Talk:Octopus

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)

Arms, Tentacles or Limbs

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)

Typical english is to use "arm" for the four pairs of appendages common through all the coleoidea, and "tentacles" for the extra pair. - UtherSRG 12:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should not "limbs" then be used when describing all 8?--ZayZayEM 07:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. See the article on squid: "Squid ... have eight arms and two tentacles arranged in pairs". Octopuses have the eight arms, but not the two tentacles. -- Dominus 04:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I tend to think that the arms of octopuses are tentacles that are called arms in a same way as starfishes are called fishes, but they still are echinoderms, not actual fishes. This http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses03/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/THEJETSET.THEANATOMYOFSWIA.html article says "The tentacles of cephalopods are perhaps their most notable feature. The number and characteristics of different types of tentacles are key to identifying different species. The Octopus (Octopoda) has eight tentacles (often called legs or arms)." I also searched for other pages, and they also speak of the arms as tentacles:

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~biol240/labs/lab_18molluscs/pages/cephalopods.html

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/Bio%20102/Bio%20102%20lectures/Sensory%20Systems/sensory.htm

and this news that uses "arms" and "tentacles" interchangebly:

http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu:7131/bionet/mm/deepsea/2003-February/000572.html

I think that scientist don't refer to tentacles that often for the same reason that starfishes aren't referred as "star echinoderms", and often people refer the arms of octopuses as tentacles, so I think the article should say something like "octopuses have eight tentacles, which are usualley called arms".89.166.21.54 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with ZayZayEM's evaluation. English scientific usage is as UtherSRG said, and consistently so. The terms used by Italian biologists when speaking in Italian are irrelevant since the article is written in English. -- Dominus 14:16, 15 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.

The unsigned person above is correct. One must compare with squids and cuttlefish: eight arms and two long tentacles. Octopuses have eight arms and no tentacles. Many links will say tentacles because of the unfortunate misconceptions that have become too common. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plural

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

The common misconception stems from the -pus ending. It is a Latin ending, but not when it means "foot". The Latin -pus means something else. The Greek plural of -pus is -poi, while the Latin plural is -pi. cf. cactus - UtherSRG 16:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Either form, octopuses or octopi is acceptable. Check a dictionary. Exploding Boy 21:07, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Octopi has become an acceptable alternatve through decades of misuse, but as English is a living language this has to be taken on the chin I guess.

Octopus is latin, as all scientific names. Octopus is latinized greek and latin rules are applied. --Luis Fernández García 21:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If octopus is Latinized Greek, then how is octopus (spelled the same but pronounced differently) not Anglicized Latin, and must therefore require English rules? -- Cevlakohn

Can someone please add the omikron to the Greek singular and plural forms? Exploding Boy 16:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Which one? Another "small letter omicron with psili" (ὀ), or a simple "small letter omicron" (ο)? I admit it's all Greek to me, but could you explain why there would be only 11 Google hits for οχταπόδι but 3830 for χταπόδι? - And after all that work you removed the 'term of endearment'? Femto 19:51, 22 Nov 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)

Do the Greeks know this? Femto 20:33, 22 Nov 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)

A quick check at two online dictionaries, this and babelfish, returned only the chi variant. I'd like to know from what authority do you speak, and is it applicable to an encyclopedia that should describe the common usage and not necessarily always the correct one. Femto 21:38, 22 Nov 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)

Good enough for me. I would agree that the formal variant should also be given, if the modern Greek word wasn't just an aside to the derivation of the English plural for the animal. It's obvious that somewhere on the way from ancient Greek an ο went missing, and if the 11:3830 ratio reflects common use, I'd say 'skip it' and just give the chi variant. Interestingly, many of those 11 hits are from restaurant menus. (And a Greek-Finnish word list, of all things. What is it with those Scandinavians? :) If it would be enough to mention the existance of the formal variant, how's the current edit? Femto 11:58, 23 Nov 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)[reply]

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).

