How big do you think that a giant cephalopod can get? [Archive]

Apr 21, '10, 1:59pm

Firefly

Apr 21, '10, 3:28pm

Hum...
The beaks found in sperm whales didn´t suggested about bigger sizes?
Which one was the biggest giant squid ever found?
Isn´t possible to exist bigger ones?
Were the biggest giant or colossal squids found all mature and at maximum size range ( not talking about possible record size naturally)?
This site talks about an estimation of 100 feet for one that it´s pieces were found on sperm whale stomach : http://www.unmuseum.org/squid.htm
Is this false or true? Apart from some stories mentioned there, I want to take all the possible facts from it.

myopsida

Apr 21, '10, 5:20pm

[QUOTE=ob;154199]Unless there are bigger species out there we haven't yet discovered, I would place a bet at a 600 kg maximum, ML at 2.80, maybe 3.00 meters, Steve, you still at 750? I am free to express my doubts at the 495 kg assessment of the Te Papa specimen; would put that in the 375 kg range, personally. This is based on the slightly smaller specimen we were able to weigh in parallel. I would love for them to grow a lot bigger, but this would be my current best guess. QUOTE]

The larger Te Papa specimen weighed 495 kg (frozen). Once over 750 kg they can get as big as they want - nobody will be arguing with them!

DWhatley

Apr 21, '10, 10:31pm

For those of us that are metric challenged and too lazy to look it up 1 kilogram = 2.20462262 lbs :smile::
600 =~ 1,300lbs
750 =~1,650 lbs

Damien

Apr 22, '10, 7:56am

Apr 22, '10, 12:59pm

Unless there are bigger species out there we haven't yet discovered, I would place a bet at a 600 kg maximum, ML at 2.80, maybe 3.00 meters, Steve, you still at 750? I am free to express my doubts at the 495 kg assessment of the Te Papa specimen; would put that in the 375 kg range, personally. This is based on the slightly smaller specimen we were able to weigh in parallel. I would love for them to grow a lot bigger, but this would be my current best guess.

The larger Te Papa specimen weighed 495 kg (frozen). Once over 750 kg they can get as big as they want - nobody will be arguing with them!

Chris, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the container containing the frozen squid plus attached frozen water weighed 495 kg? There was quite a bit of ice in there. We could split the difference? 435 kg?

PS: a 45 ton bull sperm whale might disagree with the latter part of your statement :wink:

myopsida

Apr 22, '10, 3:33pm

the 495 kg is the weight of the specimen minus the weight of the container. There was some ice but only a minimal amount...the (wet) specimen was placed in the container on board the fishing boat but no extra water was added.

Firefly

Apr 22, '10, 5:30pm

good question, i'm not aware on last informations on possible weight.

The only one thing I know is existence of beaks from sperm whale's stomachs, suggesting bigger specimen of M HAMILTONI than the "Te Papa" sample

Concerning Architeuthis (or others species) suckers scars on sperm whales skin could suggest quite bigger size thant known specimen ..

the rare testimonies ( recents or not) are not reliable to my opinion except some specific cases including the one in my signature.

Rare testimonies are the first step for more serious investigations, not all crap and stories.
Of course that it depends also on the source of those rare testimonies. I would rather pick a recent one done by a serious professional, than an ancient one done by someone else, that still today, lacks any backup.

Damien

Apr 23, '10, 3:28am

Rare testimonies are the first step for more serious investigations, not all crap and stories.
Of course that it depends also on the source of those rare testimonies. I would rather pick a recent one done by a serious professional, than an ancient one done by someone else, that still today, lacks any backup.

I'm agree with you, but if testimonies are a good beginning to investigate, the estimation of the size is less reliable ( particulary for very old testimonies but not only, even recent cases : for example the french skipper "Olivier de kersauson" who is not considered as really serious...

To come back on the size I had a question for the specialists in the forum:

I we take example on humbolt , it 's seems that adults specimen max size varies of external conditions (and not only age) .. so i suppose that adult giant squid have variable size depending of different parameters like food, etc ...are there evidences on this point ?

