Talk:Cephalopod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Cephalopods
 This article is part of WikiProject Cephalopods, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use cephalopod resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] is jet propulsion the primary method of locomotion for octopi?

from the article: "Cephalopods' primary method of movement is by jet propulsion", is this true of octopi? i think this statement may not be true and may need to be qualified. as i understand it, octopi can use jet propulsion, but are primarily walkers. - UriBudnik

For cephalopods as a group, jet propulsion is the primary form of propulsion. However, you are correct to note that many octopusses (although not all of them) will use some form of walking as their typical short-distance locomotion. For longer distances, they will still use jet propulsion. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colorblind

Someone who is tritanopic might not see this number.
Someone who is tritanopic might not see this number.

"They are probably colorblind"? How can this possibly be? If they were colorblind how could they possibly copy they color of their surroundings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.223.3 (talk • contribs) 8:27PM December 19, 2005

It's true. They are colorblind. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
How do you test this? Show them cards with numbers and tell them to raise their tentacles?
Maybe they are just bad in math, (or prefer the octal notation :-) Petri Krohn 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I put {{fact}} by that claim for that very reason brought up by 69.137.223.3. That claim must be cited individually. -Will Pittenger 07:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation covers the entire paragraph. I added a separate instance of it after the specific claim, though the result is ugly. —Celithemis 07:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps we should expand that part into a complete subsection. That way we could explain how they can get their skin to match the colors of what is around them without them seeing the colors in question. That needs some sort of explanation still. -Will Pittenger 08:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Better. I guess the main problem was that it was assumed that we could read the source. For that, though, you would need to subscribe to the correct publications and understand what they say. That is not me. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant

" Teuthology, a branch of malacology, is the study of cephalopods and teuthologists are the scientists who study them." read the article. I've removed "and teuthologists are the scientists who study them." It was redundant. It's just a matter of -ology and -ologist these are very common suffixes. 12:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including fossil cephalopods

The main article for cephalopods seems to almost totally ignore extinct forms, which is a pity since the class has such a fine fossil record. Indeed, the known fossil species far outnumber the living. There are already some nice Wikipedia articles about ammonoids, nautiloids, & belemnoids. Can we integrate them better into the main cephalopod article? Cephal-odd 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "IQ"

I didn't check the references, but this statement seems kind of dubious:

"They are regarded as the most intelligent of the invertebrates with an average IQ of 30 equvalent in humans." --134.134.136.5 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek

The article read:

(Greek Κεφαλόποδον (kefalópodon), plural Κεφαλόποδα (kefalópoda); "head-foot")

OK, I'm pretty sure that Κεφαλόποδον is a modern Greek form (and this is supported by the transliteration in f instead of ph usual for Ancient Greek). Unfortunately, in Ancient Greek, so far as I can tell, the singular of the word should be κεφαλόπουν (like the attested τὸ τετράπουν "the quadruped"), which is just absurd, so I just removed all reference to the singular. I hope no one minds. --Iustinus 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encephalopod

Currently redirects to Xenomorph (Alien) but [1] claims it is archaic for cephalopod. Vagary 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] early cephalopods & Tommotia

The Early Cambrian fossil Tommotia was recently added to this article as a basal cephalopod. The shell does look vaguely like that of some early nautiloids, but as far as I know the oldest generally accepted cephalopod is Plectronoceras from the Late Cambrian. Does anyone have a reference that supports the assignment of Tommotia to the cephalopods? Cephal-odd 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color of Cephalopod blood?

I heard that cephalopods are supposed to have clear blood with a copper based compound instead of hemoglobin. Is that true? -Will Pittenger 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I should also ask if this is something that belongs in the article. Can it be cited? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the active lifestyle of Cephalopods requires not only a closed circulatory system but a hemoglobin based blood cell instead of the amoeboid ones in other simple animals. 75.37.64.126 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite each fact

I noticed that most people working on this page rely on the References section. It is written so that there is no way to tell what is being cited. Please put cite links in, preferably with the <ref> tag. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)