This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a marine biologist in the house? This brief article makes no mention of the many interesting traits unique to octopuses, such as: ink sacs, color changing (though the article on cephalapods does mention it,) lack of any bones, three-heart circulatory system, and hunting habits. Could someone please update, I trust not my amateur knowledge. One source - Nocturnal (not a registered user)
The article says that they 'have a very short life span.' Just how long is it? Kent Wang 05:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article says: Octopuses are characterized by their eight legs (properly called "tentacles").... Is this correct?
I had the impression that the eight legs were properly called 'arms' and that 'tentacles' referred to something else, the two additional long paddle-ended appendages of the giant squid for example. Thus one might say that the squid has eight arms and two tentacles. See, for example, http://www.australiancephalopods.com/occy_features.html: "One of the best known features of Octopuses is the fact that they have eight arms" This page uses the word 'arms' four times and 'tentacles' not at all; it was written by Dr. Mark Norman, a world-famous expert on cephalopods. Similarly, http://marine.alaskapacific.edu/octopus/anatomy.html uses the word 'arm', not 'tentacle'.
If there's no objection, I will correct the terminology in the article. Dominus 06:37 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
In Italy we're used to referring to the two long tentacles of squids as arms ("braccia"). The normal tentacles of octopuses and squids are always tentacoli, nor "legs" or "arms". Carnby.
Which one should be used. I'm not so sure that "arms" should be the term used, as they are technically neither arms nor legs. Why was tentacles removed?
The argument at the top of this page doesn't seem to have reached any real conclusion. Just that Marine biologists (and many other scientists) are inconsistent and international-- ZayZayEM 22:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cephalopods have up to ten appendages extending from around the mouth. Squids, cuttlefish and octopods (octopuses, plus deep water forms) have eight arms that have suckers and/or hooks along the entire length (octopuses only have suckers, squids can have suckers and/or hooks, depending on the species). Squids and cuttlefish also have two tentacles- long stretchy appendages that can shoot out to catch prey and bring food to the mouth. Tentacles only have suckers and/or hooks at the end (called the club). Octopods lack tentacles, and only have eight arms. The deep water octopod Vampyroteuthis also has two "filaments" which have no suckers or hooks. The function of filaments is unknown, but they are anatomically different from arms and tentacles.
As the article correctly says, octopi is not the correct English plural. It is not, however, a 'misconception' that octopus is from Latin. The OED states that octopus derives from modern Latin octōpus, which in turn derives from Greek. -- Heron
And how does the "common misconception" that octopus is Latin give us a plural which is so close to the original Greek oktopoi and so different from the Latin octopedes. If anything it sounds like octopi is anglicized Greek
No, it is not. The Greek plural form of (okto)pous is (okto)podes. The term pous, podos, plural: podes ('foot' but also 'leg') is an "irregular noun" (much better: a diphthong stem). I've studied Greek at the university and checked also Liddell-Scott dictionary. It must be said also that oktapous/oktapodes (with accented alpha) was even more common than oktopous (with accented omega) in ancient Greece... Carnby
Can someone please add the omikron to the Greek singular and plural forms? Exploding Boy 16:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
χταπόδι is a colloquialism. Just as we don't write "gunna" in formal writing, we shouldn't be writing "khtapothi"; the word is okhtapothi, from "okhta", meaning 8, and "pothia," meaning legs. Exploding Boy 20:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
If you'd like to rephrase your question so it's both understandable and non-sarcastic, I'll try to reply. Exploding Boy 20:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I grew up speaking and reading Greek, though admittedly I've largely lost it now. I looked at some of the online sources available; none seems particularly reliable, though I did find what appeared to be a scholarly article that Octopi also have eight penises contained both versions. I'll try looking in a proper dictionary, but at least both variants should be mentioned. Exploding Boy 21:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
The term 'Octopi" is incorrect. The root of "octopus" is Greek, and technically the plural is Octopodes. Since there is a group of animals called Octopods, the use of the Greek plural could be confusing (although some people do use it). Thus, cephalopod biologists use the English pluralization "octopuses" and absolutely cringe at the term "octopi."
Since this plural issue seems to come up a lot and cause many headaches, I have copied here the bit from the OED on line. (You can only access if it you have an account--if you're at at University you probably do.) I can't seem to get the Greek characters to show up, so I've cut them out.
Quote from OED
Plural octopuses, octopi, (rare) octopodes ... scientific Latin octopus (1758 or earlier in Linnaeus) ancient Greek (cut out Greek characters here) eight-footed, an eight-footed creature
The plural form octopodes reflects the Greek plural; cf. OCTOPOD n. The more frequent plural form octopi arises from apprehension of the final -us of the word as the grammatical ending of Latin second declension nouns; this apprehension is also reflected in compounds in octop-: see e.g. OCTOPEAN a., OCTOPIC a., OCTOPINE a., etc.
End OED Quote
I hope this will resolve some of the factual issues about how the different variants came about, if not ultimately the philosophical struggle between prescriptivist and descriptivist grammarains. 204.130.0.8 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Octopi, Octipodes and Octopuses are all legitimate uses - they are all used in common parlance. Thos that dispute one or the other may be correct in a narrow/pedantic way - and the issue really is if a dictionary defines acceptable use, or follows common use - Hence the use of Fowlers in the article is rather biased since it is passing as a judgement, the author's opinion on which plural form is correct when all are used commonly and grammatically correctly. Because this is a STYLE GUIDE and not a dictionary, it describes a preferred useage rather than correct useage. Would it be OK to do that? -- Bromo@ix.netcom.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.116.131.6 ( talk • contribs) 20:02, December 7, 2006 (UTC).
I can go in and rearrange if you agree - I think that this is a good thing. I agree that the plural octopuses is the best one, but the others are used, too, and to correct, they have to be mentioned. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bromo33333 ( talk • contribs).
I like the terminology entry a lot. Seems to me to cover all the bases. Thanks to the editing author! Bromo33333
"Octopi" should be marked as a commonly used, but INCORRECT, plural. At the very least the dispute should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.49.8 ( talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the numerical prefix articles, it says that octa- is Greek and octo- is Latin. However, this article says that octo- is Greek. Any opinions?? 66.245.107.78 01:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By the way, "nautilus" is another Latinized Greek word. Fortunately the link works just as well in the singular here. See Talk:Nautilus. Femto 20:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Octopus is a word in Scientific Latin, an adaptation of the cognate Ancient Greek word. In the etymology section, it is WRONG to write Greek right away: English has not borrowed this word from Greek, but from Latin. That the Scientific Latin word is a Greek loan word changes nothing to this fact. By the way, octa- also exists in Greek. Yet octo>octa is a common vowel mutation for Latin words borrowed from Greek. I had corrected it, some very insightful person changed it back. I leave it to her/him to put down the right version. -- Ekindedeoglu ( talk) 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This photo is good, but I'd like see one which more prominently displays its eight tentacles. Kent Wang 05:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see either an image or video of chromatophores in action directly in the octopus article, and not only in the chromatophore article. joelloughead
Does anyone know the species depicted in the image? - UtherSRG 12:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's Octopus cyanea. You can tell by the red background, white arm spots, and the barely-visible ocellus (false eyespot) on the side.
>> In some cultures, octopuses are caught for food.
the article says: "Octopuses also understand the concept of mirrored images and soon realize there's no use attempting to attack their own images. This seems to suggest that octopuses have some concept of a self; otherwise only monkeys, apes and humans, and possibly some species of dolphins, are smart enough to understand that their mirrored images are not other animals."
As stated, this does not seem tenable. Chimpanzees are thought to have a concept of self because they groom themselves in the mirror, showing that they can conceptually grasp that it is them being reflected back on themselves [needs reference]. Just not attacking the mirror does not demonstrate an awareness of self. Dogs and cats can do this. It seems that this evidence is pretty neutral with regard to whether the Octopus has a "concept of self". - anon
>> Finally, there's octopussy (plural octopussies), which is used in British English and is based on a popular derivation from "pussy" ('she-cat'), but it's completely erroneous.
The Octopussy of the book ("Octopussy" is the eponymous short story) is an actual octopus who is being fed regularly like a pet by the story's protagonist who is actually Bond's target. Bond shows up and pops the guy, and accidentally/onpurpose his body gets eaten by the octopus (not necessarily the whole thing, it's unclear). The depiction is more realistic than the crazy squid of "Dr. No" but still a bit fanciful. Just thought I'd fill in that blank here. 24.33.28.52 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Octopussy usages:
- UtherSRG 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was hoping for a BBC documentary transcript or something. All I can concede is that the term is sometimes used to refer to octopuses, but it's not mainstream English or in the dictionary, and I can't prove any direct connection to British English. I'm perfectly fine with the current edit though, what do you think? Femto 12:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re: rm bizarrerie - I've reverted because both the Bond name and the term of endearment derive from each other, and they are directly related to the subject of this article. "Octopussy" is a natural association and should be mentioned in a paragraph about words used for octopuses. Femto 13:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re: delete ridiculous facetiousness - see above. I think the facts themselves are appropriate to this article and shouldn't be simply removed with a 'minor' edit. Any suggestions how to make it less of a silly run-on sentence? Shorten it to "Finally, there is Octopussy, a blend name of octopus and pussycat, which is sometimes used as a term of endearment for octopuses."? Femto 13:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:Octopussy on the derivation of the word. Femto 14:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I deleted the octopussy reference before reading the talk. (DOH!) However, either as a term of endearment or as a character in and title of a Bond movie, I don't find the Octopussy reference to be relevant enough to warrant citing in an article devoted to the animal. Rhodekyll 09:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
WHY DID THEY REMOVE IT?? TS3 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
References to "Wells" in this section are to Octopus: Physiology and behaviour of an Advanced Invertebrate by M.J. Wells, Chapman and Hall, London, 1978. ( ISBN 0470991976)
According to the article, the blue rings displayed by the Blue-ringed octopus are the product of its chromatophores:
However, Wells says that the chromatophores are always in the yellow-red-brown-black range:
Thus, the blue rings cannot be due to the chromatophores. Wells continues:
The iridophores, not the chromatophores, would appear to be responsible for the blue rings. -- Dominus 17:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According the the article, octopuses have color vision:
However, according to Wells, octopuses do not have color vision:
And later on:
-- Dominus 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This color-changing ability can also be used to communicate with or warn other octopuses. How do they pull that off if they do not possess color vision? Thenumbereight 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
However, according to Wells, this is not the case. Wells says:
-- Dominus 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Interesting documents about octopus intelligence and learning can be found here, in case someone wants more background for editing:
Interesting article about defence mechanisms among two species of octopuses; "walking" as camouflage: New Scientist article. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Experiments show that octopuses can not only learn how to open jars to get crabs, but can demonstrate observational learning. An experiement by the Long Marine Laboratory in Santa Cruz in which one octopus can open a jar to get a crab and one can not, if the one that is having problems is shown the other octopus opening the jar, it in turn will be able to open the jar. 24 Aug 2005
Trying to extend the list of carnivorous animals at Carnivore. Are Octopuses (and squids) exclusively carnivorous??-- ZayZayEM 03:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a diet section in this article ( Serandolma ( talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
And the diet section has been added by some User:AdidasTrainers. But it doesn't sound quite right, don't you think? I would gladly change it, but I don't know anything about octopus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.160.131 ( talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to add all these myself eventually, but if anyone already knows the answers (in other words, if you know more than I do now), please put in some of this stuff:
The suborders listed here are "Cirrina" and "Incirrina", but I think that "Cirrata" and "Incirrata" are more common. Does anyone know? I believe they are equivalent, but maybe that's not even right.
