User talk:Cwmhiraeth/Species

Some notes
To give me better practice in summarizing information I have started another practice article here. For the moment I have just created a skeletal article but have provided the source from which I intend to summarize information, starting later today. I like the Biological Bulletin because of its free content. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. The basis of the new octopus article looks OK. I left you more notes in the text of the draft of the Neotrigonia species article. I also created an article for that genus. Thanks for the link to the Biological Bulletin article, I found a piece of information in it that is useful for a paper I am writing. Invertzoo (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, two different drafts are more than enough for me to work on at once. Actually one would have been be more than enough really. Invertzoo (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the draft again today, after you added the description. I changed some of the wording to make it clearer or more accurate, but again I found it very tough to discern exactly which info you got from where in that BB article so I wasn't able to check it properly. Actually, I am surprised that you did not yet mention the flounder mimicry, even in the lede, as that is the most notable thing about this species, but I assume you prefer to construct the article bit by bit, in sequence? Anyway, if I were making the "Description" part, I would be sure to clearly emphasize those features that are characteristic of this species, in contrast to those characteristics that most, if not all, octopus have in common. By the way, Cephalopods are a difficult group and bivalves aren't very much easier. It is very hard to get well orientated with respect to knowledge on these groups unless you are fairly expert on them. Can I ask, how do you select which article you want to create next? Is it whatever you come across that seems interesting? Invertzoo (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working at your request on one section at a time and the mimicry does not form part of the description section. I'll be getting on to that when I start on the "Behaviour" section. If this was in mainspace I would have approached things differently. As to how I choose articles, I keep a list of possibles on my sandbox page but in this instance I chose to look at the Biological Bulletin because of its open access, chose 2010 at random and found this as the second article in volume 1. It looked (and is) interesting and was even about a mollusc so I thought it was ideal for the sort of practice you suggested I undertook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I might have polished the Behaviour section a bit more, but I have to stop now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

28 Apr
I took a very quick look, but I have been out all day and am tired this evening. I will have to postpone any real analysis until tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I wanted also to explain that although I am good on gastropods and bivalves, and know a little about chitons and tusk shells, I am relatively ignorant on cephalopods. I have asked at Project Cephalopods if someone will be kind enough to take a look at the article. Invertzoo (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wednesday 30 April
I took a look at this today. I am not sure how much more you are going to add to it or change it around?

Right now it seems to be almost avoiding making the point that Hanlon, Watson, & Barbosa consider this to be a "mimic octopus" species. That is very important and very interesting.

All octopuses have the capability of changing their color and patterning to match the substrate they are on, so that is not at all unusual. What is unusual about this species is that it actually really does also seem to mimic the behavior of one flatfish (flounder) species that lives in the same area. Why is that helpful to the octopus?

First of all we must understand that the flounder also can change its coloring to imitate the pattern of the substrate. The flounder uses that camouflage to conceal it when it is stationary. However the flounder becomes quite visible when it moves around. The same thing would in theory be true of this octopus (concealed by camouflage when stationary, but not so when it is moving). However, what the octopus does, is that when it moves, it mimics the shape and behavior of the flounder, very precisely in ways that seem amazing when you think what a different shaped animal it is! That way the octopus probably manages to fool predators into thinking it is a flounder (a flat fish) and not a tasty little soft-bodied octopus.

There are a whole bunch of small edits I would make on this to make it more coherent and clear, but I will let you have a go and see what you come up with.

Invertzoo (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mimic?

