Darn! I'm losing the sound off and on again.

This is great I may have to call in sick tomorrow.

I lost audio right as Kat was saying something about some new and interesting feature, perhaps what was alluded to earlier about something strange regarding the sucker morphology? Did anyone hear it?

Kat's interview is on now...

Imissed it also.Its a little scary to think they get much larger than this one.

I hope that at some time in the future these interviews will be available to hear again. It's so frustrating to lose sound int the middle of something truly fascinating.

They cut out at the best part....its very frustrating!But it's still great to watch.

How many times larger are females supposed to be than males, I think I remember reading something that said males were 1/3-1/2 the size of females, but if this one's 10 meters, then a 30 meter or 90 foot long squid seems hard to envision

huh... think of the size of the defrosting tank for that thing!

Wow! to see it in the the water like that.Now that it's starting to thaw....that is a BIG SQUID!!

I keep envisioning it coming to life and eating everyone, on camera, of course

CTHULHU LIVES!!!!!!:sagrin::sagrin:

How many times larger are females supposed to be than males, I think I remember reading something that said males were 1/3-1/2 the size of females, but if this one's 10 meters, then a 30 meter or 90 foot long squid seems hard to envision

huh... think of the size of the defrosting tank for that thing!

I believe that varies a lot from species to species, and no one is really sure for Mesonychoteuthis. The beak size is probably a more accurate estimation (but Jean will argue that it's not very good :razz:) than trying to guess. I'd expect from the shape that the females might be a lot heavier, 1/3 or 1/2 as big by weight, but not by length, since these squids seem to grow wide as fast as they grow long.

Jean may be able to shed some light on the size difference between sexes in some of the smaller squids. I can't find numbers for close relatives of Mesonychoteuthis like other Cranchiids flipping through a few books, I'm afraid.

I wish the commentary wasn't in-and-out, since the bits I'm hearing about photophores and the like and the "black light poster" experiments are intriguing.

Just got through reading the updates to Te Papa's blog. What a day.

They've just turned off the lights and are playing UV light over the squid...

about five minutes ago, steve was shouting up a storm about it being a male

Hi there, back again.

It may not be, we've only discovered the caecum, not a reproductive gland of sorts. it's just that one of the arms seems to shout "Hectocotylus!" if that is what you wish to hear, we may go with the endoscope in this one.

By the way, as you will have noticed the backflip of the fin turned out to be less disastrous than feared, that tear was already there through mantle folding... now to allign the mantle with the head... There is a swedish/australian team here, that wish to take the eye out, te papa replacing it with a filler material of sorts (plastic eye?). For the actual display it won't matter an awful lot, but I am certainly glad that I got to see "the abyssal orb" in its natural state. As the lens is fragile and prone to fall out, I took it out for measurement and storage. The eyeball itself is still frozen solid, so that won't happen for a little while... I have my sincere doubts that we will be able to force a 25 cm blob through an 8 cm aperture, without damaging one of the two, if it won't go, it won't go, simple as that.

As we have the second specimen for reference, most questions that are raised by the main specimen can be looked at proper, without damaging the latter. It is quite an experience to be at the cutting table, seeing and interpreting the answers for the first time.

Talk about mesonychoteuthis one on one :wink:

any chance the camera looking down on the smaller specimen could be moved left a bit so us home viewers can see the head and mantle cavity? Or was that thought to be a little too graphic for the home audience?

Just got through reading the updates to Te Papa's blog. What a day.

They've just turned off the lights and are playing UV light over the squid...

Hi Adam, that was an idea Peter and I came up with. Under the eye, there is what is considered to be a photophore. If there is bioluminescence through commensal bacteria, the pigments would normally/often light up under UV, which alas in this case they didn't. This may simply imply endogenous bioluminescence, but certainly not by definition the lack thereof in total...

Too early to tell, without some further study...

any chance the camera looking down on the smaller specimen could be moved left a bit so us home viewers can see the head and mantle cavity? Or was that thought to be a little too graphic for the home audience?
I'll ask :wink:

thanks, and brilliant idea about the UV!

oh, and please heap praise on Eric and Dan, and encourage them to stop by on TONMO... I have a partially-written article on ceph vision I'd really like to get presentable and add to the articles section, and I'd love to add their Mesonychoteuthis findings!

I already went a bit academic-fanboyish in Eric's blog entry...

I believe that varies a lot from species to species,

True

and no one is really sure for Mesonychoteuthis. The beak size is probably a more accurate estimation (but Jean will argue that it's not very good :razz:) than trying to guess.

