Talk:Nephrops norvegicus

Name

In the UK 'Norway lobsters' are refered to langoustines, in my experience, they are never refered to as 'Norway lobsters' and most people wouldn't have a clue what one was (other than some unknown type of lobster). I would even go as far to say that lots of people don't even realise that langoustines are a type of lobster but think they're a type of prawn. From my experience I would say that Irish people refer to them as Dublin Bay prawns and that Australian people refer to them as scampi (which is only used in the UK when they are served in breadcrumbs) Who calls them 'norway lobsters'? Will Bradshaw (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Why on earth is this named "Norway Lobster"? Half of all langoustines are caught in the UK and they are know as langoustines here or scampi when deep-fried. Is "Norway Lobster" another americanism? Torqueing (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest this page gets moved to 'Langoustine' if nobody comments in support of 'Norway lobster' within the next couple of weeks. Will Bradshaw (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not an Americanism (the animal doesn't occur anywhere near the New World). They are very widely known as Norway lobsters in the British Isles, with a slight and understandable preponderance for "Dublin Bay prawn" west of the Irish Sea. Perhaps next time, you might consider notifying the relevant WikiProject of your move request. It came as something of a shock to find that there was an active discussion going on, about an article I have contributed to quite significantly, which hadn't been mentioned on any of the pages I watch. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I had a bit of a look over various procedures about requesting moves but didn't see anything about notifying WikiProjects. I would support a move to N. norvegicus though. Will Bradshaw (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ridge

The bit that suggests nephrop fisheries without by catch of plaice and soul being unviable is nonsense. I've fished for nephrops, and whilst its soul destroying and extremely cold (off the north east coast its winter season trawling) standing at a sorting tray for 10 or more hours, there's good money in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Norway lobster → Langoustine — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) WP:COMMONNAME

• I have never heard the term 'Norway Lobster' used, they are known as langoustines. Will Bradshaw (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• They are called Norway lobsters here in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• According to the BBC they are also called scampi [1] . 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Scampi in the kitchen, Norway lobsters by fishermen and sea biologists. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• They're only called scampi if they're served in breadcrumbs and fried, if they're served whole they're langoustines, it's also worth noting that the BBC page says that they're "closely related to the lobster" but makes no other mention of them being lobsters, every recipe on there refers to them as langoustines. They may be called norway lobsters by fishermen and sea biologists, but I'm fairly certain that more people come across them as consumers and use the term langoustine. Will Bradshaw (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I saw them on menus as langoustine in England. Tasty! --JaGa^talk 19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Given that consumers may come across them as either scampi or langoustines, the former may also refer to other species, the latter may be confused with langostino, and the article is about the animal rather than (specifically) about the food, I'd be inclined to leave the title as it is.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• To avoid confusion we could put a "Not to be confused with..." thing in, I would say that langoustine does refer to the animal and not just the food. Will Bradshaw (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, "Nephrops norvegicus" "Norway lobster" massively trounces the same thing with "langoustine" on both Google Books and Scholar.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Langoustine beats them both in a normal google search and although a significant number of the results are just about langoustines as food, not all of them are. Going back to the marine biology point earlier, Glasgow University has a 'Langoustine Lab', not a 'Norway Lobster Lab' or an 'N. norvegicus lab'. Will Bradshaw (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose langoustine is a generic name 'in the kitchen'; Norway lobster is the usual common name for the species. —innotata 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I had no idea there was a discussion going on here, else I'd have made my opinions known earlier. Terms like "langoustine" and "scampi" are always going to be vague, unless carefully defined by equating them to a more precise term. The best "common name" for the article title, considering all the different spheres of life it appears in (fisheries, kitchens, laboratories, aquaria, etc.) is undoubtedly "Norway lobster". (I suspect the good people of Glasgow University simply liked the alliteration, so we can't set too much weight by that.) The only justifiable change of name would be to "Nephrops norvegicus", since there are so many competing and contrasting common names. Indeed, I was half planning to make that move soon. Whenever there is confusion or competition, the scientific name is the best choice. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nephrops norvegicus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be undertaking this review, will have comments up by the weekend. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• if the genus is monotypic, why isn't this article named as the genus? If it's because there are several described fossil species, why isn't there a genus page?

• N. norvegicus is the only extant species, but there are, apparently, seven exclusively fossil species (De Grave et al., 2009). Nephrops redirects here at the moment mostly as a convenience. I would write an article on the genus as a whole, but I have not been able to find any worthwhile information about the fossil taxa. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• One seems to be Nephrops reedi [2]. See JSTOR 20101873. The JSTOR paper also lists Nephrops costatus, Nephrops maoensis, Nephrops aequus, and Nephrops americanus as being of uncertain generic identity; they could conceivably also be among the seven. Ucucha 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. That was enough to get a broad outline at Nephrops. Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• link synonym authorities

• Done, with the exception of the unknown Rowe including Joshua Brooking Rowe. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "with >40% silt and clay." spell out symbols

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• any more info about the symbion?

• Done. I've added a little bit of background, about how it relates to N. norvegicus. Any more specific material should probably be at Symbion pandora', rather than here. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• typical lifspan?

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• explain "berried females"

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The tail is muscular and is frequently eaten under the name "scampi"." awkward construction (imho)

• Changed. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Nephrops norvegicus is eaten on special occasions in Spain and Portugal" what kind on special occasions? Do they eat it on regular occasions?

• Now altered to read "only on special occasions" – the source doesn't give any further details. If a Spanish or Portuguese speaker can provide further details from a reliable local source, I would gladly include it. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• could you link and cite Linnaeus' prologue? Should be available on Google Books (probably Biodiversity Heritage Library too)

• Done – linked to the appropriate page through a citation. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• what does in Mari Norvegico mean?