There is nothing in the page about reproduction of octopuses. Note that there is a common myth even among semi-experts that octopuses reproduce with the aid of one of their arms (true) and that it breaks off in the process (false). Only one (or perhaps a few) species actually lose their arm in reproduction.
Contrary to what the introductory information says, octopuses of the cirrata suborder do have internal shells. - Nabarry
I just created a page for Cirrina. It is actually more of a sub-stub, but I wanted to get it started. I'll add more tonight, and more throughout the week if I can find time.
I also removed the following sentence from the Octopus article: "The octopuses in the Cirrina suborder have two fins and an internal shell." I felt that it did not really fit into the paragraph.
I think that there must be a far better way of referencing the Cirrina page than the way I did it (footnote referring to the bottom of the paragraph). But I do think that since most people only know about Incirrina, Cirrina belongs elsewhere. For example, these sentences in the Octopus article are pretty neat: "A beak, similar in shape to a parrot's beak, is their only hard part. This enables them to squeeze through very narrow slits between underwater rocks, which is very helpful when they are fleeing from morays or other predating fish." But they aren't true of the Cirrina. The Cirrina have an internal shell and thus cannot squeeze through narrow slits and all that.
Let me know what you guys think; I'm not set on keeping Cirrina info off the Octopus page, since they are certainly octopuses. I just think it's easier this way.
Nabarry 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Cirrata and Incirrata are the proper terms for these groups. More information about the relationships between octopuses and other cephalopods can be found on the "Tree of Life" web pages ( http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Cephalopoda)
What of the colossal octopus? I think it at least needs mention. http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/coloct.htm Joelloughead 28 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)
Here's another link to some information about the possible creature. Read it, the evidence is intriguing at the very least. I really think that it's credible enough to deserve mention as a bit of curiousity. Joelloughead 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
The article mentions octopuses boarding ships and escaping from their aquariums. How long can they survive out of water? Can they breathe air?
Can this be reconciled with the octopus learning by observation how to open a duct-taped box? Tempshill 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes- the autotomized arm grows back. (CLH @ UCB)
I find octopus' carmouflage techniques very interesting, yet there is little said about this in the article. May someone contribute additional facts about octopus carmouflage? -- Abdull 13:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
That google video link to camouflage is the same as the one in the link above it. It should be deleted because it's redundant and adds no additional information. You'll learn more if you get it from the author's source.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Octopus (genus) page should not redirect back to here. How is that changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eco mate ( talk • contribs) .
I've heard that octopus beaks can rotate - even indefinitely. Is there any truth in that? Thanks. 81.101.132.230 13:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the above from the article. US Federal law 7 USC 54 [5] doesn't seem to mention octopuses. If there's another law, please feel free to add it back, with a proper citation. -- KJ 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough this appears to be true, though I think it's borderline notable to the article. Femto 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The reference to _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ requires the edition and publication date, since different versions of Fowler's say different things about the plural forms of octopus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.243.216 ( talk • contribs) . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any documented cases of octopus attacks on humans? After watching the linked video of an octopus stalking then catching a shark, I can't help but relate to the shark's experience... a snorkeler swimming over an octopus would have less chance than that shark. Then again, I recall seeing footage of a marine biologist swimming in the ocean with the giant octopuses in San Francisco Bay, and thinking that they must have some sort of respect for humans as compared to sharks (not unlike dolphins, I guess?), because they could have ripped his head off if they wanted to, but instead seemed happy to just cavort with him. Anyway... anyone have any data? Thanks. — Epastore 15:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So "When octopuses reproduce, males use a specialized arm called a hectocotylus to insert spermatophores (packets of sperm) into the female's mantle cavity." Oooh, baby. But quite what is he inserting the sp********ore into? The syphon? That's surely going to make her sneeze. Is there a special girly part to receive it? Thankee! SleekWeasel 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm asking stupid questions, so... there's a syphon, but I can't tell whether it normally pokes out on the left hand side or the right. I see pictures with either. Any ideas? My guess is that it's really ventral and merely pokes out to one side or the other, but the interweb doesn't seem to know. SleekWeasel 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed "(the most intelligent of any of the invertebrates,) with their intelligence supposedly comparable to that of the average housecat." until it is sourced. It seems to contradict both various sources and issues that have been raised on this talk page. As a whole, I introduced a more restrained attitude towards octopus intelligence. User:Dominus has argued for the same on this talk page, but for some reason, he doesn't seem to have used the source he has been quoting in the actual article. -- 194.145.161.227 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The bit about octopuses eating their own limbs is interesting and useful, but I don't think it's in the right place. It's currently in the "Intelligence" section, perhaps because the phenomenon has neurological causes. I think the autophagy bit should be moved, but I don't think there's currently a more appropriate section for it. However, I think the article could use a section on feeding, and if that section were to be added, that would be a good spot for the autophagy description. Thoughts? Schi 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
From the Reproduction section:
After the eggs hatch, the young larval octopuses must spend a period of time drifting in clouds of plankton, where they feed on copepods, larval crabs and larval seastars until they are ready to sink down to the bottom of the ocean, where the cycle repeats itself.
(Emphases added.) What cycle is this? It sounds like they're going to drift in the plankton cloud and sink down again, but it's written as if the cycle repeats itself at the bottom of the ocean. It seems to me that the description skips the step of how they drift back up into the plankton cloud. Schi 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What I had heard was that the octopus followed a hunting strategy of sitting and waiting. And a case can be made that this favorably compares to a strategy of energetically searching and burning a lot of calories in the process. Kind of like playing Texas Hold’em poker, you can either follow a strategy of trying to energetically bluff or you can sit back and wait for a good hand.
But, the article is causing me to question this. Apparently, octopuses do spend considerable time roaming in search of prey.
So, maybe different in a different way. A lot of neurons are in the arms, the suckers have taste receptors, that information goes upward, being distilled and organized along the way I imagine. Analogous to our dominant sense, the sense of sight, the information is processed and refined as it makes the way from rods/cones to brain. We don’t see the blind spot of each eye. And interestingly, often we do not see something that we don’t expect to see.
And then the fact that the octopus doesn’t have the proprioceptive sense, bodily position, which gymnasts have exquisitely and all humans have to a pretty good extent. So an octopus does not have this. That must make for a rather different existense and a different internal experience. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the correct plural form for more than one octopus, although not of popular usage, is actually octopodes, while "octopuses" and "octopi" are used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.32.185 ( talk) 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I'm only a kid so I can't understand what all those big words mean. I do know there are two types of octopai, one I call "big head", which has a big head and its eyes on the lower part, and one I call "big nose", which has that big thing in front of their eyes, that looks like a nose but clearly isn't (and I don't know what it is). So could someone identify both of those please? 68.164.94.6 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I will start looking into it, but I know for a fact there are well-documented cases of octopus attacks on humans(yes many are apocryphal but some are not; all the ones I have seen are in self-defense of course). I do no want to encourage misconceptions or start a panic against some of the most interesting creatures in existence, but it certainly helps shape the inscrutability of the species. Does anyone have any references off the top of their heads? I think it would make a fascinating inclusion to the article 67.88.117.162 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In the "As pets" section, there's a wikilink to the candy company Just Born. Much as I enjoy the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, do we really need this? It could also be construed as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.16.188 ( talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I had changed "eight-legs" to "eight-feet", someone has changed it back. Please don't. Pod- means "foot" in Ancient Greek, not leg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekindedeoglu ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Octopus vulgaris are the only invertebrates that are included in the Animals (scientific procedures) act 1986 (UK)? Not sure where to put this info. here is the act in question, the relevant section is section 1(1) -- Dylan2106 ( talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It says they can "escape captivity" and "move between tide pools". Exactly how do they survive during this time? Do they have some other breathing method apart from gills, or do they simply not breath during this time? How long do they survive out of water?
Also, the "as pets" section is not very informative. It says they can be difficult to keep as pets, but not why, other than that they can escape. I assume they also eat other creatures in the tank. I think they'd make cool pets (compared to fish), so I'd be interested to find more info, but this section is lacking. Maybe not enough people have them as pets for this section to contain good info. 74.14.122.167 ( talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating as all the Greek and Latin arguments are, do we have a size range for these creatures? Seems like a rather sophomoric thing to ask, in light of all the fascinating "tentacles, limbs or arms" and "Greek or Latin plurals" discussions, but conspicuous by its absence is a reference to just how big these creatures can get, or how small. Can someone who knows add this information? PatrickLMT ( talk) 10:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What about smallest octopuses? Octopus octopus minor minor (the nakji in sannakji) can be eaten whole. Octopus ocellatus is probably similar as well. Are there any smaller species? -- Kjoon lee 06:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
HOW DOES AN OCTOPUS EAT??? answer me that. please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.193.243 ( talk • contribs) .
SO THE OCTOPUS EATS ITS FOOD ALIVE?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.88 ( talk) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Spain the industry leader in octopus aquaculture with 16 tonnes of catch in 2005? Anwar ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
To quote from WP:MOS:
This Manual of Style, often abbreviated MoS, is a style guide for Wikipedia articles. One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise (except in direct quotations, where the original text is generally preserved).
If the Manual of Style does not specify a preferred usage, discuss your issues on the talk page of this manual. The menu to the right contains links to Manual of Style pages that explore topics in greater detail.
It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from American to British spelling unless the article concerns a British topic. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
The original style would remain. JNW ( talk) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This elaboration, from Apostrophe:
Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound
This subsection deals with singular nouns pronounced with a sibilant sound at the end: /s/ or /z/. The spelling of these ends with -s, -se, -z, -ze, or -ce. Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, and The Economist.[5] Such sources would demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Mephistopheles's cat. However, many modern writers omit the extra s. Some respected style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style recommend the traditional practice but say that both are correct.[6]
According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26197656 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2547597/Octopuses-have-two-legs-and-six-arms.html , octipi's eight arms can be divide into six arms and two arms. Should we include this into the article? -- Yvesnimmo ( talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Octopuses are wonderful intelligent eight armed cephalopods. They are fascinating creatures and should be studied well by marine biologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.163.122 ( talk) 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody who isnt restricted please put a link to the Cephalopod ink page in a suitable place? near defense, perhaps, or under see also? Thanks :-) K-22-22 ( talk) 12:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the amount of vandalism this article receives, perhaps semi-protection would be a good idea? Debolaz 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The research published recently should be included under octopus' vision. It's interesting to note that they see standard TV as a series of still images, but process HDTV as animated.
source: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2008/12/21/1229794225193.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob.roecker ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandals have been striking this page. Hope we can keep an eye on it. Wbroun 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been proven that Octopi die a few months after reproducing. I have a theory (unbelievably by piers have accepted this and my teacher) that if you cut their sex cells (Gametes) off would the octopi live longer?
I understand that female octopi can live a little longer.
Can anyone clarify my theory?