Per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, we can't just take your word that "octipodes" (sic) is in common parlance. According to the OED quote above, "octopodes" is rare. Citing what Fowlers says, with proper attribution, does not bias the article. All of the article's discussion of the various plural forms is properly attributed to dictionaries and style guides. I can, however, accept re-arranging the order of the section to first cite the dictionaries and then cite the style guides. schi ^talk 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greek or Latin??

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)

All those octa/okto variants share the same Indo-European roots, if I got that right. Since then, those languages kept developing their own forms, as well as borrowing freely from each other. There may be a pattern, but it should be difficult to determine which is which only from the prefix of a word. This is the point, the article makes no hint at the origin of the prefix itself, just at that of the compound word. (I have no idea what this means for the other articles.) Femto 20:55, 5 Nov 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)[reply]

image

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)

Not a clue, but according to http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/reef/reef2063.htm it was taken by Mohammed Al Momany in the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Femto 15:11, 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.

as seafood

>> In some cultures, octopuses are caught for food.

Removed it because there's virtually no edible animal that isn't eaten somewhere. Which cultures? Octopus is a worldwide exported seafood, you can probably find some at your local supermarket. Still it would be worth to mention the seafood aspect somehow. How many million tons? Yes, millions - according to [1] about 2.5 million tons of cephalopods are harvested each year (I found no data about octopus in particular). Those pesky dolphins shouldn't get all the attention, eh? Femto 14:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that fact is worth mentioning, in my country, Portugal, everybody eats octopus, and octopus fishing is an important activity in several coastal villages. Mário 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self?

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

You may be correct. An octopus's sense of taste (via their suckers) is high acute. They may get the point that attacking a mirror is pointless because they get no octopus taste (besides its own) from the mirror. However, it shouldn't be removed, only expanded to give other possibilities. - UtherSRG 21:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Octopussy

>> 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.

To clarify, Octopussy is a James Bond movie, which is named after the Book by Ian Fleming, which in turn is named after one of the characters, who in turn is named by a blend of "octopus" and "pussycat" (obvious, but speculating here, I don't know the book or if there were earlier uses). Octopussy could be called a portmanteau word, but 'blend' seems more common and is just fine. Giving the trivial octopussies-plural here made little sense to me. Also it's less distracting to simply say "pussycat".

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)[reply]

Re:British English - It's not in my dictionary, so to speak. The web search for "site:uk octopussy -bond" was ...interesting, but can you cite some real uses? Femto 18:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nearly every documentary involving octocpusses and has a BE narrator. Makes me cringe every time they say it. Never heard an AE speaker use it except in reference to Bond. - UtherSRG 18:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm neither British nor American, and not an English "speaker", literally. Either you're confusing a funny pronunciation of "pus-es" with "pussies", or I seriously don't get the joke. Femto 19:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's no joke. They may not write it, but they do say it. - UtherSRG 20:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, we can't leave a reference to an uncitable slang use in a paragraph on how a word is written. Femto 21:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Octopussy usages:

[2] - (commented, Femto) A title of a weblog entry, among "I'm an 80s God!" and "Splish splosh"
[3] - A text heading, among creations like "macho mollusc". (Ugh, FortuneCity won't give me the images without tracking personal info)
[4] - An image caption, apparently from a Scandinavian photographer, on a Japan-hosted site!?

- 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)

I was hoping for such, too.... but I did the search quickly during class (searching for both cephalopod and octopussy). those were the (at least) minorly promising hits I could grab before I had to close extraneous windows. That all said, I couldn't leave well enough alone and made your link to the Bond movie more explicit. - UtherSRG 12:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No prob. And you never know when you'll need a page that explains how to bake a hedgehog. Femto 14:32, 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)[reply]

The reference would be nonnotable if the plural paragraph wasn't there. Though the association comes naturally and it'll likely get included again (I'm not the one who initially added it, for the record). I'd rather keep the one sentence that has seen some development now. Femto 12:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DID THEY REMOVE IT?? TS3 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove what? The Octopussy reference? Read above. -JC 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

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)

