Talk:Cephalopod limb

"Tantacle" as a General Term vs. "Tentacle" as a Cephalopod-specific Biological Term
I disagree to some extent with the consideration of "tentacle" as an incorrect term. I would argue that it depends on the scope of the topic.

When in the context of biology, specifically of cephalopods, it is necessary to use separate words to form a distinction between limbs of different anatomy and function. However, when such a biological distinction/specification isn't necessary, "tentacle" may be used as an umbrella term for cephalopod limbs.

My first argument for this is that the vast majority of English speakers will refer to a cephalopod limb as a "tentacle" in a general context. While it could be argued that the vast majority are wrong, the word 'tentacle' has become a de facto term to refer to such a limb. If a person were to write a book and one of the characters found the arm of some kind of squid or octopus on the beach, I doubt the book would say, 'He found a severed arm on the beach." Wiktionary describes "tentacle" as "An elongated, boneless, flexible organ or limb of some animals, such as the octopus and squid."

Even this article makes reference to an octopus having tentacles. It says: "The terrifyingly powerful Gorgon of Greek mythology has been thought to have been inspired by the octopus or squid, the octopus itself representing the severed head of Medusa, the beak as the protruding tongue and fangs, and its tentacles as the snakes." The article is contradicting itself by using a term it deems incorrect.

My next argument is that the general biological definition of "tentacle" defines things dissimilar to cephalopod limbs. A "feeding tentacle" and and "arm" have far more in common with each other than they do with the tentacles of a cnidarian. It makes no sense to refer to a hair like appendage covered in stinging cells as a tentacle while claiming it is incorrect to refer to any cephalopod limb as a tentacle.

If no one has any objections, I would like to see this edited and cleared up.

AbyssopalegicIdeas (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many photos?
This has the potential to be a really neat Wiki article, but the image to text ratio is pretty unbalanced, which makes for a somewhat cumbersome article. At first glance it appears to be a collection of as many images the author(s) could find, with little explanation as to why they were chosen. What conclusions is the reader to draw from the list of different arm, club, and sucker shapes? Do they correspond to categories that biologists actually use or is it a subjective gallery of things that look different to the Wiki author(s)? I believe a good deal of revision, simplification, and different image format (e.g. galleries or thubnails) would help improve the encyclopedic quality of this article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Attribution
Text and references copied from Octopus to Cephalopod limb See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)