HAHAHA:twisted: still better than guessing!




Jean may be able to shed some light on the size difference between sexes in some of the smaller squids. I can't find numbers for close relatives of Mesonychoteuthis like other Cranchiids flipping through a few books, I'm afraid.


It really does vary and you're right Monty often the females are heavier but not that much longer, that's certainly true of Nototodarus sloanii there is very little sexual dimorphism, Moroteuthis ingens is much more dimorphic with females being considerably longer AND heavier than males but Kat can give more info on this as she's worked more extensively with onychoteuthids than I have.

J

[QUOTE=ob;116560]Hi there, back again.

It may not be, we've only discovered the caecum, not a reproductive gland of sorts. it's just that one of the arms seems to shout "Hectocotylus!" if that is what you wish to hear, we may go with the endoscope in this one. "


I think we're all hoping that it's a male....if this is a smaller male, well then...what's out there in the abyss? :shock:

one of the buried blog comments from Chris has some good news for us frustrated-when-we-can't-hear folks:

The webcam footage is being recorded, so we hope to have an edited version available at a later date - sorry, but no idea when this will be available as yet.

Great news!

What part of the beak do you measure? I can't seem to find that info on the blog anymore. I have this insane urge to go measure the messie beak in my bathroom.....

What part of the beak do you measure? I can't seem to find that info on the blog anymore. I have this insane urge to go measure the messie beak in my bathroom.....

usually rostral length, from the beak tip to where it joins the main part of the beak.

J

I just took it out of the alcohol to get a better look, and it has a pretty jagged proximal end, and there is only one portion, so I can't tell if it is an upper or a lower beak portion. Too bad I didn't take more biology!

Activity and sound right now....

Looks like they're trying to bundle it into a tarp and move it.

Looks like they're trying to bundle it into a tarp and move it.

I think they need a bigger tarp.

there was a brief message that they were turning on the sound, but it still seems to be on... I hope they watch their language! :lol:

big eyes....10 1/2" to 11 " Did you hear what Steve was saying about total length? Amazingly short!

495 kg and less than 15 feet long????

That's the sumo wrestler of squid!

The blog said they're having trouble rotating it (I assume that means flipping it) and I'm thinking of backboards used for trauma victims-- if they slid a big piece of plywood under it, and lashed it down with tarps so there wouldn't be rope cutting into it (or sandwich it between 2 boards) that would seem good for keeping all the parts aligned...

Not plywood, fiberglass. It's smoother.

at least something clad in something smooth.

or just wrapped in another tarp. You don't want it so smooth that the squid will slip off/out, though... I was kind of thinking of the varnished plywood back-boards we had when I was a lifeguard... I expect you had similar ones in your firefighting, right?

right, but they would need double wides!

The shape of that thing, sans arms and tentacles, is like an enormous bloated tick!

Damn! I Want Sound!

Wow - everyone giving a nice big wave there at the end - what a roller coaster ride it must have been for them - they must be exhausted! A great privelage to have been able to watch - thank you for such a unique opportunity.

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh the colossal squid is shrinking.

Wow - everyone giving a nice big wave there at the end - what a roller coaster ride it must have been for them - they must be exhausted! A great privelage to have been able to watch - thank you for such a unique opportunity.

A roller coaster ride indeed, but we're not out of the woods quite yet: we are currently working on fixing the specimen, and as it's nearly 2 o'clock and I'm still awake; this should tell you something...

Up since 5, working since 6...

A great webcast, thanks to all those in NZ who made it possible. :notworth:

I guess we just have to wait for the Boom-de-yadaBoom-de-yada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9KV1_UmZGY&feature=related) now.

Given the intense media interest this autopsy and dissection has generated, will the original capture film ever be released or be incorporated into a documentary? Are there really only three photos out there of the capture or are there more that have yet be released into the public gaze?

:cheers::mesonych::squidaut:
thanks :drk::oshea::twisted: and everyone else who worked to make this happen and let us watch!

I'm quite looking forward to some more academic discussion of the results, once everyone has gotten some sleep and washed the formalin out of their systems with :beer:

It would be very interesting to me to see some pictures of the smaller specimen's dissection, particularly the arm musculature, eyes, and brain. I know Clem reported that Olaf had said there was a major embargo on republication of pictures, but I'm wondering if they might be asked if pics of academic interest that would be too technical for the documentary crowd may be available...

Or, perhaps, I should just wait for similar info from the 2003 animal or other specimens that may turn up.

thanks :drk::oshea::twisted: and everyone else who worked to make this happen and let us watch!