Good job finding this information. Now be bold and edit the articles as appropriate. No need to insert {{dubious}} tags throughout unless there is some disagreement here on the talk. I'll try to comment in the secitons below. (As well, I'm going to modify some of your formatting. - UtherSRG 18:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. 1978 is a bit old. I've made some changes and removed the tags. Let's see if we can find something more recent, and I'll see about finding a local copy of Wells. - UtherSRG 03:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

That was why I didn't just make the changes myself. -- Dominus 14:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blue-Ringed Octopus's rings

According to the article, the blue rings displayed by the Blue-ringed octopus are the product of its chromatophores:

They also have specialized color changing skin cells called chromatophores ... the very poisonous Blue-ringed Octopus becomes bright yellow with blue rings when it is provoked...

However, Wells says that the chromatophores are always in the yellow-red-brown-black range:

By the time the little animals settle out of the plankton, the population of chromatophores has become subdivided into two groups, a very dark set, which can vary from black or red-brown, and a paler series which appears red when contracted and pale orange-yellow in extension. (p. 283)

The chromatophores themselves are all in the yellow-red-brown-black range. (p. 212)

Thus, the blue rings cannot be due to the chromatophores. Wells continues:

Plainly, these two along cannot possibly account for the full range of colours that anoctopus can show. The explanation lies in the possession of two sorts of light-reflecting structure, the iridophores and the leucophores, lying beneath the chromatophores.

The iridophores, not the chromatophores, would appear to be responsible for the blue rings. -- Dominus 17:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest adding mention of iridophores and leucophores to the article, and the also checking blue-ringed octopus for other changes needed. - UtherSRG 18:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Color Vision

According the the article, octopuses have color vision:

Octopuses ... can easily distinguish among colors and shapes in laboratory experiments. More impressive is that they can remember the shapes and colors and their meanings for up to two years ...

However, according to Wells, octopuses do not have color vision:

Octopus is a colourful animal, capable of rapid colour change. It succeeds in matching its background and it employs colour changes in a range of displays directed at its own kind and at other animals. Prima facie one would expect octopuses to be able to distinguish between colours.

The evidence available nearly all suggests that they cannot. Experiments have included discrimination learning, electroretinogram studies, and an examination of optomotor responses of animals in a striped drum. ... (p. 209)

And later on:

All the available evidence suggests that Octopus is colour-blind. (p.284)

-- Dominus 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably stating something along the lines of noting "their abilities to match their pigmentation to the surrounding color and texture is more phenominal given that they are unable to see in color" would be right. - UtherSRG 18:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

It also states that

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)[reply]

Opening Jars

The article says:

An octopus can also learn how to unscrew the lid of a jar with its arms...

However, according to Wells, this is not the case. Wells says:

Crabs can be wrested from containers but the results appear to be achieved by chance and there is little indication that the octopus can learn to deal with the situation more efficiently with practice. The animal approaches and struggles with the apparatus until something happens; if it learns anything as a result of its experience it is only to be more persistent and vigorous. (p. 241)

-- Dominus 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps note their trial-and-error learning may not give them a straight-path solution, but that some successes can lead them to find the struggle worthy. - UtherSRG 18:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting documents about octopus intelligence and learning can be found here, in case someone wants more background for editing:

In any case the article directly contradicts itself over the jar opening. I don't know which way it should be, but the article should not say that they can learn how to open jars by example and then a few paragraphs later say that they cannot learn how to open jars. --Ignignot June 28, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

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)

(Fixed the NS link.) More noteworthy, I'd like to point out that it also contains a link to an article titled "I spy with my little octopussy eye"! Femto 10:23, 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

Do you have a reference we can all read? - UtherSRG (talk) 09:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Diet

Trying to extend the list of carnivorous animals at Carnivore. Are Octopuses (and squids) exclusively carnivorous??--ZayZayEM 03:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Octopuses are exclusively carnivorous. I believe squids are, but I don't know for sure. -- Dominus 02:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be useful for the article to describe the diet of octopuses (beyond crabs and sharks). Where do they fit in the food chain? --Occamy 13:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be a diet section in this article (Serandolma (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Needed Additions

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

"Cirrina" and "Incirrina" are how they are listed in Current classification of Recent Cephalopoda, which is what CephBase and WP:CEPH's taxonomy is based off of.