Firefly

Apr 27, '10, 2:18pm

I'm agree with you, but if testimonies are a good beginning to investigate, the estimation of the size is less reliable ( particulary for very old testimonies but not only, even recent cases : for example the french skipper "Olivier de kersauson" who is not considered as really serious...

To come back on the size I had a question for the specialists in the forum:

I we take example on humbolt , it 's seems that adults specimen max size varies of external conditions (and not only age) .. so i suppose that adult giant squid have variable size depending of different parameters like food, etc ...are there evidences on this point ?

Well, I didn´t put estimations as the most important matter, but just merely as an investigation stimulous. Also, as I tried to say, I think the «weight» of an estimation is bigger or smaller according to the source origin, though surely not as accurate as lenght / weight exact numbers done on a studied specimen.
I think that we agree on this.

Rob Romero

Apr 27, '10, 6:44pm

Some comment has been made on the size of beaks recovered from whale stomachs.
1) What are the largest beaks recovered from the Giant and Collosal Squid respectively?
2) What maximum lengths and weight estimates might be extrapolated from these finds?

Apr 27, '10, 7:36pm

Firefly

Apr 28, '10, 9:13am

This is quite interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEtDRnz7rY8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Rp9r4nuWE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rraIGljm_iw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNAYC_M2P7I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhCzfuAeiKY&feature=related

Any thoughts?

Steve O'Shea

Apr 28, '10, 2:50pm

The only one thing I know is existence of beaks from sperm whale's stomachs, suggesting bigger specimen of M HAMILTONI than the "Te Papa" sample
The largest lower beak thus far had a rostral length (LRL) of 49 mm. The most strange thing about this was that it was recovered from the stomach of an Antarctic toothfish, rather than sperm whale (I think the largest from a sperm whale was ~ 47 mm). The toothfish OBVIOUSLY scavenged it (there was flesh still attached to the beak). I'm still comfortable with the ~ 750+ kg estimate of possible weight for this brute.

monty

Apr 28, '10, 6:32pm

Rob Romero

Apr 29, '10, 12:46am

Steve,
thank's for the info on largest Collosal Squid beak found (49 mm) making a creature of ~750 kg. Any idea as to what length this beastie might come out to, and what about Giant Squid beak records?

Rob Romero

Apr 29, '10, 5:54am

With regards to mantle length in Mesonychoteuthis, it is likely not to increase in b=3 (W = aLb) relation to its weight; all indications are for the females of the species to grow bulkier towards adulthood, rather than longer as could be expected. Total length might even decrease, due to suspected attrition of the tentacles. Earlier projections of a maximum ML of around 4,5 meters took b=3 as a given, henceforth overestimating the maximum length, IMHO.

Sorry, can't do superscript here, but that's obviously "to the power of b" :wink:

Firefly

Apr 29, '10, 8:47am

There's a big thread around discussing the "Monsterquest squid" show... the general conclusion seems to be that it was cool to put a camera on a humboldt, but that the tools to estimate the size were rather silly. MonsterQuest also had an episode about a patently ridiculous giant octopus supposedly swimming around Puget Sound.

Yeah, but how big then is suposed to be that squid? Very big tentacles I would say...
I did found quite interesting to have the luck to see squid interactions down there and all the curiosity around the camera, without hurting the animal that was with it.
I also did saw that octopus episode but didn´t liked it at all... It was just a waste of time.
Thanks for your opinion.

Damien

May 04, '10, 3:21am

Concerning big suckers scars on sperm whales , i had couple of questions but i cannot find clear responses :

What is the reliable biggest size off such scars ? diameter ?

Is it possible that during the growth of the sperm whale, the skin etende and increases the size of scars => The consequence could be an overestimation of the size of succkers
Or is this idea totaly stupid ?

Tintenfisch

May 05, '10, 11:24pm

Hi Damien,

Sorry, just saw this thread and was about to reply. You're exactly right - the scars stretch as the whale grows, giving an artificially large impression of sucker size. We have a few old threads about this (e.g., here (http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?1327-Giant-Squid-Suckers&highlight=scars)), but the photos all got deleted at some stage (although there are still some here (http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?11591-Giant-Squid-Sucker-Marks-on-Whales&highlight=sucker)) - will have to see if I can dig up the original ones again.

Damien

May 06, '10, 9:19am

so that could explain irrealistic estimation of mega giantic colossals cephs that somes "cryptozoologists" made in the past....

May 06, '10, 6:23pm

They're still pretty big, though :wink: Colossal may win by sheer bulk of its mantle, but Architeuthis has an arm crown that is really, really BIG. Would love to see it alive at some stage...

ScottDV

Oct 20, '10, 6:46pm

I have read about some unverified examples found dead in the past that were never officially measured by a scientist but were by laymen which are much bigger than the largest official giant squid.

1.) "A badly damaged carcass which locals claimed to be a giant squid was washed ashore at Port Shepstone on the natal coast of South Africa in 1926. All the arms and tentacles were missing, but estimates, based on the size of the body alone, put its overall length, with outstretched tentacles at about 30m (100 feet)"

2.) "One found in the same area in 1882 was claimed to have a length of 26.9m (88 feet)" The “Same area” here refers to the below location in Newfoundland, I just wanted to order these three specimens in order from biggest to smallest.

3.) "Another specimen found at Flower's Cove on the Newfoundland coast in 1934 was positively identified and measured. It was 22m (72 feet) long"

Big enough for you?

These accounts came from the book The Search for the Giant Squid by Richard Ellis. http://www.amazon.com/Search-Giant-Squid-Richard-Ellis/dp/1558216898

The South African one was new to me but I had heard about the 72 footer and 88 footer before previously in a book I use to read from the Library when I was a young boy. However, although it has been over 20 years since I read it I could have sworn the date they gave it was 1865 not 1882 and that was the year that BOTH bodies washed ashore during a swarm of squid carcass beachings. Also the book which I can't find on the internet but had a sea serpent on the cover had some additional details The Richard Ellis book did not. namely it said in the book all the carcasses of Giant Squid were stretched out and measured by honest fellows of good repute and solid character-the local constable and a nearby school principal. this being before the time scientists could just take a plane and fly over and not the first time dead squid had washed ashore they cut it up afterwards and fed it to the dogs which was habit of the time to do with them before they started to stink things up with their rot. I am not saying these account are true but they well could be and if the Police and principal did measure them I have no reason to believe they were lying, esp. since most of the ones they did measure fell within out acceptable boundaries of what modern science says is their size range and only these two didn't. Of course who knows though for sure, it might have been a made up story for all we know.

ScottDV

Oct 20, '10, 7:32pm

To answer the question of the thread is all but impossible. Let me make a comparison and we will use another animal as an example. Let's use...humans as a comparison since we are animals as well. How many dead squid do you suppose Mr. O'Shea and all his colleagues have studied that have washed ashore over the world's oceans since modern science came about? A few hundred maybe I would guess, correct me if I am wrong. To try and use those measured example as a size range is logical but to try and use them as a known maximum size of the species is utter folly.

Let's say you are an alien race and come to Earth to study humans. part of you mission for the biology of mankind is to dig up a couple hundred random dead bodies from a public cemetery and measure them and perhaps catch a few live examples. What do you think the size range of a sampling of a couple hundred human carcasses would be? here are some stats for you. "According to the Height Analyzer, the percentage of men taller than 6'4" is 0.5%"

So what is the tallest person you are likely to get in that sampling? What are the chances you would get someone of Shaquille O'Neal's size & foot 2 inches high? better than winning 2 lotteries in a row I bet. Here are the stats: "According to a scientific study there are 3 people 7 feet or taller for every 1 million people, so there are roughly 20,000 people over 7 feet tall." That is in the World

Plus, what is the chances you would get Leonid Ivanovych Stadnyk who is 8 feet 5 inches tall 9the World's tallest living man)? http://www.mahalo.com/leonid-stadnyk

What would be the chances you would dig up Robert Wadlow formerly of Alton IL. who was 8 foot 11 inches tall? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pershing_Wadlow

There is also an unverified account of a man who lived in the Arabian Peninsula long ago, Gabara, the Arabian giant, whom was 9 feet 9 inches tall.

