Talk:Box jellyfish

Speed

"The box jellyfish actively hunts its prey, rather than drifting as do true jellyfish. It is capable of achieving speeds of up to 4 knots (1.8 m/s)." - Really? 4 knots through the water is really fast! The world record in 50 m freestyle is around 20 seconds, i.e. 2.5 m/s average speed. I just cannot believe that a jellyfish is capable of that. The claim is also marked "need citation". Jaksel (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

--Dangerous Australians, a Bay Book published in 1985, mentions that box jellies can travel at speeds up to 5 knots if suddenly alarmed. I don't know how to add references and citations though. 03:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Methylated spirits

In three of the articles listed at the bottom of the page (Box Jelly Facts, Box Jellies-- Danger on the Great Barrier Reef, and ThinkQuest), it is strongly advised that methylated spirits never be used on box jelly stings. The wiki article, however, recommended the use of alcohol. I did a quick fix, although that part should probably be rewritten. 71.205.33.151 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vinegar

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

The information on the page for the box Jellyfish recommends pouring vinegar onto the wound before removing any attached tentacles, whereas the page on the Portugese Man Of War states that it is imperative not to pour vinegar until all tentacles have been removed (as the acetic acid causes the tentacles to release their sting).

Now, I know that the PMOW isn't strictly in the same family group as the box jellyfish, but I suspect one of these pieces of advice is wrong. Although this wouldn't ordinarily matter, the fact that Wikipedia is providing advice which could potentially save someone's life, I think we ought to get it right. I'm not a scientist so not best to advise.

Any thoughts?

RESPONSE The venom of the Box Jelly and Portuguese Man-o-War act in different ways, and are chemically dissimilar. Acetic acid effectively neutralizes Box Jelly nematocysts, but does encourages the firing action in the Man-o-War's stinging cells.

DITTO: The PMOW is a different animal, it is NOT a box jelly. Venom (or toxin if you prefer) acts differently & thus first aid is different. For box jellies always pour vinegar over them first to neutralize the tentacles & to stop the neumatocysts from firing off & injecting more venom into the victim or the person administering first aid.

Health warning

That health warning down the bottom seems kind of awkward for an encyclopedia article. - 128.184.2.1 04:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I just watched a show on the discovery channel that indicated that the SMALLEST form of the Box jellyfish was the most fatal, not the largest form. In fact, the show said that the tiny iracongi (sp?) jellyfish that is the size of a thumbnail is approximately 300 times more potent than the largest box jellyfish.

I think the spelling is "Irukandji " for that small and deadly box jellyfish.

I read in many books that sea wasps that grow to colossal sizes kill faster due to more exposure to skin

The "Irukandji " is actually very different from the box jellyfish, it only has four tentacles and its venom does different things, and if it is truly a 'box jellyfish' they dont get very large at all .

