Jump to content

Talk:Caridea

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.84.9.97 (talk) at 23:35, 26 May 2012 (→‎Complete confusion: picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Forrest Gump

If we can trust IMDB for information, it appears that the "Shrimp as food" section contains text, albeit paraphrased, from the above-stated movie.

"There's pineapple shrimp and lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich, shrimp fajitas."

"Bubba: Anyway, like I was sayin', shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Arlington (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

The catching shrimp part prepopl needs some grammar checking, and I can't remember what the name is for the volleyball net method of catching shrimp, perhaps someone that has actually done this can elaborate some.. PbS

Catching Shrimp by horse

How about a chapter on the traditional way of shrimping, using mules and horses?

Belgium has one village left (Oostduinkerke) where one can still see people riding horseback in (!) the sea.

My dad and brother are two of the seven people still doing this, and I could provide some more information, but obviously not the correct wording for this topic (Someone would need to edit my contribution).

Your suggestions or comments?

--Fred 10:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

something to try to fit in there somewhere is the unexpected etymology, that being that the animal name shrimp came -after- the term-for-a-small-person/thing shrimp, meaning the shrimp was a 'shrimp lobster'.. only it was like schrimp back then. someone research plz!

Re: over-the-top Detailed list of preparation methods

I've left a note on User talk:Wwwacky about why this list is extraneous and asking him/her to please remove it. Elf | Talk 06:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Somehow when users are coming to the Shrimp page they either have decided to delete valid content, or decide to go to great lengths to describe how another user should edit the article the way they want.
A listing of preparation methods for shrimp is certainly valid content for Wikipedia (see List of recipes). If a user does not like the list in the article, they are free to move it to an article on Shrimp preparation or somewhere else and reference it in the Shrimp article. A user may decide to present it differently. Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no need to rely on asking someone else to improve the valid content they contributed.
I replaced the how to prepare shrimp from a previous version. This information is valid. Wikipedia is not some scientific taxonomic reference system. Scientists already have ready access to those; this is a general reference encyclopedia. --24.222.176.191 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimp / Prawns

I wonder whether it's a transatlantic difference, or a specialist/non-specialist difference, but the use of "shrimp" here is very different to how I would use it. All the carcinologists I know would use "shrimp" to refer to members of the Caridea (which is now in the Pleocyemata), and "prawn" to refer to dendrobranchiates (referred to here, confusingly, as "penaeid shrimp"). So, I don't think it's right to say that "zoologically, all crustaceans belonging to Natantia are called shrimps". However, I didn't want to change anything if it turned out ot be a regional difference. This would also be a fairly major edit, since much of the information here is about Penaeus. --Stemonitis 11:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recreational Shrimping

I am a recreational shrimper and I have updated the portion regarding recreational shrimping to make it more accurate.

shrimp at 10.9 km below sea level?

In an unprecedented dive, the U.S. Navy bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom [of Mariana Trench] at 1:06 pm on January 23, 1960 with U.S. Navy Lt. Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard. Iron shot was used for ballast, with gasoline for buoyancy. The onboard systems indicated a depth of 37,800 ft (11,521 m), but this was later revised to 35,813 ft (10,916 m). At the bottom Walsh and Piccard were surprised to discover soles or flounder about one foot (30 cm) long, as well as shrimp. According to Piccard, "The bottom appeared light and clear, a waste of firm diatomaceous ooze".

Knowledge Of Shrimping industry

Hi I am an consultant wanted to know more about the terminologies used in Shrimp Processing Industry. I keep on hearing a lot of jargons about the Shrimp industry and feel quite left out as people converse. For Starters I like to know what do PTO, PD Stand for in the Shrimp Processing industry.