Apply the same statistics and ratios to giant squids. I have a very eclectic mix of interests, i always look for the biggest, meanest, heaviest of animals and this manner of think can be applied to any animal, all have genetic freaks far a larger than the normal size range (for example a 902 pound Black bear or a 276pound Mountain lion or a 2,000 pound pig). All predators have their own legends of ancient giants terrorizing the community like Big Jim the rattle snake in Frontier time Illinois and Indiana or the giant 400+ pound snapping turtle known as the beast of Busco in the early part of the 19th century in Indiana.

Oct 20, '10, 7:49pm

To put things in perspective, close to 95% of the entire Antarctic blue whale population was "harvested" over the course of the last century, giving a very good estimate of maximum size for that specific species. For a 28.50 meters average size at adulthood, the largest (female) specimen measured 33.60 meters. That is an 18% "overshoot". Just like with humans, but maybe this rule of thumb applies to mammals only? :wink:

Apply this then (for whatever reason) to Architeuthis, and it's maximal mantle length goes from 2.25 meters (measured maximum in adult female, for the sake of argument assumed to be "average" only) to 2,65 meters. For Mesonychoteuthis we can not be sure, as we've only measured sub adult females so far. It would surprise me, however, if that species ever exceeds 3.00 meters in mantle length.

ScottDV

Oct 21, '10, 6:42pm

"That is an 18% "overshoot". Just like with humans, but maybe this rule of thumb applies to mammals only? "

The overshoot with humans is much more than 18%. The average male is about 5 foot 9 inches and Mr. Robert Wadlow was 8 foot 11 inches tall. Like whales we have a skeletal structure that can only support so much weight and height and we live on land and are thus subject to gravity which further impeded growth after a certain point. In addition, humans have a pituitary gland that stops the body from growing at some point (which can malfunction like it did with the giants like Mr. Wadlow). However, a squid has no skeletal structure to constrain growth and lives in the vast expanse of water which allows for greater growth without the higher restrictions of land animals (which is why Anacondas who stay in the water are the ones that get the biggest of all constrictor snakes). I doubt Giant Squids have anything like a pituitary gland to stop growth and like crocodiles the only thing that limits their size ready access to an abundant food source and lifespan. If you get a genetic freak that has the combination of a extra long life and genes to grow extra large which mathematically will occur in a large enough sample of population (its all ratios) then you will have a freak squid almost as every bit big as the drunken legends of yore. The ratio though may only be like 1 in a million squids or less. Heck, there are 20,000 people over 7 feet tall but out of the world population of about 7 billion. If there are a couple million, tens of million, or billion squids percentages tell us at least a few will be monsters. of course the chances of mankind ever running into the freak squids are nearly nil but out of tens of thousands of fishing vessels that put out to sea every day worldwide over the past 3 or 4 thousand years someday someone may see one of these and presto, a legend is born!

Oct 22, '10, 3:24am

As Carl Popper taught us; nothing is true, nothing is even likely, things are, at best, not unlikely, so scientific "truth" is never gospel (nor is gospel, for that matter :wink: ) and facts are by their nature subjective experiences. It will, however, require quite a bit of a stretch to see an giant or colossal squid live beyond its normal lifespan of maybe two years, let's give it three. One mutation won't be enough, and the chances of the five or six potentially required all happening at once maybe a lot slimmer than the admittedly vast number of squid even allows. This is "gut feeling", not fact. In my wildest imagination I can still picture a 3 or 4 meter ML squid, maybe even an as yet undiscovered species of that size (what on earth would "humongous squid" live off, colossal squid? Sleeper sharks?), but it remains pure speculation. Imagining a viable ecosystem at depth in the ocean with a ridiculously large squid (as in; exceeding 4 meters of ML) requires a long, long stretch, filled with as yet unsustainable assumptions. A surface dwelling monster would have to be spotted more than often, as it would need to maintain a breeding population comparable to other invertebrates.

