[Featured]: Architeuthis (Giant Squid) Sightings

[Steve O'Shea]

Clem, Ku is a good friend of mine, but he's really busy; I'll drop him a note (he actually showed me those rock-pool Architeuthis images last year); there's also video of 'another squid' that is probably the finest video of its type out there ... a documentary company's dream.

I'll respond re those queries shortly.
Cheers
O

 

[Phil]

It certainly seems more in character for dosidicus to be going after a baited line than for architeuthis.

Totally agreed, Bald Evil. I'm not convinced the animal in the blue water photo is Dosidicus. Compare the photo with this one:

Humboldt squid

It seems to me that the fins are much more muscular with Dosidicus. In the linked photo the fins seem to take up almost half of the length of the mantle, but in the blue water photo the fins seem to be at the apex, occupying the last fifth or so of the mantle length. Also the head seems to be too bulky.....it's so difficult to tell.

To be honest, it's the animal in the black water photo which really intrigues me. I suppose it is possible it is the same animal if, say, it had been caught in the shade of a sail. But I am inclined to agree with you, that it could be a second animal.

 

[Steve O'Shea]

They're not the best of pics, but the tentacle clubs are of interest (expanded, the tentacles short; see the right side of the animal in the blue-water shot ... the one that looks very similar to Architeuthis).

See if anyone can find better images of Berryteuthis (scroll down the attached link).
It can't be discounted ... yet.

http://www.zen-ika.com/zukan/31-40/p36.html

 

[o.vulgaris]

hmm I've downloaded the images to my comp, and now that i've studued them more intently it look's to me as if that live archi was struggling for life long before it got washed ashore.
Must have been caught by some ol' sea-fisherman, arrg!

 

[Jean]

I see on ceph-list there is some debate as to whether or not this is a hoax! Mainly because of that eye! Some suggest that Archi eyes are round therefore this must be a hoax I doubt that someone with the standing of Dr Kubodera would be associated with something like that and anyhow who knew WHAT a living giant squid's eye looked like :x excepting maybe a sperm whale and they ain't telling

What a cynical world we live in!

J

 

[Clem]

I see on ceph-list there is some debate as to whether or not this is a hoax!

Jean,

That's quite sad. Perhaps the "under the radar" nature of the Kyoto event and the long interval before making it public accounts for some of the suspicion. As for the eye, I think Steve explained it very well; confronted with flash photography, the squid is contracting the muscles surrounding the eye and the pupil has shrunk accordingly.

Grrr.

Clem

 

[Steve O'Shea]

Ja ... sad .... but this is definitely no hoax. So, they're talking about this online elsewhere?? Why do that when they could chat away here?

Bizarre world we live in.

 

[cephjedi]

So, they're talking about this online elsewhere?? Why do that when they could chat away here?

Well, that's an easy question. It's the difference in mediums. A bulletin board is something you have to go to and check periodically, but a mailing list delivers the information to you. In many ways it's easier.

Regarding the furor on Cephlist about this squid pic, well that's what makes scientists scientific: skeptisicm. Their prime instinct is to ask questions. You gotta admit, every person outside the scientific realm who has handled a squid has observed big round dumbstare eyes, so seeing a picture of an Architeuthis with an eye that really needs a big hairy black eyebrow over it is startling. (It does, doesn't it?)

I'm quite shocked that news of this photography didn't make the desktops of many CephList readers.

Rock on, Jimbo

 

[Clem]

You gotta admit, every person outside the scientific realm who has handled a squid has observed big round dumbstare eyes, so seeing a picture of an archeteuthis with an eye that really needs a big hairy black eyebrow over it is startling. (It does, doesn't it?)

Cephjedi,

An excellent point. The logical rejoinder to any accusation of fakery is this: why expend the effort to produce an image that does not fit the preconceived notions of what the animal should look like? Most of us expected a big, staring google eye. A faker intent on creating a believable facsimile would craft an image that met expectations.

As for the native skepticism of scientists, it's to be expected, but I sense that something else is at work here. I just can't put my finger on what that might be.

Now I'm seeing a hairy black eyebrow. Dammit!

Clem

 

[Wpg-girl]

Does anyone know the sex of these Archi? Or at least of the first set of pics?
Just curious.
These pics are something else. Incredible.

 

[o.vulgaris]

I was wondering if it was an adult or a juvenile?

 

[Burstsovenergy24]

WOW!! I need to start coming back here more! This is amazing!

 

[MuscaDomestica]

Wow.... amazing.... I must come here more often.

Incredable....

 

[ika-san]

This may be an overly simple (or controversial) question, but I'll take the risk...

If we are to assume that the animal in the Kyoto photographs is Architeuthis and it shows unusual features, such as the keel, can a particular species be determined? Is it, perhaps a member of its own species? Based on Dr. O'Shea's writings elsewhere on TONMO, any distinction between A. clarkei, A. kirkii and A. japonica are illusory -- there is only A. dux. Any comments?

Thanks for such a wonderful site!

- Ika-san

P.S. Dr. O'Shea, you wrote an earlier appeal for volunteers to help out in NZ. I will be going on a two month paid sabbatical from work next year, and would take little convincing to come down and lend a hand. Can you use an American electrical/computer engineer around the lab or the boat if he pays his own way? Given time I could even get a SCUBA cert...

 

[Steve O'Shea]

If we are to assume that the animal in the Kyoto photographs is Architeuthis and it shows unusual features, such as the keel, can a particular species be determined? Is it, perhaps a member of its own species? Based on Dr. O'Shea's writings elsewhere on TONMO, any distinction between A. clarkei, A. kirkii and A. japonica are illusory -- there is only A. dux. Any comments?

Hmmmm - I've just been quoted. Neither morphological nor genetic grounds exist for recognising multiple species of Architeuthis, at least throughout the North and South Atlantic, and South Pacific, but we haven't been able to secure comparative material from the central and northern Pacific. With this in mind we recognise a single Atlantic/South Pacific species, A. dux being the first described. The Japanese fauna is interesting in that many species are common to New Zealand, in addition to a number of otherwise very closely related species common to these two regions (without recognised [STRESS recognised] taxa known from intermediate locals) (The New Zealand and Japanese cephalopod faunas being amongst the best known/described thus far; it could be an artefact of monographic revision). Nevertheless, there would appear to be a clear biogeographic link between the two regions; because of this I would be surprised if a separate species of Architeuthis occured off Japan. Then again, one thing that never ceases to surprise me when it comes to cephalopods is how often I end up being surprised. A. japonica and A. clarkei are probably synonyms of A. dux, but until these Pacific forms are revised then we'll not know for sure.

As for coming to New Zealand and helping out, well, let me think about this.

.... thinking ....


.... thinking some more .....


.... this might take a while .....





OK, you're on! You tell me what you'd like to do and I'm sure we'll be able to find something.