Talk:Mantis shrimp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible hoax[edit]

"The snap can also produce sonoluminescence from the collapsing bubble. This will produce a very small amount of light and high temperatures in the range of several thousand kelvins within the collapsing bubble (...)" source required please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.74.213 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Why has this page been listed for deletion? I followed the wikipedia guidelines, I took about 45 minutes to compile information, take notes, and condense them. Then wrote an article of my own with my own voice. Simply because many of the facts are similar shouldn't be a cause for concern - facts are facts. And, infact, the two external links were pages that I used very little. They are simply more straight-forward and contain far more useful multimedia content (the Lurker's site has videos of the creature) than the rest. --Clone 17:29, 17 Aug 2003

I have copied your above comment to the Votes for deletion page. Further discussion should occur there. Angela 17:30, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By the way, Jimfbleak has just retracted this from votes for deletion. Angela 17:58, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Thanks for the update. It did seem a little rash. Best regards.--Clone 18:43, 17 Aug 2003

Hey, I was voted for deletion on Skull (mythology) and on Golden Gate Park! They thought it was written by Voltaire. I was flattered!Wetman 05:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Their cuticle[edit]

If they can strike with a force comparable to a small-calibre bullet, their cuticle on their claws has to be incredible tough and hard. Is there anyone who knows how much it can take before it brakes? Vertebrate bone is said to be stronger then the cuticle found in many invertebrates, also calcified cuticle. But in mantis shrimps it has to be a lot harder than the average exoskeleton.

According to this video, the cuticle does break down, however it gets replaced when they shed their skin. jon (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Mensa's Weekly Brainwave e-newsletter has just referred to this subject with a hot link to an informative and detailed article at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120607142355.htm particularly regarding adaptation of the claw's structure into making military body armor much lighter. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

More info[edit]

Shrimpressive[edit]

Mantis shrimp appear to be highly intelligent...

For shrimp, I take it. "Highly intelligent" still seems to be a bit over the top. Their described behavior doesn't seem that awe-inspiring. Besides, if they're that smart, how come they end up in sushi? (Just kidding. I'm sure I could end up in sushi too if I'm not careful.) 194.151.6.67 13:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

may benefit from improved references[edit]

If every statement in this article can be properly footnoted, this article should be nominated for Featured status. 38.100.34.2 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm adding some citation tags to the behavior section and will try to help after a trip to the library either tomorrow or monday.--Thusled 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thusled (talkcontribs)

Striking speed[edit]

"speeds of 23 m/s from a standing start [5], about the speed and force of a .22 caliber bullet" - this doesn't seem right. Muzzle velocity for .22 Long Rifle ammunition is more like 100m/s and up. Can somebody with access check the cited Nature article? --122.105.39.105 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The nature article doesn't mention speed/force of any bullets. Here's the relevant quote from the paper:

"we have measured the dactyl heel reaching peak speeds of 14–23 m s-1, peak angular speeds of 670–990 rad s-1, and peak acceleration of 65–104 km s-2 within an average period of 2.7 ms, making O. scyllarus perhaps the fastest appendicular striker in the animal kingdom."

The youtube video used as a reference, reference 5 (by the way, is that standard practice to reference youtube?), mentions the bullet speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.205.106 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Behavior Section.[edit]

Either tomorrow or Monday I'm going to see if I can't find good references for this section and expand on some incomplete ideas. Until then I have added expansion and missing reference tags to the section. I'm a very new contributor, so bear with me and if you can impart some advice on how to handle these issues please let me know. My issues with the section are as follows:

  • The section lacks citations for much of its content.
  • Weasel words (I've tagged two major problem areas). I don't doubt the veracity of the section, but it's currently too vague.
  • Some ideas deserve more explanation, such as the sentence: "Many have developed complex social behaviour to defend their space from rivals."
  • The last paragraph seems to be describing a behavior observed in unique circumstances and is given undue weight, though I think this problem is merely due to the lack of explanation for more common behaviors and I have not changed it, except to clarify one sentence.

I'll try to address some of these problems soon. When I make my edits, I'll try to keep the British spelling favored at the moment unless someone thinks it would be better to change that.--Thusled (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

citation #22[edit]

needs to be deleted, it goes to a dead website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.177.254 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

acceleration of strike[edit]

"10,400 g (102,000 m/s2 or 335,000 ft/s2)" Frankly this seems beyond credible. Way beyond in fact. Could anyone comment? 92.25.0.208 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Incredible, yes, but I think if you do your due diligence you'll find it supported by research. Keep in mind that the acceleration is over a very short period of time - on the order of 30 microseconds -- 30 millionths of a second. For your interest, here's a university press article detailing some of their findings on the matter, which backs up the claim in the article. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6307

Nature can be an amazing thing. Warthog32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

Animals breaking the unbreakable[edit]

Another kind of animal, called dunkleosteus, was a giant armored fish from the devonian. Having bony shears instead of teeth, its jaws had enough force to break chain mail.--12.238.133.210 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not shrimp?[edit]

