Fascinating Article About Octopuses

[jaydeehess]

I still think I need to develop Octopie (Imagined as some sort of 8-layer baked dessert dish...)

hmmm, perhaps an eight layed seafood savory dish instead.


if said sea creatures are all very young (or being pursued by British intelligence) are they Octopussys

 

[bruto]

The thing is that "octopuses" and "octopi" are both long-standing, widely-used options, although formal language tends to prefer "octopuses". (So, if anything, "octopi" is the less snobby, more tongue-in-cheek option.)

As far as "mixed roots" go, the word was actually borrowed into Latin before it came to English. English isn't the only language willing to steal terms. So there's good, historical reason for "octopi".

Anyway, we should probably get back to discussing the creatures instead of the terms used to describe them. Octopodesesi are definitely cool and surprisingly intelligent critters.

I was actually surprised to find that Lewis and Short (kind of the Oxford of Latin dictionaries, Latin to Latin) does not include a Latin "octopus" at all, which makes me wonder what the ancient Romans called the thing. It leads me to suspect that they called it by its Greek name and never Latinized it, so perhaps we should blame Linnaeus or someone for octopi. Oh well, it is indeed trivial and needs to be put to rest, since by any name those octopodal creatures are fascinating and intelligent at the same time as they are about as alien as anything can be to us, which makes them that much more interesting. It is useful to remember that there is not only one avenue with intelligence at the end of it.

 

[nimzov]

I was actually surprised to find that Lewis and Short (kind of the Oxford of Latin dictionaries, Latin to Latin) does not include a Latin "octopus" at all, which makes me wonder what the ancient Romans called the thing. It leads me to suspect that they called it by its Greek name and never Latinized it, so perhaps we should blame Linnaeus or someone for octopi.

In Latin : Polypus

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polypus

 

[Hellbound]

hmmm, perhaps an eight layed seafood savory dish instead.


if said sea creatures are all very young (or being pursued by British intelligence) are they Octopussys

Actually, my other thought was some sort of meat pie, with 8 layers of meats and cheeses.

ETA: And 8 bacon-strip "tentacles" around the top

GMTA

 

[Dinwar]

Good English usage generally requires that we do not mix Latin stems with Greek prefixes, or vice versa (of course, there are many exceptions to this rule, for instance, we should say uninuclear rather than mononuclear, but such terms are hallowed by usage). In the sciences, most of us should strive for correct usage.

Complete and utter rubbish. English is such an amalgamation of languages that it's impossible to separate them out into their originals for the overwhelming majority of the population. There is absolutely no justification for insisting that we segregate our language based on long-forgotten divisions, any more than there is for separating the butter and gravy from mashed potatoes. Furthermore, as you yourself point out, even you don't agree with your rule. And you point out why: English is more concerned with what sounds good than with what the originators of the word thought.

As for science, the rules for naming species are codified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This code does not include instructions for the pluralization of common names; therefore scientists can do whatever they bloody well want provided others can understand them.

...at the same time as they are about as alien as anything can be to us...

Not even close.

It is useful to remember that there is not only one avenue with intelligence at the end of it.

They also teach another lesson: in order for intelligence to go anywhere, the parents must exist at the same time as the offspring. Octopi die before the young are born (or at least before they exit the larval stage), and they therefore can't pass on any information. Imagine if humanity was still at the level of the first Homo sapiens. One interesting implication of this is that the intelligent sauropods in Dinotopia are impossible (well, even more impossible)--at least some sauropods appear to have lived in age-segregated groups, resulting in a similar situation to that found in octopi. In contrast, Tyrannosaurs could have easily transmitted information to their young, as they appear to have lived in small family units at least part of the time.

 

[bruto]

In Latin : Polypus

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polypus

Apparently, and it's clear my Latin scholarship is marginal at best, complicated by my not having handy a bilingual Latin dictionary of any worth. I do find "polypus" in the dictionary, with the synonym given of Linnaeus's sepia octopodia, which means we cannot blame Linnaeus for octopi, but the differentiation between octopus and squid gets pretty dodgy here, and many other sources consider that critter to be a squid.

Anyway, speaking of the terror of the deep, what's a thread on octopussssessss or polypies or whatever, without a little tentacle art. Her's a little print I found years ago at a yard sale, which has always amused me....

 

[kedo1981]

I had cephalopod salad yesterday, yummy

 

[xtifr]

They also teach another lesson: in order for intelligence to go anywhere, the parents must exist at the same time as the offspring. Octopi die before the young are born (or at least before they exit the larval stage), and they therefore can't pass on any information.

But they can and do learn from observing other octopuses. Which I find particularly striking in light of the fact that they haven't evolved to learn from their parents.

This does suggest a possible way to get around your dilemma. Even if the parents die giving birth to their young, the aunts and uncles (and later, cousins) could teach the kids, as long as the birthing cycle can be properly staggered. Of course, this doesn't apply to octopuses, since there's no evidence they actively teach. (Learning is not the same as teaching.) But their distant descendants could still have a shot at real intelligence despite their apparent reproductive trap.

They're already among the very smartest of non-vertebrates as it is.

