Talk:Humboldt squid

whar is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.245.73 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

- They have relatively extremely large nerve bundles. - The have at least 2 levels of chromatophores or 1 level and another set of color signalling change devices that need high speed film to appreciate the rapidity of the signal/color change events - They are invading new areas threatening their rivals habitats, extremely predacious and prolific. - There are problems maintianing live specimens. - They see about 20k times better than we do in low/no light

Not sure the removed section was copyright violation. It is a quote from an account, presented as such and attributed. It is also arguably not a "substantial part" of the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.157.197.108 (talk • contribs) .

I have previously read that the ammonia present in large squid species is to deal with buoyancy issues. However since I don't have the time to look into this and no references to cite, I include this comment only as an aside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.0.101.131 (talk • contribs) .

It seems a given that the stress of being fished and killed will produce a stress response. The last paragraph doesn't add much to the article. It also questionable to open the article by calling them "agressive predators" and ending with a description of them as "gentle".

I removed the claim that the animals are gentle and curious away from fishing boats. It might be true and if it is, it belongs in the article. However, it was unsupported and unreferenced. Jrkarp 17:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that picture a bit cruel (or perhaps disturbing) to be used as the page's primary picture? Maybe a picture of the squid in the wild would be better ... --Georgethedecider 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Found one. Mgiganteus1 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's been a huge increase in the numbers of these squid off the coast of Southern California. Not sure why, it might be an interesting addition to the article if anyone could find anything about it. Sorry, I don't know how to do the correct format for this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.199.183 (talk • contribs)

Oh my gosh, yes, that's where the picture of the dead one washed up on shore was taken (Santa Barbara). There were hundreds and hundreds washed up on the shore of UCSB in early July.  hmwith  talk 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was kind of curious about the size given for the Humboldt Squid. On here, it says that they 'may grow up to 7 feet long', but there are a lot of people who believe that they can get a whole lot bigger than that, and there's at least one photograph showing an extremely large squid (60 feet or more in length) taken in deep water that could be identified as a giant Humboldt. I don't know that it would go well in the section on their biology, but I feel like it's something that at least deserves mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chri$topher (talk • contribs) 2008-07-27T21:59:11

That sounds like it was most likely a different species of squid, but if it is described in a reliable source then by all means include it. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Footage was shown in History Channel's MonsterQuest, season 1 episode 4, that showed a massive squid in very deep water, obtained by attaching a camera to a healthy humboldt. The footage was not sufficient to confirm species, but it was thought to be either a 60-ft Humboldt or a 100-ft Colossal Squid, based on the size of the tentacles and distance from beak to eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.49.192 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

With regards to the MonsterQuest episode see: http://web.archive.org/web/20100309042014/http://burningbird.net/environment/squid-scandal/. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

That article is rather ambiguous; the only significant points I see are that the length depends on whether an eye-like spot is the creature's eye, which is not certain, and the lead investigator himself shares doubts about this. It concludes by stating that attempts are being made to find a better copy of the footage in order to say with more certainty whether there is any merit to the interpretation.73.32.145.62 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here's a link to a better description of the squid by Scott Cassell, a scientist who worked with the program and then attempted to distance himself from it. Long story short, it was actually a pretty impressive accomplishment to film the animal that they filmed, but the show (predictably) overstated the likely size and the probability that it was a Humboldt squid. There just wasn't enough visual data in the video to know what species it was or exactly how large it was, but the lengths that they were going with were dramatically overdone based on a misinterpretation of a scar at the head/mantle intersection as an eye. It was probably a large and fascinating animal, but not what they were describing. Chri$topher 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The summary reads "Though they usually prefer deep water, between 1,000 and 1,500 squid washed up [...]" Is that feet or meters? Should be meters I reckon. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It literally refers to the number of squid washed up, not the water depth :) Iciac (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry. My mistake. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I tried to locate any source stating that a Nicholas Barbin and three other divers were killed by frenzied Humboldt squid, but found nothing. From this article (diver attack described on page 2), it seems that attacks do happen, but as of 2007 there have been no known fatal attacks on divers. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/26/sports/sp-squid26/2

I am thinking that the so-called fatal attack is nothing more than urban legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.191.125 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The page appears to contradict itself, first stating that there are no confirmed attacks on divers, then stating that there was an attack on a diver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.238.94 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suspect someone was overzealous and replaced "rumored fatal attacks" with "no confirmed attacks" at some point in the past. I've removed it and cited one attack. Based on reading several accounts, my conjecture is that these squid appear not so much to be pack hunters as to move in shoals and have a "feeding frenzy" mode akin to sharks where they'll attack anything including each other. They are well-known for going after fishermen's catches, and hauling in your lines to find a squid wrapped around a chewed-up fish appears to be perhaps the most common way humanity encounters live Humboldts. The attack I cited occurred during a feeding frenzy triggered by a hooked shark. It would be nice if anyone could find some literature on this behavior. Lesqual (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The squid is amazingly popular with the public! In a second presentation, researchers revealed their belief that the squids have an "affectionate" side. I find this hard to believe, but I do believe that the squid uses binary communication to assist hunting through its "flashing."

I am citing the squid to illustrate evolutionary development along different branches, and to show the roots of what I term "predatory cooperation." So I would be excited to see the television material presented here -- but how?--John Bessa (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

News articles sometimes talk about the "Humboldt giant squid", referring to it as a "giant squid" for short. In fact, one of this article's references is a dead link to a news article, with the link-text "Giant squid caught in West Seattle". Is this usage just an error? I mean, Giant Squid is a completely different thing, right? Should we address this somehow in the article? —Ruakh_TALK 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

D. gigas also has among the largest axons of any squid, making it a useful model organism in electrophysiology. 134.173.24.84 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

After reading the thread I've noticed there is a Citation Needed connected to this phrase : "It is thought that they are probably at least as intelligent as the octopus, which in turn has been shown to have comparable cognitive capacity to that of a dog.[citation needed]". I've been searching around Jstor and Google Scholar search but to no avail. The closest I've come to an article delving into Humboldt Squid Intelligence is this article http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/2/265.full.pdf thanks to the help Dr. Zeidberg. James Wood, a teuthologist imagined an intelligence test for humans by an octopus: “So the octopus thinks: ‘All right. I’m going to make an intelligence test for humans, because they show a little bit of promise, in a very few ways.’ And the first question the octopus comes up with is this: How many color patterns can your severed arm produce in one second?” (Williams, Wendy. "So You Think You're Smarter Than a Cephalopod?" Smithsonian Ocean Portal. May 5, 2011. Accessed October 14, 2015. http://ocean.si.edu/blog/so-you-think-youre-smarter-cephalopod.) For this reason and due to the difficulty of determining which cephalopod is the most intelligent I proposes that the phrase should be rewritten or cited to the Wikipedia page on cephalopod intelligence page. Citing Wikipedia The Wiki Rabbit 21:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to the controversy behind cephalopod intelligence I will cite the phrase in question to the Wikipedia page on Cephalopod intelligence. Any in opposition to my act please state why here for further debate so a conclusion can be reached. The Wiki Rabbit 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add - somebody who knows! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence18uk (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

They prey on each other. Otherwise they are the predators, possibly even above sharks. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've seen Humboldt squid fishing expeditions advertised around the Monterey bay area. They're apparently easy to catch, and a boat can quickly fill up with them. My question is, are they good to eat? I don't read about people eating them, and I never see Humboldt squid meat for sale in stores. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

'Jumbo squid' is a more popular name for this species: as of now, the sources here are 12 to 8 in favour, and those sources using 'Humboldt squid' are of lower quality (TV shows, popular media). 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply