Jump to content

Talk:Octopus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mardiste (talk | contribs)
281 edits
Mardiste (talk | contribs)
281 edits
Line 98: Line 98:
[[User:Mardiste|Mardiste]] ([[User talk:Mardiste|talk]]) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Mardiste|Mardiste]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Mardiste|Mardiste]] ([[User talk:Mardiste|talk]]) 22:16, 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? [[User:Mardiste|Mardiste]] ([[User talk:Mardiste|talk]]) 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


== Octopus farming ==
== Octopus farming ==

Revision as of 22:18, 31 December 2010

Diet

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)[reply]

Range of Octopus

There needs to be a section discussing the range/ranges of the octopus.167.7.33.2 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Where is the beak?

Where is the octopus' beak located? The article makes no note of this. – 129.241.137.240 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

Octopuses?

The correct plural of Octopus, is "octopodes." Lion King 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See the discussion above. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

But the funny thing about the Greek word πούς (pous) is that while it is indeed a third-declension word with a stem ποδ- (pod-), it is irregular in that it also has an alternative second-declension stem πο- (po-), seen in the second-declension Doric form πός (pos) as well as in certain inflections of the compounds of πούς such as δίπουν (dipoun), the second-declension, neuter, nominative singular form of δίπους (dipous), and even πολύπους/πουλύπους (polypous/poulypous) is declined as a second-declension word as well as a third-declension one. This second-declension variant of the stem gave Latin and English the word polypus, (nominative) plural polypi. That information seems to give an element of legitimacy to the octopi plural form, or at least it seems to make things so that it's no longer a simple matter of using the phrase "mistaken assumption" to refer to the use of the Latinized word octopus as a Latin second-declension word. The way I see it, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what's a possible inflection for the polypus is a possible inflection for the octopus. - Diaphanus 156.34.216.233 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) if you have never seen an octopus, then you are a stupid retard[reply]
The OED has citations for "octopuses" back to 1884. It has no citations for "octopodes", which it describes as "rare". If you have any actual evidence (as opposed to etymologicval wishful thinking) that the "correct" English plural is "octopodes", please let us know what it is. -- Dominus 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not etymologicval wishful thinking, it's in my copy of the OED, just checked it. If it has no citations for octopodes, how can it then desribe it as rare? it would be more than rare, it would be non exsistent. Lion King 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "if"? Did you check it, or not? Did it list "octopuses", or not? If it did, what's your evidence for asserting that "the correct plural is 'octopodes'"? -- Dominus 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the 'correct' English plurals for nautilus, metalloid, telephone, microscope, dinosaur, etc...? Femto 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi,gevald! A Sof, A Sof! Lion King 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I corrected "octopus are tickled" to "octopuses are tickled". But I think "octopus at Tsukiji fish market" is acceptable, because there "octopus" refers not to the individual animals but to the foodstuff en masse. This is a common construction in English: consider the analogous cases "steak on sale", "cheese on sale", "pineapple on sale". In each case, the singular form refers not to individual steaks, cheeses, or pineapples, but rather to the material of which these things are made: steaks are made of steak, cheeses of cheese, pineapples of pineapple. Similarly, octopuses are made of octopus. If one put octopus meat into cans, it would be canned octopus, not canned octopuses, just as one has canned pineapple, not canned pineapples. The use of the singular in "octopus on sale at Tsukiji" is analogous. I hope this made sense. —Dominus (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canned peas? Canned beans? Canned tomatoes? :P --Pyritie (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this issue was discussed before, I wish to insist that octopi is not an acceptable plural. The article committed a famous schoolboy howler by offering it as an alternative plural. It would be, if the word was latin in origin. However, its origin is classical Greek, as is Cephalopod. The 'feet' ending coumes from 'pous' (I'll use our letters for simplicity). The plural of pous is podes, usually written 'pods' in English. So cephalopods is fine, whereas octopi is simply wrong. Don't feel bad about it; remember that in Goldfinger Ian Fleming has Pussy Galore saying "My father was an expert on octopi", thus proving that he wasn't, or he would have taught her the right word!
The plural of Octopus is Octopods, or Octopodes if you must. Dictionaries also offer the rather inelegant Octopuses. The article also uses Octopus as a plural: although that is an invention, it is absolutely preferable to an outright error. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English dictionaries invariably support the use of "octopi" as a plural. For example, [1][2]. It's not the job of wikipedia editors to try to legislate linguistic norms, even those based in etymology. Rather, Wikipedia articles should report on what can be supported by reliable, authoritative sources. If you have a source for your claim that "octopods" is a plural of "octopus", please cite it. My own understanding is that "octopods" is the plural of "octopod".[1][3][4] Accordingly, I am reverting your changes. —Dominus (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b William Morris (ed.). "octopus". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
  2. ^ "octopus". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  3. ^ William Morris (ed.). "octopod". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
  4. ^ "octopod". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Greek nothing, speak English or get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Octopi

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).

Well, virus doesn't have a Latin plural, so what then? 85.220.111.211 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the plural of ignoramus? 85.220.111.211 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Sorry, Wikipedia is WP:NPOV and descriptive, not POV and prescriptive. --Kjoonlee 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About as accepted as "octopussies"? Dbfirs 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the forms octopuses, octopi and octopodes in that order but without marking any particular form as rare. We can probably assume all three are correct. But since this is such a perfect battlefield for Latinists, Grecians (yes, the same word GWB was mocked for and Keats was not above using) and then of course the plain vulgus, let's have some more. ;-) 85.220.111.211 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, couldn't resist, so the plural of bus is bi? Cheers 85.220.111.211 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does say (rare) for one of the forms. Specifically, it says, "Plural octopuses, octopi, (rare) octopodes". OED Reference Anyway, this is another half of the same discussion near the top.. Kothog (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OCTOPI IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhammerton (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Octopus farming

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?

Taxobox Titles Need Fixing

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

evolution?

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)[reply]

Agree - this is evolutionary tree and fossil record is an important information for a page like this. Fig (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

anatomy and development?

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)[reply]

Diet

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)[reply]

Agree. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/invertebrates/octopus/Octopuscoloring.shtml According to Enchanted Learning, it eats crabs, scallops, fish, turtles, other octopuses, and crustaceans. It grabs it with its arms, chomps it with it's beak (apparently venomous) and sucks out the flesh. Lovely! --69.151.229.115 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming

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: [1]. The suspect portions start at 3:12 and another at 4:12. 75.88.30.191 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plural of octopus

{{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)

See Octopus#Terminology and the sources listed therein. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A question about intelligence and life span

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Slit pupil causes astigmatism

"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)[reply]

The octopus does not travel head first

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)[reply]

The octopus has a head, which contains its brain. The mouth and the eyes are on the head. Hope this helps. —Mark Dominus (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus cooking

[[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)[reply]

They're too specific, and there are enough food pictures already. I pre-tagged them to prevent them from overflowing into the rest of the talk page. ~rezecib (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive abilities

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)[reply]

Sense of smell?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Octopus&oldid=405229792"