Talk:Humboldt squid

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods

A fact from Humboldt squid appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Humboldt Squid is a large, aggressive predatory squid which can grow to 2 m long and weigh 40 kg?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/May.

Wikipedia

Conservation status

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]

Cruel?

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]

Increase in Southern California

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]

Humboldt Squid Length

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]

Squid Range

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]

Unverified Fatal Squid Attack

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]

Recent television material

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]

"Humboldt Giant Squid"?

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]