accompany the text; but it might be better to have both under Camouflage, in which case the text would indeed need to be cut down and merged with the text about the organ there. I'm happy either way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine by me. Happy to cut things down if y'all want. ceranthor 14:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, yes. I've added an image of a bobtail swimming, and of a glass squid, er, being buoyant with its enormous coelom, in the relevant sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't understand it either but it comes from Ruppert and the embryology is relevant to the suid's development. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so let's try to figure this out together. What sentence(s) are you citing? Copy/paste it here, I'll see if I can make sense of it. Also, do you wanna use "larval" or "planktonic"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the passage came from the Octopus article because cephalopod development follows a common path. Embryology is not a subject I have studied but that does not mean I cannot paraphrase the source in my Invertebrate Biology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
right but you need to paraphrase it in a way that’s digestible. Right now, I have absolutely no idea what it means. What does it mean to have superficial cell division?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, here is what the source states: "Cleavage is superficial and meroblastic, with only the cytoplasm at the animal pole undergoing cleavage. This results in the formation of a blastodisc of cells at the animal pole that develops into the embryo. During gastrulation the margin of the disc grows down and around the yolk mass to enclose it in a yolk sac that is eventually incorporated into the gut." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
okay so what’s happening here is that egg-laying creatures typically have a yolk, and cell division (cleavage) occurs in a disc-like lump on top (the “animal pole) called the blastodisc which, because it’s the only thing there with cells, eventually forms the embryo. Then the yolk is incorporated into the forming embryo (“in a yolk sac”) during gastrulation when all the cells are beginning to differentiate themselves to eventually serve different purposes (like the heart cell is now different from the brain cell). So, now that you know what’s going on, reword it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I am not going to be bullied into changing the wording, which as far as I can see is accurate but a bit technical. I see nothing in the GA criteria that says that everything in an article should be fully comprehensible to a reader who knows little on a subject. Perhaps you could point out the criterion you are using to demand this change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1a where it says the prose is clear. You said it yourself, you didn’t understand the sentence either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it must be clear. I've tweaked the wording and added a wikilink. Very little actually had to be changed. Hope this is ok with both you folks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many squid (not to mention octopuses) do the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some may, but they vary according to species and many are simply not known. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the Reproduction section reads like all squid lay eggs onto substrate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a general source so I picked some common species where I could find the information. Some squid are much better researched than others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What problem do you have with this sentence? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it reads that because squid live in midwater, they can’t have gas filled chambers inside their shells to provide buoyancy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think here is it for the foreseeable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. However, Cott died in 1987, so I calculate that in 2058 the book will be PD. I've no idea what the Wayback guys think they are doing, but it sure looks like a mistake to me. There is no ISBN; I've added the OCLC for you.Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, something went awry with the parameter names. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxobox / Paraphyletic group box missing

[edit]

Currently Squid is in an unusual situiation of having an {{infobox}} instead of and {{Automatic taxobox}} or {{Paraphyletic group}}. The included {{taxonbar}} indicates the taxon should be Teuthida, which is a redirect to the Squid page. The taxon is accepted from what I can see. If it is monophyletic then an {{Automatic taxobox}} should be added. If it is paraphyletic or polyphyletic then {{Paraphyletic group}} should be used. If for some reason the Squid article would like to divorce itself from the Teuthida concept, then that page should be created. Honestly though, I think it could be easily fixed with an {{Automatic taxobox}} and then stating that vampire squid are not true squid and that cuttlefish are. --Nessie (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teuthida is unfortunately obsolete, so Decapodiformes will have to do. The group is monophyletic and a synonym for the clade Decapodiformes with the provisions you mention, paraphyletic otherwise. I'm happy either way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: So you think a {{merge from}} Decapodiformes to Squid is the best way forward? Which article would the |from=Q81900 in the {{taxonbar}} go to, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkwafaba (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, either way is fine by me. I'm not up on the fine details of taxonbars, but if the question is what happens to the broken fragments of the old Teuthida, they ideally won't be in the taxon system at all, but if it can't be avoided then here'll have to do (the alternative being to create a Teuthida stub which just says it's obsolete). I'd have thought the question of what to do with obsolete taxa must come up rather often given the current turmoil in phylogenetics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that was my oblique way of asking of Teuthida were synonymized with anything. if not, then that link will be broken. --Nessie (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing merge from scientific name Decapodiformes to common name Squid

