Jump to content

Talk:Octopus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Pyritie (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 34: Line 34:
it's correct plural, would logically, be, octopodes. [[User:Lion King|Lion King]] 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
it's correct plural, would logically, be, octopodes. [[User:Lion King|Lion King]] 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


:But the funny thing about the Greek word [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2386109 πούς] (''pous'') is that while it is indeed a third-declension word with a stem ποδ- (''pod-''), it is irregular in that it also has an alternative second-declension stem πο- (''po-''), seen in the second-declension Doric form πός (''pos'') as well as in certain inflections of the compounds of πούς such as δίπουν (''dipoun''), the second-declension, neuter, nominative singular form of δίπους (''dipous''), and even [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2385248 πολύπους]/[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2385248 πουλύπους] (''polypous''/''poulypous'') is declined as a second-declension word as well as a third-declension one. This second-declension variant of the stem gave [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2336950 Latin] and [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polypus&r=66 English] the word ''polypus'', (nominative) plural ''polypi''. That information seems to give an element of legitimacy to the ''octopi'' plural form, or at least it seems to make things so that it's no longer a simple matter of using the phrase "mistaken assumption" to refer to the use of the Latinized word ''octopus'' as a Latin second-declension word. The way I see it, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what's a possible inflection for the polypus is a possible inflection for the octopus. - Diaphanus [[Special:Contributions/156.34.216.233|156.34.216.233]] ([[User talk:156.34.216.233|talk]]) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:But the funny thing about the Greek word [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2386109 πούς] (''pous'') is that while it is indeed a third-declension word with a stem ποδ- (''pod-''), it is irregular in that it also has an alternative second-declension stem πο- (''po-''), seen in the second-declension Doric form πός (''pos'') as well as in certain inflections of the compounds of πούς such as δίπουν (''dipoun''), the second-declension, neuter, nominative singular form of δίπους (''dipous''), and even [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2385248 πολύπους]/[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2385248 πουλύπους] (''polypous''/''poulypous'') is declined as a second-declension word as well as a third-declension one. This second-declension variant of the stem gave [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2336950 Latin] and [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polypus&r=66 English] the word ''polypus'', (nominative) plural ''polypi''. That information seems to give an element of legitimacy to the ''octopi'' plural form, or at least it seems to make things so that it's no longer a simple matter of using the phrase "mistaken assumption" to refer to the use of the Latinized word ''octopus'' as a Latin second-declension word. The way I see it, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what's a possible inflection for the polypus is a possible inflection for the octopus. - Diaphanus [[Special:Contributions/156.34.216.233|156.34.216.233]] ([[User talk:156.34.216.233|talk]]) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) if you have never seen an octopus, then you are a stupid retard


:The [[OED]] has citations for "octopuses" back to 1884. It has no citations for "octopodes", which it describes as "rare". If you have any actual evidence (as opposed to etymologicval wishful thinking) that the "correct" English plural is "octopodes", please let us know what it is. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:The [[OED]] has citations for "octopuses" back to 1884. It has no citations for "octopodes", which it describes as "rare". If you have any actual evidence (as opposed to etymologicval wishful thinking) that the "correct" English plural is "octopodes", please let us know what it is. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:44, 20 June 2010

WikiProject iconFood and drink B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconCephalopods (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconFisheries and Fishing B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Range of Octopus

There needs to be a section discussing the range/ranges of the octopus.167.7.33.2 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Where is the beak?

Where is the octopus' beak located? The article makes no note of this. – 129.241.137.240 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason is simply that nobody has posted a topic about the location of the octopuses beak. I think it is below the eyes... obviously it could be knowhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.230.133 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octopuses?

