Talk:Bigfin squid

Species A, B...

The 2006 Vecchione & Young paper calls Wikipedia's species B (G. O. Sars 2004 specimen) species A and our species C the "BMNH squid". Is there a source that M. atlantica was ever called "species A" before its description? If so, there is need to disambiguate between the 2 "species A"s. If not, there is some mv-ing to do. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was called "species A" on the Tree of Life page prior to its description. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

size

how big is this? even in gross estimate? --194.81.255.254 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know too.... 98.24.154.187 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've included this estimate of total length. See also cephalopod size. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Magnapinna pacifica.jpg

The image Image:Magnapinna pacifica.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names

ABC News has the oil company footage under the label "Magnapinna squid" but because this isn't given as an alternate name here, it's hard to find the wiki information for it. Is magnapinna squid an inappropriate neologism or a fairly common term for these things? -58.34.201.150 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnapinna is the genus to which these squid have been assigned. The name redirects to this article. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

naming confusion

"Long-armed Squid" redirects to Chiroteuthis veranyi whilst "Long-arm squid" redirects here (bigfin squid). This article uses both names interchangeably. (Note also difference in capitalisation of "squid" in the redirect titles: "Long-armed squid" and "Long-arm Squid" don't redirect to anything.) The two creatures don't seem to be closely related: is a disambiguation page needed? I wonder if Chiroteuthis veranyi is really referred to as a long-armed squid though - the picture isn't very convincing. Samatarou (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've gone ahead and made a disambig page at Long-armed squid and pointed all the other variously spelled redirect pages to that. Samatarou (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity about adult specimens

Adult specimens of magnapinna have not been collected but at this date it is generally assumed that video observations of larger, similar squid are adult individuals of magnapinna. Multiple papers have been published on video observations predicated on this assumption, and one of the scientists who described the family, Michael Vecchione, unambiguously refers to larger specimens from video observations as magnapinna. The video of the NOAA sighting from 2021, for example, contains audio of him identifying the squid as magnapinna. PhronimaStan (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alister Hardy

I was able to recover a 1956 edition of the book by Alister Hardy and there's no mention of Octopodoteuthopsis. Perhaps is it another edition of the book?-- Carnby (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to verify it in either of the editions on archive.org (the first volume, 1964 reprinting (with 1958 revisions) or the 1970 printing of the 1965 one-volume edition); there are no matches for "Magnapinna", "Magnapinnidae", "big fin", "bigfin", or "Octopodoteuthopsis". There is a chance bad OCR is what's making it hard to find, but I'm not sure. @Mgiganteus1 originally added that in this 2008 revision so maybe they know more? --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked my physical copy of the 1956 edition and the figure in question appears on page 290 as Fig. 96c, though it is labelled Octopodoteuthis sicula rather than Octopodoteuthopsis. I've now corrected this in the article. The original source of this information was presumably the ToL page on Magnapinna sp. C: https://web.archive.org/web/20070930214103/http://tolweb.org/Magnapinna_sp._C This page reproduced the figure from Hardy (1956): https://web.archive.org/web/20070930214103im_/http://tolweb.org/tree/ToLimages/HardysSquid1.gif mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgiganteus1: Thank you for your clarification-- Carnby (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer & Joubin

@Mgiganteus1: I'm sorry to bother you again but I have found an online version of Fischer & Joubin and there are three problems with the citation:

the volume about cephalopods is the 7th not the 8th (though the pages interval is correct);
the publication date is 1906, not 1907;
the sighting near Azores occurred on August 10, 1883.

Best regards.-- Carnby (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: Well spotted! Please feel free to correct any mistakes as you find them. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgiganteus1: Thank you again!-- Carnby (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]