PTO is Peeled Tail On. PD is Peeled and Deveined (and also tailless). Shrimp are normally sold according to size, which is measured by a count per pound. U-10 (under 10 per pound) are quite large and usually hard to find. 10-15 and 15-20 are the standard very large shrimp and would usually be sold either "head-on" or "headless", no head, but still having the tail and shell. 21-25 and 26-30s are still a nice size and cheaper per pound than 15-20s. They make an impressive presentation in dishes like Shrimp Cocktail or scampi. 41-50 and smaller generally are sold either PTO (for inexpensive scampi dishes) or PD for use in other dishes, like jambalaya. Very small shrimp are in the 81-90 count range (sometimes called gumbo shrimp) and are always PD (who wants to peel 90 shrimp to a pound). These are generalizations. The price per pound drops as the shrimp get smaller (the count goes up). A pound of 31-35 shrimp meat cost much less than a pound of 10-15s. A low cost seafood restaurant might have no qualms about offering peel-n-eat 41-50 size shrimp, which are probably more trouble than they are worth to peel. Also, the yield in meat will vary depending on the type of processing. Obviously 5 pounds of PD shrimp will have more meat than 5 pounds of PTO (and thus be a bit more expensive for a comparable size). A chef will usually order shrimp in a number of different sizes, balanacing the price per pound versus the presentation value, and also factoring in the labor to peel them in-house. --Jdclevenger 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep

Is it true shrimp don't sleep?

Nope. Shrimp sleep just like any other fish.

Shrimp aren't fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.54.254 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

Seems to be a problem with the taxobox GrahamBould 14:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see one: what exactly seems to be the problem? --Stemonitis 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the lower pink box with the families etc. Maybe not technically part of the box. GrahamBould 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I undertand (having looked in another browser). I don't know quite what was causing it, but listing only superfamilies, and not the families as well seems to solve it (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps putting list items with colons in the subdivisions box wasn't such a good idea. --Stemonitis 06:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Thanks Stemonitis. GrahamBould 07:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

This is a rough draft of an anatomical diagram of a shrimp. I am looking for feedback on accuracy. I would like suggestions and criticism. What should I do to improve it, is there anything I should change, did I make any mistakes? I was planning on adding a little more detail such as hairlines along some of the limbs and tail, and perhaps add color/shading/detail. Of course, I would also add lables as well. So comments would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. Please leave comments at Image talk:Shrimp.svg.--Andrew c 17:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a great picture, and it will be even more helpful if you add labels and maybe some colors to make it interesting. Good work!
Also, I think the first picture in the article should be changed. Though it is an attractive photo, it shows a shrimp unfamiliar to most people, and it doesn't show much detail in the shrimp's body. I think an acceptable replacement would be something like your picture, which shows a lot of details, or maybe a photo like this one that I found on Creative Commons. What do you think? Gary 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://flickr.com/photos/jpockele/146201328/
I agree the current photo isn't ideal; it was the best available at the time. If you can upload that Flickr picture, then please replace the current taxobox picture with that one. It would be a definite improvement. --Stemonitis 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'americans are shrimp crazy.'

the recent addition by 81.178.233.235 is america-biased and has a badly unscholarly tone. i'm not sure how to refactor it such that it is appropriate, but i think it should be done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamstar (talk • contribs)

If you think it can be done, then by all means do it. For now, though, it can't be left in. The text is still accessible through the page history [1]. --Stemonitis 11:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit the article, has been tampered with

Some idiot inserted the s word multiple times and also inserted a bit of text in one or more paragraphs (See example below).

Dried shrimp is commonly used as a flavoring and as a soup base in Asian cuisines while fried shrimp is popular in North America. In Europe shrimp are very popular, forming a necessary ingredient in Spanish paella de marisco, French bouillabaisse, Italian cacciucco, Portuguese caldeirada and many other seafood dishes. Nobody likes the taste of shrimps. Their poison is able to kill a man, So don't eat shrimps.

Faeces

hey guys, in an episode of the office (317 or 318, "Cocktails") Dwight Schrute mentions that the line on the shrimp is actually faeces, can anyone here confirm/deny this?