On a final note, just a thought: the feeding habits of squid are limited by the diameter of its oesophagus, limited in turn by the "need" for it to pass through the brain (i.e.: "Stupid Design"). I should do some calculations, but you could well get to a point where the bulk of a squid becomes unsustainable as it would not be able to gulp down sufficient amounts of small bites in a row, given the available prey items and their average size.

http://noscope.com/photostream/cache/various/I_Want_To_Believe_01_600.jpg

Level_Head

Oct 22, '10, 5:17am

On a final note, just a thought: the feeding habits of squid are limited by the diameter of its oesophagus, limited in turn by the "need" for it to pass through the brain (i.e.: "Stupid Design"). I should do some calculations, but you could well get to a point where the bulk of a squid becomes unsustainable as it would not be able to gulp down sufficient amounts of small bites in a row, given the available prey items and their average size.

There's a problem with cephalopod-kind
That's unique among things with big brains
What he's eating must go through his mind
And the thought of it might give him pains

But this problem is seen when quite small
So the limits we pick still could be low
Would we guess in the hundreds at all
If we'd only seen squid at one kilo?

ScottDV

Oct 22, '10, 12:23pm

On life spans to take us as an example to compare with. The life expectancy of an American male is 75 years old. I took a call from a person reporting the death of their father at my work who died a month after his 110 birthday. Also the oldest man on record was over 120 years old. There may have been older men in previous ages but most nations did not keep records of birth for people unless they were very important such as royalty. Those people have BOTH genes for longevity, passed from the father AND Mother's side to make them live, extra, extra long. So there may be some very rare cases of squids who likewise have the rare combinations of genes and long lives to get really, really big.

ScottDV

Oct 22, '10, 1:37pm

This is an entertaining discussion. I am not arguing there is a giant squid out there over 100 feet long 9counting tentacles and arms) but just stating that until we know more about the other 95% of the ocean and the diversity of life of those deep biomes in the inky black depth miles below the surface we cannot categorically deny the possibility that one might exist either.

Do we actually have a large enough baseline sample of carcasses to get a real idea what the average size range of an adult giant squid is? How many squid bodies do we have an 'officially' measured over the past 100 years or so?

Damien

Nov 23, '10, 10:33am

About that point I suppose that several researchers around the world are maybe trying actually to use similar methods that Mr KUBODERA did to catch giant or colossal squids pictures.

More than the scars, the beaks are a good mean to evaluate size because and from statistic point of view the fact that we hunted sperm whales in huge quantity is a good argue.

Tintenfisch

Nov 23, '10, 4:50pm

Yes - the maximum size estimates for large squids are not generally based on just the officially measured whole carcasses known to science. They are based on the range of beak sizes known from the stomachs of their predators - which are far more efficient at sampling squid than humans are. Using the sizes of the beaks in the whole specimens for comparison, we believe that a reasonable estimate of maximum size can be made from the larger beaks found in whale stomachs. In the Antarctic, where Mesonychoteuthis comprises 77% of the sperm whale's diet by weight, it seems like a safe-ish bet that the sperm whale stomachs examined will hold a reasonable range of the available squid sizes. One can always speculate about squid that grow too large for whales to sample being 'off the radar' for this method, but in the absence of any evidence, such speculations seem unwise (however fun to imagine).

:sink:

neurobadger

Dec 05, '10, 3:02pm

My two cents is that since it doesn't have the structural support of the blue whale, it can't get bigger than 100 feet in mantle length.

If you added arm and tentacle length, though, since one doesn't have to worry about gravity, they could theoretically grow infinitely long, but it would have to be commensurate with the amount of energy an animal could expend pumping blood and moving arms and tentacles that long.

Level_Head

Dec 05, '10, 3:54pm

I'd be interested to see the calculation where the result points to a hundred-foot (or thirty-meter) mantle length.

Instead of saying: "since it doesn't have the structural support of the blue whale, it can't get bigger than 100 feet in mantle length" one could almost say "since it doesn't need the structural support of the blue whale, that isn't the practical limit on mantle length."

I don't know what the practical limit is. There are oxygen transport issues; such a large creature would need compromises including very low levels of activity. I can imagine a sort of floating island, dragging the occasional too-close large fish or sea mammal to its doom but otherwise exhibiting little movement.