Will :beer: pass for Olaf until someone graphically promotes him?

: I'm wondering if they might be asked if pics of academic interest that would be too technical for the documentary crowd may be available...
What's too technical for them is like gold to rival academic pirates who be itchin' t'publish first without gettin' their mitts dirty, arr.:arr:

What's too technical for them is like gold to rival academic pirates who be itchin' t'publish first without gettin' their mitts dirty, arr.:arr:

Certainly in some cases, yes, but since anatomy descriptions actually have a requirement of physical examination of the animal, I think "anatomy atlas" sorts of things are less prone to that problem than more theoretical, idea-based stuff. That may mean that the actual smart people don't want to participate so much in discussions with the peanut gallery, though, which is unfortunate for those of us who live in the grey area of "educated layman." I'm really glad that Steve and Kat make an effort to include us in their work, and I'm very impressed with Phil, Kevin, and the rest of the fossil folks for being able to bridge the amateur/pro gap in that department.

It's rather frustrating that academic grant/tenure/thesis pressure is at odds with open investigation, communication, and synergy of thought... I know it's a typical argument that this is "necessary for things to work" but I've found that these sorts of assertions often overlook that there are many qualified potential contributors who could participate on the "high quality avocation" level, even if they can't deal with jumping through the hoops or obtaining funding to make it a vocation. But the hoops, of course, also serve to separate out many of the fools, cranks, and lunatics that would detract from a professional atmosphere.

What a good feed, even in my computer kept cutting out, and I had to restart over, and over. Now we just need to give video of a live one...

:welcome: to TONMO, McG!

Yeah, actually if this gets enough attention, perhaps an expedition to Antarctic waters could be in the future... Dr Ku already got some pics of Architeuthis and there's some evidence that Mesonychoteuthis is more likely to go for bait, so filming a live one may actually be easier.

Yeah.. I've been a big fan of that Architeuthis sightings for a while now. Hopefully Mesonychoteuthis isn't as lazy as ol' Archy so we can more footage of it. We should just set up buoys all over the antarctic with camera's extending down into their territory, hoping to glance one swimming by. Maybe even put a live feed on it, seems expensive though . It'd be like the Mars Rover, only cooler.

by the way... a lot of this talk that I have been reading has been going over my head, I've read those helpful fact sheets posted on the site, but just wondering if there could be any suggestions for further reading on the subject, or really just squids in general. I would be really interested in these subjects.

It sounds like you might enjoy Richard Ellis' The Search for the Giant Squid if you haven't read that. It's not terribly technical, but has a lot of good content. Norman's book Cephalopods: A World Guide is a good photographic species guide, but it mostly just describes each species. I can't think of anything else, but that's probably 'cause it's 1am and I'm sleepy...

Hanlon and Messenger Cephalopod Behaviour It's not a species guide but has lots of interesting info on what cephs get up to!

J

I haven't been able to see/hear the new "rebroadcast" link at http://www.r2.co.nz/20080427/squid-1.asx since they announced it... it sometimes plays for around 2 seconds, and then freezes. Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just me? The live webcasts worked pretty much fine for me, except for some choppy audio drop-outs and a bit of low video framerate...

If it's not just me, perhaps we could ask the Te Papa folks if we could host the wmv file for download rather than streaming, since it looks like 56 minutes of 640x480, which isn't too huge.

edit: a few other people seem to be having similar probs in the Te Papa blog comments, so I guess I'll just be patient.

Will :beer: pass for Olaf until someone graphically promotes him?

It will do nicely for now, thank you very much, although :sleeping: might currently be considered more valuable by yours truly, it wouldn't quite catch the essence, however :wink: I'm working on getting pictures released for our indulgence.

Sorry, previously posting under Chris' log-in...

Olaf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7374297.stm

Nice eye there, Clem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7374297.stm

Nice eye there, Clem

That's got the standard chart, too:

:bus:
:archi:
:whalevsa:
:mesonych:

(do we need a whale by itself smiley?)

