Talk:Squat lobster

Size?
I would like to know how big these things usually are and their maximum size altogether. Is there anyone out there that can add this to the article? --Spyderboyy

I also would like to know about its relative body size compared to other deep sea creatures.Abrahard (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Added body size to description (0.7-3.5 inches in length) Zhulander (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

LANGOSTINO
How is this related to this critter? Langostino If they are the same, shouldn't the article be merged?--208.65.192.1 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my somewhat lengthy reply at Talk:Langostino. --Stemonitis 07:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

10 legs
I thought decapods had ten legs? I see only eight in the image. What happened to the other two? Lupo 11:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, perhaps the remaining two are sitting near the telson, keeping the gills clean, like on hermit crabs?


 * That doesn't make sense to me. The telson is at the tail, whereas the gills are in front of the first pair of pleopods. See e.g. decapod anatomy, or e.g. Krill. Lupo 07:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In many Anomalans, the fifth pair of pereiopods (so those located on the last thoracic segment, before the abdomen and long before the telson) are often located inside the gill chamber, and are used for cleaning the gills. I think this is what 24.118.230.154 meant above, although he/she got the location wrong. If it's not explicit in the Anomala article or elsewhere, I'll have to look at including it. This is, incidentally, why an eight-legged "crab" is not a true crab, but a hermit crab, porcelain crab, king crab, or other pseudo-crab. At least on dead specimens, it's not hard to prise the last pair of legs out, since the carapace is not normally held down. A living animal may, however, object. --Stemonitis 07:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Probably this article should point it out, too, even if that leads to some duplication between this article and Anomala... Lupo 07:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also done. --Stemonitis 10:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Its kinda hard to tell with that picture, but that thing has a long tail that its hiding under it right? Highlandlord 12:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was on a vessel that picked up a bunch of Squat Lobsters off the bottom of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico. I was not sure what the creature was at first, thinking it was half lobster, half crab. The creature had 6 legs and two elongated claws. The tail was folded up under the body, and it is much shorter than a "lobster" tail. The interesting part of this finding was that the creatures lived in sacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.226.99 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NPR
NPR, about two weeks ago, had a rather lengthy discussion of the Langostino debate. If someone can find it, it might provide some good information, as well as a great audio-based external link. ThuranX 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