--Deedle 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)The Irukandji species has a venom that is so deadly that it will kill in hours. The largest box jelly, Chironex fleckeri, along with the majority of other jellyfish, have nematosyts that, when activated, turn inside out and the small venom-needles along the entire side of the stinger inject poison into the victim. In larger jellyfish, the need to kill instantly is not a problem, being as the larger jellyfish can use their tentacles (which are stronger and bigger)to hold on to the prey, while the smaller jellyfish (who only injects a more concentrated poison from a small tip of the nematosis, and nowhere esle) cannot do such things, and must kill their victims instantly. By doing so, the small Irukandji can devour its prey instantaneously, and not risk having the prey escape. Indeed, the smallest jellyfish, Irukandji, sleeps, as well as the other jellies, to conserve energy. THis seems illogical, but during this time, there are more predators than prey to the Irukandji, and so it is ilogical to try to hunt. Also, during this time, it is necessary to conserve energy, because unlike many other animals, the jellyfish cannot store fat, and so must constantly feed. The Irukandji actually has many tentacles, but they branch out from four main stalks. The most interesting thing about the box jellyfish, in my opinion, is the odd sense of intelligence. This bizarre animal can actually see... it has four eyes, plus two that can only sense light. THere are also four "brains". These brains are in fact like a smart nervous system. They don't send info to one center, but instead, when something happens, there is an automatic response. <<<<<<<<<<<<< If you have not seen the Discovery Channel show on these jellyfish, and you are interested in this subject, I reccomend watching it. All of the info on this page has been derived from it, I believe.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The box jellyfish has also been on the BBC radio and I have personally added some info gleened from the BBC radio. Snowman 10:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick note to clear up some of Prof. Deedle's misunderstandings: Sorry mate, I work a lot with Discovery Channel on box jellies and Irukandjis, and usually they are quite good; however, I have not seen the episode you speak of, but I can tell you that either they got it terribly wrong or you have recalled it terribly wrong. The venoms of Irukandji and Chironex are quite different, and act in quite different ways. Both kill their (relatively small) prey very rapidly. However, Chironex kills humans in typically about 2-5 minutes whereas Irukandji syndrome onsets in about 5-40 minutes; the two brain haemorrhages (resulting from Irukandji syndrome-related hypertension) occurred at about two hours post sting, and most cases of pulmonary oedema onset many hours post sting (resulting from Irukandji syndrome-related hypertension). A comment was made that Irukandji is "the most fatal" - depends how you choose to rate it: by venom potency, drop for drop, probably yes; by rapidity of death, nope, that prize still goes to Chironex; by number of people confirmed to have been killed, that prize still goes to Chironex too. Another comment was made that 'Irukandji sleep': this was debunked by numerous researchers very quickly after being published, and is not regarded by the scientific community as accurate. It was also commented that Irukandji have many tentacles branching from four main stalks: this is inaccurate. All cubozoans have four 'pedalia' (sort of like "legs" hanging from the corners of the bell), to which the tentacles are attached. Cubozoans in the Order Carybdeida (including the Irukandjis) have a single tentacle on each pedalium, whereas cubozoans in the order Chirodropida (including Chironex) have multiple tentacles on each pedalium. Finally, the number of eyes was erroneously stated: all cubozoans have two main eyes on each of the four pedalia, each with a lens, retina and cornea; some species have two or four additional 'eye spots' on each pedalium that can only sense light (some species lack these eye spots). For more information, there are lots of credible books and scientific papers, including those listed in the main article. Jfishgoddess (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Irukandji

Irukandji are only responsible for 2 confirmed deaths, through anaphylaxis. Due to their immensely small size, odds are a Box Jelly sting was incorrectly labeled for sensationalist purposes.

The above statement left by an earlier editor is untrue. The two confirmed fatalities from Irukandji syndrome were not from anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis has not been confirmed from any cubozoan, and has only been confirmed in one jellyfish case (Pelagia noctiluca, in Greece -- see Togias, A.G., Burnett, J.W., Kagey-Sobotka, A., & Lichtenstein, L.M. 1985. Anaphylaxis after contact with a jellyfish. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 75: 672-675.) The two fatalities from Irukandji were due to complications from the hypertension caused by the syndrome, as are the many cases each year requiring life support and/or producing ongoing symptoms. There is a huge ramification to the commonly-held (incorrect) belief that death is due to anaphylaxis: "I'm not allergic, therefore I won't be affected by it". A much better common sense approach would be to pro-actively take precautions so that it doesn't happen to you, e.g., wear a full-body lycra suit or wetsuit or other type of effective protective clothing. Jfishgoddess (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bicarbonate

This article recommends against bicarbonate, while the jellyfish article recommends it. I don't know which is right, but the two articles surely should agree. -- cmh 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Phylogenetic status?

What is the actual evidence that the cubozoans belong to the cnidarians? Their strange body plan (with an anus at the tip of each tentacle (4 in the case of the simplest species), 4 ganglia, 8 groups of eyes (with one proper eye in each and some simpler light sensitive organs) might be explained as the result of a mutation of a bilaterian ancestor. Consider a worm that, by some "reshuffling of its hox-genes" mutates into an animal in which 4 worms are joined togeteher, sharing a mouth between them. The result would be an animal with 4 brains, 8 sets of eyes and 4 tentacles with an anus at the tip of each, i.e. with the cubozoan body plan. It is just a hypothesis, but I would not be astonished if an analysis of their genes would turn up a close relationship to some phylum of bilaterians instead of cnidarians. So has the link to the cnidarians actually been established or have they just been put into that group based on superficial similarities? Just a question, I am not an expert on them. Nannus 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Brain Informatics (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Two words: life history. Oh, and cnidae of course. You do not get either from reshuffling of hox genes. The genetic data also puts them very close to Scyphozoa IIRC. (You might have confused them with comb jellies - those are indeed entirely different critters)