I said this in the supporters section, but thought I'd post it out here, too, for public consumption:

Actually, one of the things I found most appealing about the webcast was that it made the "scientists in white lab coats" appear less standoffish than most documentaries: I think everyone here on TONMO knows Olaf, Steve, and Kat are friendly and human (or at least friendly), but I really noticed the contrast between the news reports saying "the scientists are doing X,Y,Z" and the webcam showing you as people who are scientists, rather than scientists as some sort of breed apart, and I think that's a good anti-stereotype to make science careers less intimidating for kids. As much as I wish stereotypes weren't important, I think Kat's presence was particularly good, both for helping the much-touted lack of role models for girls wanting to do science, but also because the commentary she gave really provided depth that most of the news coverage lacked: the news was all about "how big" and "is it a boy squid or a girl squid" and how much damage the hooks could do, but I thought Kat's verbal and blog commentary, Eric Warrant's blog on the eye, and Pete Batson the "narrator" all did much better at explaining the real details, like the classification of the squid as a Cranchiid because of the head-mantle fusion, or the differences between hooks, or how the beak is measured, all in ways that people who were interested enough to pay attention could comprehend without learning a lot of jargon.

I'm increasingly convinced that the modern media puts too much emphasis on the short-attention-span people only willing to spend 30 seconds on squids, and aren't willing to provide much for the folks who are genuinely interested... I think this is bound to change, since with the internet, it's possible for content producers like the Discovery Channel to provide "for more information, here's a web page with lots of details." Perhaps there's a way for TONMO to work with Te Papa and the Discovery Channel to make a tie-in with the documentary, so that people who like the show can have a map of the related web content...

Totally agree.

Finally some time to sit down and get some posting done! With the final barrel of formalin going into the tank, we can safely say that for now, our (practical) work is finished. Everyone's pretty knackered right now, but given all prior uncertainties, we can really look back at a job well done. It was amazing to see how many hits the Te Papa site was accruing (170000 in a single day) and how many websites and TV stations chimed in with bringing the event the world over, while all the time, we were merely trying to deal with practicalities, such as thawing temperature gradients, pH, beak measurements and suckercounts... I personally feel incredibly privileged to have been present, see, handle and examine the animal as it was just thawing, and most of all, learn from the best in this field. A substantial amount of our questions we could address, and having the reference specimen there, along with the Te Papa and NIWA collections close at hand, made a world of difference.

I don't need to reiterate what was already posted and blogged over the past week, but let's say that we learned some very interesting facts, that I am sure we will be discussing on this forum over the coming weeks. What struck me most, is that this animal, although much bulkier, is certainly not longer than previous specimens. Again, however, photographs do the sense of sheer bulk you have when up close and personal little justice.

The team was just marvelous, as were our hosts at Te Papa and the Discovery crew. And yes, there was obviously a lot of fun involved.

Reading up on all the comments makes me very proud to be part of the TONMO community. If it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have spent this extremely valuable week in Wellington to start with!

Now, to an image that I can share, courtesy of the Te Papa museum. These are not, I repeat, not, to be redistributed without permission, just so you know.

All -- we've been respectfully ask to remove any images associated with the event, due to copyright concerns. Definitely understood, and I've obliged! (Someday I should follow up on all my own TONMO.com copyright concerns...)

Hi Ob,

About that eye, is there a caruncular structure (in human terms, the slightly raised bit of mucous membrane in the inner corner of the eye) at the medial angle of the aperture? Did Ku have any observations about the aperture's similarities/differences to that of Architeuthis? Can't wait to see what the photophore looks like.

Clem

All -- we've been respectfully ask to remove any images associated with the event, due to copyright concerns. Definitely understood, and I've obliged! (Someday I should follow up on all my own TONMO.com copyright concerns...)

As a suggestion, so we can still discuss the pics, we can refer to "the second pic on this Te Papa blog entry" for most of it, since they've done such an impressive job of documenting.

It's sort of ironic that "need to show you're willing to defend your copyright" means that the system is set up to encourage lawyers to demand that enthusiastic discussion and free advertising be limited as well...

I'm trying to get a handle where the balance should be in copyright to balance theft-prevention with "any press is good press" and fair use. I had thought that the "Orphan Works" idea that's being discussed would be helpful, where the insanely-long copyright periods pushed for by companies wanting to prevent their works from going into the public domain also stop things no one cares about owning any more from ever going into the public domain. Artists, however, are concerned that this would provide a loophole for people stealing their work (claiming it was "orphaned") if they don't have armies of lawyers to protect it.

I'd love to find a way for our community to work collaboratively with the Discovery folks in order to help provide value-added to their colossal squid content... I wonder what they would say to a members-only section where anyone posting would have to agree that Discovery gets ownership (or at least the right to claim ownership) of any "derived work" we create from their content...? Of course, I also kind of wonder if that would be too much of a pain for Tony to implement even if they said yes...

You seem to have charmed the discovery folks, Olaf:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/05/01/colossal-squid-gigantism.html

and very interesting discussions of deep sea gigantism.