I've added the distinction of the internal shell for the cirrate octos into the article, and I'll leave it to you to add in the reproduction information, although I may do it later if you don't get to it.

On other matters: Please sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who is in the discussion, and consider registering a username. - UtherSRG 11:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions and comments. I am new.

I see that the classification website you listed uses Cirrina; also that website references the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, which also lists the suborder as Cirrina. But Cirrata seems to be used pretty frequently: more pages come up on Google for Cirrata than for Cirrina. Do you know why this might be?

I emailed Dr. James Wood from the Cephalopod Page (he uses Cirrata) and asked him if he knows the difference between the two. If you happen to know, it would be nice to put in a note in the classification. Otherwise I'll add it when he answers, if he knows.

I think that even if Cirrata is an outmoded form, it seems to be used often enough that it deserves mention as a form that used to be common.

Nabarry 12:50 PM, April 26, 2005 (PST)

Cirrina Page

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)[reply]

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)

The Colossal Octopus

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)

No, it's fictional. - UtherSRG June 29, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs mention as being fictional. -- Dominus 30 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

I don't believe that is so. Not everything fictionally based off of something real should be mentioned in an article about the real thing. Perhaps an article on the Unmuseum could include something about the colossal octopus, with a link to octopus to provide real octopus information, though. - UtherSRG June 30, 2005 10:49 (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)

Out of water

The article mentions octopuses boarding ships and escaping from their aquariums. How long can they survive out of water? Can they breathe air?

I had a problem with that line too, because it said that octopuses have boarded ships in order to get crabs and eat them. Tempshill 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why else would they board the ships? They sense tasty crabs, and want to eat them. Octopuses can survive for a while outside of water, especially if they remain damp. As long as they can hold their breath, anyway. -JC 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duct tape boxes vs. no mental imagery of objects

As a result, the octopus does not seem to 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.

Can this be reconciled with the octopus learning by observation how to open a duct-taped box? Tempshill 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See the quote above from Wells, which says, in part,

The animal approaches and struggles with the apparatus until something happens; if it learns anything as a result of its experience it is only to be more persistent and vigorous. (p. 241)

-- Dominus 23:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to note is that the citation for that remark is from BBC science reporting, which is notoriously sensationalistic and unreliable.

For example, some time ago they ran an article on mutant three-headed frogs and quoted their "wildlife expert" as being completely baffled. But the picture clearly showed what was obviously three frogs in a big frog pile.

So just because the BBC says that octopuses can learn to open boxes from observation, doesn't mean it's so. -- Dominus 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration after autotomy?

Autotomy (to which I've just added a brief mention of the octopus) says that autotomizing lizards regenerate a cartilaginous tail after losing their original one. Do octpuses regenerate a limb, imperfect or otherwise, after losing one self-defensively? I'm guessing that post-coitally they do not do so as we are told the males die within months of mating. Sharkford 19:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- the autotomized arm grows back. (CLH @ UCB)

Carmouflage

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)[reply]

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.

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]

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]

May I suggest that you go to askoxford.com. It mirrors what I and my OED says. Lion King 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
USAGE The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However, since the word comes from Greek, the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used. The plural form octopi, formed according to rules for Latin plurals, is incorrect. from askoxford.com - UtherSRG (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know octopi is incorrect, I have already stated that! Goodbye, Good luck and may your "ocopusies" go with you! Lion King 15:10, 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]

Octopus (genus)

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'll delete the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotating beak?

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)[reply]

I've never heard this. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely, according to this page: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/print/2986/ Of particular relevance and entertainment:

"The beak itself is made up of a combination of chitin (a carbohydrate, the same stuff that makes up insect exoskeletons) and proteins. The buccal mass is a roughly spherical lump of tissues with a fair amount of motility and independence—the beak can be swiveled about at various angles, can protrude and retract, and the whole mass can be dissected out and still function surprisingly well. In at least some species, the isolated buccal mass will continue to chomp away for up to two hours after it's removed. It's like an autonomous set of choppers.