Also notze that the hox genes themselves probably prevent complex animals from fusing. You the Diplozoon, but I think nothing beyond that, and it basically stays two animals connected siamese twin-like. Hox clusters can diversify, but they come in entire sets per bauplan and hox sets do not appear to recombine easily. In bilaterians they basically use the lengthwise axis as line of reference, so you get stuff like in the Naidinae which might involve hox gene action, but a change of symmetry axes is a bit much. It would probably require re-evolution of the whole system of hox clusters from a Placozoa-like if not unicellular ancestor. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Schypozoa and Jellies

Just a wonder......why do they still use "Jellyfish" here instead of the OFFICIAL name, "Jelly?" And Hydrozoa? Where do they mention Schypozoa? Please answer! le-lover

antivenin vs. antivenom

Someone changed back from antivenin to antivenom, claiming that is the spelling in Australia. Is there actual evidence to support this claim? Most dictionaries don't seem to list "antivenom". Dfeuer 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Its called antivenom in Australia (and most of the world except the USA), CSL make it and its official name is Box Jellyfish Antivenom [1] (link shows all the Australian antivenoms).Mr Bungle 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a brand name. We're talking about a word, not a brand. The Oxford English Dictionary, last I checked, was not American, and it doesn't even list antivenom as an alternate spelling. You're going to have to come up with something better than a commercial website to demonstrate that the spelling "antivenom" is actually the common one in Australia. Dfeuer 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking with dictionary.com shows one definition of "antivenom", in CancerWEB's online medical dictionary. Interestingly, the entries in that dictionary for "antivenom", "antivenin", and "antivenene" suggest that the first, "antivenom", may have a slightly different, more general meaning than the others: it can refer to an antitoxin used against non-animal toxins. Dfeuer 11:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays the most common term is antivenom, it doesn’t mean antitoxin, antitoxin means antitoxin (i.e. botulinum antitoxin). Medical authorities use antivenom, almost all journal articles use antivenom as the preferred term, i.e. Clinical Toxicology the official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists use antivenom, as the following review papers show [2], [3], [4]. Toxicon another leading toxinology journal also uses antivenom [5], [6], [7], The world health organization also prefer antivenom in their literature [8]. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the American Association of Poison Control Centers also run ‘The Antivenom Index’ which show where antivenoms are stored around America.[9] All these authorities in clinical toxicology use the term antivenom, Wikipedia should too.Mr Bungle 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that the term "antivenom" is used. That's a first step. You have not demonstrated that it is "the most common term" or "the preferred term", either in Australia or elsewhere. You also have demonstrated that WHO has used the term, but did not demonstrate that they prefer it, or that they use it more often than "antivenin". Finally, I didn't say that antivenom meant antitoxin. Rather, I said that according to the dictionary I checked, antivenin is a more specific term than antivenom, which seems to be a more specific term than antitoxin. If this is correct, then the differences in meaning between the terms should be at least as significant in the decision about which should be used than which term was used by the original editor. Dfeuer 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To the extent possible, can we shift this discussion over to Talk:Antivenin? Anything specifically relating to this article, rather than antivenin vs. antivenom in general can continue here. Dfeuer 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed "spit" to "venom". Spit is generally regarded as that liquid produced in the mouth or buccal cavity to lubricate food and begin predigestion, and applied from the mouth or mouth parts. The nematocyst acts to deliver a specific venom load and is quite separate from a mouth or similar structure.219.90.246.218 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly if so many prominent scientific journals (e.g Clinical Toxicology, Toxicon and Journal Of Toxicology) use the term 'antivenom', then it must be the prefered term used.

Anecdotal Survival Story

The story of the man who was stung 5 times,clinically died, and awoke during his autopsy comes across as highly anecdotal. Are there any references to this case?