Danielthomas 44 ( talk) 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user recently changed the caption on this picture from "An octopus escaping an aquarium through a thin crack" to "The reflection in the glass gives the illusion of an octopus escaping through a crack." Another user changed it back. I looked closely at the picture and I think the anonymous user is correct.
On the left side of the image, there are what appear to be two horizontal gray bars with a crack in between through which the octopus is passing. If you look at the leftmost edge of the "crack", I think you can see the image of the bottom "bar" superimposed on the octopus. I think this is because the bottom "bar" is actually a reflection of the top "bar" in the outside of the glass. Notice that although the top "bar" continues all the way to the right-hand side of the picture, the bottom "bar" vanishes partway across.
Also notice that the octopus has its ventral side facing the glass, as you would expect it to if it were inside the tank. If it were escaping the tank, you would expect to see the dorsal surface outside the tank.
I interpret the picture this way: The octopus is entirely inside the glass-walled tank, with part of its body attached to the wall and the rest occluded by the visible part. The viewer is outside the tank. The top gray "bar" is not a vertical surface but a horizontal one, perhaps a ceiling of some sort, extending away from the glass, toward the viewer. The bottom "bar" is an illusion, a reflection of the top "bar", whatever it is, in the outside of the glass. I wish I understood the top bar better.
If nobody objects, I will change the caption to say something like "the reflection in the glass gives the illusion of an octopus escaping through a crack." — Dominus ( talk) 02:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting quite long. I would like to arrange to have MiszaBot archive old threads automatically. The robot would move threads to a series of archive pages when they had been inactive for a certain amount of time, say one year. It starts a new archive page automatically when the old one gets too big. Archives would be at pages Talk:Octopus/Archive 2 and similar. The robot would always leave at least the most recent 15 threads on the main talk page.
I have been using this system on my own user talk page for some time; it is also used by Wikiproject Mathematics. Does anyone object? Does anyone have different preferences for the robot's configuration? — Dominus ( talk) 02:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 15 |algo = old(365d) |maxarchivesize = 250K |archive = Talk:Octopus/Archive %(counter)d }}
The middle paragraph of the Sensation section contains this passage:
"[T]he octopus has a very poor proprioceptive sense. The tension receptors are not sufficient for the octopus brain to determine the position of the octopus' body or arms. (It is not clear that the octopus brain would be capable of processing the large amount of information that this would require; the flexibility of an octopus' arms is much greater than that of the limbs of vertebrates, which devote large areas of cerebral cortex to the processing of proprioceptive inputs.) As a result, the octopus does not possess stereognosis; that is, it does not form a mental image of the overall shape of the object it is handling. It can detect local texture variations, but cannot integrate the information into a larger picture."
I find the assertions 1) "the octopus has a very poor proprioceptive sense" and 2) "it does not form a mental image of the overall shape of the object it is handling" to be extremely dubious. And even if they turn out to be true, it strikes me as impossible for any researcher to determine their truth, because they concern the inner mental life of the octopus.
Proprioceptive sense is knowing the relative positions of the parts of one's body. Considering the wide variety of shapes that the octopus can configure its body in, as the need arises -- for camouflage or for capturing prey (see, for example, that video of an octopus capturing a shark), the octopus must have, on some level, a very fine-tuned sense of its body's position . . . as well as how to rapidly change it to another position when convenient to do so.
And the fact that octopuses can solve complex problems like how to open a jar reveals that an octopus must have, on some level, an excellent "mental image of the overall shape of the object it is handling".
Just on what level of consciousness these awarenesses take place is an issue that is far beyond science's current ability to determine. Surely we currently have no idea just what kinds of levels of consciousness an octopus even has!
For these reasons I would recommend removing these statements from the article . . . or at the very least express them in the form "Some researchers believe . . ." rather than as statements of absolute fact.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy of the book that the article uses as a citation for these facts (it is currently sold by the largest online bookseller for U.S.$800, so must be fairly rare at this point). Daqu ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the Hexapus mention, the content of the See Also section is better suited to the Octopus disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.13.58 ( talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(as distinct from the tentacles found in squid and cuttlefish)
I moved the above here, pending citation. I don't think it is useful to direct people to the tentacle article for an explanation as to why octopses have arms instead of tentacles, when there is none there. Octopuses arms fit easily into the definition given at tentacle (flexible, sensitive, for grasping), so both articles need citing, and a greater explanation of what a tentacle is or is not. Yob Mod 10:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The body plan of the octopus, squid, and cuttlefish is very different from ours. I would like to see something in the article about the anatomy of an octopus. Maybe a diagram showing the location of the major organs would help. SlowJog ( talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree I think there should be at least a diagram of an octopus's anatomy here. PUT ONE! Cause I don't have one. thanks. -- InvaderCito ( talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I learnt a lot from reading this article. It's fantastic! Great work everyone. For example, the Physiology section has a great attention to detail despite its brief nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.9.41 ( talk • contribs).
The comment on octopuses playing with toys is not entirely consistent with the referenced source. The article says that the octopuses used their water jets to cause the "toys" to circulate in the water, but it does not say that they ever "caught" the toys with their tentacles. In fact, the article questions why the octopuses used their water jets instead of their tentacles, and refers to the fact that the tentacles may be semiautonomous from the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.195.70 ( talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I just corrected the grammar, the genitive of octopus is octopus', not octopus's, but this was immediately changed back. This was not vandalism! -- spaceLem ( talk) 11:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
According to The Chicago Manual of Style, §7.17:
"Octopus" does not fall under the exceptions in §7.19–22. However, §7.23 offers "an alternative practice":
I think it's not worth arguing about, and that we should make the page's usage consistent, one way or the other, and then leave it that way.
— Dominus ( talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Am i allowed to talk without being banned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.238.191 ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a section discussing the range/ranges of the octopus. 167.7.33.2 ( talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Where is the octopus' beak located? The article makes no note of this. – 129.241.137.240 ( talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the reason is simply that nobody has posted a topic about the location of the octopuses beak. I think it is below the eyes... obviously it could be knowhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.230.133 ( talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Octopi beaks are in the middle of the underpart of the body where the tentacles meet.
The correct plural of Octopus, is "octopodes." Lion King 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Whilst it is often supposed that octopi is the correct plural of octopus and has been in use longer than the Anglicized octopuses, it in fact originates as an error. Octopus is not a simple latin word of the second declension, but a latinized form of the Greek word oktopous and it's correct plural, would logically, be, octopodes. Lion King 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have trouble with the use of the singular 'octopus' as plural in a few of the photo captions? Specifically: 'Octopus at Tsukiji fish market', 'Grilled octopus in Greece', 'octopus are "tickled"' and 'A fisherman's catch of octopus' 1bj05hua ( talk) 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Greek nothing, speak English or get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The OED has never actually said that one form or another is incorrect, since the OED isn't a prescriptive dictionary. It merely states that the word "octopi" is one of the plural forms, because that's how the OED scholars have seen it used. Octopodes is another form listed. Since people continue to use all of them, they will continue to all be listed in the dictionary. The fight over what is the correct form is therefore silly.. Anyway, since this article incorrectly implied that the OED used the word "mistaken" I have corrected the entry and updated the OED retrieval date. (Or tried to anyway.) The OED never used the word, "mistaken." It only accurately traces the logic of the people who use the octopi form. Even when the OED makes an implication about which form is correct (as in the concise askoxford entry) it still only says that the *reasoning* people use for the octopi form is incorrect, not that the use is. Therefore, the continued use of the "octopi" form could in fact be justified simply by continuing to use it! Kothog ( talk) 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone provide information about when the octopuses evolved? Maybe even when they differentiated from the vampire squids? Other taxonomic articles have keen diagrams showing the taxon's fossil range, but there's nothing like that for Octopoda. 71.227.187.128 ( talk) 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The book "Evolution" (2009, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd., p.134-135) states that the common octopus evolved not later than the middle Jurassic. Fossils of o. vulgaris have been found on the sea bed of La_Voulte-sur-Rhone, dating back 163 million years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.94.28 ( talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
when does the octopus have blue eyes? what stage of development? when was this first noticed, written or published reference would be very helpful. Beyond cold and hot water adaptation? Item of interest was the surgical procedures reported in India of multilimbed children. Any noted items on experimentation in laboratories? To my knowledge the reference in literature have always indicated black eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.68.67 ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! If anyone knows, I for one would appreciate a solution to a conundrum. The brain is an expensive organ to grow and maintain, and learning takes time. „Octopodes“ (if we follow the above) are short-lived. Is there a reasonable explanation for why they invest so much of their limited time in this? All the best 85.220.111.211 ( talk) 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
They are short-lived relative to, for example humans, but live several years, long enough perhaps to benefit from experience.
Another related question: The article discusses that they learn almost nothing from their parents, implying that they may learn something. How can this be known at all, one way or the other?-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 08:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"Although their slit-shaped pupils might be expected to afflict them with astigmatism, it appears that this is not a problem in the light levels in which an octopus typically hunts". This statement is incorrect. The lens, which changes the vergence of light behind the pupil is spherical, not cylindrical. Fillup ( talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It has no 'head' to speak of. When it jets, it travels mantle-first, which is similar to saying it travels ass-first. 70.179.127.14 ( talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So, where could we include the incredible powers of octopus prediction, especially that of the one which predicted many Soccer World Cup games with 100% accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.76.157 ( talk) 23:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
What do octopuses eat? Are they considered predators, scavengers, or something else? How do they obtain their food? The article should address these points. Ishboyfay ( talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} the plural of octopus is octopodes, not octopusses as written in this article, as explained here http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/plurals?view=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.101.24 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 December 2009, Monday (UTC-5)
It's already been covered to death, hasn't it? I tried to follow the link to askoxford but couldn't find that page. However, when I type "octopus" into that site, the dictionary entry shows only one plural (octopuses), and adds a usage note: "The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However , the word octopus comes from Greek, and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used . The plural form octopi is mistakenly formed according to rules for Latin plurals, and is therefore incorrect." So that seems pretty clear. It has long been held that once a word is fully absorbed into English, English plurals should be used. Also, the main article lists Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, but the main Chambers Dictionary goes further by including a note that says "octopi is wrong".