Well, considering that it is the digestive tract, the whole thing wouldn't be but the last parts certainly would. But then, I don't know much about invertebrate digestion. Mastercampbell (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slang

[2]: Shrimp is also a slang to mean a person regarded as unimportant or who is small in stature. -- Zondor 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart located in the head?

I've heard of a trivia question which runs like this. Which creature has its heart located in its head? The answer given is "shrimp" or "prawn". Is there an expert out there who can confirm this and, if its true, update the main article. If its true it certainly seems worthy of a mention! If there are other creatures with the same physiology perhaps that can be mentioned there too (or added here with this comment). Thanks. --Tom 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom, I found a web site that has the anatomy of a shrimp diagramed. The following link has the picture. [3] I hope this answered your query! --Cay 01:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bug?

On my screen, the line under the heading 'Shrimp as food' continues into the taxobox. Doesn't look right. Is this a known bug? GrahamBould (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are we eating?

When people eat shrimp, exactly what parts are being eaten? Is it strictly muscle or is it also organs and the digestive system? -Rolypolyman (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay people, I will be back in 2 more years to see if you all have an answer. -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the reference desk? --Stemonitis (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Atlantic Confusion

According to SeafoodCrime UK, shrimp are currently on the list of seafood that sustainability minded American consumers should avoid.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that a "UK" group is giving instructions to "American" consumers? --Eliyahu S Talk 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morecambe Bay Shrimp

Although it is true that the word shrimp is almost never used, here in the UK (prawn is used instead), there are Morecambe Bay Shrimp. I do not know whether they are technically prawns or shrimp, but they are pretty well known, and are the only instance of the word shrimp being used, as far as I know. Jason404 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh / Salt Water

The intro says that shrimp species live in fresh and salt water, then this is contradicted almost immediately by saying they live on the sea bottom, and that they breed only in salt water. Bitbut (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Fixed. GrahamBould (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent vandalism

Vandals have recently been targeting this page, removing key information recklessly, such as how they are considered as Nature's Candy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it gets reverted shows that it's not commonly known as the addition claimed. While it may be called that in some areas, it's clearly not widely used, and doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. It may be suitable for the "Shrimp as food" section; but only if a reliable source can be found to support the addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are shrimp pink when you cook them?

They start out mostly white with some brown and then when you cook them they come out pink. Is it the iodine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.52.10 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask questions like your one is at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. However, you could have a look at this. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the life expectancy of a shrimp?

How long does a shrimp live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.103.221 (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One to 6.5 years. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note in page with nothing to link to

{{Fn}} is up for deletion. I noticed that it is used in this article in the first sentence of the farming section. However it was not liked to a note at the bottom of the page. I have replaced it with {{ref}} and hidden it until someone can find the missing note. something lame from CBW 08:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use in medicine

I don't know if this is the correct spot, but would it be relevant to include their use in medicine? Their shells are used to make a clotting agent which is used on bandages. It is in regular use at the moment on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the blurb is to be belived it can stop what would otherwise be catastrophic bleeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.166.192.220 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be worth including, if there's a reliable source that backs it up. (It might be difficult to make sure that when they say "shrimp", they mean Caridea, and not Dendrobranchiata, but we can deal with that problem if/when it arises.) --Stemonitis (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is only one of many brands, its in the FAQ: http://www.hemcon.com/products/hemconchitoflexhemostaticdressingoverview.aspx. I don't know what a Caridea is, I was only on the page to find out why we call them prawns in the UK, but it does say its from a Pandalus borealis (also called Pandalus eous), I don't know if that is a bona fide shrimp or merely a shrimpesque impostor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.166.192.220 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pandalus borealis is indeed a "true" (Caridean) shrimp, but we're going to need a third-party source before it can be added. It looks like there were quite a few news reports about it, which would probably be OK. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimp in Islam

It says in the article that the consumption of shrimp is Halal according to "some" Islamic schools and this is not accurate since shrimp consumption is considered Halal in "most if not all Islamic schools". In the Qur'an,it's mentioned: “The game of the sea and its food are lawful unto you” (Al-Ma'idah: 96). Source: Click Here

