|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Cold seep appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/May.||
abiotic or photosynthetic?
If the cold-seep biomes are independent of photosynthesis, that would imply the methane and other hydrocarbons are abiotic, does it not? Or do we mean not currently dependent on photosynthesis? I know there's been debate over how much of our hydrocarbon deposits may be abiotic, but I thought the agreement was relatively little—or am I just out of date? kwami (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Longest lived invertebrate?
Ming is the nickname given to a specimen of an ocean quahog clam, Arctica islandica, family Veneridae, and is the oldest living animal ever discovered. Judging by the annual growth rings on the clam's shell, Ming was believed to be in the region of 405-410 years old when the clam was caught off the coast of Iceland in October 2007. The claim was made by researchers at Bangor University. The researchers are uncertain how long the clam, which died during the assessment process, might have lived had it been left on the ocean floor. The clam was named after the Ming Dynasty due to its age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The section on "Comparison with other communities" refers to "reduced chemical compounds (H2S and hydrocarbonates)". In this sentence, "hydrocarbonates" should be "hydrocarbons", which are reduced chemical compounds found at some cold seeps, whereas "hydrocarbonate" is a little-used expression for bicarbonate, which is a fully oxidized compound. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Origin of the Term Cold Seep?
The first section of the article includes the sentence "Cold" does not mean that the temperature of the seepage is lower than that of the surrounding sea water. Yet there is no further explanation. This incomplete explanation is akin to a dictionary entry that contains only half a definition. If you're going to go through the trouble of stating that, contrary to the name, cold vents aren't physically cold, then common sense dictates that you at least give some elucidation as to the reasoning for the inclusion of the adjective cold in the term.
Most people, excepting perhaps marine biologists and ecologists, will read this section and wonder why there is so incomplete a statement of the entries etymology. I know this because I was curious as to the author's reasoning. Please don't misunderstand me. I see no necessity to include a detailed etymological derivation of each term in an article. I'm merely stating that if you want to include such explanation, you should make it complete.
Anyway, just an opinion, but I believe a valid one.