This also contradicts an earlier comment in the discussion that English dictionaries "invariably" support the use of "octopi". Obviously, at least one respectable dictionary does not! The writer of that comment also stated it is not up to wikipedia to "legislate" linguistic norms. Maybe. But no-one is talking about legislating anything here: you can say what you like in your own works. Here, we are only talking about wikipedia "using" (rather than "legislating") the form that most English authorities appear to recommend. AlistairLW ( talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[[File:Casa Ezequiel.jpg|thumb|250px|Galician people|[[Galician people|Galician]] woman preparing ''[[polbo á feira]]'']] [[File:Polbeira, A Coruña, Galiza.jpg|thumb|250px|Galician people|[[Galician people|Galician]] woman preparing ''[[polbo á feira]]'']]
Would anyone add any of these pictures? I think they are rather interesting for the article. The images depict two women preparing polbo á feira.-- 194.80.194.85 ( talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The sensation section does mention that octopuses have chemoreceptors on their arms, but it equates this sense more closely to "taste" than smell. Is anyone aware of whether octopuses have an independent sense of smell? That is, the ability to detect molecules at low concentrations in the surrounding water, in the manner that sharks are said to detect blood? NillaGoon ( talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I don't know about it myself, the distinction between "smell" and "taste" seems a bit blurry to me in an aquatic context, so I'm not really convinced it matters which word is used. It would be interesting if someone found a source that addressed this, though. ~rezecib ( talk) 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Underwater, there is no distinction between smell and taste, except, perhaps, that one is in the mouth. Anything an octopus could sense with its chemoreceptors would be a soluble molecule in the water around the chemoreceptors. I'll try to get some sources, although there isn't a lot of direct evidence that octopuses have chemoreceptors on their arms (just behavioral and morphological evidence.) I remember reading about chemoreceptors on their lips once - I'll try to check that out in the near future. Lisieski ( talk) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
What I miss is a piece about what Octopedes usually eat. I guess small fish right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.242.106 ( talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) There definately should be a section about diet. octopi eat crab and shellfish so someone should implement greater knowledge then mine to write up a section about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhammerton ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Octopi is correct! Anything ending with -us to make plural you put i at the end! Maybe if you werent all doofi you would know that! P.S. I already changed the article to say octopi! Inurfaces! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 ( talk • contribs).
f### all of you! its octopi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 ( talk • contribs).
What are you? A sex maniac? then go back to bed and do it with your spouse! or your special "friend" By Mr. Mystery —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 ( talk • contribs).
OCTOPI IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhammerton ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
What's actually pretty amazing about this discussion is all the people who are completely ignorant of the grammatical structure of Latin and Ancient Greek, and YET who are 100% absolutely totally positive that any "old-timey word" that ends with -us has its plural in -i. Thank you, Rajah, for standing strong. "Octopi" is a Latin word created by English-speaking Americans who have no knowledge whatsoever of Latin. Mardiste ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And if S.J. Hammerton wants to convince me otherwise with respect to his knowledge of Classical languages, then he's going to need more than eight exclamation points. By the way, does anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that, instead of using the caps lock button, S.J. Harrington was "correcting" people's Latin declension by holding down the shift key while typing his entire ill-informed message with his right index finger? Mardiste ( talk) 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read a couple of articles on the internet about farming octopuses. Is this common? Or are they generally hunted/captured from the wild? Given that they appear to be able to fit through extremely small gaps, octopus farms must be quite specific. Does anyone have any information on this?
The background for the headings are blue, as is the text so it's unreadable, I don't know how to change it though, maybe some master wikipedian can help out here :P
In the locomotion section, it states that octopi swim by jetting water out the siphon. I know that this is true, but I think I have witnessed another method. I have just viewed a video that shows an octopus doing what looks very similar to swimming like a fish. Maybe it's using its jet, but it does look like it is moving by undulating, using its trailing tentacles in a similar fashion to a fish tail. This form of locomotion is horizontal, not verticle like a fish. Also, the octopus in the video is not moving head first like the article says. The video is located here: [7]. The suspect portions start at 3:12 and another at 4:12. 75.88.30.191 ( talk) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That's jetting. The octopus is pointing its siphon the opposite direction of the way it swims, and rapidly expelling water from it. The arms trailing behind it are not contributing to its movement at all. Lisieski ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Given the octopus' amazing ability to camouflage itself, I was surprised to see it described as "almost certainly" colour-blind. Octopii beat the chameleon at its own game - they change shape and even texture, not just colour. [8] LOL - that search finds several informal sources that say it's colour-blind ! Maybe we can find a better citation ? [9] Some think it detects colour by touch ! Perhaps with surface receptors like the Nautilus, but using a contact print not pinhole camera ? Cephalopod Crypsis says it matches a photograph or through glass, but with less 'depth' than on a 3D surface !
[12] "However, spectral discrimination could be provided by involving other skin structures (chromatophores and iridophores), which produce changeable colours and patterns." So it seems to 'see' with its whole skin, and may detect colours 'holographically', rather than using pigments. Makes me feel pretty inadequate.
Given that they can even produce polarization patterns that are almost invisible to us, I suspect that they can see colour, even though they do not use colour sense mechanisms that we recognise and understand, and do not always co-operate in experiments. However, I leave it to the experts !
[13] colour matching looks pretty good to me, especially given the variation in colour vision among individual humans, let alone predator species.
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dominus ( talk · contribs) has just de-archived 9 stale discussion threads. As one example, Dominus de-archived a section that had one comment only, created by an IP who has not edited since January 5, 2010. Another section similarly had only one comment by an IP who edited only on Feb 7 and 8, and has not edited since. These and the other archived sections are clearly dead. Dominus, can you explain why you de-archived them? Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I frequently come back well over a year after a discussion. science works that way. Also if there is an edit war I am put off contributing. If there are lots of comments of course archive quickly. IF not leave them around until the article incorporates the info somehow. If there is a question asked WHY should it be automatically answered within a month or even a year? Most PhD courses are 3yrs minimum, so why not leave items for 3 yrs minimum? Then if a researcher does look here and find the answer in their research they have enough time to investigate, peer review and publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 ( talk) 08:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
A brief summary of the strong role the octopus plays in sports, as referenced in the see also section, should be discussed in the same manner as literature. It should include both Paul the Octopus as well as the tradition of Octopus throwing at Red Wings playoff games. Any other submissions, of course, can be added as needed. Lacking this section gives an incomplete picture of the Octopus' role in culture. Thoughts?≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.7.204 ( talk) 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there is little question that the octopus as political metaphor is interesting, long-standing, and well-supported by evidence. Vulgar Army is a blog devoted to examination of this metaphor, and contains dozens of examples of octopus-related propaganda from the last hundred and fifty years. The example at right was published in 1913. I'm not sure this article is the right place for it; maybe a very brief section with a pointer to a standalone article would be more appropriate. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's one I just happened across on Commons that someone uploaded a few months ago. It is from 1877. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The sentence: "Unlike vertebrates, the complex motor skills of octopuses are not organized in their brain using an internal somatotopic map of its body, as is the motor system in vertebrates" has a redundancy and lacks a period. I'd fix it myself, but the page is protected. 67.142.165.30 ( talk) 22:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Due to having numerous tentacles that emanate from a common center, (...)"
As established in the rest of the article, octopuses do not have tentacles, but arms. Someone with the rights please edit. --
83.101.83.57 (
talk)
12:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Tentacles vs Arms vs Legs: Please take my talk-edit comment at face value because I don't have time to find the research right now. I have seen information (much more recent than referenced) explaining how octopuses have arms AND legs, AND in a common proportion across species. I will try to come back with the references, but if someone else knows better, could you please add the info? (And if that arm-v-leg knowledge has changed, could that be noted too?) Smittee ( talk) 07:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This video is under a creative commons license and has good cut-away images of the color-texture changing mechanisms of their skin-cells, as well as anatomical information concerning their brain neurons in their capacity of being convergent yet separate in brain evolution for behavioral plasticity to humans. Anyone wanting to go to work including anything from this video to this article has their work (rewardingly) cut out for them. Nagelfar ( talk) 09:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:OctopusMocheLMC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:OctopusMocheLMC.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link at Conference on Cephalopods and Art, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Minnesota, March, 2011 (the last of the external links)
to http://ias.umn.edu/2011/03/25/cephalopod-symposium/
because we changed our website. The old links are not yet finding the new pages. for more information, please contact me, Sharon Fischlowitz, at fisc0199@umn.edu thank you 98.240.214.120 ( talk) 05:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought, instead of "octopuses" it was in fact, "octopi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.100.19 ( talk) 13:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The section on etymology and pluralization is great. I just wonder, though, why it is a 3rd declension noun in Latin. Is that the standard protocol for Scientific Latin? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The Etymology Section of the Octopus page needs correction. Using Wikipedia Latin pages as my reference guide for Latin Nouns. 1st declension nouns feminine singular and plural respectively end in these endings:-A,-AE; Greek assumed 1st declension: -E,-AE; Latin masc -ES,-AE; and Latin masc -AS,-AE. 2nd declension Nouns -masc -US, -I; or masc -R/-ER,-I; or neuter -UM,-A; or Greek feminine -OS/-US, -I; or Greek neuter -UM/-UN,-I 3rd Declension Nouns neuter -O,-ES; or neuter -N,-IS; or neuter +X-, +CT-ES; or neuter I stem +AL,-AI; or Greek assumed masc +,-ES; or Greek IS stem +IS, +ES These Wikipedia case endings agree with Wheelock's Latin book, which is the book used by the University of Washington, Seattle, to teach Latin. The point is this etymological section about Octopus being a third declension Latin Greek assumed ending is messed up, badly. Using your own Latin pages to complete the logic here it goes. If an Octopus or Octopous from Greek with an -OS/-US ending word is assigned a declension in Latin it would be a Second Declension Greek feminine case to Latin transmutation of the word Octopus; according to your own pages on Latin declensions it follows that Octopi is the correct nominative case plural of Octopus. There is no third declension nominative case for a Greek or Latin word ending in -OS/-US, although there are other Greek endings in the third declension Latin for other stems in Greek. It follows that an Octopus in Latin translates to English in the time when scientific notation adopted Latin as the standard for natural description, if not much earlier than Lineaus, and that an Octopus from Greek through Latin to English has not changed as the rules for Latin Declension have not changed in two thousand years. An Octopus is one Octopus, whereas Octopi is the plural. If we are talking of Octopodes as a singular Latin form, that would be a First Declension masculine (Latin form) which makes the plural nominative case Octopodae. If Octopodes is meant as a plural of the word, it would be a third declension neuter making a singular form Octopodo; since, we know we don't use that in our ordinary terminology, I'm fairly certain we can rule that out as an option. Disregard this line as a result. If Octopus were a singular masculine noun in Latin it would still be Octopus/Octopi, and since the Latin and the Greek assumed Latin are the same, I'm pretty sure, we are coming to a logical conclusion that Octopus/Octopi is the longstanding correct version of the word, in English, Latin, and Greek. The information provided on the Octopus page is erroneous, please correct this as soon as possible. With Gratitude to Wikipedia for solving its own riddle. Thomas G. Higgins 67.158.204.253 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Additionaly, if, and it is a big if, if Octopus is a Third Declension Latin-Greek assumed word, the following forms would be the case Octopus, Octopuses; if that is if the gender of the word itself is believed to be masculine. There is no evidence, as yet, that the word is of the masculine Greek form, so, it may be that the gender question is the cause of the confusion, not, to mention the possibility that the word is a feminine gender Greek word with the -OS/-US ending assumed into Latin in the 2nd Declension, resulting in Octopus/Octopi. SIde by side then: Octopus/Octopi is 2nd Declension Latin/feminine Greek into Latin; Octopus/Octopuses is 3rd Declension masculine Greek into Latin; The Etymology section cheerfully assumes that Octopus is a third declension masculine Greek into Latin rather than the more likely straight translation of the Greek word into Latin ending in -OS/-US. If, the compound Greek word Octo+Pous actually makes the word a masculine case by the possible fact that pous is a masculine word, then, maybe the argument is solved as a masculine translation into Latin. If not, then, it follows that the form of the word dictates the translation into Latin, meaning that Octopous is actually a feminine Greek word. That is something which I will get back to you all about later after I study Greek Declension. [edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.204.253 ( talk) 02:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a marine biologist in the house? This brief article makes no mention of the many interesting traits unique to octopuses, such as: ink sacs, color changing (though the article on cephalapods does mention it,) lack of any bones, three-heart circulatory system, and hunting habits. Could someone please update, I trust not my amateur knowledge. One source - Nocturnal (not a registered user)
The article says that they 'have a very short life span.' Just how long is it? Kent Wang 05:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article says: Octopuses are characterized by their eight legs (properly called "tentacles").... Is this correct?