But if there are formulae that suggest maximum sizes, I'd like to see them! Some of the ideas offered, like the "throat-through-the-brain" bit, don't seem to prevent sizes spanning three orders of magnitude. Perhaps the limits are elsewhere.

Practical limits are a different thing, and I expect that extant colossals and giants don't much exceed what we've seen.

neurobadger

Dec 05, '10, 10:29pm

To be honest, Level_Head, I pulled that one out of my arse, but formulae for cetacean size might be an indication. I don't think formulae for vertebrate mechanics would help, since they operate under gravity and with a skeleton.

The ocean is essentially a zero-gravity environment externally, so that is not a constraint as long as buoyancy is maintained.

It would probably depend on the family of squid; the colossal squid, as many cranchiids, is suspected to put its arms and tentacles upward as it rests, because it cannot see around it any other way, and this may affect arm and tentacle length. Too large of an arm or tentacle would prohibit oxygen from reaching all of the cells, similarly to the necks of some dinosaurs, which were suspected to be too long to hold upright, else the animal would asphyxiate.

Animals such as ommastrephids and loliginids do not need to hold their arms up, which would probably not limit the length of their arms.

Oxygen transport hasn't seemed to be an issue for the blue whale, and it has more mass. It also has one heart.

Since it's ectothermic, it would have a far slower metabolism, although I don't know if that would impact body size.

I'm using the example of the blue whale since it has a metric f-ton of body mass in addition to long length; perhaps estimates of sauropod size would be better (200 feet).

Level_Head

Dec 06, '10, 5:25am

I expected as much, though I wasn't sure of the source cavity or aperture. ];-)

Nevertheless, that single heart is assisted by muscular pumping in body tissues, as well as many adaptations specific to cetaceans. I do not know where to start for size limits on a giant hydrostat-muscled fairly energetic mollusk.

I just recalled that there is a very large cephalalopod -- biologically engineered and in a sea without some of its natural predators -- that figures into this webcomic story. Here's the first image of the critter:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2005-11-05

And here's the story itself:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2005-10-02

(But I'd start from the very beginning. It's an excellent strip.)

DWhatley

Dec 06, '10, 11:39pm

Firefly

Feb 04, '11, 11:11pm

Nice debate here.
Thanks for all your replies. :)

Level_Head

Feb 05, '11, 3:18am

Up to Dec 26,2005. Must stop. Have other things I NEED to do tonight ...

I particularly identify with this one: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2005-12-31

I must get back to what I need to do ...
Read this guy for awhile have you, Level_Loo? http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2006-09-25 :wink:

Oho! I missed your post for a while. Yes, there is a connection there. And here, on the following page:
http://techfox.comicgenesis.com/d/20040714.html

And here:
http://www.hirezfox.com/km/co/d/20040715.html

But Schlock Mercenary links back the other way, too, as you probably saw -- in this footnote:
http://new.schlockmercenary.com/d/20060122.html

DWhatley

Feb 06, '11, 1:28am

Level_Loo :grin:
Somehow you lost me on what I should see in the links. Ah, I see the connection now :grin:

I was all caught up with Schlock but have not gone back since. I wish I could get a daily email.

Went back to catch up and it now ends on October 26th. That story ended and he created some updated character changes when I last read but the site seems to have issues. Did he move without a forwarding address?

Level_Head

Feb 06, '11, 2:31am

Ah. Off topic, it was -- I was featured as a character in each of those strips (although in one case the "character" was that of a comet). But back to our topic at hand:

The common suggestion that a giant or colossal squid leads a largely sedentary lifestyle -- grabbing the occasional fish, but with many days or weeks passing between meals -- makes me think that a cephalopod could in principle get much larger. Keeping brain size small to reduce energy requirements (as does the lifestyle) means that more of the oxygenation can be delivered to other tissues. Cephalopods have a pretty good circulatory system as it is, an active, high-pressure, closed system very unlike other mollusks.

Assuming a creature content to laze about, and not think too deeply, a theoretical maximum seems to be much higher than what we've seen.

Not that such creatures likely exist -- sperm whales have done too good a job of collecting beaks -- and we've done too good a job of collecting them -- for any high probability of remaining monster squid. Or so it seems to me.