The New Scientist article has been published. Steve O'Shea is freely quoted so TONMO has already provided much of the information first, but it is good to see an overview of the state of knowledge on giant squid in print.

Hey Mike, this isn't fair!!!! I haven't seen it yet!!!! How can it be out so soon???? OMG, I'll have to hide from the phone.

Is TONMO.com quoted/mentioned throughout the article?

No fair! :x :x :x :x

Cover & all !
Your shout Steve......[/img]

Awesome!!!! My goodness, a nod for TONMO.com would be awesome! Gotta get me a copy....

:oshea:

myopsida: note that I had to remove your attachment -- not only is it probably not permissable for us to reproduce the photo here (and it is quite likely/possible that New Scientist will be around here), but you also doctored it (pun not really intended)... :wink:

For anyone who wants to see the real cover:

NEW SCIENTIST (http://www.newscientist.com/news/)

Your secret is safe - TONMO is not mentioned (sorry Tony) - until someone tries a Google search for Steve O'Shea when it is one of the top items!

Your secret is safe - TONMO is not mentioned (sorry Tony)

http://www.tonmo.com/images/rodney.jpg

Not New Scientist, but probably the first in a (hopefully) long line of reports on Steve's proposed expedition next year:

Scientist to use scent to attract sex-crazed giant squid (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2589632a11,00.html)

From Stuff.co.nz.

-- not only is it probably not permissable for us to reproduce the photo here (and it is quite likely/possible that New Scientist will be around here), but you also doctored it (pun not really intended)... :wink:


Myopsida, you absolute scoundrel you!! I thought my glasses needed adjusting when I saw 'your version' of the cover!! :jester:

I guess nobody cares that we also have a 4 page spread in the latest issue of SeaSpray (August/September 2003 issue); I think it is available in NZ and Australia only. :heee: (Tony, www.TONMO.com does get mention in this magazine article .... as 'one of the best sites around')... and we're presently doing a mini-doc on squid and fisheries.... busy times these are.

heheheheheheh i love this quote :) :) :)

"It's not very bright and it is trying to coordinate a metre-long penis."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hi Steve,
Did you REALLY said the following?

"If we are talking about a 200kg squid, this is an animal with a 20g brain," he told New Scientist.
"It's not very bright and it is trying to coordinate a metre-long penis.
"He's going to get a bit confused."

... or is it some kind of a journalist's misinterpretation of a joke?
If you really think so, I've got no reason to believe you're wrong... and so it's a little bit disappointing, as I always thought cephalopods were quite intelligent and smart animals, "intellectualy" speaking...
Cheers. :(

:oops:
I'm afraid it's all true - their brain weight isn't anything staggering - but the quote should have read ~ 150kg (weight of a male).

.... I still haven't read the article. Down here at the very bottom of the world it takes a few days before magazines make their way over.

There was one squid I remember years ago .... and I couldn't find the brain - it was like some pulpy sneezed glop. So perhaps there are bright giant squid ... and really thick ones too .... relatively speaking.

....but there's even more exciting news due out in August
Stay tuned
:grad:

.... I still haven't read the article. Down here at the very bottom of the world it takes a few days before magazines make their way over.


it isnt out up here yet...i went searching and found out its available the week after the cover date (aug 2)

I guess nobody cares that we also have a 4 page spread in the latest issue of SeaSpray (August/September 2003 issue); I think it is available in NZ and Australia only. :heee: (Tony, www.TONMO.com does get mention in this magazine article .... as 'one of the best sites around')... and we're presently doing a mini-doc on squid and fisheries.... busy times these are.
Woo-hoo! Great news!! Haven't got my copies of these publications yet, but I will... even the SeaSpray one, somehow...

Keep up the great work Steve -- I really appreciate that you allow us to make discoveries right along with you. How cool is that?