I had the impression that the eight legs were properly called 'arms' and that 'tentacles' referred to something else, the two additional long paddle-ended appendages of the giant squid for example. Thus one might say that the squid has eight arms and two tentacles. See, for example, http://www.australiancephalopods.com/occy_features.html: "One of the best known features of Octopuses is the fact that they have eight arms" This page uses the word 'arms' four times and 'tentacles' not at all; it was written by Dr. Mark Norman, a world-famous expert on cephalopods. Similarly, http://marine.alaskapacific.edu/octopus/anatomy.html uses the word 'arm', not 'tentacle'.
If there's no objection, I will correct the terminology in the article. Dominus 06:37 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
In Italy we're used to referring to the two long tentacles of squids as arms ("braccia"). The normal tentacles of octopuses and squids are always tentacoli, nor "legs" or "arms". Carnby.
Which one should be used. I'm not so sure that "arms" should be the term used, as they are technically neither arms nor legs. Why was tentacles removed?
The argument at the top of this page doesn't seem to have reached any real conclusion. Just that Marine biologists (and many other scientists) are inconsistent and international-- ZayZayEM 22:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cephalopods have up to ten appendages extending from around the mouth. Squids, cuttlefish and octopods (octopuses, plus deep water forms) have eight arms that have suckers and/or hooks along the entire length (octopuses only have suckers, squids can have suckers and/or hooks, depending on the species). Squids and cuttlefish also have two tentacles- long stretchy appendages that can shoot out to catch prey and bring food to the mouth. Tentacles only have suckers and/or hooks at the end (called the club). Octopods lack tentacles, and only have eight arms. The deep water octopod Vampyroteuthis also has two "filaments" which have no suckers or hooks. The function of filaments is unknown, but they are anatomically different from arms and tentacles.
As the article correctly says, octopi is not the correct English plural. It is not, however, a 'misconception' that octopus is from Latin. The OED states that octopus derives from modern Latin octōpus, which in turn derives from Greek. -- Heron
And how does the "common misconception" that octopus is Latin give us a plural which is so close to the original Greek oktopoi and so different from the Latin octopedes. If anything it sounds like octopi is anglicized Greek
No, it is not. The Greek plural form of (okto)pous is (okto)podes. The term pous, podos, plural: podes ('foot' but also 'leg') is an "irregular noun" (much better: a diphthong stem). I've studied Greek at the university and checked also Liddell-Scott dictionary. It must be said also that oktapous/oktapodes (with accented alpha) was even more common than oktopous (with accented omega) in ancient Greece... Carnby
Can someone please add the omikron to the Greek singular and plural forms? Exploding Boy 16:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
χταπόδι is a colloquialism. Just as we don't write "gunna" in formal writing, we shouldn't be writing "khtapothi"; the word is okhtapothi, from "okhta", meaning 8, and "pothia," meaning legs. Exploding Boy 20:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
If you'd like to rephrase your question so it's both understandable and non-sarcastic, I'll try to reply. Exploding Boy 20:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I grew up speaking and reading Greek, though admittedly I've largely lost it now. I looked at some of the online sources available; none seems particularly reliable, though I did find what appeared to be a scholarly article that Octopi also have eight penises contained both versions. I'll try looking in a proper dictionary, but at least both variants should be mentioned. Exploding Boy 21:59, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
The term 'Octopi" is incorrect. The root of "octopus" is Greek, and technically the plural is Octopodes. Since there is a group of animals called Octopods, the use of the Greek plural could be confusing (although some people do use it). Thus, cephalopod biologists use the English pluralization "octopuses" and absolutely cringe at the term "octopi."
Since this plural issue seems to come up a lot and cause many headaches, I have copied here the bit from the OED on line. (You can only access if it you have an account--if you're at at University you probably do.) I can't seem to get the Greek characters to show up, so I've cut them out.
Quote from OED
Plural octopuses, octopi, (rare) octopodes ... scientific Latin octopus (1758 or earlier in Linnaeus) ancient Greek (cut out Greek characters here) eight-footed, an eight-footed creature
The plural form octopodes reflects the Greek plural; cf. OCTOPOD n. The more frequent plural form octopi arises from apprehension of the final -us of the word as the grammatical ending of Latin second declension nouns; this apprehension is also reflected in compounds in octop-: see e.g. OCTOPEAN a., OCTOPIC a., OCTOPINE a., etc.
End OED Quote
I hope this will resolve some of the factual issues about how the different variants came about, if not ultimately the philosophical struggle between prescriptivist and descriptivist grammarains. 204.130.0.8 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Octopi, Octipodes and Octopuses are all legitimate uses - they are all used in common parlance. Thos that dispute one or the other may be correct in a narrow/pedantic way - and the issue really is if a dictionary defines acceptable use, or follows common use - Hence the use of Fowlers in the article is rather biased since it is passing as a judgement, the author's opinion on which plural form is correct when all are used commonly and grammatically correctly. Because this is a STYLE GUIDE and not a dictionary, it describes a preferred useage rather than correct useage. Would it be OK to do that? -- Bromo@ix.netcom.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.116.131.6 ( talk • contribs) 20:02, December 7, 2006 (UTC).
I can go in and rearrange if you agree - I think that this is a good thing. I agree that the plural octopuses is the best one, but the others are used, too, and to correct, they have to be mentioned. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bromo33333 ( talk • contribs).
I like the terminology entry a lot. Seems to me to cover all the bases. Thanks to the editing author! Bromo33333
"Octopi" should be marked as a commonly used, but INCORRECT, plural. At the very least the dispute should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.49.8 ( talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the numerical prefix articles, it says that octa- is Greek and octo- is Latin. However, this article says that octo- is Greek. Any opinions?? 66.245.107.78 01:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By the way, "nautilus" is another Latinized Greek word. Fortunately the link works just as well in the singular here. See Talk:Nautilus. Femto 20:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Octopus is a word in Scientific Latin, an adaptation of the cognate Ancient Greek word. In the etymology section, it is WRONG to write Greek right away: English has not borrowed this word from Greek, but from Latin. That the Scientific Latin word is a Greek loan word changes nothing to this fact. By the way, octa- also exists in Greek. Yet octo>octa is a common vowel mutation for Latin words borrowed from Greek. I had corrected it, some very insightful person changed it back. I leave it to her/him to put down the right version. -- Ekindedeoglu ( talk) 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This photo is good, but I'd like see one which more prominently displays its eight tentacles. Kent Wang 05:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see either an image or video of chromatophores in action directly in the octopus article, and not only in the chromatophore article. joelloughead
Does anyone know the species depicted in the image? - UtherSRG 12:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's Octopus cyanea. You can tell by the red background, white arm spots, and the barely-visible ocellus (false eyespot) on the side.
>> In some cultures, octopuses are caught for food.
the article says: "Octopuses also understand the concept of mirrored images and soon realize there's no use attempting to attack their own images. This seems to suggest that octopuses have some concept of a self; otherwise only monkeys, apes and humans, and possibly some species of dolphins, are smart enough to understand that their mirrored images are not other animals."
As stated, this does not seem tenable. Chimpanzees are thought to have a concept of self because they groom themselves in the mirror, showing that they can conceptually grasp that it is them being reflected back on themselves [needs reference]. Just not attacking the mirror does not demonstrate an awareness of self. Dogs and cats can do this. It seems that this evidence is pretty neutral with regard to whether the Octopus has a "concept of self". - anon
>> Finally, there's octopussy (plural octopussies), which is used in British English and is based on a popular derivation from "pussy" ('she-cat'), but it's completely erroneous.
The Octopussy of the book ("Octopussy" is the eponymous short story) is an actual octopus who is being fed regularly like a pet by the story's protagonist who is actually Bond's target. Bond shows up and pops the guy, and accidentally/onpurpose his body gets eaten by the octopus (not necessarily the whole thing, it's unclear). The depiction is more realistic than the crazy squid of "Dr. No" but still a bit fanciful. Just thought I'd fill in that blank here. 24.33.28.52 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Octopussy usages:
- UtherSRG 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was hoping for a BBC documentary transcript or something. All I can concede is that the term is sometimes used to refer to octopuses, but it's not mainstream English or in the dictionary, and I can't prove any direct connection to British English. I'm perfectly fine with the current edit though, what do you think? Femto 12:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re: rm bizarrerie - I've reverted because both the Bond name and the term of endearment derive from each other, and they are directly related to the subject of this article. "Octopussy" is a natural association and should be mentioned in a paragraph about words used for octopuses. Femto 13:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re: delete ridiculous facetiousness - see above. I think the facts themselves are appropriate to this article and shouldn't be simply removed with a 'minor' edit. Any suggestions how to make it less of a silly run-on sentence? Shorten it to "Finally, there is Octopussy, a blend name of octopus and pussycat, which is sometimes used as a term of endearment for octopuses."? Femto 13:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:Octopussy on the derivation of the word. Femto 14:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I deleted the octopussy reference before reading the talk. (DOH!) However, either as a term of endearment or as a character in and title of a Bond movie, I don't find the Octopussy reference to be relevant enough to warrant citing in an article devoted to the animal. Rhodekyll 09:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
WHY DID THEY REMOVE IT?? TS3 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
References to "Wells" in this section are to Octopus: Physiology and behaviour of an Advanced Invertebrate by M.J. Wells, Chapman and Hall, London, 1978. ( ISBN 0470991976)
According to the article, the blue rings displayed by the Blue-ringed octopus are the product of its chromatophores:
However, Wells says that the chromatophores are always in the yellow-red-brown-black range:
Thus, the blue rings cannot be due to the chromatophores. Wells continues:
The iridophores, not the chromatophores, would appear to be responsible for the blue rings. -- Dominus 17:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According the the article, octopuses have color vision:
However, according to Wells, octopuses do not have color vision:
And later on:
-- Dominus 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This color-changing ability can also be used to communicate with or warn other octopuses. How do they pull that off if they do not possess color vision? Thenumbereight 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
However, according to Wells, this is not the case. Wells says:
-- Dominus 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Interesting documents about octopus intelligence and learning can be found here, in case someone wants more background for editing:
Interesting article about defence mechanisms among two species of octopuses; "walking" as camouflage: New Scientist article. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Experiments show that octopuses can not only learn how to open jars to get crabs, but can demonstrate observational learning. An experiement by the Long Marine Laboratory in Santa Cruz in which one octopus can open a jar to get a crab and one can not, if the one that is having problems is shown the other octopus opening the jar, it in turn will be able to open the jar. 24 Aug 2005
Trying to extend the list of carnivorous animals at Carnivore. Are Octopuses (and squids) exclusively carnivorous??-- ZayZayEM 03:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a diet section in this article ( Serandolma ( talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
And the diet section has been added by some User:AdidasTrainers. But it doesn't sound quite right, don't you think? I would gladly change it, but I don't know anything about octopus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.160.131 ( talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to add all these myself eventually, but if anyone already knows the answers (in other words, if you know more than I do now), please put in some of this stuff:
The suborders listed here are "Cirrina" and "Incirrina", but I think that "Cirrata" and "Incirrata" are more common. Does anyone know? I believe they are equivalent, but maybe that's not even right.