 * As you say, the mimicking is important and I will have another look at the source and see what conclusions they reach. In general, scientific papers undertake studies and report what they have found but do not necessarily draw inferences from their findings, although they often include a "Discussion" section at the end. Now this octopus has a wide range (I need to add a short section on distribution) and I have not investigated the flounder properly but it may not occur across the whole range of the octopus. So, how do octopuses in other parts of its range behave? We don't know because they may not have been studied elsewhere. So I think the article needs to be careful not to extrapolate these results into general conclusions. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The species is described in the title of the paper as a "mimic octopus". If for some reason you are not comfortable calling it that, then you can say that Hanlon, Watson, & Barbosa (2010) consider this to be a "mimic octopus" species, and go on from there to explain why they say that. And yes, absolutely you should not make statements or claims that stretch beyond what the sources say. After all a Wikipedia article is not a new definitive statement about a species, it is only a compendium of what has already been reliably said in sources. Sometimes what is known to science is actually very little, because very little is known about a lot of species, in some cases hardly anything. There are a huge number of mollusks species, at least 100,000, and at any given time there are only about 200 or 300 malacologists world-wide. Species that live in the sea are very difficult to observe, unlike those that live on land. The range of the flounder may not be very well known in any detail, and I am sure the range of the octopus is not very well known either, because it is small and inconspicuous. In my own research and the papers I publish, I am constantly adding to the known range of various species. Biology is just a vast unexplored field. Invertzoo (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I daresay I could say something like "Hanlon, Watson, & Barbosa (2010) studied this octopus in the Caribbean and found it to be a mimic of the flounder ..." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, or you can say "studied this octopus in the wild in the Caribbean, and consider it to be a mimic..." You know, the authors also include information from other researchers too; what they report is not exclusively their research. Invertzoo (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another point about distribution, this study uses Atlantic in the title but actually took place in the Caribbean. Is the Caribbean considered to be part of the Atlantic? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Caribbean Sea is considered to be a part of the Western Atlantic. Invertzoo (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FishBase is a good site for fish-related info. Here is the link for the plate flounder. Invertzoo (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another source found. http://eurekamag.com/research/021/309/macrotritopus-planktonic-larva-benthic-octopus-octopus-defilippi-diagnosis-distribution.php Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Distribution
This seems a good place to ask you about describing distribution. In general I tend to use the phrases "is native to", "is found in" or "occurs in". In this instance I might state that the octopus "is native to warmer parts of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea, and is also known from the northern Indian Ocean and off the coast of Somalia." But some of this statement is deduction of the sort I am being criticised for in my editor review. I don't actually know where the octopus is native, nor whether the Indian Ocean sightings are routine or exceptional. However, it is described as an Atlantic species by Hanlon, and this implies that the Indian Ocean occurrences are odd. Perhaps we should really end up with "It is found in warmer parts of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea, the northern Indian Ocean and off the coast of Somalia." The word "warmer" might also be considered suspect. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would word it in this way: a species "has been reported from" this place, this, and this. I would always avoid saying "is native to" if you are not sure, or if you are not sure about the status of the rest of its distribution. By the way, it is reasonably common for species to be amphi-Atlantic, which means that the species occurs in the Western Atlantic and the eastern Atlantic. And some species are "pantropical", which means they occur all around the world in the tropics. But in the case of a small drab octopus like this, the distribution is probably not very well known at all.


 * Anyway, I want to say again: please do not feel that you have to write a comprehensive report on any and every species that you tackle. As I have said before, the great majority of marine species (the ones that do not have immediate economic relevance to humans), are extremely poorly known in almost every aspect of their biology. You would be amazed how little is known about almost everything. That's just the way it is and we cannot do anything about that here on Wikipedia.


 * In general when you are writing an article, I would definitely avoid thinking: I must first do a good description; then I must make a good distribution section, then I have to create a good biology section; and so on. I would just simply take the richest source you have found first, read it repeatedly and carefully until you understand it well, and then work out what you can say using the info in that source. Put those facts together and see what headings you can fit them under. If, for example, there is no information about a species' biology, then either do not make a section about biology, or, if a researcher has said that "almost nothing is known about the biology of this species", then quote the researcher with his/her name and date.


 * Do not try to "flesh out" bits of information into something that the original does not say. That is WP:Synthesis, and needs to be carefully avoided. If you are not sure what something means, ask for clarification at a relevant project talk page, do not just guess and hope for the best.


 * I hope you can understand what I am saying and that these notes are helpful to you. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand what you are saying and I think this tuition is very valuable to me. A lot of the things you are talking about are things I have thought about but never had the chance to discuss with anyone. By the way, I have written an article about the flounder here though it needs a bit more polishing yet. I will move both articles into mainspace when you think this one is ready. I'm not asking you to look at the flounder article in detail unless you want to because I guess you have already spent much more time instructing me than you intended to and have plenty of other more pressing things to do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am going to reply to you about this on my talk page, as it is not really about the octopus article per se. Invertzoo (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ready yet, or not?
Some things I see. In the intro where you say, "Its yellowish-brown colouration makes it blend into its surroundings and it is well-camouflaged when stationary.", you are kind of repeating yourself; at least I think you should remove the word "and". Also, technically speaking, when you start a sentence with the word "it" or "its", that is considered to refer to the closest previous noun, which in this case is the word "areas". So you should say "this octopus" or something similar instead of just "its".
 * Rephrased. I left the "it" because it refers to the "it" which is the subject of the previous sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I also feel it is a mistake to say that "when it moves around it does so in such a way as to closely resemble...." I think this is a problem because the octopus does not only resemble the plate fish when the octopus moves around -- it also flattens itself completely flat onto the sea bottom with both eyes together on the upper surface, and that way the octopus can resemble the flatfish even when stationary.
 * I don't find this information in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a little complicated because of course the flounder also resembles the sand, but you don't want to make it sound as if the octopus has two only two completely different strategies, one for being still, and one for swimming.