[edit]

* Keep separate. Merging would be an easy solution, but not the correct one. Yes, Decapodiformes is a pretty short article, but it is the parent taxa of squids and not equivalent to it. Particularly the extinct order Boletzkyida and the clade Belemnoidea are "not" squids. Squid-like, squid ancestors maybe, but not squids. Likewise, the taxobox for squid should not equate squids with the superorder Decapodiformes as it does presently. Loopy30 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking previous objection. With Belemnoidea and Boletzkyida out of the picture, that leaves only the cuttlefish and the extinct coleoids. I note that the edit that added Belemnoidea to the list of Decapodiformes was made by a now banned editor who was known for edits that included original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopy30 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Loopy30: do you have a reliable taxonomic treatment that includes Boletzkyida in Decapodiformes, and also that shows they are not squid? the Decapodiformes article has its inclusion uncited and with a big question mark. Even {{Taxonomy/Boletzkyida}} is unreferenced. I can see that Belemnoidea are stem Decapodiformes,[1] but can you show me that they are not squids?--Nessie (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nessie, Boletzkyida is problematic. Although described as a new order within Decapodiformes by Bandel, Reitner and Sturner in 1993, Boletzkyida is not currently listed by WoRMS. It should be noted though that WoRMS does not maintain as comprehensive a list of extinct taxa and lists only 45 extinct taxa within all of Cephalopoda (all ranks). In the literature, extinct decapodiform taxa are usually just referred to as coleoids, sometimes being described as “squid-like” (e.g. "An Early Triassic gladius associated with soft tissue remains from Idaho, USA--a squid-like coleoid cephalopod at the onset of Mesozoic Era" by Doguzhaeva et al, 2015). Some authors have taken the position that that any gladius-bearing coleoid is a “squid” (see "A redescription of the fossil coleoid cephalopod genus Palaeololigo Naef, 1921 (Decapodiformes: Palaeololiginidae) and its relationship to Recent squids" by Donovan & Strugnell, 2010) although the use of the gladius as an identifying morphological feature in determining the taxonomy is disputed (see “The gladiuses in coleoid cephalopods: homology, parallelism, or convergence?” by Fuchs and Iba, 2015). Although older, I note that among extant cephalopods, the FAO separates "squids" in the vernacular use from "cuttlefish", "bobtail and bottletail squids", "octopods", "vampires", and "nautiluses" (see Cephalopods of the World by Roper, 2005). Loopy30 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a WoRMS chauvinist, I will follow whatever taxonomy is the consensus. FossilWorks does not lost Boletzkyida, but it is at WoRMS's twin IRMNG with Cephalopoda as its parent. In any event, it looks like we shouldn't hang our hat on Boletzkyida. I was kind of basing the monophyly on the article's cladogram.[2] This shows a monophyly with cuttlefish, bobtails, bottletails are definitely in, and octopuses, vampires, and nautiluses out, though does not address the two taxa we're concerned about. Also, we should note that vampires do have gladiuses, despite not being Decapodiformes/squid.--Nessie (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Boletzkyida, but I do know for Belemnoidea, they're not considered Decapodiformes. I think someone may have accidentally got confused a little while ago because people keep saying they're squid-like, but I've fixed the taxobox now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found this which, on page 403, says Boletzkyida is part of the superorder Palaeoteuthomorpha   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the original description. Wonder how it was 'moved' to Decapodiformes? So does this resolve the conflict? --Nessie (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be all clear. Let's do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Klug, C., Schweigert, G., Fuchs, D., Kruta, I., Tischlinger, H. 2016. Adaptations to squid-style high-speed swimming in Jurassic belemnitids. Biology Letters. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0877
  2. ^ Sanchez, Gustavo; Setiamarga, Davin H. E.; Tuanapaya, Surangkana; Tongtherm, Kittichai; Winkelmann, Inger E.; Schmidbaur, Hannah; Umino, Tetsuya; Albertin, Caroline; Allcock, Louise; Perales-Raya, Catalina; Gleadall, Ian; Strugnell, Jan M.; Simakov, Oleg; Nabhitabhata, Jaruwat (February 2018). "Genus-level phylogeny of cephalopods using molecular markers: current status and problematic areas". PeerJ. 6: e4331. doi:10.7717/peerj.4331. PMC 5813590. PMID 29456885.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Conflicting information in this article and Sepiida, Cephalopoda and sentences that are difficult to understand