The correct plural of Octopus, is "octopodes." Lion King 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See the discussion above. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is often supposed that octopi is the correct plural of octopus and has been in use longer than the Anglicized octopuses, it in fact originates as an error. Octopus is not a simple latin word of the second declension, but a latinized form of the Greek word oktopous and it's correct plural, would logically, be, octopodes. Lion King 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the funny thing about the Greek word πούς (pous) is that while it is indeed a third-declension word with a stem ποδ- (pod-), it is irregular in that it also has an alternative second-declension stem πο- (po-), seen in the second-declension Doric form πός (pos) as well as in certain inflections of the compounds of πούς such as δίπουν (dipoun), the second-declension, neuter, nominative singular form of δίπους (dipous), and even πολύπους/πουλύπους (polypous/poulypous) is declined as a second-declension word as well as a third-declension one. This second-declension variant of the stem gave Latin and English the word polypus, (nominative) plural polypi. That information seems to give an element of legitimacy to the octopi plural form, or at least it seems to make things so that it's no longer a simple matter of using the phrase "mistaken assumption" to refer to the use of the Latinized word octopus as a Latin second-declension word. The way I see it, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what's a possible inflection for the polypus is a possible inflection for the octopus. - Diaphanus 156.34.216.233 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) if you have never seen an octopus, then you are a stupid retard[reply]
The OED has citations for "octopuses" back to 1884. It has no citations for "octopodes", which it describes as "rare". If you have any actual evidence (as opposed to etymologicval wishful thinking) that the "correct" English plural is "octopodes", please let us know what it is. -- Dominus 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not etymologicval wishful thinking, it's in my copy of the OED, just checked it. If it has no citations for octopodes, how can it then desribe it as rare? it would be more than rare, it would be non exsistent. Lion King 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "if"? Did you check it, or not? Did it list "octopuses", or not? If it did, what's your evidence for asserting that "the correct plural is 'octopodes'"? -- Dominus 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the 'correct' English plurals for nautilus, metalloid, telephone, microscope, dinosaur, etc...? Femto 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi,gevald! A Sof, A Sof! Lion King 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have trouble with the use of the singular 'octopus' as plural in a few of the photo captions? Specifically: 'Octopus at Tsukiji fish market', 'Grilled octopus in Greece', 'octopus are "tickled"' and 'A fisherman's catch of octopus' 1bj05hua (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected "octopus are tickled" to "octopuses are tickled". But I think "octopus at Tsukiji fish market" is acceptable, because there "octopus" refers not to the individual animals but to the foodstuff en masse. This is a common construction in English: consider the analogous cases "steak on sale", "cheese on sale", "pineapple on sale". In each case, the singular form refers not to individual steaks, cheeses, or pineapples, but rather to the material of which these things are made: steaks are made of steak, cheeses of cheese, pineapples of pineapple. Similarly, octopuses are made of octopus. If one put octopus meat into cans, it would be canned octopus, not canned octopuses, just as one has canned pineapple, not canned pineapples. The use of the singular in "octopus on sale at Tsukiji" is analogous. I hope this made sense. —Dominus (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canned peas? Canned beans? Canned tomatoes? :P --Pyritie (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this issue was discussed before, I wish to insist that octopi is not an acceptable plural. The article committed a famous schoolboy howler by offering it as an alternative plural. It would be, if the word was latin in origin. However, its origin is classical Greek, as is Cephalopod. The 'feet' ending coumes from 'pous' (I'll use our letters for simplicity). The plural of pous is podes, usually written 'pods' in English. So cephalopods is fine, whereas octopi is simply wrong. Don't feel bad about it; remember that in Goldfinger Ian Fleming has Pussy Galore saying "My father was an expert on octopi", thus proving that he wasn't, or he would have taught her the right word!
The plural of Octopus is Octopods, or Octopodes if you must. Dictionaries also offer the rather inelegant Octopuses. The article also uses Octopus as a plural: although that is an invention, it is absolutely preferable to an outright error. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English dictionaries invariably support the use of "octopi" as a plural. For example, [1][2]. It's not the job of wikipedia editors to try to legislate linguistic norms, even those based in etymology. Rather, Wikipedia articles should report on what can be supported by reliable, authoritative sources. If you have a source for your claim that "octopods" is a plural of "octopus", please cite it. My own understanding is that "octopods" is the plural of "octopod".[1][3][4] Accordingly, I am reverting your changes. —Dominus (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b William Morris (ed.). "octopus". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
  2. ^ "octopus". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  3. ^ William Morris (ed.). "octopod". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
  4. ^ "octopod". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Greek nothing, speak English or get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talkcontribs) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has never actually said that one form or another is incorrect, since the OED isn't a prescriptive dictionary. It merely states that the word "octopi" is one of the plural forms, because that's how the OED scholars have seen it used. Octopodes is another form listed. Since people continue to use all of them, they will continue to all be listed in the dictionary. The fight over what is the correct form is therefore silly.. Anyway, since this article incorrectly implied that the OED used the word "mistaken" I have corrected the entry and updated the OED retrieval date. (Or tried to anyway.) The OED never used the word, "mistaken." It only accurately traces the logic of the people who use the octopi form. Even when the OED makes an implication about which form is correct (as in the concise askoxford entry) it still only says that the *reasoning* people use for the octopi form is incorrect, not that the use is. Therefore, the continued use of the "octopi" form could in fact be justified simply by continuing to use it! Kothog (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octopi

Octopi is correct! Anything ending with -us to make plural you put i at the end! Maybe if you werent all doofi you would know that! P.S. I already changed the article to say octopi! Inurfaces! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 (talkcontribs).

