Colossal Squid (Mesonychoteuthis) Pictures

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,034
Reaction score
19
Steve and Kat, two questions:

1) How does the Mesonychoteuthis LRL in the above specimen compare to a typical Architeuthis?

2) Having read above of the new material you have observed recently, how happy are you with the reconstruction you advised on recently for the Discovery Channel? Is there anything about the model you would like to change with hindsight? (Image attached below).

Thanks!
 

Attachments

Steve O'Shea

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
27
Howdo Phil. We'd have to measure LRLs on Archi for a true comparison, but the LRL really isn't the most informative measure for describing total beak size (the rostral length is quite short relative to the beak size in Architeuthis - meaning it has a short rostrum).

I'm quite happy with the Messie reconstruction we did several years ago for that AFO series, until we know otherwise. We did look at a few other cranchiids whilst down, and are convinced that the eyes were simply torn from the side of the head (and must have been rather substantial in size).
 

Jean

Colossal Squid
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
138
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
Now THAT'S what I call a beak!!!!!!

Love the ring Kat!


BTW the messie model has formally been offered to us (long term loan!) and we are now in the process of raising funds to repair it and get it on display. The aim is have all ready for the December School Holidays (major summer holidays in NZ). Then we're haveing squid etc as our holiday theme. Should be quite an attraction! I'll post pics closer to the event!

Cheers

J
 

monty

TONMO Supporter
Staff member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
4,884
Reaction score
11
If you just scale up linearly from the size of the beak in the full specimen you've examined, how big does that make the beak's owner? That's the biggest messie beak ever recorded, even counting whale-stomach versions, right? (Yeah, I know just scaling it probably makes naive assumptions, but I'm curious)
 

Tintenfisch

Architeuthis
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
203
Thanks, Jean... the ring used to be a fork, but someone got creative with the tines. Had a spoon ring once as well, but it was distinctly less squiddy. :wink:
Phil, I don't think we observed anything too new and surprising... had to revise our previous measurement of the LRL (it's 37 mm), and confirmed that Arms IV are definitely, and markedly, the shortest, which has some interesting implications for Messie's natural posture.
 

Clem

Architeuthis
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
1,839
Reaction score
49
Tintenfisch said:
... had to revise our previous measurement of the LRL (it's 37 mm), and confirmed that Arms IV are definitely, and markedly, the shortest, which has some interesting implications for Messie's natural posture.
Hello Kat,

Does that mean the drawing from Voss is inaccurate? Or just the caption? It depicts the 1st arm pair as being the shortest. The drawing was done from a juvenile specimen, and I don't suppose the arm proportions would change that dramatically during the maturation process...would they?

I'm guessing your confirmation of the arm length strengthens the conjecture that Messie's arms are oriented vertically?

Cheers,
Clem

ps: If you aren't careful, your visage may replace the double-decker bus as a standard measure for giant teuthids. "Lower rostral length=.25ttf, ML=11ttf..." :wink:
 

Snafflehound

GPO
Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
134
Reaction score
1
can you go into detail at all about the huge stink in the press and politics? no one will talk to you about it because you are opposed to bottom trawling and overfishing, or what?
 

Tintenfisch

Architeuthis
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
203
Clem said:
Does that mean the drawing from Voss is inaccurate? Or just the caption? It depicts the 1st arm pair as being the shortest. The drawing was done from a juvenile specimen, and I don't suppose the arm proportions would change that dramatically during the maturation process...would they?
Well! I went back to check this (doubted very much that Voss would be wrong) - the original drawing is from McSweeny 1970. He gives the raw measures for his four specimens, and for each the arm formula is definitely IV>III>II>I. But as I was looking at the illustration (available here on the Tree of Life), I noticed that the arms on his specimens are pretty much developed to just past the hook series (which is nearly complete) on each arm. In both the specimens we examined, the number of suckers proximal to the hooks increases on each arm (IV>III>II>I), which is also true for McSweeny's specimens (or at least the one illustrated). Which means that if the hook series on all arms are nearly complete by that size (59-86mm ML), Arms IV have to be longest because they have 20-22 proximal suckers (as well as more hooks in the mid-arm series than the other arms), whereas the other arms mostly have 14-18. And since Arms IV in both larger specimens have fewer distal suckers than any other arm, and are markedly shorter, yes, there has to be a change in the proportions as the animal matures.

Clem said:
If you aren't careful, your visage may replace the double-decker bus as a standard measure for giant teuthids. "Lower rostral length=.25ttf, ML=11ttf..." :wink:
LOL. But we definitely don't want that!!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
20,355
Messages
204,956
Members
8,489
Latest member
Zeppelin

Monty Awards

TONMOCON IV (2011): Terri
TONMOCON V (2013): Jean
TONMOCON VI (2015): Taollan
TONMOCON VII (2018): ekocak

Top