• I've added (my own) translation of "in the Norwegian sea". I doubt Linnaeus was using such terminology as we would today, and the fact that Holthuis could restrict it to Kattegat means that it cannot mean the Norwegian Sea. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• mention when Leach circumscribed Nephrops (and a cite/link if available)

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• link variety

• Removed the word, since "variety" is not recognised as a rank by the ICZN. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• any story about the synonyms Astacus rugosus Rafinesque, 1814 and Nephropsis cornubiensis Bate and Rowe, 1880?

• There hasn't been much discussion of them in the literature, no. Rafinesque was, um..., idiosyncratic in his taxonomy, so it's little surprise that he published a junior synonym. You will note that Holthuis proposed to suppress almost all Rafinesque's crustacean names for this reason. Bate & Rowe is a more interesting case, but even less frequently discussed. Their figure looks to me like it might be a juvenile, but I can't find any discussion of the name beside it being a synonym of Nephrops norvegicus. I doubt that what they wrote would even count as valid publication now, because they seem so unsure of themselves ("... the name by which we provisionally intend to recognise..."). I have added a sentence saying that the two synonyms exist, but I don't think they deserve any more than a passing mention. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• page #'s (or at least a page # number range) for citations to Phillips, 2006; also for Davidson 2002

• The Phillips ref. was an earlier citation of the same work as Bell et al.; I have combined the two. I no longer have access to Davidson (the perils of Google Books): I can try to find a paper copy if it's important, but it might take a while. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Chapman & Rice 1971 needs full page range

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• page range for Chapman et al. 1975

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• italics for taxa in title of Funch & Kristensen 1995

• None needed. All the taxa are above the genus level, and so take no italics. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• dab incubation

• Unlinked. The closest match was avian incubation, which isn't close enough. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• A scan of Pubmed and the ISI Web of Knowledge shows there's a lot of room for expansion, but since this is only GA, the coverage only needs to be broad. I would like to see something about "… the most significant known pathogen of Nephrops (norvegicus) … a dinoflagellate parasite assigned to the genus Hematodinium. This parasite has been responsible for an ongoing epidemic in fished populations of N. norvegicus in Northern Europe since at least the early 1980s" PMID 21215358

• I always tend to forget about diseases for some reason, but at least in this instance I can console myself with the fact that that paper hadn't been published when I did most of the writing! I have added a paragraph on parasites and one on epibionts, into which the Symbion material has been subsumed. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the changes and additions; I believe the article meets the GA criteria and will promote it now. Sasata (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Scampi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposal withdrawn by proposer in 2013. Klbrain (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

---

As User:Macrakis has already suggested on Talk:Scampi, scampi is simply a manner of preparing Nephrops norvegicus for human consumption. There is little information on the Scampi article that is not already included on Nephrops norvegicus; a merger would not bloat the latter article. As such, Scampi should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

An alternative would be to expand scampi to cover other similar taxa that are (presumably) prepared in the same way for consumption, such as the "Australian scampi", Metanephrops australiensis, and the "New Zealand scampi", Metanephrops challengeri. I haven't looked in detail, but I imagine it would cover meat from any species in the (polyphyletic) group of Nephrops + Metanephrops (and possibly Nephropsis and others). --Stemonitis (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I said. "Scampi" is the normal Italian name and the general (legally defined) culinary name for Nephrops norvegicus in Europe, and the culinary name for a variety of other species around the world. It has also become the name of two distinct styles (sauteed with garlic in the US; breaded and deep-fried in the UK) of preparation for seafood (see e.g. "scallop scampi" (!!). The scampi article could be a disambiguation article pointing to the various species called "scampi" as well as to a Scampi (dish) article. --Macrakis (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A disambiguation page makes sense to me, although I would distinguish between Scampi (British cuisine) and Scampi (American cuisine), considering that the two dishes are unrelated to each other. Do you have sources to verify that "scampi" is used to refer to species other than Nephrops norvegicus and not simply one of those species prepared in one of the two manners you describe? Neelix (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not off hand, but they're not hard to come by. This Australian government source, for instance, explicitly equates "scampi" with (several) Metanephrops species (p. 96), and is written from a fisheries point of view, so is not relating to culinary preparation. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Metanephrops should be on the disambiguation page, as should Nephrops norvegicus. Is everyone on board with making Scampi a disambiguation page and splitting the information currently on the Scampi article into Scampi (British cuisine) and Scampi (American cuisine)? Neelix (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a disambiguation page is the way forward. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the various dishes called "scampi" are entirely different; that is, I'm not sure there are separate topics of "scampi (British cuisine)" and "scampi (American cuisine)" (let alone what to title them). I suspect that the culinary "scampi" is whatever method is the preferred local way of cooking Nephrops-like lobsters, and then, by extension (perhaps only in North America), other dishes cooked in a similar way. That doesn't immediately seem to need disambiguation to me, just explanation in a single coherent article. If the Americans use "scampi" (none of which species occur naturally around North America, as far as I can tell – perhaps some of the less significant Nephropsis species?) for sautéeing with garlic, then a separate article may not be needed, anyway, just links to sautéeing and garlic. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed your observations and reworded the lead of the Scampi article accordingly. If everyone is OK with the new lead, I would be glad to withdraw the merger suggestion. Neelix (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with it. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nephrops norvegicus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530010830/http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/publication-abstract.aspx?abstract=4321 to http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/publication-abstract.aspx?abstract=4321

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)