---Would like to know as well. The story ("as told by so and so") has more to do with this guy finding Jesus than in "documenting" his attack. A lot of it reads like...to be polite...a dramatization of events at best, and utter religious/mystical glurge at worst. If nothing else, I think converting the wording from 'documentation' to 'anecdote' would be a step in the right direction. I'd like to see the reference removed entirely. --24.148.236.234 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And to follow up, the story linked from the citation has itself absolutely no cites or references to documentation of the event, and the story is writen by a third party (yet in first person perspective). It's all just weird.--24.148.236.234 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed it (it doesn't say which species or anything specific and it appears to have more to do with the guy finding Jesus). Mr Bungle | talk 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"... arguably the most venomous creatures in the world." I think this needs to be cited or changed to 'among...'--Cammacleay (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence of intro needs grammatical(?) cleanup: "The Cubozoans are a categorized separately other types of jellyfish, and are considered more evolved; Scyphozoans." Phyloptera (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Exposure

I just thought that it should be noted that this article says to use methylated spirits and vodka to treat the stings if its available while another page I have visited (http://www.barrierreefaustralia.com/the-great-barrier-reef/jellyfish.htm) says in big red warning letters that you should NOT use either methylated spirits or alcohol..

Maybe that should be looked into as someone must be making a mistake somewhere about this... 60.241.78.146 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vision

It doesn't mention what species it's describing under the vision section. All 19 species surely aren't the same.167.7.17.3 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i was wonderin where exectly do the boxjelly fish live in australia,along which coasts can we find them.----

Cuisine

This section seems pretty dubious. Citation is definitely needed. --Pstemari (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, moved from article to here in case someone wants it in the future. Mr Bungle | talk 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Box jellyfish are a particular delicacy in Southeast Asia and can be enjoyed without fear of the venom after heating to an internal temperature of 175 degrees. Sprinkle liberally with lemon and serve with eel roe and fried rice. White rice wine is recommended.

jelly related deaths

how many times or how much time being stung by a jelly would it take to cause certain death in a human? Like in the movie 7 pounds98.243.239.128 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the species. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

photo

this article lacks an actual photo of these things. self-shot image at georgia aquarium, can someone possibly verify and add to article if it's correct?

Impasse 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

I think this is not a box jelly but a true jelly (Scyphozoa). As a rule of thumb, box jellies are small, have few tentacles (or if many, they come in 4 bunches), are transparent or with colorful patches on transparent background, and no "veil" or similar tissue hanging down. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

papaya hydrogen peroxide?

From the article: "there is no scientific evidence that urine, ammonia, meat tenderizer, sodium bicarbonate, boric acid, lemon juice, freshwater, steroid cream, alcohol, cold packs or papaya hydrogen peroxide will disable further stinging"

- Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 24.231.218.21 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's chemically similar to mango carbon dioxide.StephenPCook (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

Needs complete makeover. Apocryphal and possibly life-threatening. Group is taxonomically revised completely, the information here is the garbled mess from Commons (which was a garbled mess based on the unreliable ITIS and an early version of WoRMS).

Italicized families... euuuuuurgh! If you see this, sure-fire signs that an article is untrustworty. (A variant of the "T. Rex" effect) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a new topic for why I removed this article for being a poor source but it seems you've already said everything already. I'd also like to add that misspelling the name of the species in the article further reduces credibility. StephenPCook (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a garbled mess, and I know nothing about the topic! (Which is why I came to the article.) For instance "The Cubozoa class contains at least 19 different species, some of which are only slightly less lethal than C. fleckeri." makes no sense as an opening sentence in that section. Someone (not me!) who knows this topic should rewrite this entire article. 76.21.120.118 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Venom?

Jellyfish do not have venom. The basic, 1st year biology student could tell you that. Jellyfish (now sometimes known as Jellies or Sea Jellies because they are not really fish)have Nematocysts like all 'stinging' creatures from phylum Cnideria. These Nematocysts are released after activation by a pressure or chemically sensitive trigger is 'activated.' How the Nematocytes work is that they are small capsules which contain toxins, these toxins usually either kill or paralyze the victim. The writer of the discussed article does obviously not know the anatomy of the Jellyfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.169.171 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Meat Tenderizer

I can tell you from personal experience that meat tenderizer works instantly on *Portuguese Man'o'war* stings. The sting and burning just wipes right off. Kid's will stop screaming when it is applied. The park service at the state park in Corpus Christie keep Adolf's meat tenderizer and give it to folks who get stung. Don't know how the Man'o'war are related to the box jelly fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.236.149 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)