revert on squat lobster
Hi there, I think you must be mistaken about my edit to squat lobster. Please be so good as undo the rv (I am not going to be silly enough to risk 3rr). The point is this: it may not be the sort of edit that is optimal, or that suits everyone's preferences, but the edit is not against policy, and therefore you have no grounds to rv. The section that I replaced was out of date information, but I don't have time to update it fully, and there is no point, as Wikispecies is that PART OF Wikimedia (of which WP is a part) which looks after such information and keeps it up-to-date. Therefore, to refer the reader to WS makes perfect sense. This might not be your personal preference, but, as I said, it does NOT contravene policy, so please undo the rv... Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have rechecked my revert and I still stand by it. I have not mistaken and will not be reverting myself. If you dont have time for editing dont edit, please let others who have time do that. As for this particular edit, it would be good if you could have some consensus first on the talk page or else you will be reverted by others. please read wp:DR, regards--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look pal, I'm sick to death of WP admins acting like tinpot Hitlers. You are missing the point. I have simply redirected that section of that article to another part of the same overall Wikimedia site (the part called Wikispecies), which is far better able to keep that information updated and reliable. I have effectively just added information, and removed nothing, it is just moved to a different place (Wikispecies). I do NOT need consensus to update articles with new information. I'm not going to let this rest, so please undo the revert as my edit does not contravene policy, and you are abusing your powers, thanks Stho002 (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * why dont you first discuss your edits with other editors of the article squat lobster about the validity of your edit. Like I said above, I am not self reverting--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because User:Stemonitis does not listen to reason, and I don't need to consult anyone to update that info. If I don't redirect it to WS then it will soon fall out of date again, and, as I said, it is the job of WS to keep track of that particular kind of information, so there is absolutely no point in repeating it all here just so it can fall out of date again. As I said, my edit does not contravene any policy that you have shown me, so if you don't self revert, I will find another bureaucrat or steward who will revert it for you ... Stho002 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would request you to assume good faith for other ediors. understand that certain edit that may be controversial needs consensus first. I have already asked User:Stemonitis to give his opinion on this. if we all agree to a consensus with a valid reasoning, we can go ahead. have patience--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but there is absolutely no rational reason why this edit should be controversial at all. My edit is intended to improve the quality of the article, given than biology articles on WP are hardly ever kept up-to-date, except in very "popular" cases. This wouldn't be the first time I have encountered editors on WP who just don't want "their articles" to be changed by others Stho002 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * [I was requested to comment here by DBigXRay.] User:Stho002 is sadly mistaken in a number of areas. Stho002's edits have repeatedly replaced well-sourced information with "This needs revising and updating, see Wikispecies for details", or equivalents. This is unsourced, and is original research. At best, it is a citation to user-generated content (in the case of the two relevant Wikispecies pages, generated almost exclusively by User:Stho002). For all these reasons, the edit is, as you correctly surmised, unconstructive. If Stho002 cannot find the time to fix the problems he/she perceives, then the correct practice would be to place a note on the article's talk page, rather than within the encyclopaedic content. Removing slightly out-of-date, but still basically valid information, and leaving nothing in its place is not acceptable. Contrary to Stho002's assertions, Wikipedia and Wikispecies are separate projects (which is why Wikispecies is cited in "External links"). We can link to it, but it cannot be a replacement for information being presented here. In total, you were quite right to revert Stho002's edit. I don't doubt Stho002's good faith, but the effect has not been positive. Stho002 does not seem to fully understand WP:OR; he/she has also been adding opinion to other articles recently (e.g. "it could therefore be secondary to that of Miller" at Melangyna viridiceps). Hopefully this interaction will encourage Stho002 to learn more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to adopt more collaborative practices here. (I can imagine some admins would block for statements like "Look pal, I'm sick to death of WP admins acting like tinpot Hitlers" alone, so Stho002 is walking on thin ice.) --Stemonitis (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Stemonitis for elaborating your opinion, your answer has clarified a lot of things, I hope this reasoning will satisfy User:Stho002 as well. His opinion about admins might be due to unpleasant experiences in past, but one needs to learn from mistakes and move on. I am glad and must appreciate that User:Stho002 instead of edit warring chose to start a discussion on this. This is the right way ahead, regards--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have referred the matter to a steward, see User_talk:Pathoschild Stho002 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Stho002 We have already explained the reason why my revert does not need to be undone--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  02:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For me this pattern of edits that Stho002 has been engaged in, deleting species lists off of pages and just pointing to wikispecies, is harmful to the goals of wikipedia. Wikispecies is a completely separate project, we don't just delete all the pictures off of a page and tell people to go to Commons to see pictures. Stho002 has made several of these edits, not just this one, and I was quite tempted to go through his editing history and revert them all but decided to post here first. There is absolutely no reason why we wouldn't have theses lists here, this is the primary place people come looking for information, not wikispecies which is a very small project in comparison. — raeky  t  03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * oh! I have not seen the editing history Stho002, IF this has been done at many places, then this clearly needs to be undone. due to above reasons by User:Raeky and User:Stemonitis--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  03:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have re-reverted Stho002 (talk)'s deletion of content (1st time for me). Links to other Wiki projects and even to other Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources, nor are they satisfactory substitutes for properly referenced content. I would recommend that Stho002 cease and desist from this disruptive behaviour, lest s/he attracts the displeasure of a passing admin and ends up on the wrong side of a block, and given the history shown on the user's talk page it is likely to be a lengthy one at that. - Nick Thorne  talk  03:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WS is *not* a completely different project, it is a specialised *part* of the overall Wikimedia project, which is why we have interwikis. I admit that Wikipedia is the best place for a lot of information, but not for the information that WS specialises in. Show me the Wikipedia policy prohibiting content on Wikipedia being redirected to WS, and I will gladly refrain from doing this, otherwise kindly m.y.o.b. ... Stho002 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikispecies is a different project to Wikipedia. Wikimedia is the overall technology and framework for the various projects.  Regardless, even if Wikispecies was actually a part of Wikipedia itself there are several impediments to your attemped deletion of content.  Firstly, the content is properly referenced in accord with both WP:RS and WP:V.  Secondly, in accordance with WP:BRD we are in the discuss stage.  You have clearly not established a consensus (which is policy, btw) for your changes.  Thus I assume you will refrain from making the changes again until and unless you do establish a consensus for the change.  Finally, I take issue with being told by you to "m.y.o.b.", I should not have to remind you that you do not own the page, in fact it is one of the WP:Five Pillars that anyone can edit.  I respectfully request that you strike that comment from your post. -  Nick Thorne  talk  04:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, to address this piece of misunderstanding:

the link itself is not intended to be a source, it is a link *to where the sources are all properly referenced* ... Stho002 (talk)
 * Links to other Wiki projects and even to other Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources, nor are they satisfactory substitutes for properly referenced content
 * I doubt there is a policy specifically addressing this case, and baring a larger community decision there probably won't be, but it's clear that removal of this information is against consensus. —  raeky  t  03:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No information has been removed! It has been *moved* to another article (which happens to be in the WS part of Wikimedia) and added to (updated). I do not need consensus to update information on Wikipedia ... Stho002 (talk)
 * If you want to view it as just moving it to another page (which it's not as clearly has been explained to you) then YES we do have policies of when it's appropriate to split an article: Splitting. — raeky  t  05:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikispecies is a separate project to Wikipedia. If the information is no longer present on Wikipedia, it has been removed. And yes, you very much do need consensus to edit Wikipedia. That is one of the most important tenets of the Wikipedia philosophy. To quote WP:CON, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". You absolutely require consensus, and I think you recognise that you don't have it. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in as one more editor of this page, I agree with the emerging consensus that the page should stay as it is and Stho002's edits are out of line. KarlM (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox
Is there a specific reason why this article does not have a taxobox? I was going to add one but I see that the article has had its fair share of controversy in the past so thought I had better ask first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it's not a taxon. It's a common name applied to several families that do not form a monophyletic group. It could be interpreted as a grade, but not a clade. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a good solution would be to clarify & emphasize the non-monophyly in the introductory paragraph, something to the effect of " 'Squat lobster' is a common name given to members of two unrelated crustacean groups in the taxon Anomura: including Chirostyloidea and some Galatheoidea." Then a taxobox could be provided to  lowest taxon the two groups share (Anomura?), with notes in the subsequent box saying, e.g., "see superfamilies for details", or "Galatheoidea (in part)"  I see that more details are provided in the Classification section, but it would be nice to have some concise, unambiguous mention of the non-monophyly up front, along with the informative visual aid of an annotated taxobox. Animalparty (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Squat lobster eaten and fished in Scotland
The article is wrong to say that it is only commercially fished in South America. Squat lobster is seen on the menu at eating places such as seafood shacks, fish and chip shops and restaurants in Scotland, mostly on the west coast. here, you can see it on a menu menu  and here you can see an orders page for those who want to mail order fresh rock lobster. https://fencebay.co.uk/shop/squat-lobster-tails/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.101.123 (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Deep Sea Biology
— Assignment last updated by Kgb dsb (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review of Gracegjerde Contribution
Grace made additions and edits to the "Classification" section of the Squat lobster Wikipedia, specifically, the evolutionary history and distribution.

"Few morphological characteristics distinguish squat lobsters from other families in the Anomura" seems to be out of place/not related

"Chirostylidae" typo

"DNA sequencing indicates that squat lobsters are not a monophyletic group. Chirostylidae and Kiwaidae are distantly related to the other squat lobsters, and are closer related to hermit crabs and king crabs (Paguroidea), the mole crabs in the superfamily Hippoidea, and the small families Lomisidae and Aeglidae." Should be edited for clarity. What is the relevance of these examples? Are they supposed to be examples of lack of monophylicity?

Andrewsaillant (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review of Squat Lobster Description
Overall Impression:

Content added improved quality of article...by adding a source and increasing morphological description the reader has a better idea of squat lobster morphology (aka more complete)

Strengths:

Very clear, relevant, and thorough information about squat lobster morphology

Good peer-reviewed source added

Further improvements:

"The two main groups of squat lobsters share most features of their morphology. " ...I would explicitly state the two main groups of squat lobsters and say "are morphologically similar" to make the sentence more concise.

The paragraphs are broken up well, but the page is very detailed...maybe consider if all the morphology is relevant to the reader

Also, could add another source to make section more reputable Gracegjerde (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)