[edit]

These articles are not very clear and quite confusing for a layperson who wants to look up the internal systematics of the Cephalopoda.
If it is still unclear, that and the current consensus should be mentioned everywhere. I assume that until recently, only Teuthida were commonly called "squids" and were found to be paraphyletic because they probably contain the cuttlefish?
Teuthida redirects to this article, yet it isn't mentioned other than being an order that is part of Decapodiformes (in the infobox to the right) with the remark nomen dubium. What were and happened to Teuthida? In this talk page above, it is proposed that this should be mentioned in a stub page. Either that, or it should be mentioned in Decapodiformes, instead of simply linking to itself.
In my opinion, this is relevant, because information regarding Teutida, although obsolete, is still commonly found outside of the English Wikipedia.

Cephalopod#Taxonomy also seperates cuttlefish from squid, it also mentions Teuthida which links to this article. If the information in the article decapodiformes is correct, than the taxonomy in the article Cephalopoda is simply outdated and wrong, isn't it? The phylogenetic tree on that article (Cephalopod#Phylogeny) includes sepiida in decapodiformes, although it mentions "The attachment of the clade including Sepia and Spirula is unclear; either of the points marked with an asterisk may represent the root of this clade." (whatever exactly that means... how could that clade possibly include itself? In the first place, why are there genera like Sepia and not the order Sepiida shown?)

The sepiida article as well clearly seperates cuttlefish from squid and implies in the very first sentence that "squid" are an order, yet that word links to "Decapodiforma" which is a superorder that seems to include cuttlefish. If it is true that cuttlefish are now in the superorder of squid, even if they have their anatomical specialities, it just should be mentioned there.

I have trouble understanding this sentence in Squid#Taxonomy_and_phylogeny: "Orders are shown in boldface; all the families not included in those orders, except Sepiadariidae and Sepiidae are in the paraphyletic order "Sepiida", are in the paraphyletic order "Oegopsida". Everything after the first comma doesn't grammatically make sense to me.

--2003:F6:2717:1400:BDF6:C51C:B722:51E8 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

[edit]

Change of grammar and spelling RPG2428 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wording regarding Schmitt trigger

[edit]

In the Schmitt trigger diagram I assume the signal U isn't an example from an squid's axon - just a arbitrary example of a varying analogue signal. I propose making the wording more clearly reflect this. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

[edit]

In the section on sensory parts, I notice that 3 cm is not 1 inch. Search for " 3 cm (1 in)" I don't know which length is correct, I'm afraid. 2A01:4C8:801:FB34:3D09:D99:9185:EE1A (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the conversion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decapodiformes and Squids are not the same thing

[edit]

