Giant Squid In Mexico - Science 2.0 (blog)

octobot

Robotic Staff
Staff member
Robotic Staff
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
11,975

[SIZE=-2]Southern Fried Science[/SIZE]


Giant Squid In Mexico
[SIZE=-1]Science 2.0 (blog)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]His list may not have reached (anywhere near) 101 uses, but obviously the most important use is determining the range of the giant squid. Apparently, blue sharks caught off Ensenada, Mexico, were found to have giant squid beaks in their tummies. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]101 Uses for Shark Puke[SIZE=-1]Southern Fried Science[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]all 2 news articles[/SIZE]


More...
 
Next thing, they'll be pulling out Carcharocles megalodon by the London doubledecker busload in Baja!
 
Certainly DID NOT find GS beaks in the shark - it had been dining on Dosidicus. I haven't seen it yet ... was it ok? apparently it can be downloaded on itunes, but I'm just not that smart (I've never done this before).
 
They got the data from this publication, fairly reputable, what makes you doubt their conclusions? Or, are you merely stating that you found no GS beaks whilst going through stomach contents?
 
Is the shark large enough to munch on architeuthids, and does it dive down enough?

Blue sharks are only found down to 350 meters and are only 12 feet long at most. Giant squid are believed to occupy 300-1000 meters and have a mantle length of 6-7 feet with a total possible length of about 45 feet. There's very little range overlap there and giant squid are not wussy.
 
neurobadger;178777 said:
Is the shark large enough to munch on architeuthids, and does it dive down enough?

Blue sharks are only found down to 350 meters and are only 12 feet long at most. Giant squid are believed to occupy 300-1000 meters and have a mantle length of 6-7 feet with a total possible length of about 45 feet. There's very little range overlap there and giant squid are not wussy.

I'm inclined to agree with OB, not just because he plies me with booze. Probabilities would favor gigas, but at the same time blues do school. Since it was on the Pacific side of baja, the archi could've been whale leftovers or anything else.

Also of note: only 2 beaks out of 893 stomachs. Also that vapyroteuthis were significant.

That being said, I only read the abstract and aint no high falutin' akydemic.
 
Was the beak big enough to be undisputably Architeuthis?

OB, it is entirely possible to publish utter bullsh*t in a reputable journal, though the frequency is relatively low.
 
neurobadger;178847 said:
Was the beak big enough to be undisputably Architeuthis?

OB, it is entirely possible to publish utter bullsh*t in a reputable journal, though the frequency is relatively low.

Two things: the beak needn't be large, merely the right morphology, there is a little notch on the beak that is typical of Architeuthis, even found on the much smaller males of the species. Steve once asked me to guess a species from beak alone, and I totally missed the male Architeuthis for not expecting it to be so small, not my finest hour as a biologist....

Secondly, I've myself published six scientific journals in all and can therefore wholeheartedly agree with your statement relating to the prevalence of moo poo in Academic publications :wink:
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top