There is nothing in the page about reproduction of octopuses. Note that there is a common myth even among semi-experts that octopuses reproduce with the aid of one of their arms (true) and that it breaks off in the process (false). Only one (or perhaps a few) species actually lose their arm in reproduction.
Contrary to what the introductory information says, octopuses of the cirrata suborder do have internal shells. - Nabarry
I just created a page for Cirrina. It is actually more of a sub-stub, but I wanted to get it started. I'll add more tonight, and more throughout the week if I can find time.
I also removed the following sentence from the Octopus article: "The octopuses in the Cirrina suborder have two fins and an internal shell." I felt that it did not really fit into the paragraph.
I think that there must be a far better way of referencing the Cirrina page than the way I did it (footnote referring to the bottom of the paragraph). But I do think that since most people only know about Incirrina, Cirrina belongs elsewhere. For example, these sentences in the Octopus article are pretty neat: "A beak, similar in shape to a parrot's beak, is their only hard part. This enables them to squeeze through very narrow slits between underwater rocks, which is very helpful when they are fleeing from morays or other predating fish." But they aren't true of the Cirrina. The Cirrina have an internal shell and thus cannot squeeze through narrow slits and all that.
Let me know what you guys think; I'm not set on keeping Cirrina info off the Octopus page, since they are certainly octopuses. I just think it's easier this way.
Nabarry 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Cirrata and Incirrata are the proper terms for these groups. More information about the relationships between octopuses and other cephalopods can be found on the "Tree of Life" web pages ( http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Cephalopoda)
What of the colossal octopus? I think it at least needs mention. http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/coloct.htm Joelloughead 28 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)
Here's another link to some information about the possible creature. Read it, the evidence is intriguing at the very least. I really think that it's credible enough to deserve mention as a bit of curiousity. Joelloughead 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
The article mentions octopuses boarding ships and escaping from their aquariums. How long can they survive out of water? Can they breathe air?
Can this be reconciled with the octopus learning by observation how to open a duct-taped box? Tempshill 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes- the autotomized arm grows back. (CLH @ UCB)
I find octopus' carmouflage techniques very interesting, yet there is little said about this in the article. May someone contribute additional facts about octopus carmouflage? -- Abdull 13:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
That google video link to camouflage is the same as the one in the link above it. It should be deleted because it's redundant and adds no additional information. You'll learn more if you get it from the author's source.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Octopus (genus) page should not redirect back to here. How is that changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eco mate ( talk • contribs) .
I've heard that octopus beaks can rotate - even indefinitely. Is there any truth in that? Thanks. 81.101.132.230 13:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the above from the article. US Federal law 7 USC 54 [5] doesn't seem to mention octopuses. If there's another law, please feel free to add it back, with a proper citation. -- KJ 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough this appears to be true, though I think it's borderline notable to the article. Femto 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The reference to _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ requires the edition and publication date, since different versions of Fowler's say different things about the plural forms of octopus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.243.216 ( talk • contribs) . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any documented cases of octopus attacks on humans? After watching the linked video of an octopus stalking then catching a shark, I can't help but relate to the shark's experience... a snorkeler swimming over an octopus would have less chance than that shark. Then again, I recall seeing footage of a marine biologist swimming in the ocean with the giant octopuses in San Francisco Bay, and thinking that they must have some sort of respect for humans as compared to sharks (not unlike dolphins, I guess?), because they could have ripped his head off if they wanted to, but instead seemed happy to just cavort with him. Anyway... anyone have any data? Thanks. — Epastore 15:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So "When octopuses reproduce, males use a specialized arm called a hectocotylus to insert spermatophores (packets of sperm) into the female's mantle cavity." Oooh, baby. But quite what is he inserting the sp********ore into? The syphon? That's surely going to make her sneeze. Is there a special girly part to receive it? Thankee! SleekWeasel 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm asking stupid questions, so... there's a syphon, but I can't tell whether it normally pokes out on the left hand side or the right. I see pictures with either. Any ideas? My guess is that it's really ventral and merely pokes out to one side or the other, but the interweb doesn't seem to know. SleekWeasel 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed "(the most intelligent of any of the invertebrates,) with their intelligence supposedly comparable to that of the average housecat." until it is sourced. It seems to contradict both various sources and issues that have been raised on this talk page. As a whole, I introduced a more restrained attitude towards octopus intelligence. User:Dominus has argued for the same on this talk page, but for some reason, he doesn't seem to have used the source he has been quoting in the actual article. -- 194.145.161.227 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The bit about octopuses eating their own limbs is interesting and useful, but I don't think it's in the right place. It's currently in the "Intelligence" section, perhaps because the phenomenon has neurological causes. I think the autophagy bit should be moved, but I don't think there's currently a more appropriate section for it. However, I think the article could use a section on feeding, and if that section were to be added, that would be a good spot for the autophagy description. Thoughts? Schi 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
From the Reproduction section:
After the eggs hatch, the young larval octopuses must spend a period of time drifting in clouds of plankton, where they feed on copepods, larval crabs and larval seastars until they are ready to sink down to the bottom of the ocean, where the cycle repeats itself.
(Emphases added.) What cycle is this? It sounds like they're going to drift in the plankton cloud and sink down again, but it's written as if the cycle repeats itself at the bottom of the ocean. It seems to me that the description skips the step of how they drift back up into the plankton cloud. Schi 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What I had heard was that the octopus followed a hunting strategy of sitting and waiting. And a case can be made that this favorably compares to a strategy of energetically searching and burning a lot of calories in the process. Kind of like playing Texas Hold’em poker, you can either follow a strategy of trying to energetically bluff or you can sit back and wait for a good hand.
But, the article is causing me to question this. Apparently, octopuses do spend considerable time roaming in search of prey.
So, maybe different in a different way. A lot of neurons are in the arms, the suckers have taste receptors, that information goes upward, being distilled and organized along the way I imagine. Analogous to our dominant sense, the sense of sight, the information is processed and refined as it makes the way from rods/cones to brain. We don’t see the blind spot of each eye. And interestingly, often we do not see something that we don’t expect to see.
And then the fact that the octopus doesn’t have the proprioceptive sense, bodily position, which gymnasts have exquisitely and all humans have to a pretty good extent. So an octopus does not have this. That must make for a rather different existense and a different internal experience. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the correct plural form for more than one octopus, although not of popular usage, is actually octopodes, while "octopuses" and "octopi" are used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.32.185 ( talk) 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I'm only a kid so I can't understand what all those big words mean. I do know there are two types of octopai, one I call "big head", which has a big head and its eyes on the lower part, and one I call "big nose", which has that big thing in front of their eyes, that looks like a nose but clearly isn't (and I don't know what it is). So could someone identify both of those please? 68.164.94.6 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I will start looking into it, but I know for a fact there are well-documented cases of octopus attacks on humans(yes many are apocryphal but some are not; all the ones I have seen are in self-defense of course). I do no want to encourage misconceptions or start a panic against some of the most interesting creatures in existence, but it certainly helps shape the inscrutability of the species. Does anyone have any references off the top of their heads? I think it would make a fascinating inclusion to the article 67.88.117.162 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In the "As pets" section, there's a wikilink to the candy company Just Born. Much as I enjoy the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, do we really need this? It could also be construed as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.16.188 ( talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I had changed "eight-legs" to "eight-feet", someone has changed it back. Please don't. Pod- means "foot" in Ancient Greek, not leg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekindedeoglu ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Octopus vulgaris are the only invertebrates that are included in the Animals (scientific procedures) act 1986 (UK)? Not sure where to put this info. here is the act in question, the relevant section is section 1(1) -- Dylan2106 ( talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It says they can "escape captivity" and "move between tide pools". Exactly how do they survive during this time? Do they have some other breathing method apart from gills, or do they simply not breath during this time? How long do they survive out of water?
Also, the "as pets" section is not very informative. It says they can be difficult to keep as pets, but not why, other than that they can escape. I assume they also eat other creatures in the tank. I think they'd make cool pets (compared to fish), so I'd be interested to find more info, but this section is lacking. Maybe not enough people have them as pets for this section to contain good info. 74.14.122.167 ( talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating as all the Greek and Latin arguments are, do we have a size range for these creatures? Seems like a rather sophomoric thing to ask, in light of all the fascinating "tentacles, limbs or arms" and "Greek or Latin plurals" discussions, but conspicuous by its absence is a reference to just how big these creatures can get, or how small. Can someone who knows add this information? PatrickLMT ( talk) 10:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What about smallest octopuses? Octopus octopus minor minor (the nakji in sannakji) can be eaten whole. Octopus ocellatus is probably similar as well. Are there any smaller species? -- Kjoon lee 06:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
HOW DOES AN OCTOPUS EAT??? answer me that. please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.193.243 ( talk • contribs) .
SO THE OCTOPUS EATS ITS FOOD ALIVE?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.88 ( talk) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Spain the industry leader in octopus aquaculture with 16 tonnes of catch in 2005? Anwar ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
To quote from WP:MOS:
This Manual of Style, often abbreviated MoS, is a style guide for Wikipedia articles. One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise (except in direct quotations, where the original text is generally preserved).
If the Manual of Style does not specify a preferred usage, discuss your issues on the talk page of this manual. The menu to the right contains links to Manual of Style pages that explore topics in greater detail.
It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from American to British spelling unless the article concerns a British topic. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
The original style would remain. JNW ( talk) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This elaboration, from Apostrophe:
Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound
This subsection deals with singular nouns pronounced with a sibilant sound at the end: /s/ or /z/. The spelling of these ends with -s, -se, -z, -ze, or -ce. Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, and The Economist.[5] Such sources would demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Mephistopheles's cat. However, many modern writers omit the extra s. Some respected style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style recommend the traditional practice but say that both are correct.[6]
According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26197656 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2547597/Octopuses-have-two-legs-and-six-arms.html , octipi's eight arms can be divide into six arms and two arms. Should we include this into the article? -- Yvesnimmo ( talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Octopuses are wonderful intelligent eight armed cephalopods. They are fascinating creatures and should be studied well by marine biologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.163.122 ( talk) 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody who isnt restricted please put a link to the Cephalopod ink page in a suitable place? near defense, perhaps, or under see also? Thanks :-) K-22-22 ( talk) 12:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the amount of vandalism this article receives, perhaps semi-protection would be a good idea? Debolaz 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The research published recently should be included under octopus' vision. It's interesting to note that they see standard TV as a series of still images, but process HDTV as animated.
source: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2008/12/21/1229794225193.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob.roecker ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandals have been striking this page. Hope we can keep an eye on it. Wbroun 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been proven that Octopi die a few months after reproducing. I have a theory (unbelievably by piers have accepted this and my teacher) that if you cut their sex cells (Gametes) off would the octopi live longer?
I understand that female octopi can live a little longer.
Can anyone clarify my theory?