I put forth a free-association between the much-touted huge eyes and the much-touted gigantism:

Some animals, including the giant and colossal squids, reach large sizes specifically to support having large eyes. (perhaps whales have a scale-related sonar scaling, in that larger whales appear to be louder, too, but this is more of a stretch)

I'm going to straw-man argue that being able to see in very low light levels offers a huge advantage at depth, where the visual range is much more dependent on pure light-gathering capacity. The hunting options available to an animal with much larger visual range and a much longer attack range can allow it to gain a much larger size with this strategy in the dark environment than most species, so it's self-reinforcing: big eyes and tentacles let you get more food, so you have the feeding capacity to grow bigger faster, so you get even larger eyes and longer tentacles... in fact, it seems like a plausible evolutionary rationale that the development of feeding tentacles in coleiods was a derived feature of them becoming more long-range visual predators and being able to take advantage of ambush attacks... I imagine the belemnites with their 10 hooked arms were more "rush in and scoop" ambushers, rather like the "pounce and smother" that octos use... and note that squids and cuttles are far more visual and less tactile than octos.

I knew there was a reason I didn't empty the trash on my desktop: my screen caps and composites were in there.

Let's see, low-quality images of anatomically explicit subject matter passed around furtively for purposes of titillation...yup, it's official: teuthology is the new porn.

:sly:

Clem

The internet is for teuthology.

Anyway, to get back on topic, the aperture appears to be circular, not unlike a scaled up version of Teuthowenia. The photophores are, as could be expected, to be found ventrally, as two very slender strips at the base of the lens. As that bit is basically covered with skin, it would very interesting to see whether or not the live animal uses it's chromatophores to switch its lights on or off. Hmmmm... Live animal... Urrrrr... Ku?

:shock:

.... how am I ever going to read this many posts?

Am just back in, and shattered.

:cheers: Well done Dr. O!

:shock:

.... how am I ever going to read this many posts?

Am just back in, and shattered. Ah come on, get some of Rutte's finest jenever into you, and you'll be just okidoki :wink:

:shock:

.... how am I ever going to read this many posts?

Am just back in, and shattered.

A lot of them will go by pretty quick, I can assure you... "are you hearing sound? It's all choppy for me..." and such...

:welcome: home... get some rest!

Welcome back Steve. Hope you have time to crash for a day or two.

So the squid was a fully mature female?

A question concerning the geographical distribution of the Colossal Squid.

Although the range of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni seems limited(?) to the Antarctic regions, I have come to wonder whether the Colossal Squid (or something similar) may have once frequented Arctic waters. More specifically, judging from Figure 1 of the TONMO Giant Squid and Colossal Squid Fact Sheet the ratio between the total length (TL) and the distance between the eyes of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni would seem to be approximately 10:1. If so, the distance between the eyes of a 20-metre specimen would be roughly 2 metres. This distance, this scale, and the exceptionally large eyes of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni may be compared to the information provided in a short tale (first published in 1875) of a rare encounter said to have taken place off the southwest coast of Greenland:

“A kayaker in the firth of Godthaab [Greenland] once, at a place where no shoal was known to exist, saw the bottom quite close to him. He then suddenly recollected to have heard old people talking of the ocean-spider, a most dangerous animal to the kayakers. Presently he discovered a monstrous eye, and at the distance of about a kayak-paddle's length from it a similar one, and on tearing away from the spot a terrible gap made its appearance. Indeed, if he had been a less skilled kayaker, he would never have got off alive.” (Rink, Hinrich. Tales and Traditions of the [Greenland] Eskimo. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 1974:471; Reprint of the W. Blackwood edition, Edinburgh, 1875).

The shape of that thing, sans arms and tentacles, is like an enormous bloated tick!

.... there's better to come. 'Tick' is something that crossed my mind too, but I cannot divulge too much

'Tick' is something that crossed my mind too, but I cannot divulge too much

i hope your not implying that they carry lyme disease :shock:

:welcome: JHN08... I think the primary reason Mesonychoteuthis is believed to only be found in the Antarctic is that sperm whales seem to regularly eat these squids, and only those in the Antarctic have these beaks. If these squids were present in the Arctic, it's hard to come up with any explanation for why they're not eaten by the sperm whales there... If one is looking for a squid as an explanation, I'd think a large Architeuthis and a slight exaggeration or confusion is probably a better bet...

Mark, or Galiteuthis phyllura. One day we are likely to receive word of this squid, mature, from the northern Pacific at least, and it is likely to impress.

