- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 849
I was wondering if anyone knew about any good sites on recent vampy information. All I can find are some basic sites with very little information.
Vampy
- Thread starter GPO87
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Messages
- 4,672
I'm not aware of any recent research on this beast. You could try to track down some of the works by Grace Pickford or Richard Young, but I doubt you'll be able to do so online (you'll have to go to the source, paper journals and theses).
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 410
im showing my ingnorance but what exactly is a "vampy"
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 804
vampyroteuthis, "vampire squid".
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 410
ohh i believe i have heard of those. very deep water species?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2005
- Messages
- 29
Yeah, it is really hard to get good info on vampies. Try 'In Search of the Giant Squid' by Richard Ellis - it has a little bit of info on vampies... But again, not much. I hope you find something better!
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,028
Here you go, GP087, the Tree of Life pages on Vampyroteuthis.
Fascinating animal, did you know it is the only surviving member of the vampyromorphs? They were a widespread cephalopod group with many differing forms back in the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Many of these ancient forms had two pairs of fins, a trace of this can be seen in the Vampire which grows two pairs, the first pair being absorbed back into the body shortly after hatching.
This bizarre animal is neither a squid or an octopus but probably had a common ancestor with those groups back in the late Devonian at some date approximately around 360 million years ago. That's why many people refer to it as a living fossil.
An incredible beast indeed.
Fascinating animal, did you know it is the only surviving member of the vampyromorphs? They were a widespread cephalopod group with many differing forms back in the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Many of these ancient forms had two pairs of fins, a trace of this can be seen in the Vampire which grows two pairs, the first pair being absorbed back into the body shortly after hatching.
This bizarre animal is neither a squid or an octopus but probably had a common ancestor with those groups back in the late Devonian at some date approximately around 360 million years ago. That's why many people refer to it as a living fossil.
An incredible beast indeed.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,631
That's a terrific link, Phil! I'm a little confused, however: I've long heard of vampyroteuthis infernalis, but a few years back I also heard mention of a beastie known as vampyroteuthis diabolus. Does such a separate variety actually exist, or was the messenger (in this case, Mike De Gruy) wrong? 
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 849
Yeah! thanks for the link Phil, I did a research project on it in grade 11, and found out the skinny on it. I was amazed at all the cool stuff this species had.
Erich~ I know what you mean about two seperate species... I beleive "diabolus" was first mentioned on "Incredible suckers" (I reviewed my copy just to make sure). I'm not sure which is correct because as far as I can make out they look exactly the same. Again thanks for all the replies!
Erich~ I know what you mean about two seperate species... I beleive "diabolus" was first mentioned on "Incredible suckers" (I reviewed my copy just to make sure). I'm not sure which is correct because as far as I can make out they look exactly the same. Again thanks for all the replies!
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 849
(For those of you who have no clue what we're talking about 
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,028
As far as know there is no such animal as 'V. diabolis'. In fact the only reference I have seen to this is on the back of the 'Incredible Suckers' video. I really have no idea where that came from and I'm 99.9% sure V. infernalis is the only species.
If anyone can show otherwise, I'll buy them a pint.
If anyone can show otherwise, I'll buy them a pint.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18
Well, when "Incredible Suckers" was made, was there already sinificant prior info about it? Perhaps it was first identified as "V. diabolis" and later its name was changed to "V. Infernalis"..
Just a guess
Just a guess
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2003
- Messages
- 527
The name "V. diabolis" was an editorial mistake- those animals were infernalis. Brad Seibel has done a lot of work on these animals, describing their locmotion, physiology and some behavior. His papers will probably show up in Google Scholar.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Messages
- 4,672
Phil said:
Pity you're so far away ... it'll be flat by the time I get to drink it (but then don't all you Brits drink your beer warm and flat?
).V. diabilis/bolis was invented for the camera, but that's not to say that there's only a single species of Vampyroteuthis. This one is nomen dubium, but it could be a good species nevertheless; I'm pretty sure that there'll be more than one species tied up in this. It would be nice for someone to do a Masters or PhD on the subject, looking at material from around the world (of which there is a lot).
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,028
Steve,
As far as I understand, way back in 1946 Grace Pickford deduced there was just one species. Prior to that I have read that at least eleven species in eight genera had been tentatively identified, but Pickford determined that these forms were all misidentifications based on poor states of preservation of examined specimens.
However, to me it does seem remarkable that a genera with a world wide distribution in tropical and temperate waters is simply a single species, I would have thought that something so widespread would have displayed speciation, especially as individuals do not appear to be particularly mobile or capable of travelling great distances. Unless there is a continuous population band of interbreeding Vampyroteuthis circulating and connecting, across the globe, I don't see how the animal could not have speciated.
Mind you, I probably have no idea what I'm talking about!
As far as I understand, way back in 1946 Grace Pickford deduced there was just one species. Prior to that I have read that at least eleven species in eight genera had been tentatively identified, but Pickford determined that these forms were all misidentifications based on poor states of preservation of examined specimens.
However, to me it does seem remarkable that a genera with a world wide distribution in tropical and temperate waters is simply a single species, I would have thought that something so widespread would have displayed speciation, especially as individuals do not appear to be particularly mobile or capable of travelling great distances. Unless there is a continuous population band of interbreeding Vampyroteuthis circulating and connecting, across the globe, I don't see how the animal could not have speciated.
Mind you, I probably have no idea what I'm talking about!
