Interesting distinction between neoteny and paedomorphosis, John - I was hoping this thread/question would be picked up at some point, as it was left dangling; thanks. I'd like to explore this a little further myself, but right now I don't have time on my side. If anyone else has anything to contribute then PLEASE jump in.
Re this prehistoric 'mega squid' - that was a hypothetical case I gave (that it could be shrinking in time, as opposed to increasing). There is a tendency for people to think of the ancestral Architeuthis as being smaller than the modern-day animal, attaining its present size by way of gradual or spontaneous increase in size (depends whether you believe in periods of stasis followed by rapid bursts of change/evolution [punctuated], or the gradual acquisition of characters/change of character states [eg., size] through time). Who knows ...... But the animal could equally be decreasing in size as our fossil record really is quite poor for these animals/squid in general/and for octopus almost non-existent.
The maximums for the modern-day Architeuthis, almost certainly of which a single species, Architeuthis dux, exists world wide, are:
Length (mantle; female) 2.5m
Length (mantle; male) 1.7m
Total length (female, relaxed, not stretched like a rubber band, incl tentacles): 13m
Total length (male, relaxed, not stretched like a rubber band, incl tentacles): 10m
Total weight (female): 275kg
Total weight (male): 150kg
These are slightly larger than the largest specimens I've ever seen (of 96 of them). Even though 60 foot, or ~ 20m, is frequently cited as the max, and the specimen on which this was based was actually a New Zealand specimen that washed ashore back in the 1880's (or thereabouts), the specimen was NOT measured with a ruler, tape measure or yard stick - it was PACED (and this is clearly stated in the original publication) - this is overlooked in any subsequent citation to it. Moreover, this specimen almost certainly had been regurgitated from a whale stomach (in those bad old days) and was partially digested (and thus its length exagerated further, as they go to mush). Its tentacles were probably stretched out the thickness of a rubber band to make it larger/longer still (this can be done) ..... and the chap who 'paced' it probably took 'baby steps' and then exagerated some. People need their monsters, but the fact is they do not grow this large.
No specimen remotely approaching this size has been recorded since, anywhere, and so many have been measured world-wide now. All specimens we get in New Zealand are fully mature, and thus unlikely to grow any larger (they're not babies); those caught overseas/stranded are similarly almost always fully mature, and agree with the maximum sizes we get in NZ specimens (if not being slightly smaller/shorter).
Trying to reduce the size of this animal is, however, just about impossible - people refuse to believe it is actually smaller than it is. No matter what I do the same old hogwash is perpetuated in nearly every report ... and if its not its total length that they blow out of proportion then it is the size of its eyes, beaks or suckers...... It would be so much easier to raise $$ to find this animal if I was prepared to perpetuate the nonsense ... maybe I should just continue like everyone else?
Cheers
O