SleekWeasel 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surgery forbidden?

In many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, octopuses are on the list of experimental animals on which surgery may not be performed without anesthesia. ^{[citation needed]}

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)[reply]

Thanks. I've tentatively put back the paragraph, and added a cite that points to the text of the UK law, which does specifically include octopuses. I have also sent an inquiry to the animal care group at the U.S. department of agriculture to ask if there are any analogous laws or regulations in the US. I will update the paragraph further when I receive a reply or if I discover any more information. -- Dominus 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjoonlee (talk • contribs) .

Detroit Red Wings

Oddly enough this appears to be true, though I think it's borderline notable to the article. Femto 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt about the veracity of the claim. I don't believe it belongs in this issue. It's a bit of fact much better suited to a hockey article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Question

HOW DOES AN OCTOPUS EAT??? answer me that. please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.193.243 (talk • contribs) .

Well, generally using its mouth. There surely are some videos out there of octopuses eating things like tasty crabs or something, isn't there? -JC 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It grabs something with its tentacles, a little like a boa constrictor, and draws the food towards its beak which is sited where all its tentacles meet. It uses its beak to nibble or tear chunks off. If it's a shellfish, it uses its toothed tongue - called a radula - to drill through the shell, or a couple of other techniques to get at the meat. SleekWeasel 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Needed

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)[reply]

Does it? If you know that, then you must have access to the citation information, so please add it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on humans?

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)[reply]

...is that a no? :) — Epastore 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in about five seconds by doing Google search for "octopus attacks human". -- Dominus 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting (and scary... and btw the video has since been removed for copyright violation). Anyway, that looks more like an octopus defending its territory than feeding. While it is an instance of an octopus attacking a human, I was looking more specifically for cases of one being aggressive to humans, rather than defensive. (Not that I'd like to be in that diver's situation!) — Epastore 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have not been any well-documented cases of an octopus attacking a human out of agression. There are numerous "big fish" stories about tentacled marine animals attacking and sinking anything from dingies to full-sized sailing ships, the latter of which can probably be dismissed as fancy. However, hunting squid in large numbers enter a sort of frenzy if disturbed and may generate enough turbulence with their thrashing to capsize small boats. Please note that I'm not saying if you poke an octopus long enough that it won't bite you; they just don't go looking for innocent divers to chew on. --Wyrmfire 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex!

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)[reply]

Syphons

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)[reply]

My edits

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)[reply]

Autophagy/Feeding

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)[reply]

Reproduction questions

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)[reply]

I think it's suggesting that at that point, they're grown up octopuses and find a mate and lay eggs of their own. -JC 04:27, 14 February 2007 (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).

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]

useful

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).

A different type of intelligence?

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)[reply]

While this doesn't directly answer your questions, you may be interested to note the article on cephalopod intelligence. — Epastore 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection..

Considering the amount of vandalism this article receives, perhaps semi-protection would be a good idea? Debolaz 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wow! You guys have been great at keeping this article clean. Take a week off to edit something more fun! Rklawton 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

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).[reply]

See above Rklawton 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up. In a dictionary. Either is correct, which makes it pointless to edit-war over it. Everyone who reverts the plural form of this word- in either direction- is now officially lame, lame, lame. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 December 2007 (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?

Vandalism target

Vandals have been striking this page. Hope we can keep an eye on it. Wbroun 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which is which?

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)[reply]

I only know of one kind of octopus. Perhaps what you see as a "nose" is merely a portion of the octopus's mantle? Remember that they are very pliable creatures. Some pictures would help. -JC 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documented Human Attacks (Apocryphal)

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)[reply]

Irrelevant link

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)[reply]

Good catch. I've removed the wikilink. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feet, not Legs

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)[reply]

ASPA act 1986

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)[reply]