- Joined
- Apr 17, 2003
- Messages
- 17
Guys,
Check out this link to the LNHM website regarding the known length of A.Dux. They claim it is 18m...
Sorry, that's a dead link (404)
I emailed them about it saying 'isn't it 13m???' and I got the reply below, your thoughts please:
Dear Aron,
The problem with these rarely seen molluscs is in trusting some of the
accounts from the past. They come ashore in less than perfect condition
and so a certain amount of extrapolation was employed, not to say possible
exaggeration. A specimen which washed ashore at Plum Island,
Massachusetts, in 1980 was only 2.7 metres long but lacked the feeding
tentacles which would have conferred a total length of around 9
metres. This example was well documented and seems entirely reasonable to me.
The Tickle Bay specimen measured in (?)1878 was supposed to have been 6.1
metres in body length alone and the 10.7 metre feeding tentacles gave it an
overall length of well in excess of 16 metres. I'm not at all sure that
anything seen more recently has come near those spectacular measurements
and they are accepted by the Smithsonian Institution. Rather like the
great white shark, early accounts of gigantic size come back to haunt us
with their implication that everything was bigger and better in the good
old days, and those figures get reproduced in every text book and website
until they acquire the status of undisputed fact. If the Tickle Bay squid
was accurately recorded then it may have been an exceptional example.
I think a certain amount of caution is required, and I'm sure you are right
to question our exhibit, first put together at a time when such
measurements went undisputed. This is not to say larger examples are not
out there, but it's hard to study an animal in such an inaccessible
environment.
Thanks for your comments and I'll pass them along to the exhibition department.
Mandy Holloway
Zoology Information Services
*****
Check out this link to the LNHM website regarding the known length of A.Dux. They claim it is 18m...
Sorry, that's a dead link (404)
I emailed them about it saying 'isn't it 13m???' and I got the reply below, your thoughts please:
Dear Aron,
The problem with these rarely seen molluscs is in trusting some of the
accounts from the past. They come ashore in less than perfect condition
and so a certain amount of extrapolation was employed, not to say possible
exaggeration. A specimen which washed ashore at Plum Island,
Massachusetts, in 1980 was only 2.7 metres long but lacked the feeding
tentacles which would have conferred a total length of around 9
metres. This example was well documented and seems entirely reasonable to me.
The Tickle Bay specimen measured in (?)1878 was supposed to have been 6.1
metres in body length alone and the 10.7 metre feeding tentacles gave it an
overall length of well in excess of 16 metres. I'm not at all sure that
anything seen more recently has come near those spectacular measurements
and they are accepted by the Smithsonian Institution. Rather like the
great white shark, early accounts of gigantic size come back to haunt us
with their implication that everything was bigger and better in the good
old days, and those figures get reproduced in every text book and website
until they acquire the status of undisputed fact. If the Tickle Bay squid
was accurately recorded then it may have been an exceptional example.
I think a certain amount of caution is required, and I'm sure you are right
to question our exhibit, first put together at a time when such
measurements went undisputed. This is not to say larger examples are not
out there, but it's hard to study an animal in such an inaccessible
environment.
Thanks for your comments and I'll pass them along to the exhibition department.
Mandy Holloway
Zoology Information Services
*****