Steve,
The fact that a number of experts have searched for the over large (avoiding any proper names for big) squid for so long and now you have several examples to study AND the reports that the smaller Humbolts are more active and appear to be growing in numbers seems to suggest a significant change in something in the oceans. I have seen various "guesses" in the news about the growing number of Humbolts that include lack of predation, lack of oxygen, global warming ... Any statement on your part yet? Do you think finding the big guys and the change in the Humbolts is at all related?

Did you see the Octobot LA Times article yesterday about the anoxic layer, D? That certainly seems to be a contributing factor for the Humboldts. The article certainly makes for interesting reading.

I was actually thinking earlier this week that cephalopods have survived quite a number of mass extinctions, so they've probably had some selection pressure to be able to invade niches to take over for extinct or reduced other species rapidly (by having lots of offspring that can cause rapid, opportunistic population booms when given a chance) so, since some cynical scientists say that human impact on the world is causing the equivalent of a mass extinction, it's perhaps unsurprising that cephs are doing well moving into areas where their competition has been overfished. I'm mostly meaning this for the jumbos, though, since AFAIK the Antarctic isn't impacted too much so far, although I'm sure it's well on its way.

:welcome: JHN08... I think the primary reason Mesonychoteuthis is believed to only be found in the Antarctic is that sperm whales seem to regularly eat these squids, and only those in the Antarctic have these beaks. If these squids were present in the Arctic, it's hard to come up with any explanation for why they're not eaten by the sperm whales there... If one is looking for a squid as an explanation, I'd think a large Architeuthis and a slight exaggeration or confusion is probably a better bet...

As a relevant sidenote; in 2003, a Danish team caught a Patagonian Toothfish near... Greenland, when this species (Dissostichus eleginoides) was considered to be an exclusive antarctic species. Go figure.

With regards to statements regarding 2 meter wide squid heads, based on the te papa specimen, which appears in transition from juvenile to adulthood, I would wager that its 55 cm wide head, is close to as big as it gets. Let's assume that Steve is right (as he, frustratingfly so to his skeptics, quite often is) on there being 750/800 kg female Mesonychoteuthis specimens out there, you would be looking at something 60 to 65 cm wide, max. I fear therefore, that the Greenland "sea spider" will go the way of the kraken... I would further wager that Esquimeaux are a bit like New Zealand longliner fisherman, when it comes to judging size :wink:

PS: We do owe the latter heaps of gratitude, for them having saved the delicate eyes of the specimen in such excellent condition!

As a relevant sidenote; in 2003, a Danish team caught a Patagonian Toothfish near... Greenland, when this species (Dissostichus eleginoides) was considered to be an exclusive antarctic species. Go figure.

That's odd. Do you know if they did any genetic studies to see if it's a separate population from the Antarctic ones? I did a bit of googling, and couldn't find a reference for this (except perhaps in a cryptic ellipsis in a journal I don't have access to...) Do you happen to know where it was published?

edit: never mind, it's this, right? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.421..599M

or, more directly: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6923/abs/421599a.html

"perhaps a swallow carried it"

That's the burger! Would that be an African swallow?

That's the burger! Would that be an African swallow?

I don't know tha...aieeeeeeeeeeee

People always think Patagonian Toothfish make good pets, until they get home, and the things get too big, then they just have throw the darn things out. Next thing we know, they're over running the sub-Arctic seas. haha

:roflmao: to the both of you.

Just a quick thought.... It's to my understanding that there's not a lot of red light getting down to those depths. If we shined some down there, how would the creature perceive it. would it just expose where all the creatures were located, due to their color, and create some kind of massive feeding frenzy, or are their body's even equipped for that seeing in that spectrum?

Just a quick thought.... It's to my understanding that there's not a lot of red light getting down to those depths. If we shined some down there, how would the creature perceive it. would it just expose where all the creatures were located, due to their color, and create some kind of massive feeding frenzy, or are their body's even equipped for that seeing in that spectrum?

Most aquatic animals, particularly at depth, can't see red light well, or at all. There are a few exceptions, and I've wondered if giant and colossal squids are exceptional that way... I have a hypothetical idea that perhaps the reason their skin and chromatophores tend to be red is so they can see each other, but few other animals in their environment can see them in the dark... hopefully, since Eric Warrant took the eye, he'll be able to examine the retina and see what wavelengths of light it's sensitive to.