Danielthomas 44 ( talk) 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user recently changed the caption on this picture from "An octopus escaping an aquarium through a thin crack" to "The reflection in the glass gives the illusion of an octopus escaping through a crack." Another user changed it back. I looked closely at the picture and I think the anonymous user is correct.
On the left side of the image, there are what appear to be two horizontal gray bars with a crack in between through which the octopus is passing. If you look at the leftmost edge of the "crack", I think you can see the image of the bottom "bar" superimposed on the octopus. I think this is because the bottom "bar" is actually a reflection of the top "bar" in the outside of the glass. Notice that although the top "bar" continues all the way to the right-hand side of the picture, the bottom "bar" vanishes partway across.
Also notice that the octopus has its ventral side facing the glass, as you would expect it to if it were inside the tank. If it were escaping the tank, you would expect to see the dorsal surface outside the tank.
I interpret the picture this way: The octopus is entirely inside the glass-walled tank, with part of its body attached to the wall and the rest occluded by the visible part. The viewer is outside the tank. The top gray "bar" is not a vertical surface but a horizontal one, perhaps a ceiling of some sort, extending away from the glass, toward the viewer. The bottom "bar" is an illusion, a reflection of the top "bar", whatever it is, in the outside of the glass. I wish I understood the top bar better.
If nobody objects, I will change the caption to say something like "the reflection in the glass gives the illusion of an octopus escaping through a crack." — Dominus ( talk) 02:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting quite long. I would like to arrange to have MiszaBot archive old threads automatically. The robot would move threads to a series of archive pages when they had been inactive for a certain amount of time, say one year. It starts a new archive page automatically when the old one gets too big. Archives would be at pages Talk:Octopus/Archive 2 and similar. The robot would always leave at least the most recent 15 threads on the main talk page.
I have been using this system on my own user talk page for some time; it is also used by Wikiproject Mathematics. Does anyone object? Does anyone have different preferences for the robot's configuration? — Dominus ( talk) 02:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 15 |algo = old(365d) |maxarchivesize = 250K |archive = Talk:Octopus/Archive %(counter)d }}
The middle paragraph of the Sensation section contains this passage:
"[T]he octopus has a very poor proprioceptive sense. The tension receptors are not sufficient for the octopus brain to determine the position of the octopus' body or arms. (It is not clear that the octopus brain would be capable of processing the large amount of information that this would require; the flexibility of an octopus' arms is much greater than that of the limbs of vertebrates, which devote large areas of cerebral cortex to the processing of proprioceptive inputs.) As a result, the octopus does not possess stereognosis; that is, it does not form a mental image of the overall shape of the object it is handling. It can detect local texture variations, but cannot integrate the information into a larger picture."
I find the assertions 1) "the octopus has a very poor proprioceptive sense" and 2) "it does not form a mental image of the overall shape of the object it is handling" to be extremely dubious. And even if they turn out to be true, it strikes me as impossible for any researcher to determine their truth, because they concern the inner mental life of the octopus.
Proprioceptive sense is knowing the relative positions of the parts of one's body. Considering the wide variety of shapes that the octopus can configure its body in, as the need arises -- for camouflage or for capturing prey (see, for example, that video of an octopus capturing a shark), the octopus must have, on some level, a very fine-tuned sense of its body's position . . . as well as how to rapidly change it to another position when convenient to do so.
And the fact that octopuses can solve complex problems like how to open a jar reveals that an octopus must have, on some level, an excellent "mental image of the overall shape of the object it is handling".
Just on what level of consciousness these awarenesses take place is an issue that is far beyond science's current ability to determine. Surely we currently have no idea just what kinds of levels of consciousness an octopus even has!
For these reasons I would recommend removing these statements from the article . . . or at the very least express them in the form "Some researchers believe . . ." rather than as statements of absolute fact.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy of the book that the article uses as a citation for these facts (it is currently sold by the largest online bookseller for U.S.$800, so must be fairly rare at this point). Daqu ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the Hexapus mention, the content of the See Also section is better suited to the Octopus disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.13.58 ( talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(as distinct from the tentacles found in squid and cuttlefish)
I moved the above here, pending citation. I don't think it is useful to direct people to the tentacle article for an explanation as to why octopses have arms instead of tentacles, when there is none there. Octopuses arms fit easily into the definition given at tentacle (flexible, sensitive, for grasping), so both articles need citing, and a greater explanation of what a tentacle is or is not. Yob Mod 10:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The body plan of the octopus, squid, and cuttlefish is very different from ours. I would like to see something in the article about the anatomy of an octopus. Maybe a diagram showing the location of the major organs would help. SlowJog ( talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree I think there should be at least a diagram of an octopus's anatomy here. PUT ONE! Cause I don't have one. thanks. -- InvaderCito ( talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I learnt a lot from reading this article. It's fantastic! Great work everyone. For example, the Physiology section has a great attention to detail despite its brief nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.9.41 ( talk • contribs).
The comment on octopuses playing with toys is not entirely consistent with the referenced source. The article says that the octopuses used their water jets to cause the "toys" to circulate in the water, but it does not say that they ever "caught" the toys with their tentacles. In fact, the article questions why the octopuses used their water jets instead of their tentacles, and refers to the fact that the tentacles may be semiautonomous from the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.195.70 ( talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I just corrected the grammar, the genitive of octopus is octopus', not octopus's, but this was immediately changed back. This was not vandalism! -- spaceLem ( talk) 11:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
According to The Chicago Manual of Style, §7.17:
"Octopus" does not fall under the exceptions in §7.19–22. However, §7.23 offers "an alternative practice":
I think it's not worth arguing about, and that we should make the page's usage consistent, one way or the other, and then leave it that way.
— Dominus ( talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Am i allowed to talk without being banned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.238.191 ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a section discussing the range/ranges of the octopus. 167.7.33.2 ( talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Where is the octopus' beak located? The article makes no note of this. – 129.241.137.240 ( talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the reason is simply that nobody has posted a topic about the location of the octopuses beak. I think it is below the eyes... obviously it could be knowhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.230.133 ( talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Octopi beaks are in the middle of the underpart of the body where the tentacles meet.
The correct plural of Octopus, is "octopodes." Lion King 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Whilst it is often supposed that octopi is the correct plural of octopus and has been in use longer than the Anglicized octopuses, it in fact originates as an error. Octopus is not a simple latin word of the second declension, but a latinized form of the Greek word oktopous and it's correct plural, would logically, be, octopodes. Lion King 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have trouble with the use of the singular 'octopus' as plural in a few of the photo captions? Specifically: 'Octopus at Tsukiji fish market', 'Grilled octopus in Greece', 'octopus are "tickled"' and 'A fisherman's catch of octopus' 1bj05hua ( talk) 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Greek nothing, speak English or get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The OED has never actually said that one form or another is incorrect, since the OED isn't a prescriptive dictionary. It merely states that the word "octopi" is one of the plural forms, because that's how the OED scholars have seen it used. Octopodes is another form listed. Since people continue to use all of them, they will continue to all be listed in the dictionary. The fight over what is the correct form is therefore silly.. Anyway, since this article incorrectly implied that the OED used the word "mistaken" I have corrected the entry and updated the OED retrieval date. (Or tried to anyway.) The OED never used the word, "mistaken." It only accurately traces the logic of the people who use the octopi form. Even when the OED makes an implication about which form is correct (as in the concise askoxford entry) it still only says that the *reasoning* people use for the octopi form is incorrect, not that the use is. Therefore, the continued use of the "octopi" form could in fact be justified simply by continuing to use it! Kothog ( talk) 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone provide information about when the octopuses evolved? Maybe even when they differentiated from the vampire squids? Other taxonomic articles have keen diagrams showing the taxon's fossil range, but there's nothing like that for Octopoda. 71.227.187.128 ( talk) 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The book "Evolution" (2009, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd., p.134-135) states that the common octopus evolved not later than the middle Jurassic. Fossils of o. vulgaris have been found on the sea bed of La_Voulte-sur-Rhone, dating back 163 million years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.94.28 ( talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
when does the octopus have blue eyes? what stage of development? when was this first noticed, written or published reference would be very helpful. Beyond cold and hot water adaptation? Item of interest was the surgical procedures reported in India of multilimbed children. Any noted items on experimentation in laboratories? To my knowledge the reference in literature have always indicated black eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.68.67 ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! If anyone knows, I for one would appreciate a solution to a conundrum. The brain is an expensive organ to grow and maintain, and learning takes time. „Octopodes“ (if we follow the above) are short-lived. Is there a reasonable explanation for why they invest so much of their limited time in this? All the best 85.220.111.211 ( talk) 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
They are short-lived relative to, for example humans, but live several years, long enough perhaps to benefit from experience.
Another related question: The article discusses that they learn almost nothing from their parents, implying that they may learn something. How can this be known at all, one way or the other?-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 08:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"Although their slit-shaped pupils might be expected to afflict them with astigmatism, it appears that this is not a problem in the light levels in which an octopus typically hunts". This statement is incorrect. The lens, which changes the vergence of light behind the pupil is spherical, not cylindrical. Fillup ( talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It has no 'head' to speak of. When it jets, it travels mantle-first, which is similar to saying it travels ass-first. 70.179.127.14 ( talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So, where could we include the incredible powers of octopus prediction, especially that of the one which predicted many Soccer World Cup games with 100% accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.76.157 ( talk) 23:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
What do octopuses eat? Are they considered predators, scavengers, or something else? How do they obtain their food? The article should address these points. Ishboyfay ( talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} the plural of octopus is octopodes, not octopusses as written in this article, as explained here http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/plurals?view=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.101.24 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 December 2009, Monday (UTC-5)
It's already been covered to death, hasn't it? I tried to follow the link to askoxford but couldn't find that page. However, when I type "octopus" into that site, the dictionary entry shows only one plural (octopuses), and adds a usage note: "The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However , the word octopus comes from Greek, and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used . The plural form octopi is mistakenly formed according to rules for Latin plurals, and is therefore incorrect." So that seems pretty clear. It has long been held that once a word is fully absorbed into English, English plurals should be used. Also, the main article lists Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, but the main Chambers Dictionary goes further by including a note that says "octopi is wrong".