Well, virus doesn't have a Latin plural, so what then? 85.220.111.211 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the plural of ignoramus? 85.220.111.211 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

f### all of you! its octopi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 (talkcontribs).

What are you? A sex maniac? then go back to bed and do it with your spouse! or your special "friend" By Mr. Mystery —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.20.226 (talkcontribs).

Sorry, Wikipedia is WP:NPOV and descriptive, not POV and prescriptive. --Kjoonlee 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About as accepted as "octopussies"? Dbfirs 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the forms octopuses, octopi and octopodes in that order but without marking any particular form as rare. We can probably assume all three are correct. But since this is such a perfect battlefield for Latinists, Grecians (yes, the same word GWB was mocked for and Keats was not above using) and then of course the plain vulgus, let's have some more. ;-) 85.220.111.211 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, couldn't resist, so the plural of bus is bi? Cheers 85.220.111.211 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does say (rare) for one of the forms. Specifically, it says, "Plural octopuses, octopi, (rare) octopodes". OED Reference Anyway, this is another half of the same discussion near the top.. Kothog (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

useful

I learnt a lot from reading this article. It's fantastic! Great work everyone. For example, the Physiology section has a great attention to detail despite its brief nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.9.41 (talkcontribs).

The comment on octopuses playing with toys is not entirely consistent with the referenced source. The article says that the octopuses used their water jets to cause the "toys" to circulate in the water, but it does not say that they ever "caught" the toys with their tentacles. In fact, the article questions why the octopuses used their water jets instead of their tentacles, and refers to the fact that the tentacles may be semiautonomous from the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.195.70 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus farming

I have read a couple of articles on the internet about farming octopuses. Is this common? Or are they generally hunted/captured from the wild? Given that they appear to be able to fit through extremely small gaps, octopus farms must be quite specific. Does anyone have any information on this?

Taxobox Titles Need Fixing

The background for the headings are blue, as is the text so it's unreadable, I don't know how to change it though, maybe some master wikipedian can help out here :P

Octopus'

I just corrected the grammar, the genitive of octopus is octopus', not octopus's, but this was immediately changed back. This was not vandalism! -- spaceLem (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are not both forms valid? Dbfirs 09:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, they're not, a word ending in an s, when it takes an apostrophe (as in the genitive in this instance), no secondary s is added. Thus, you will see Smith's and Jones', even though the second example is pronounced as "joan-zez." —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "any word ending with s" is a common error. Only plurals loose the post apostrophe s. Refer to Lynne Truss, OED Octopus's Garden [[1]] and many others. MrMarmite (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "only plurals LOSE the post..." not "only plurals LOOSE the post..." LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Chicago Manual of Style, §7.17:

The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s…. This practice, used in conjunction with the exceptions and options outlined in §7.19–22, reflects the way possessive forms are generally pronounced…".

"Octopus" does not fall under the exceptions in §7.19–22. However, §7.23 offers "an alternative practice":

Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s—hence “Dylan Thomas’ poetry,” “Maria Callas’ singing,” and “that business’ main concern.” Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many.

I think it's not worth arguing about, and that we should make the page's usage consistent, one way or the other, and then leave it that way.

Dominus (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. My point was that there are many references to Octopus's, and it is pronounced with the extra s...it's not sung as "In an octopus garden. MrMarmite (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am i allowed to talk without being banned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.238.191 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

evolution?

Can someone provide information about when the octopuses evolved? Maybe even when they differentiated from the vampire squids? Other taxonomic articles have keen diagrams showing the taxon's fossil range, but there's nothing like that for Octopoda. 71.227.187.128 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - this is evolutionary tree and fossil record is an important information for a page like this. Fig (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Evolution" (2009, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd., p.134-135) states that the common octopus evolved not later than the middle Jurassic. Fossils of o. vulgaris have been found on the sea bed of La_Voulte-sur-Rhone, dating back 163 million years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.94.28 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentacles

(as distinct from the tentacles found in squid and cuttlefish)

