Talk:Jellyfish

Name Redirect

I believe Wikipedia should redirect to Sea Jelly, not vice versa. Technically they can not be called fish, as they are not in Phylum Chordata, in one of the -icythes classes. The proper name is Sea Jelly and "Jellyfish" is a common misnomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.122.252 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(I don't understand how we are supposed to have conversations, so I may be doing this wrong.)

I've worked on these animals for three and a half decades. The people who work on them call them jellyfish and have for more than a century. Public aquariums in America decided sometime a couple of decades ago that people weren't smart enough to understand that things like jellyfish and starfish weren't fish, so started using Sea jellies and Sea Stars as the "right" words. A few of us use those terms, but most scientists do not use them preferentially. We believe that people are smart enough to understand that jellyfish (and starfish) are not fish, just as they understand that seahorses are not horses. Please don't move this topic to "Sea jellies". Leuckartiara (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Leuckartiara (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leuckartiara. According to Wikipedia's title guideline, as a young sea creater the most easily recognizable name should be used. "Sea jelly" retrieves only 42,700 Google hits, while "jellyfish" yields 8,180,000. This indicates that Jellyfish is substantially more recognizable and there is no compelling reason to change the title at this time. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I like the term "jellyfish," some people still think that whales are fish. I like scientific names, although I hardly know any of them.--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

do you have similar complaints about the whale-shark that is a fish and not a whale? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to add my own concurrence to the apparent consensus here. Jellyfish is a fine name. The move to rename the group jellies is ridiculous. How far are we going to go with this nonsense. Should we rename sea horses to something else because they aren't really horses? And what about the name jellies? If people thought that jellyfish were really fish, do people now think that the animals are made of jelly? Davefoc (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A meat tenderizer!? what and bash the venom out? I think this needs to be changed.

"A strange but effective method of treatment of stings is meat tenderizer which efficiently removes the nematocysts[citation needed]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.244.35 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, might not folks get confused and think that a "sea star" is some kind of of astronomical object, perhaps a meteor that fell into the ocean, or that a "sea jelly" is some kind of sandwich spread? ;) 99.146.149.204 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Vodka for stings

I hear that vodka can help with jellyfish stings. 71.227.150.203 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC) It was on Mythbusters, but I'm not sure which types it applies to. 71.227.150.203 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much use without a reliable source. WLU (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about here? http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_68_christmas_tree_ligh.html Jabberwockgee (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but Mythbusters is not reliable. The conclusion is made without a control so there is no way of telling how long Keri's body takes to degrade the venom nor was the amount of venom injected measured. StephenPCook (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Level of content

This page is excellently written, but it's content level presents a very steep curve to the public. The introduction is concise to the point of denseness, and no common names are used for species and groups. To any but a college science major, it is very discouraging. The body of the article is a little more accessible, but tends to college textbook level for the most part. An English or Economics major would have trouble extracting what they were looking for. All but the very best high school students wouldn't be able to get a handhold in the article. (And I'm talking about the average and up student from a good district.) For example, the discussion of the digestive system uses very few common terms. Back to common names; only a very few are used in the article, making it a bit impenetrable to the general public. --One minor point. The section on treatment of stings is the most accessible, but does not address a popularly dicussed treatment: urine. If it works it should be included. If it is a myth, it is a persistent one and should be specifically addressed. --I thank the author(s) for the overall article. I kibbitz from the sidelines not because I am too lazy to try to edit and improve the article itself, but out of a knowledge of my limitations. This is my first communication/addition to Wikipedia of any type. Darwins boy (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I only entered Wiki for the first time to emend and amend the jellyfish article a couple of weeks ago, because it had many problems and misconceptions, particularly about blooms, following some sensationalist articles in the Press. The anatomy and body systems sections need a lot of work and I couldn't imagine where to start, so haven't touched them yet. If I decide to take on those portions, I'll keep in mind who the potential readers are - thanks a lot. (But what WOULD the English major or Economics major hope to find in this page? - Give me some ideas and I'll try to address them. I know a lot about many aspects of the animals, but can't for instance tell you much about stings, which I have avoided carefully over a long career.) There aren't common names for most kinds of jellyfish, and I don't see that inventing them for the purpose of this article would help anything. The Introduction is partly so dense because I tried to add stuff without totally obliterating what was already there, which may not have been the best choice for ease in reading. I am supposing that it is impolite to completely overwrite someone else's contribution, which leads to a very weird style problem. Leuckartiara (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not even from the Western Hemisphere and I find the article's language too dumbed-down. Shrumster (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I love jellyfish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.179.67 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible citation issue