I'll send you a copy of 'SeaSpray' Tony; tiz a good article.
Cheers
O

:notworth: Thanks Steve, but my question was not that much about brain's size and weight (I know it's relatively very small), but about your whole quote in this meaning that, when reading it, one has the feeling you think Architeuthis is some kind of a village idiot!
I won't deny that brain size and weight have definitely got something to do with intelligence (... otherwise, what about OUR supposed superiority over the whole universe, hey?), but, if you consider sharks, for example (which is what I know the best, especially the Great White), the least one can say is that their brain is extremely far from being their most important organ!
Nevertheless, the more we study their behaviour and the more we discover that they are quite smart, able to "learn" and memorize, and are, generally speaking, quite "sophisticated minded" animals.
So do you think you can let me keep dreaming that, despite its tiny brain, Architeuthis is not simply a dumb piece of meat for spem whales... or do you think I definitely have to prepare for a heatrending reconsideration of my ideas about it? :cry:

I'm sorry, but I think the animal is a bit of a dunce. Sure, it will do 'clever things' and look truly spectacular when alive, but I think it might be a bit repetitive in its actions.

It makes all of us look a little stupid at the same time ... because we have yet to capture the elusive imagery of the world's most stupid squid on film. Maybe it is smarter than we think, or does its thinking in places other than its brain.
Cheers
O

:? Thanks a lot... for these disheartening informations.
:idea: When playing backgammon on the net, I use the pseudonym 'Architeuthis'. As long as you won't have located the possible other place for its 'thinking', maybe I will think about taking another pseudo? (... and maybe I will win more often?)
Cheers & beers (learnt the expression through an Australian guy : sounds up-to-date?).

Hmm.... interesting discussion here... I'm not sure I understand the definition of "intelligence" in this context.

I think I hear what Steve is saying when he suggests that Archi's might do things that are a bit repetitive (not surprising... really, how much original activity is there to do when you live in an open water column? :) )...

I suppose it is romantic to think of Architeuthis as a deep sea genius -- certainly one of the things that is so attractive about all cephalopods is their seemingly remarkable "intelligence" -- certainly the octopuses in this forum have displayed some very clever and what would seem to be "thoughtful" behavior.

There's also emotion to consider -- it seems that some octopuses, at least, at times get angry, afraid, content, playful, and perhaps even bored or depressed.

It would be interesting to compare or rank the perceived "intelligence" of various animals including Architeuthis and, say, bimacs, along with that of a parrot, a hawk, a dog, a cat, a goldfish, a horse, a lizard... etc. etc.

:cyclops:

certainly the octopuses in this forum have displayed some very clever and what would seem to be "thoughtful" behavior.


This is purely my opinion:

I think it is worth remembering that octopuses that tend to be sold as pets come from shallow water habitats, often coral reefs, where in their natural habitat they are surrounded by visual and other sensual stimuli. They need finely tuned senses to detect the presence of predators, their own prey items and their own shelters. In other words, the habitat these animals live in is forever changing and would dictate an elevated awareness of their surroundings that is essential to their survival.

A cephalopod living in the dark mid water columns or the abyssal depths would live in a much more stagnant and repetitive environment lacking diversity. In my opinion, this lack of stimulus would lead to a creature that is so much less aware of environmental stimuli (excluding the environment of its own niche) than its shallow water cousins. Whether or not this means that it is less 'intelligent' is a matter of choice and depends on how one wishes to define the term. Architeuthis, for example, is probably happy to hang there at, say, 600m depth at an angle waiting for prey to drift past. It has poor musculature implying that it does not need to chase after its prey or require the intelligence to know how to do so. With a net spread with its arms, it barely needs to 'think' as prey will drift its way towards it. The fact that the creature exists is enough to prove that.

I think that anyone was fortunate enough to own a deepwater Vulcanoctopus or Grimpoteuthis in a tank at home would be sorely disappointed at the lack of 'intelligence' shown; 'intelligence' could be read as an awareness of the environment. I don't think that the fact that that pet octopi display intelligent behavioral traits should be indicative of coleoids as a whole, indeed, I think that it is purely a response to the environment that the particular species originates from.

I would also wonder how much 'emotive' behaviour exhibited in octopi is an anthropomorphic projection what we wish to see. After all, we all know that when a cat rubs itself against your leg it is not genuinely showing affection, but merely rubbing its scent onto you to display territorial possession. Yet it's hard to recognise this, even if one knows it.