I moved the above here, pending citation. I don't think it is useful to direct people to the tentacle article for an explanation as to why octopses have arms instead of tentacles, when there is none there. Octopuses arms fit easily into the definition given at tentacle (flexible, sensitive, for grasping), so both articles need citing, and a greater explanation of what a tentacle is or is not.YobMod 10:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Cephalopod arm? William Avery (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link would be useful anyway (even if to an uncited article), thanks for pointing it out!.
Google scholar finds nearly 7000 scientific articles calling octopus arms "tentacles". I'm not advocating changing the terminology here (so just left it calling them arms), but we equally should not be trying to impose a POV when there is no scientific consensus. Biologist sometimes call them tentacles and sometimes arms to distinguish from other tentacle types - editors have chosen to do the latter here to avoid confusion, but we should not be saying the alternative is wrong, especially with no source.YobMod 10:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just delved into The Science of Life and found a passage where 'arms' is used of an octopus, and 'tentacles' of some other sea creatures. Sourced or not, it seems to be long-standing distinction among zoologists, even if the assertion that an octopus doesn't have tentacles seems ridiculous to the rest of us. William Avery (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, octopus arms certainly fit the definition of tentacles, and they are commonly referred to as such in the popular press (and, as you point out, some scientific articles). However, from my experience, most specialist literature on cephalopods calls them arms. This distinction between arms and tentacles is carried over from squid and cuttlefish (8 arms + 2 tentacles), where the two types of limbs usually differ greatly in morphology. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to note that modern octopuses evolved from ancestral forms which possessed a full complement of 10 limbs. The vampire squid (8 arms) is an interesting case, as it still bears remnants of these two extra limbs in the form of small filaments. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the squid experts refer to the two longer suckered appendages as "tentacles", and the eight shorter ones that are homologous to octopus arms as "arms". If this is general terminology among scientists, then referring to octopus appendages as "arms" and not "tentacles" makes sense. —Dominus (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (Addendum: Cephalopod arm confirms my understanding. —Dominus (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
And yet some octopus experts publish articles in peer reviewed journals calling them tentacles. There is clearly not a homogenous consensus on this, so we should not be misinforming readers by pretending there is. It still needs citing, and attributing.YobMod 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anatomy and development?

when does the octopus have blue eyes? what stage of development? when was this first noticed, written or published reference would be very helpful. Beyond cold and hot water adaptation? Item of interest was the surgical procedures reported in India of multilimbed children. Any noted items on experimentation in laboratories? To my knowledge the reference in literature have always indicated black eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.68.67 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anatomy?

The body plan of the octopus, squid, and cuttlefish is very different from ours. I would like to see something in the article about the anatomy of an octopus. Maybe a diagram showing the location of the major organs would help. SlowJog (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree I think there should be at least a diagram of an octopus's anatomy here. PUT ONE! Cause I don't have one. thanks. --InvaderCito (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

What do octopuses eat? Are they considered predators, scavengers, or something else? How do they obtain their food? The article should address these points. Ishboyfay (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming

In the locomotion section, it states that octopi swim by jetting water out the siphon. I know that this is true, but I think I have witnessed another method. I have just viewed a video that shows an octopus doing what looks very similar to swimming like a fish. Maybe it's using its jet, but it does look like it is moving by undulating, using its trailing tentacles in a similar fashion to a fish tail. This form of locomotion is horizontal, not verticle like a fish. Also, the octopus in the video is not moving head first like the article says. The video is located here: [2]. The suspect portions start at 3:12 and another at 4:12. 75.88.30.191 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of octopus

{{editsemiprotected}} the plural of octopus is octopodes, not octopusses as written in this article, as explained here http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/plurals?view=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.101.24 (talkcontribs) 09:13, 21 December 2009, Monday (UTC-5)

See Octopus#Terminology and the sources listed therein. ~ Amory (utc) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question about intelligence and life span

Hi! If anyone knows, I for one would appreciate a solution to a conundrum. The brain is an expensive organ to grow and maintain, and learning takes time. „Octopodes“ (if we follow the above) are short-lived. Is there a reasonable explanation for why they invest so much of their limited time in this? All the best 85.220.111.211 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slit pupil causes astigmatism

"Although their slit-shaped pupils might be expected to afflict them with astigmatism, it appears that this is not a problem in the light levels in which an octopus typically hunts". This statement is incorrect. The lens, which changes the vergence of light behind the pupil is spherical, not cylindrical. Fillup (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The octopus does not travel head first

It has no 'head' to speak of. When it jets, it travels mantle-first, which is similar to saying it travels ass-first. 70.179.127.14 (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The octopus has a head, which contains its brain. The mouth and the eyes are on the head. Hope this helps. —Mark Dominus (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus cooking

Galician woman preparing polbo á feira
Galician woman preparing polbo á feira

Would anyone add any of these pictures? I think they are rather interesting for the article. The images depict two women preparing polbo á feira.--194.80.194.85 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]