If you're interested in this sort of stuff, my absolute favorite reference is one the abovementioned Dr. Warrant co-wrote:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=241117

Your idea is be a good one, although it's worth noting that red light doesn't travel as far as blue light at depth, either... still a very bright but very red light would be interesting... I've asked a bit about red or infrared lights and cameras on ROVs and such, and most ROVs aren't equipped for that (the MBARI ones rarely turn off their huge spotlights because they take a long time to warm back up, apparently.) There was some group that got some interesting footage with a fixed camera on the bottom using red light, I think off of the north-eastern U.S. somewhere...

new Mesonychoteuthis question: I'm listening to the mp3 of Steve and Ku debating the orientation the squid might prefer in the wild, based on muscular arms being heavy. I'm thinking of the floating thawed squid, which appears to float roughly level. Admittedly, it was partially sticking out of the water, suggesting it was both positively buoyant and not matching its natural balance for being completely submerged. I suspect the positive rather than neutral buoyancy is because the thawing brine was more salty than seawater... however, I'd think if the muscular arms and tentacles were really the significant factor in orientation, it would have tended to have the head and arms more downward in the thawing tank. I'm thinking that, since it was also mentioned somewhere (blog? webcast narration?) that the fins are very large and muscular as well, that perhaps the fins' weight counterbalances the head/arms weight roughly evenly around the center of buoyancy. I also recall that cranchiids have an extension of the coelom that provides a reservoir of ammonium which provides buoyancy as described here (http://tolweb.org/accessory/Cranchiid_Buoyancy?acc_id=835). This provides much more of a center-of-buoyancy than most animals, and is essentially a fulcrum for a seesaw sort of arrangement. I haven't heard if such an arrangement was shown in Mesonychoteuthis but if it does exist, it raises the question of whether the center of mass is approximately at the same place as the center of buoyancy... if so, the squid might be very much free to "turn on a dime," limited only by drag and its moment of inertia. Perhaps if that's an important element of its lifestyle, that could help explain why it would get more spherical as it grows: it wants to keep its moment of intertia small as it increases its size, so that it can pivot more easily... Of course, it's not entirely clear how it would use or accomplish this... the funnel could probably help make quick turns, but most squids fins seem more aimed at lateral movement than turning. Also, where the center-of-mass is relative to the center of buoyancy could determine its stability in some directions more than others: if they overlap in the posterior-anterior axis, but the center of mass is lower than the center of buoyancy in the dorsoventral axis, then it would be stable in terms of vertical orientation, but free to spin... in other words, that would stabilize roll and pitch more than yaw, and if (as one would expect) the arms and fins provide a lot of off-axis weight, it would probably be more stable in roll and less in pitch... of course, that still doesn't say what its neutral position is, just that it appears it could be adapted to rotate easily in some or all directons.

The illustration here (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centre-gravity-buoyancy-d_1286.html) may be helpful if I'm not being clear...

A few quick fixes: Kubodera san has shot footage using red; when using blue-white (halogen) Taningia was sometimes prone to attack (or try and mate with?) the lights, rather than the lure squid...

In our reference Meso, we found the fins to be heavier than the corona (by, if I recall correctly, 30% or so)

Eric Warrant did not take the eye, I only took the lens out for him: at the time the eye itself was still frozen solid and would, when thawed even, never have been extracted through the aperture without significant damage.

The fins on Meso are huge and very powerful, they are comparable to a fairly large stingray in thickness and size, they should make the animal fairly agile.

[QUOTE=monty;117033]That's odd. Do you know if they did any genetic studies to see if it's a separate population from the Antarctic ones? I did a bit of googling, and couldn't find a reference for this (except perhaps in a cryptic ellipsis in a journal I don't have access to...) Do you happen to know where it was published?

Hi,

I know this isn't Patagonian toothfish but this is related (a bit).

The genetic variation of Orange roughy has been studied in north Atlantic and off NZ (possibly elsewhere aswell, I'll need to dig out the ref.). I can't remember the level of genetic variation, but they were considered to be distinct separate populations, though still one species.

There are a few fish species from ~1000m that are found in both hemispheres; some dogfishes, cods etc...