But what do I know? I've never kept a pet goldfish, let alone a cephalopod! :lol:

hm i think i saw a tv-documentation on octopusses some time ago where they did some sort of intelligence test. :grad: If i remember correctly the test was supposed to be some adjusted intelligence test for dogs (just underwater) and the octos were beating the dogs in this test:mrgreen:

And regarding brain size...dolphins were always thought to be sooo clever because of their huge brain, but in recent examinations they found out that most of their brain is used up of their swimming/coordination skill, so they are in truth some specialised nerds :bugout:

maybe archi just lacks the brain parts for clever diving stunts but got the necessary brain for really intelligent things in his head instead 8)


feel free to correct me on the facts, it´s all tv-smattering (weird word):jester:

Intelligence aside, I'm hearing rather interesting stories about National Geographic (the opposition) similarly embarking on a 'quest' to film the live Architeuthis , in situ , in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution - the latest in an article in todays paper (link below).

Does anyone know anything about this, or is it simply another bit of media fabrication? I find it rather strange that they'd be doing this and I'd not heard about it.

If there is an element of truth to it then I'm afraid I'll have to remain terribly tight lipped about what it is we are proposing to do.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3516131&thesect ion=news&thesubsection=general

sorry i cant offer anything definite but im pretty sure ive heard a reference or two to that....

Loose lips sink squids :periscop:

Ok well, my thoughts are there is a lot of things going on in the world right now, that if we were being observed from the outside, I'm sure we would be considered unintelligent and rather repetitive. I also think there are a lot of people out there that would not really fit into the intelligent category either (come on we all know someone :wink: ). That being said, I'm sure the same rule applies to most species, as some individuals being more advance then others. As for some of the behavior octopuses exhibit, more understanding is needed before a conclusion is made as to whether or not they are considered intelligent or not! Just my opinion

LOL; indeed we would appear rather repetitive in our actions; they'd probably take a look at one of our brains and think it looked like a scrunched-up ball of wet bread, and conclude we lacked the capacity to comprehend (our brains would leak). I wonder whether seepage from one area to another occurs ...

The link I'd posted earlier was to an article in the Herald here where it said (in a separate text box) that Nat. Geo. were similarly chasing the squid; I just checked the aforementioned link and there was no such mention therein. Sorry.

Will do some more digging
Cheers
O

Hmmm. I haven't found much of anything either. Could be just one of those cases of a not-terribly-well-researched article? At any rate, if you're worried about having your thunder stolen...well...sigh...though it pains me utterly to admit it...I'd rather be in the dark for a while so you can get the first scoop.

rusty

Rusty, I'm thinking the same thing myself, and now wonder whether they're getting their wires crossed with Jean-Michel Cousteau's comment to the effect that he'd like to capture the animal on film.

My experience with Nat Geo is that they promote forthcoming expeditions intensively, and that there'd be a web page somewhere where some overly zealous (not often I get to use a 'z' word; other than 'zoo' that's about my limit in scrabble) investigatorial team promote themselves and their technological superiority.

I've just noticed that my keyboard has 'power off, sleep, and wake up' buttons; I wonder what happens if I depress any of them (will I wake up?). Do you suppose the Nat Geo opposition have the same technology? :heee:

They don't have this :squid: or this :meso: for sure, and they're not going to be the first to find living ones of these :ammonite: . TONMO is technologically superior!

I'm not as well known as Dr O'Shea for squids but I have had friends from all over the world telling me about the New Scientist article and have even had a copy of the issue bought for me!

Very nice to see such good photos as well! I keep calling giants squids cute but I'm not sure people believe me.

Congrats on a nice article - squids rule.

KRin

I've only just picked up a copy myself. In earlier drafts there were some amusing stories, but much of this seems to have been edited out of the final product.

The squid on the cover actually has 10 arms ... two of which magically transform themselves into tentacles. Reminds me of that National Geographic poster several years ago where the giant squid is painted with 6 arms (an excellent picture it was too).
:meso:

Steve,

Did you read Prof. Simon Conway-Morris' article on the origin of vertebrates and recent Cambrian disoveries from China? Any thoughts?

