Talk:Krill

Krill biomass comparison appears outdated

The introduction to the article claims that one species of krill has "an estimated biomass of around 379,000,000 tonnes" and that this is "more than that of humans." I am not certain if this statement remains valid, as this wolfram calculation suggests (based on average human mass of 69kg) that humanity weighed almost that much in 1992, and likely crossed that mark later that year. The reference for the krill biomass appears to be based on samples taken between the years 1926-2004, by which time the human biomass had exceeded this value. It is possible that in the early '90s that species outweighed mankind, and perhaps krill populations have exploded since, but the current accuracy of this claim seems dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.50.111 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a mistake in Japanese and improvement

The last line of the header is a broken sentence as it mentions two countries but give the name for one, it would be better if it were... In Japan and Russia, krill is also used for human consumption, in the former it is known as okiami (オキアミ)[1] while in the latter it is know as kril (криль) [viz. google translate].
Additionally, note No.1 may be written incorrectly, I thought that scientific names (the Graeco-Latin names) are language-independent. My Japanese is only beginner-level, so I was amused by the name being in katakana, the foreign word alphabet, yet it does not sound anything like krill, checking on the Japanese page, reveals it is from the kanji 沖醤蝦 (so there is an extra piece of info!). The second name moku does not seem written correctly, as 目 (chinese has 1 syllable =1 character, not Japanese) means moku = order.
I think this sentence is what should be on here: "殻ごと干した干しエビ、調味用の魚醤 （蝦醤、トラシなど）や塩辛の原料としても知られる", which I think it says "It is also (も) known (知られる) as a material (原料) of dried shrimp (殻ごと干し)or dried shrimp shell (た + 干しエビ), fish sauce (魚醤) to for seasoning (調味 + 用 + の) (shrimp sauce (蝦醤), shrimp paste (トラシ), etc (ど)) and (や) salted fish (塩辛, <-this has a picture of a whitebate-like dish). Can anyone improve on this? --Squidonius (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just checked the japanese pages and for salted fish, there is a section on shrimps and there it is mentioned black on white that some species are not technically shrimp but mysidaceans and krill, the latter dish is called ツノナシオキアミ, so there is a nice name to add! --Squidonius (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That footnote originally read "The scientific name Euphausiacea is okiamime(オキアミ目) in Japanese." Source:[1] (you may need to switch the character encoding to Japanese manually in your browser; at least I needed to do so). It was changed to "okiami moku" here. It should probably state that that's the Japanese name of the order. And if it's entirely incorrect, it should be removed altogether. Lupo 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual for things like okiami to be written in katakana, which is used also for various formal terms when the kanji are unusual and hiragana might look childish. The latin names are are used internationally, in Japan too, but for convenience there are japanese translations of many of the names. However I'd already boldly deleted that note, as being cruft. The picture of the pink things on rice may or may not be krill, they are small shrimplike Crustacea. I'd say it is better to include fewer details of translations in various languages Zeimusu | Talk page 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cladogram

Where is Euphausia on this diagram? Is "Eudoeuphasia" a typo and should be "Euphausia"? Lupo 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question: yes, apparently a typo. Maas & Waloszek's 2001 paper is available online here. Lupo 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that typo. I added that tree over the one of Casanova 1984, Jarman 2001 and D'amato 2008 due to the quantity of species, the last two are DNA and lack Bentheuphasia and other key species, however Casanova is a the big name. I hope the additions are good and the few morphological notes do not anticipate the Morphology section. If there are any papers needed please email, e.g. Casanova 2003 (french though) is a nice summary of krill.--Squidonius (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for writing these sections! It's a bit over my head, though. Lupo 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do krills feel cold?

I was having a discussion with my friend, and we decided that we were not sure whether or not krills can feel cold. Do krills feel cold?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.208.114 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Q&A should be directed at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science, this section if for discussion of the article. Regarding your question, most animals can sense temperature in order to avoid temperatures which can harm them, but the acceptable temperature for a krill are lower than the acceptable temperature for a human, so in brief "yes, but not at temperature you do". --Squidonius (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In section on human consumption it states that exo skelton are high in flourides. As bottom of food chain that could affect fish that eat krill. Does this mean that these fish are then high in flourides and unsuitable for mass consumption and if not why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology wrong

According to The official Norwegian dictionary, krill is derived from the icelandic word krili, meaning Little thing. Should I just change this, or will someone have a word first? Rkarlsba (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Many issues with the anatomy section

The description is awkward is many places. This section needs rewriting by a carcinologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.94.206 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)