Squids are a type of decapodiform, but that doesn’t mean they’re synonymous. Cuttlefish are decapodiformes, but they are not squids. There should be a separate page for decapodiformes. Am spooky ocapus (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. According to Biology and Evolution of the Mollusca, Volume 2 (2020), the term squid is equal to the traditional Teuthida (currently the orders Bathyteuthida, Myopsida, and Oegopsida). This means that only half of the decapodiform orders currently accepted by WoRMS represent squids. For example, the bobtail squids shouldn't be regarded as squids. This article is problematic because it encompasses a group broader than the term squid, but narrower than the superorder Decapodiformes. @Plantdrew: Do you have opinions? --Paranaja (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also way too much emphasis on one single cladogram, which is only one of the cladograms in the same study. This should be a good article, but it seems very unprofessional to me. --Paranaja (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know you are free to edit it, if you have the references to cite just go ahead and edit the article. If there is any controversy about the taxonomy then you should detail that. The article does mention that "accepted that Sepiidae cuttlefish are a kind of squid, then the squids, excluding the vampire squid, form a clade as illustrated". I do agree, however, that a separate article on the Decapodiformes would be better and squid could then just cover the Myopsida and Oegopsida.Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plantdrew merged Decapodiformes with this article with the summary "consensus to merge", so I didn't want to revert the merge without discussion. The text that you cited sounds to me like original research, because it uses the term squid in a way that I haven't seen elsewhere, and it suggests a novel idea – not given in the source – that would make the terms squid and decapodiform synonymous. The literature that I've read mainly uses the term squid in the strict sense; for example, Octopus, Squid, and Cuttlefish (2018) say the following: "Strictly, they [pygmy squids, bobtail squids, and bottletail squids] are not squids, and we try to avoid confusion throughout this book by referring to them instead as idiosepiids, bobtails, and bottletails." Inofficial groupings tend to be difficult, but I think it's obvious that in this article, the circumscription of the term is not in line with the one used in the literature. I can try my best to change this article for the better, if there's no one supporting the current version of the article. --Paranaja (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who merged it, I just made some edits to the redirect post-merge. Wikipedia's classification is not internally consistent. Sepiolidae lists the order as Sepiida, but describes the family as being bobtail squid, and that article has a taxobox for order Sepiolida. I agree that cuttlefish aren't considered squid. Defining "true squid" to the exclusion of bobtail squid and others isn't very helpful. I'd support a separate article for Decapodiformes, with the squid article revised to treat it as a common name for some members of Decapodiformes (the squid article should still include a cladogram of Decapodifomres). Plantdrew (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If bobtail squids are squids, what about vampire squids? I think this article should be about the traditional Teuthida/Teuthoidea because that's how many sources still define squid. A broader definition is okay only if there are sources to support that definition. The phylogeny of Decapodiformes is so unresolved that there need to be either multiple cladograms or none. The one currently in the article is far from a consensus: it shows a paraphyletic Oegopsida despite most studies supporting monophyly. --Paranaja (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plantdrew, I apologize for the misconception about who did the merging, I apparently mixed between the lines. Anyway, Decapodiformes is now back as a separate article. Seems like it's still unclear what group this squid article is supposed to be about. --Paranaja (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzy8484.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

[edit]

Change ‘An inhalant siphon behind the funnel draws water into the mantel cavity via a valve.’

To ‘An inhalant siphon behind the funnel draws water into the mantle cavity via a valve.’

mantle is mis-spelled 213.165.186.61 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

squid phylogeny

[edit]

1. bottletail/pyjama squids are shown to be distantly related to cuttlefishes, when they are a family of sepiida

2. the pygmy squids are a family within the order sepiolida (not to be confused with sepiida, the cuttlefishes), and not a seperate order.

3. Oegopsida is split into many families and subfamilies while Myopsida and Spiruila are shown in a single taxon. Pancakes321 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flypaper

[edit]

An image description reads: "The whip-like tentacles of Mastigoteuthis are covered with tiny suckers to catch small organisms like flypaper". The word flypaper links to a fly killing device which doesn't seem correct. Schmiphi (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its like a simile, I believe? Because of the similarities between suckers and sticky fly paper? Sevenstxrsquid (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Semi protected page

[edit]

Sorry if I've done this wrong, but "In English-speaking countries, squid as food is often called calamari, adopted from Italian into English in the 17th century.[61]" incorrectly transcribed the source material. The merriam webster source lists the earliest known use of "calamari" as 1826, which would be the 19th century. It mentions that calamari came from 17th century italian, but must be referring to when the term came about in Italian? There's nothing I can find backing up Calamari in English usage in the 1600's. 2001:56A:7087:4700:82CC:A8B3:7B8A:60DD (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Squid&oldid=1263262775"