Sorry if I am doing this wrong, it is a first attempt.

There may be a problem with citations 17 and 21. Both citations 17 and 21 are used in text that discuss treatment of Jellyfish stings. However, they both link to the same article that citation 14 references, and as it is not on the correct topic, I doubt this is intentional. Also, and forgive me for I don't know, is it acceptable for articles on sting treatment to link to PubMed? PubMed does not carry articles, only abstracts. The actual publisher for these articles also does not carry digital copies for articles this old. While these printed articles may indeed substantiate the claims made, does it make sense in an arena that can be edited by anyone to allow claims to stand that cannot be verified online? 69.107.124.17 (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Greg 44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.136.7 (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

---

What puzzles me are citations to the general public under "Toxicity to humans" such as:

1. "Avoid rubbing the wound, or using alcohol, spirits, ammonia, or urine which also encourage the release of venom.[27"

as well as:

2. "As seen in the Friends episode 'The One With The Jellyfish', Joey famously urinates on Monica's leg to relieve the effects of a jellyfish sting. Although fictional, the theory behind this is true. Urine, like the hot shower example above, relieves the pain of a jellyfish sting whilst introducing a sterilising property also. This combination can relieve pain on minor jellyfish stings, whereas a sting from a box jellyfish will not be cureable through this method."

To urinate or not to urinate? There are also confusing notes regarding usage of ice (to use in some section and not to use in another). Maybe this whole section should be re created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.46.14.71 (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes and brain

A clarification of what is meant by these terms in the article would be helpful. I don't think jellyfish really have eyes or a brain do they? Some cited explanation would be great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First-time Wikipedian here, so please point out of I'm doing anything out of bounds. Yes, the line about Box Jellyfish having eyes should be altered. They have light sensing organs, which are a far cry from "well-developed eyes." Furthermore, there is no evidence they use them to "hunt prey." Scientists discovered they can alter swimming movements when they see nearby obstacles, but it is extremely doubtful they can use light information to hunt because they have no central nervous system. Can we change that line to read "Box jellyfish have the most advanced light sensing organs of jellyfish species. Despite lacking a central nervous system, they can avoid obstacles using light information." ScyphoBio (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New Discoveries

The first sentence in this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever: "The booty on the jellyfish is where the posion come from it tries to hump you and if it get stuffed it can kill you." I am removing it. The following sentences need editing as well, as phrases as 'the new millennium' and 'fly in the face' confuse the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.88.157 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jelly tinks

they are reallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy animals....................................................' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.92.27 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Snoahallardle

== A snoahallardle is a koala, snake, flame fish, tree frog, jellyfish and a eagle.....

Merge proposal (not mine)

Whoever placed the merge template on Jellyfish and Scyphozoa apparently didn't create a section for discussing the proposal or provide a rationale. I oppose such a merge, because the term "jellyfish" is not a synonym for "scyphozoa/n" ("scyphozoa" are a proper subset of "jellyfish", as the Jellyfish article mentions repeatedly). There is some material in the Jellyfish article that probably should be moved to the Scyphozoa article (particularly anatomical information which I think is specific to the scyphozoa), but I don't have the time to do it properly right now. False vacuum (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument is absolutely decisive. The intro alone says clearly (and correctly) that the term refers to more than the Scyphozoa. The flags were improperly placed, and so I will remove them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

'Blooming' section could use restructuring/rewrite.

It seems less coherent than it should be. And "Jellyfish blooms cause severe problems for mankind" really? 88.159.72.240 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)