So I suggest changing "some" to "most" or something like that. Thanks : ) Rayansb (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Shrimp and Prawns

I think this article should be retitled Caridea, and Prawn should be retitled Dendrobranchiata. Zoologists have precise, technical definitions of prawn and shrimp which happen to map exactly onto a scientific name. Why is the scientific name not being used, then? The only people who care about this technical difference between "true shrimp" and "true prawns" will be fine encountering an article titled by the scientific name. In general usage, shrimp and prawn are extremely inprecise (being mostly synonymous with some WP:ENGVAR issues thrown in). Aquaculturists apparently have fairly precise definitions of prawn and shrimp, but these are at odds with the zoological definitions (prawns in aquaculture are zoological shrimp and vice versa). Shrimp fishers don't even bother to distinguish between the two groups. The vast majority of incoming links to Shrimp and Prawn take no notice of any zoological precision, and it's hard to know which article these links should actually point to. The Consumption section also seems to be lumping shrimp and prawns together (in fact, at least one if not two of the photos here are of zoological prawns).

I'd like to see the current shrimp and prawn articles retitled to their scientific names, Shrimp (disambiguation) moved to Shrimp and Prawn (disambiguation) moved to Prawn. I'm not sure what the best technical way to handle this is. Current incoming links based on colloquial definitions of shrimp and prawn should NOT end up redirected to precise scientific names. Ultimately, it might make sense to have a new article Shrimp in food (or the ENGVAR Prawns in food) that details the consumptive uses of both groups of organisms and remove most of the consumptive info from the main articles.

Bug and Cedar are good existing examples of situations where imprecise colloquial usage completely overwhelms any technical biological definitions and it makes sense to have the main article be a disambiguation. I'd like to suggest that perhaps also Crab and Lobster should be retitled to Brachyura and Nephropidae (and the respective disambiguation pages moved to the main name space). When an article titled "Crabs" starts off "True crabs are [...] brachyura", it seems like the logical thing to do would be to title the article Brachyura, mention that they are the "true crabs" and then use the Crab article to get people to the "false crabs". I'm pretty sure 99% of the people looking at the Crab article would expect it to cover hermit and king crabs.Plantdrew (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some mileage in your suggestions about shrimp and prawns, which are the subject of multiple conflicting definitions. I have been uncomfortable about the system employed here (probably my fault) for a while. The crab and lobster analogy is not applicable, however. Just as no-one expects the article at dog to cover the prairie dog, or the article at chicken to cover mountain chicken, so no-one should expect hermit crab (or horseshoe crab) to be covered at crab, or squat lobster to be covered at lobster. If 99% of people expect hermit crabs to be a type of crab, then 99% of people are ill-informed. I would also comment on your opening question of why the scientific name is not used. The answer to that is at WP:UCN – we use the name most commonly used to refer to a particular group, disambiguating where necessary. Most of the contents of shrimp (disambiguation) are partial matches, which should perhaps not be included (although I can see their value). Prawn (disambiguation) is not the most useful disambiguation page. I don't think either should be moved to the undisambiguated title. Instead, both "shrimp" and "prawn" would probably have to redirect to a new article shrimps and prawns, which would discuss the varying definitions, possibly including some of the material at Natantia. I can't see that any other system would make sense. I have accumulated a few bits and pieces about conflicting definitions, but never enough to make a good stab at an article, which is probably why we have articles about the (well-defined) taxonomic groups. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, together with the article Prawn, seems confused to me. The problem is that they are both common names for different things, but not everybody use the terms in the same way. You can't say "technically this is a shrimp, not a prawn", because that's exactly like saying, "technically David Beckham plays soccer, not football" (which, to a Brit, would be incorrect). You see, to some people "football" means the same as what Americans would call "soccer". In the same way, to some people "prawn" means the same as what Americans call "shrimp", but that doesn't make them wrong. Guess what the article for Beckham's sport is called? It's neither football nor soccer. In the same way, we should be careful here, and avoid an American-centric point of view.