The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 2002, states in the first sentence of their "Mantis Shrimp" entry: "The most striking feature of these lobsterlike shrimps is.." .. it sounds to me like they think it's a "shrimp"! I don't believe the strict definition of "shrimp" which is being used here, since it contradicts (at least some) reliable sources. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Aquatic Life of the World"'s (2001, Marshall Cavendish Corporation) Mantis shrimp entry begins: "Although called shrimp, they are not closely related to other shrimp". It would be wrong for Wikipedia to jump from this language of the reliable source to "They aren't shrimp", which is what the article currently does. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Read it in context, and there is no doubt at all. There is a link here, explaining what we mean by shrimp, which is lacking from those other sources. There is no way that you can doubt that Stomatopoda are not Caridea. This looks like editing to make a point, in relation to discussions at Talk:Shrimp, so I have undone it. Mantis shrimp are not "shrimp" in any sense except the vaguest, most meaningless one (there is nothing in common between mantis shrimp, horseshoe shrimp, killer shrimp and others except part of the name). Just because other encyclopaedias are unclear and imprecise with their wordings, it doesn't mean that we have to copy them. Can we please keep this discussion in one place, and not make any rash edits before a solution has been found. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
BRD, my friend. There's a difference between being bold and being disruptive.. one of them is to be encouraged. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The wavelength of this fluorescence[edit]

Quoting article: "During mating rituals, mantis shrimp actively fluoresce, and the wavelength of this fluorescence matches the wavelengths detected by their eye pigments."

Imo it is not clear. Is their fluorescence at one particular wavelength (or in one narrow band of wavelengths) or does it includes multiple different wavelengths?

Other question. "Matches the wavelengths detected by their eye pigments" suggests there are some wavelengths they cannot detect. Is this the case?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength chart[edit]

The graphic "A_comparison_of_photoreceptor_classes_in_human_and_mantis_shrimp_retinas" included in the article, showing how wavelength sensitivity of humans and mantis shrimp compares, has an issue: the color bar shown above the graphs is far from realistic: The areas we regard as blue and red should be much wider while yellow should be much narrower. Also the cyan area is completely off. I just noticed however the image has already been deleted entirely due to rights issue. A new chart would be a very useful addition to the article. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify – I meant a chart analogous to this one for human vision in the article on color vision:
Normalized response spectra of human cones, S, M, and L types, to monochromatic spectral stimuli, with wavelength given in nanometers.
This article from 2014 has such a wavelength chart: [1] The Seventh Taylor (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

Just noting for future use (no time at the moment), a couple of references to support striking acceleration, impact force, breaking aquarium glass, etc.:

Some stuff in the article (like the aquarium glass) could use a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Article needs substantial work[edit]

Although there is much interesting and useful scientific detail, this article still has a way to go. It mentions four times that aquarium glass can be broken.

Language such as "now sometimes referred to as" isn't especially encyclopedic.

400 species have been identified ("worldwide", more unnecessary language). But the article only separates them into two species, and explains nothing particularly about characteristics of others, by species.

Article flips between describing vision as polarized, circularly polarized, "man-made polarizing", and having components for Stokes parameters. It's not clear whether/how the terms are being used in a sloppy way. Nor is the distinction much use for Wikipedia's general readership.

The Aquaria section seems to be written independently of the rest of the article, and includes somewhat pointless information that Mantis eat other things. Statements such as "notoriously difficult to catch" are subjective, even with a reference, and it's questionable how much aquarium information is suitable for a Wikipedia article. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How big?[edit]

Can someone explain this passage in the opening?

[Mantis shrimp] may reach 30 centimetres (12 in) in length, though in exceptional cases have been recorded at up to 38 cm (15 in). The largest ever caught has a length of 46 cm (18 in) in the ocean near Fort Pierce, Florida of USA.

The 2nd statement appears to contradict the first, and the 3rd statement appears to contradict the second. So how big do they grow? 24.114.47.98 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of photoreceptor types[edit]

The Wikipedia articles, and most articles on the net, says the mantis shrimp has 16 different photoreceptor types. But could it really be up to 20? From the web: "Stomatopods have 20 different photoreceptor types, or functional input channels, in their eyes, including 12 channels for color. Gruev and the research team are interested in the mechanisms that function to reduce and analyze the 20 data streams. " Link: Recreating mantis shrimp vision may aid biomedical imaging, weapons targeting 2A02:FE0:C900:1:3D64:3C1F:3DDD:B770 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradictions[edit]

This article states two opposing views as facts. Under the "Eyes" section there is the statement " This gives the crustacean the ability to recognize colors that are unimaginable by other species.[12]" While later under the same section's "Suggested advantages of visual system" heading it states "Research also shows their visual experience of colours is not that different from humans'."

As both of these site the journal Nature as their source, and the first statement is from a much older article, it appears that the current research is on the side of the second statement.

I have edited the article to say that "It was once thought that this gives the crustacean the ability to recognize colors that are unimaginable by other species

--Themediaogre (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Research also shows their visual experience of colours is not that different from humans'. This suggests that we have methods of evaluating the subjective experiences of shrimp?? Also, no citations for this dubious sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.1.34 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the source cited by the "unimaginable" sentence, and it does not have anything to do with the claimed unimaginability at all. I've replaced the sentence with one that summarizes the source's actual findings, and changed the paragraph break to improve flow. MrNerdHair (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour[edit]

The first episode of the David Attenborough documentary on the Great Barrier Reef mentioned these curious little creatures. In it, he explained, among other things, that they are meticulously clean. I think the documentary could be useful for the article and here is a link to it --Andrew 00:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mantis shrimp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)