There's two good reasons to buy New Scientist this week!

Phil

The New Scientist article has been published. Steve O'Shea is freely quoted so TONMO has already provided much of the information first, but it is good to see an overview of the state of knowledge on giant squid in print.

Kewl.

True; hopefully the days of 60-foot x 1-ton Architeuthis accounts are numbered. I looked at that scaled diagram, and Mesonychoteuthis really must be one massive hunk of squid.

We've spent years trying to bring down the maximum sizes and weights for Architeuthis, and then we go and propose an even larger/heavier squid, but I can assure you that I can sleep at night, comfortable in knowing that we're not misleading any of you (and grateful for the fact I'm not in the water down there in the Antarctic!!)!
Cheers
O

From the standpoint of Architeuthis duchess, I would imagine that the "metre-long penis" more than makes up for any deficiency in the intellectual department.... :roflmao:

Speaking of which -- what will happen if the Archi tries to mate with the submersible? Talk about "bait and switch"!

:shock:

not a bad article.... i liked the size comparison chart, or maybe was just amused by the little diver guy....

It makes all of us look a little stupid at the same time ... because we have yet to capture the elusive imagery of the world's most stupid squid on film. Maybe it is smarter than we think, or does its thinking in places other than its brain.
Cheers
O

Hi, new to the forum & loving it! Just wanted to say it could be simply another anthropomorphic interpretation, but another thing that has given me an impression of intelligence in the large squid is the account of some divers photographing Humboldt squid off the coast of Baja California or perhaps further south, I don't remember for sure. But the squid grouped around them, did a red/white flashing pulse, and then attacked, making bruises like those from a baseball bat through the divers' chain-mail suits with their tentacle clubs. Then an especially huge one, 8 feet long if I recall correctly, slowly came up in front of one of the divers who was isolated, causing the others to be terrified for her. It just stayed at equal depth with her and seemed to quietly regard her for a minute or two, and then swam away, and the others followed.
The way it makes me like to think about it, of course, is that perhaps the big one was like a "wise elder" that could distinguish the human beings as not worthy prey.
I began to get especially interested in Humboldt Squid after visiting Monterey Bay Aquarium and seeing footage of the squid they had shot there. I didn't realize Humboldt squid might range that far north, thinking because of their name that they were only off the coast of South America. Thought it was cool that they might actually be up here by Humboldt County, California, too (so named because the Humboldt Meridian passes through this county, which is the farthest west point in the 48 contiguous states (and the second-farthest north on the coast of California's 55 some-odd counties).

Anyhow, I see from your later post that Architeuthis seems to have rather different hunting methods than Humboldt squid, but isn't it also known to surface, as Mesonychoteuthis did?

:shock: Again, it is astonishingly cool to be able to leave a message for the singular Steve O'Shea :D, and all sorts of other people sharing info on these endlessly interesting creatures.

--Bill

:shock: Again, it is astonishingly cool to be able to leave a message for the singular Steve O'Shea :D, and all sorts of other people sharing info on these endlessly interesting creatures.
--Bill

LOL; thanks for that post Bill; ommastrephid squid (of which the Humboldt is an example) are rather powerful oceanic swimmers. I've had a small one (< 1 foot long) draw blood, leaving a rather gaping wound on my arm .... as I was petting it for the camera's benefit. An 8-foot animal would have me out of the water in seconds!

Architeuthis doesn't naturally come to the surface (like the colossal squid, Mesonychoteuthis), except in its larval stage (or unless it is dead/dying), so I think you're quite safe being in the water. Of course I could be wrong .... :goofysca:

so I think you're quite safe being in the water. Of course I could be wrong .... :goofysca:

Forgive my goulishness, but that truly has to be one of the coolest things about these animals and your work, Steve. The sea monsters we've all heard of and pooh-poohed do, in fact, exist. Not only are they utterly fascinating and flabbergasting bundles of bizzarre and beautiful biology (hey! alliteration! :heee: ), they are terrifying animals that deserve healthy respect, and may prove to ultimately remind us that we are STILL one kind of animal among many with all that entails (such as potentially being on someone's menu... :shock: )

rusty