As evidence, there are tons of reliable sources which say "Caridea prawn" (try a google books search). It would make things a lot more clear if we used the technical names. For example, I think the first sentence should be something like: "Caridea (commonly called shrimp in North American English, and prawns in British English) are ...". Does that sound like a good idea? 24.84.9.97 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you say is right, but we have to be very careful about how to solve the problem. I've thought about it several times in the past, and the only alternative I can find is to have the articles at "Caridea" and "Dendrobranchiata", and disambiguation pages at "shrimp" and "prawn". While this seems attractive for a number of reasons, there are also some significant drawbacks, not least that the majority of readers will end up initially at disambiguation pages, and a good proportion of them will not proceed further (to the actual information). An alternative is to combine the two where applicable, as I did in the end for shrimp and prawn fishery; this would also be appropriate for the cookery side of things (about which I know almost nothing). So, yes, the two terms are mutually ambiguous, but that is why we already have the hatnotes between them, and why both articles refer to the other fairly often. I'm not saying that it has to be done this way, but it's important to understand the advantages of this system. It's not a simple case of national usages being different (trust me: I didn't write it from an American point of view), but also one of different distinctions being made by different groups of people (fishermen, cooks, governments, scientists, lay people). --Stemonitis (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against renaming the articles to as you suggest; I also think redirecting "Shrimp" to "Caridea" seems like a safe move (in any case "Shrimp" is the common name, so I don't see why it can't be the title). But maybe "prawn" should be made into a disambiguation page.. because truly, I think this is something that need disambiguation. There is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "prawn", due to the differing uses in different countries; on the other hand I think there is a clear primary topic for "shrimp".
But maybe redirecting "Prawn" to "Caridea" with an appropriate hatnote could also be acceptable.. I don't know. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither name is unambiguous, and I don't see that either one is more clearly a primary topic than the other. I think we will probably have to apply to same treatment to both. We certainly can't have both common name terms ending up at the same article, unless it's a disambiguation page, and I also think that a disambiguation page would be a bad place for most readers to end up unless it's really the only option. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "shrimp" is ambiguous because it could also refer to things like Mantis shrimp, which aren't true shrimp? No word in the English language is every truly unambiguous.. but that doesn't stop us from having useful article titles! If the primary topic for the term "shrimp" is "Caridea", there it should redirect there.. it's as simple as that. Are you suggesting that "Caridea" is not the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)? 24.84.9.97 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with these articles is the first couple of sentences. It should be made very clear, as soon as possible, whether or not the reader is in the right place. Like the article Elk does. Many readers probably don't even know the terms "shrimp" and "prawn" are used loosely in so many different contexts.. for example, reliable and well-respected cookbooks are likely to contradict the usage in these articles, and the reader might not even realize it. I also don't like how these articles give the impression that people who don't use "shrimp" and "prawn" in this specific way are wrong.. they are common names, and who is Wikipedia to tell people the common names they use are wrong? 24.84.9.97 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete confusion

Upon reading the (featured) article Shrimp farm, it seems that when I (in a western nation) eat in a restaurant or buy in a store something that is called either "shrimp" or "prawn", it is probably Whiteleg shrimp, which is in fact a species of Dendrobranchiata, and therefore not a "true shrimp".. is that right?!? And if so, why the heck is that not made clear at any article other than Shrimp farm?? Sheesh!! (please correct me if I've misunderstood..) 24.84.9.97 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this picture is in the article on "shrimp". But according to Wikipedia's definitions, it doesn't appear to be a true shrimp! ...!
Shrimp or prawn? Maybe both?

Medical Benifits of Shrimps

I want to know about the medical benefits of shrimps, how it is different from other sea fishes. If it is good for cholesterol or other heart diseases. If there is any health hazard in shrimps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.114.152 (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caridea&oldid=494535541"