Also you should not make it sound as if the octopus has only the two camouflage abilities "sand or flounder". It can also resemble gravel, don't they say? I think maybe you should read the article through again.
 * I have read it through again and found some information I had missed and rephrased various things. The gravel aspect is mentioned in the Description section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I also feel, honestly, that you are overdoing it by having 4 articles in progress at once. It certainly means that my efforts (to try to explain techniques to you) have to be fragmented all over the place, which makes it very hard for me to concentrate on tutoring you properly. Are you still in the running for the WikiCup? Is that why you are doing so many at once? Do you intend to submit them as all as DYKs?

In any case I honestly feel very strongly that you should ask another editor to look at them before you consider them "done" and not rely only on my checking. It would be a good idea to ask someone who is sane, but capable of very careful checking and prepared to call you on things that seem inappropriate. Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know just who to ask and will ask him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Replying first to your questions about DYK and the WikiCup, it is my current intention to continue to compete in the WikiCup. Of the 3 articles we are considering I do not intend to nominate the bivalve for DYK but I do intend to nominate the octopus and flounder with a joint hook. As a result of the editor review and your tuition I intend to nominate fewer but better quality articles to DYK. In my opinion it is good to have some biology-related articles at DYK among the albums, episodes of TV series and minor sportsmen that often find their way there. I have more time for Wikipedia activities than you do so I find the pace of the tuition slow, but never mind. I will leave #4 for the time being and intend to start working again on Isopoda, which activity was interrupted by the editor review. I will look at the other points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A few further comments
Hi Cwmhiraeth, thanks for your article work and your willingness to collaborate! Here are a few observations:
 * I am puzzled by the statement that the colour is usually pale yellowish-brown. Not because of misparaphrasing (it is OK in this respect) but because of a deeper issue. The source reports that the colouring of the skin can be controlled by the octopus (" The octopuses have far more control of their skin components and on this background produce a light, small-scale mottle skin pattern replete with small papillae...") so how can we say that the animal is usually of that colour? The source reported only speaks of its colouration on that substrate. Can we really infer this is the default coloration of the animal?
 * Good point. I have changed the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am also perplexed by "Some specimens have been observed to have a white leucophore on the mantle tip". The source as far as I can see says "It is noteworthy that, in some video segments (Fig. 4), the octopus showed a relatively large white leucophore patch at the tip of its mantle". This doesn't mean that some specimens have the leucophore and other don't -as far as I can see, all of them could feature one. I would say something more like "In some circumstances a leucophore has been observed...".
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The paper by Huffard refers to other octopus species and, as far as I can see, never talks about this species. To use it to support an article on this species is a bit akin to WP:SYNTHESIS. It might pass however, provided it is clarified that "For other species, like ... and ..., it has been suggested that they benefited from their mimicry by the fact that..."
 * I have tried an alternative wording. Is this OK? The Huffard article and this conclusion is referred to in Hanlon, Watson, Barbosa. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, link to source 4 (Hanlon, Hixon, Forsythe) doesn't work here. Can we provide a working link? -- cyclopia speak! 09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I sometimes have great difficulty in finding an url for a PDF file that I have found using Google search. I think it may in this case be the "..." that occurs in the middle of the url that causes the problem. The url I have found now seems to work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fixes, Cwmhiraeth. I will have another look as soon as I can.-- cyclopia speak! 23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wanted to thank Cyclopia for helping out here; it is much appreciated. Invertzoo (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome! -- cyclopia speak! 23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Another change
I had to change the sentence about the octopus "digging down into the substrate". The source says "another behavior...was burying into the sandy substrate". The source does not say that the octopus digs into the sand. It might possibly just dive into the sand or get in using some other type of motion. In any case you cannot say that it "digs", which is a specific motion that is not mentioned. Invertzoo (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)