This also contradicts an earlier comment in the discussion that English dictionaries "invariably" support the use of "octopi". Obviously, at least one respectable dictionary does not! The writer of that comment also stated it is not up to wikipedia to "legislate" linguistic norms. Maybe. But no-one is talking about legislating anything here: you can say what you like in your own works. Here, we are only talking about wikipedia "using" (rather than "legislating") the form that most English authorities appear to recommend. AlistairLW ( talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[[File:Casa Ezequiel.jpg|thumb|250px|Galician people|[[Galician people|Galician]] woman preparing ''[[polbo á feira]]'']] [[File:Polbeira, A Coruña, Galiza.jpg|thumb|250px|Galician people|[[Galician people|Galician]] woman preparing ''[[polbo á feira]]'']]
Would anyone add any of these pictures? I think they are rather interesting for the article. The images depict two women preparing polbo á feira.-- 194.80.194.85 ( talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The sensation section does mention that octopuses have chemoreceptors on their arms, but it equates this sense more closely to "taste" than smell. Is anyone aware of whether octopuses have an independent sense of smell? That is, the ability to detect molecules at low concentrations in the surrounding water, in the manner that sharks are said to detect blood? NillaGoon ( talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I don't know about it myself, the distinction between "smell" and "taste" seems a bit blurry to me in an aquatic context, so I'm not really convinced it matters which word is used. It would be interesting if someone found a source that addressed this, though. ~rezecib ( talk) 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Underwater, there is no distinction between smell and taste, except, perhaps, that one is in the mouth. Anything an octopus could sense with its chemoreceptors would be a soluble molecule in the water around the chemoreceptors. I'll try to get some sources, although there isn't a lot of direct evidence that octopuses have chemoreceptors on their arms (just behavioral and morphological evidence.) I remember reading about chemoreceptors on their lips once - I'll try to check that out in the near future. Lisieski ( talk) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
What I miss is a piece about what Octopedes usually eat. I guess small fish right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.242.106 ( talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) There definately should be a section about diet. octopi eat crab and shellfish so someone should implement greater knowledge then mine to write up a section about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhammerton ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Octopi is correct! Anything ending with -us to make plural you put i at the end! Maybe if you werent all doofi you would know that! P.S. I already changed the article to say octopi! Inurfaces! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 ( talk • contribs).
f### all of you! its octopi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 ( talk • contribs).
What are you? A sex maniac? then go back to bed and do it with your spouse! or your special "friend" By Mr. Mystery —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 ( talk • contribs).
OCTOPI IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhammerton ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
What's actually pretty amazing about this discussion is all the people who are completely ignorant of the grammatical structure of Latin and Ancient Greek, and YET who are 100% absolutely totally positive that any "old-timey word" that ends with -us has its plural in -i. Thank you, Rajah, for standing strong. "Octopi" is a Latin word created by English-speaking Americans who have no knowledge whatsoever of Latin. Mardiste ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And if S.J. Hammerton wants to convince me otherwise with respect to his knowledge of Classical languages, then he's going to need more than eight exclamation points. By the way, does anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that, instead of using the caps lock button, S.J. Harrington was "correcting" people's Latin declension by holding down the shift key while typing his entire ill-informed message with his right index finger? Mardiste ( talk) 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read a couple of articles on the internet about farming octopuses. Is this common? Or are they generally hunted/captured from the wild? Given that they appear to be able to fit through extremely small gaps, octopus farms must be quite specific. Does anyone have any information on this?
The background for the headings are blue, as is the text so it's unreadable, I don't know how to change it though, maybe some master wikipedian can help out here :P
In the locomotion section, it states that octopi swim by jetting water out the siphon. I know that this is true, but I think I have witnessed another method. I have just viewed a video that shows an octopus doing what looks very similar to swimming like a fish. Maybe it's using its jet, but it does look like it is moving by undulating, using its trailing tentacles in a similar fashion to a fish tail. This form of locomotion is horizontal, not verticle like a fish. Also, the octopus in the video is not moving head first like the article says. The video is located here: [7]. The suspect portions start at 3:12 and another at 4:12. 75.88.30.191 ( talk) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That's jetting. The octopus is pointing its siphon the opposite direction of the way it swims, and rapidly expelling water from it. The arms trailing behind it are not contributing to its movement at all. Lisieski ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Given the octopus' amazing ability to camouflage itself, I was surprised to see it described as "almost certainly" colour-blind. Octopii beat the chameleon at its own game - they change shape and even texture, not just colour. [8] LOL - that search finds several informal sources that say it's colour-blind ! Maybe we can find a better citation ? [9] Some think it detects colour by touch ! Perhaps with surface receptors like the Nautilus, but using a contact print not pinhole camera ? Cephalopod Crypsis says it matches a photograph or through glass, but with less 'depth' than on a 3D surface !
[12] "However, spectral discrimination could be provided by involving other skin structures (chromatophores and iridophores), which produce changeable colours and patterns." So it seems to 'see' with its whole skin, and may detect colours 'holographically', rather than using pigments. Makes me feel pretty inadequate.
Given that they can even produce polarization patterns that are almost invisible to us, I suspect that they can see colour, even though they do not use colour sense mechanisms that we recognise and understand, and do not always co-operate in experiments. However, I leave it to the experts !
[13] colour matching looks pretty good to me, especially given the variation in colour vision among individual humans, let alone predator species.
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dominus ( talk · contribs) has just de-archived 9 stale discussion threads. As one example, Dominus de-archived a section that had one comment only, created by an IP who has not edited since January 5, 2010. Another section similarly had only one comment by an IP who edited only on Feb 7 and 8, and has not edited since. These and the other archived sections are clearly dead. Dominus, can you explain why you de-archived them? Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I frequently come back well over a year after a discussion. science works that way. Also if there is an edit war I am put off contributing. If there are lots of comments of course archive quickly. IF not leave them around until the article incorporates the info somehow. If there is a question asked WHY should it be automatically answered within a month or even a year? Most PhD courses are 3yrs minimum, so why not leave items for 3 yrs minimum? Then if a researcher does look here and find the answer in their research they have enough time to investigate, peer review and publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 ( talk) 08:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
A brief summary of the strong role the octopus plays in sports, as referenced in the see also section, should be discussed in the same manner as literature. It should include both Paul the Octopus as well as the tradition of Octopus throwing at Red Wings playoff games. Any other submissions, of course, can be added as needed. Lacking this section gives an incomplete picture of the Octopus' role in culture. Thoughts?≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.7.204 ( talk) 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there is little question that the octopus as political metaphor is interesting, long-standing, and well-supported by evidence. Vulgar Army is a blog devoted to examination of this metaphor, and contains dozens of examples of octopus-related propaganda from the last hundred and fifty years. The example at right was published in 1913. I'm not sure this article is the right place for it; maybe a very brief section with a pointer to a standalone article would be more appropriate. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's one I just happened across on Commons that someone uploaded a few months ago. It is from 1877. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The sentence: "Unlike vertebrates, the complex motor skills of octopuses are not organized in their brain using an internal somatotopic map of its body, as is the motor system in vertebrates" has a redundancy and lacks a period. I'd fix it myself, but the page is protected. 67.142.165.30 ( talk) 22:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Due to having numerous tentacles that emanate from a common center, (...)"
As established in the rest of the article, octopuses do not have tentacles, but arms. Someone with the rights please edit. --
83.101.83.57 (
talk)
12:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Tentacles vs Arms vs Legs: Please take my talk-edit comment at face value because I don't have time to find the research right now. I have seen information (much more recent than referenced) explaining how octopuses have arms AND legs, AND in a common proportion across species. I will try to come back with the references, but if someone else knows better, could you please add the info? (And if that arm-v-leg knowledge has changed, could that be noted too?) Smittee ( talk) 07:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This video is under a creative commons license and has good cut-away images of the color-texture changing mechanisms of their skin-cells, as well as anatomical information concerning their brain neurons in their capacity of being convergent yet separate in brain evolution for behavioral plasticity to humans. Anyone wanting to go to work including anything from this video to this article has their work (rewardingly) cut out for them. Nagelfar ( talk) 09:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:OctopusMocheLMC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:OctopusMocheLMC.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link at Conference on Cephalopods and Art, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Minnesota, March, 2011 (the last of the external links)
to http://ias.umn.edu/2011/03/25/cephalopod-symposium/
because we changed our website. The old links are not yet finding the new pages. for more information, please contact me, Sharon Fischlowitz, at fisc0199@umn.edu thank you 98.240.214.120 ( talk) 05:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought, instead of "octopuses" it was in fact, "octopi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.100.19 ( talk) 13:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The section on etymology and pluralization is great. I just wonder, though, why it is a 3rd declension noun in Latin. Is that the standard protocol for Scientific Latin? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The Etymology Section of the Octopus page needs correction. Using Wikipedia Latin pages as my reference guide for Latin Nouns. 1st declension nouns feminine singular and plural respectively end in these endings:-A,-AE; Greek assumed 1st declension: -E,-AE; Latin masc -ES,-AE; and Latin masc -AS,-AE. 2nd declension Nouns -masc -US, -I; or masc -R/-ER,-I; or neuter -UM,-A; or Greek feminine -OS/-US, -I; or Greek neuter -UM/-UN,-I 3rd Declension Nouns neuter -O,-ES; or neuter -N,-IS; or neuter +X-, +CT-ES; or neuter I stem +AL,-AI; or Greek assumed masc +,-ES; or Greek IS stem +IS, +ES These Wikipedia case endings agree with Wheelock's Latin book, which is the book used by the University of Washington, Seattle, to teach Latin. The point is this etymological section about Octopus being a third declension Latin Greek assumed ending is messed up, badly. Using your own Latin pages to complete the logic here it goes. If an Octopus or Octopous from Greek with an -OS/-US ending word is assigned a declension in Latin it would be a Second Declension Greek feminine case to Latin transmutation of the word Octopus; according to your own pages on Latin declensions it follows that Octopi is the correct nominative case plural of Octopus. There is no third declension nominative case for a Greek or Latin word ending in -OS/-US, although there are other Greek endings in the third declension Latin for other stems in Greek. It follows that an Octopus in Latin translates to English in the time when scientific notation adopted Latin as the standard for natural description, if not much earlier than Lineaus, and that an Octopus from Greek through Latin to English has not changed as the rules for Latin Declension have not changed in two thousand years. An Octopus is one Octopus, whereas Octopi is the plural. If we are talking of Octopodes as a singular Latin form, that would be a First Declension masculine (Latin form) which makes the plural nominative case Octopodae. If Octopodes is meant as a plural of the word, it would be a third declension neuter making a singular form Octopodo; since, we know we don't use that in our ordinary terminology, I'm fairly certain we can rule that out as an option. Disregard this line as a result. If Octopus were a singular masculine noun in Latin it would still be Octopus/Octopi, and since the Latin and the Greek assumed Latin are the same, I'm pretty sure, we are coming to a logical conclusion that Octopus/Octopi is the longstanding correct version of the word, in English, Latin, and Greek. The information provided on the Octopus page is erroneous, please correct this as soon as possible. With Gratitude to Wikipedia for solving its own riddle. Thomas G. Higgins 67.158.204.253 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Additionaly, if, and it is a big if, if Octopus is a Third Declension Latin-Greek assumed word, the following forms would be the case Octopus, Octopuses; if that is if the gender of the word itself is believed to be masculine. There is no evidence, as yet, that the word is of the masculine Greek form, so, it may be that the gender question is the cause of the confusion, not, to mention the possibility that the word is a feminine gender Greek word with the -OS/-US ending assumed into Latin in the 2nd Declension, resulting in Octopus/Octopi. SIde by side then: Octopus/Octopi is 2nd Declension Latin/feminine Greek into Latin; Octopus/Octopuses is 3rd Declension masculine Greek into Latin; The Etymology section cheerfully assumes that Octopus is a third declension masculine Greek into Latin rather than the more likely straight translation of the Greek word into Latin ending in -OS/-US. If, the compound Greek word Octo+Pous actually makes the word a masculine case by the possible fact that pous is a masculine word, then, maybe the argument is solved as a masculine translation into Latin. If not, then, it follows that the form of the word dictates the translation into Latin, meaning that Octopous is actually a feminine Greek word. That is something which I will get back to you all about later after I study Greek Declension. [edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.204.253 ( talk) 02:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)