Matt

Wow. That took about as long to catch up on as the defrosting itself. :wink:

new Mesonychoteuthis question: I'm listening to the mp3 of Steve and Ku debating the orientation the squid might prefer in the wild, based on muscular arms being heavy. I'm thinking of the floating thawed squid, which appears to float roughly level. Admittedly, it was partially sticking out of the water, suggesting it was both positively buoyant and not matching its natural balance for being completely submerged. I suspect the positive rather than neutral buoyancy is because the thawing brine was more salty than seawater... however, I'd think if the muscular arms and tentacles were really the significant factor in orientation, it would have tended to have the head and arms more downward in the thawing tank. I'm thinking that, since it was also mentioned somewhere (blog? webcast narration?) that the fins are very large and muscular as well, that perhaps the fins' weight counterbalances the head/arms weight roughly evenly around the center of buoyancy. I also recall that cranchiids have an extension of the coelom that provides a reservoir of ammonium which provides buoyancy as described here (http://tolweb.org/accessory/Cranchiid_Buoyancy?acc_id=835). This provides much more of a center-of-buoyancy than most animals, and is essentially a fulcrum for a seesaw sort of arrangement. I haven't heard if such an arrangement was shown in Mesonychoteuthis but if it does exist, it raises the question of whether the center of mass is approximately at the same place as the center of buoyancy... if so, the squid might be very much free to "turn on a dime," limited only by drag and its moment of inertia. Perhaps if that's an important element of its lifestyle, that could help explain why it would get more spherical as it grows: it wants to keep its moment of intertia small as it increases its size, so that it can pivot more easily... Of course, it's not entirely clear how it would use or accomplish this... the funnel could probably help make quick turns, but most squids fins seem more aimed at lateral movement than turning. Also, where the center-of-mass is relative to the center of buoyancy could determine its stability in some directions more than others: if they overlap in the posterior-anterior axis, but the center of mass is lower than the center of buoyancy in the dorsoventral axis, then it would be stable in terms of vertical orientation, but free to spin... in other words, that would stabilize roll and pitch more than yaw, and if (as one would expect) the arms and fins provide a lot of off-axis weight, it would probably be more stable in roll and less in pitch... of course, that still doesn't say what its neutral position is, just that it appears it could be adapted to rotate easily in some or all directons.

The illustration here (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centre-gravity-buoyancy-d_1286.html) may be helpful if I'm not being clear...

Kind of like a sumo wrestler pivots? Sumo squid?

Wow. That took about as long to catch up on as the defrosting itself. :wink:


So, Kat, how much of this is going to find it's way into your dissertation? :grad:

.... there's better to come. 'Tick' is something that crossed my mind too, but I cannot divulge too much
Hmm.

On a related note, Steve, I just listened to you and your esteemed colleagues "Science Express" Q&A, and am happy to hear that the idea of female Meso brooding young inside her mantle isn't dead yet. We kicked that idea around here back in 2003, but damned if I can find the thread it came up in. Anyhow, congratulations to you, Kat, Ku, Mark and Olaf for a job very, very well done. It was a kick to watch.

Clem

Alas, my thesis has nothing to do with Mesonychoteuthis! I study other hooked squids, the Onychoteuthidae - not colossal, but still cool. :roll: But we have a manuscript about the 2003 specimen that we're hoping to add to and flesh out using data from these two new specimens, so that should be getting ready for submission soon.

BTW Steve is on the radio right now (http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0019/8065/national.asx).

.... there's better to come. 'Tick' is something that crossed my mind too, but I cannot divulge too much

Steve, did anyone ever tell you that you are a terrible tease! "I cannot divulge too much" !! Arrrrgghhhh!!!

Thanks Kat, I just finished listening and thought in general it was a good interview, but then she had to spoil it all when closing by saying Steve was excited by the defrosting and examination of the giant squid! Now granted, there was a giant there for examination, but that certainly was not what all of the stir was about. Why can't they listen to their own questions?:banghead::banghead:

Yeah, really - 'Please explain the difference so I can keep using them interchangeably.' Sigh.

Brilliant work!
the webcast was really insightful and a great help!


I'm currently doing research on the colossal squid for a college research paper and am having incredible difficulty finding these 3 (what i believe to be KEY) articles:

Robson, G.C. 1925. On Mesonychoteuthis, a new genus of oegopsid, Cephalopoda. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9, 16: 272–277.

McSweeny, E.S. 1970. Description of the juvenile form of the Antarctic squid Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni Robson. Malacologia 10: 323–332.

Rodhouse, P.G. & M.R. Clarke 1985. Growth and distribution of young Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni Robson (Mollusca: Cephalopoda): an Antarctic squid. Vie Milieu 35(3–4): 223–230.


do you know of any online site that would have these articles?

:welcome: to TONMO!

did you try cephbase yet? That's my first thought. Otherwise, perhaps Steve or Kat would have suggestions...

I've found that I can usually "interlibrary loan" those sorts of things, where at least for our version of interlibrary loan it involves someone at the university that has the article xeroxing and mailing it to the local library, for which they charge your research advisor a bunch for xeroxing slave-labor and postage...