 

[anor277]

Complete and utter rubbish. English is such an amalgamation of languages that it's impossible to separate them out into their originals for the overwhelming majority of the population. There is absolutely no justification for insisting that we segregate our language based on long-forgotten divisions, any more than there is for separating the butter and gravy from mashed potatoes.

Steady down, old son. I've said nothing that requires such a rude response. There are forms and there are forms. Where the original Greek and Latin roots exist, and are recognizable, it is very reasonable that we supply the appropriate (and correct) suffix or prefix. For most areas of science there are terms whose origins can be immediately appreciated. These divisions have not been long forgotten (you yourself seem to remember them). Such an approach would have prevented the mulitple plural form, octopi, octopodes, octopussies. I wonder what is the plural of 'rhinoceros'.

Furthermore, as you yourself point out, even you don't agree with your rule. And you point out why: English is more concerned with what sounds good than with what the originators of the word thought.

You are saying that I don't agree with my own argument. I am saying that I do not insist on my own argument. You might insist otherwise, but you are being unnecessarily gratuitous.

As for science, the rules for naming species are codified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This code does not include instructions for the pluralization of common names; therefore scientists can do whatever they bloody well want provided others can understand them.

As I've said before in different context, The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, not that I've heard of such a thing before, is not the authority for good English usage. The authority for good English usage is good English usage. Of course, this argument is circular. And you do not need to insist that scientists can do bloody well do as they bloody well want; certainly not to me. By the same token, journal proof-readers (in whatever journal that publishes papers about pulpos) can accept what they bloody well want as well; it would be their final decision in accepting a paper.

 

[coalesce]

Who knew my thread would turn out to be a grammar lesson?

Michael

 

[FenerFan]

This video was linked on the sidebar of the article. Amazing camouflage.




This was also on the sidebar.

A note on grammar: Octopuses, not octopi, is now considered the correct plural among the octopus intelligentsia. Octopi has been discarded as the plural because of its Latin ending on a Greek word. The correct plural for applepus, however, is still apple pie.

End of discussion.

 

[dlorde]

But they can and do learn from observing other octopuses. Which I find particularly striking in light of the fact that they haven't evolved to learn from their parents.

This does suggest a possible way to get around your dilemma. Even if the parents die giving birth to their young, the aunts and uncles (and later, cousins) could teach the kids, as long as the birthing cycle can be properly staggered. Of course, this doesn't apply to octopuses, since there's no evidence they actively teach. (Learning is not the same as teaching.) But their distant descendants could still have a shot at real intelligence despite their apparent reproductive trap.

They're already among the very smartest of non-vertebrates as it is.

Yes, and apparently although they're normally solitary, there are a couple of places where many live in close proximity, with potential for cooperation. One wonders whether this is a fluke of circumstance or if there's a selective advantage.

The other point that occurred to me was that, given that they show unusual intelligence, and even some attributes of consciousness, yet have a nervous system developed independently of, and quite unlike that of vertebrates, it suggests that intelligence, and perhaps even consciousness, is not unique to vertebrates, which has implications for the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[bruto]

Yes, and apparently although they're normally solitary, there are a couple of places where many live in close proximity, with potential for cooperation. One wonders whether this is a fluke of circumstance or if there's a selective advantage.

The other point that occurred to me was that, given that they show unusual intelligence, and even some attributes of consciousness, yet have a nervous system developed independently of, and quite unlike that of vertebrates, it suggests that intelligence, and perhaps even consciousness, is not unique to vertebrates, which has implications for the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

That latter part is what I find fascinating, and a bit humbling. Humans have traditionally seen intelligence as something developing along a path of which we are the end, at least for the time being. But here is a creature that diverged a long long way back, and has developed intelligence in a different way, for different purposes. Sharing the podium with an eight armed invertebrate with suckers puts a pretty big kink in the great chain of being.

 

[Dinwar]

Steady down, old son. I've said nothing that requires such a rude response.

Welcome to the internet. You're going to wait a LONG time before you hear such phrases as "I'm trying to be the bigger man" come out of my mouth.

You came in spitting fire and birmstone about how language MUST work. You're also demonstrably wrong, by your own admission. Pointing that out isn't rude. I'll grant that my tone could probably have been better, but the fact remains that you yourself provided the argument with which anyone can dismiss your own stance. If you look at the content, you'll find that I'm right.

Where the original Greek and Latin roots exist, and are recognizable, it is very reasonable that we supply the appropriate (and correct) suffix or prefix.

No, it isn't, for one very simple and self-evident reason: we are speaking neither Greek nor Latin. Contrary to popular myth, this means that we are not obliged to abide by the rules of those languages. Languages change through time; if a large number of people use a particular construction, that construction is right--regardless of the rules of dead languages. This is particularly true in English, which is nothing more than a mash-up of languages with extremely different, often contradictory, rules.

In short, if we're not speaking in a language that language's rules have no bearing on how we use words. The only applicable rules are those of the language we're using--and English has essentially NO rules. It certainly has no regulatory body. Therefore whatever people use is, despite what pedants and people with nothing better to do with their lives than police diction of others will tell you, the correct usage.

You are saying that I don't agree with my own argument.

You don't. You yourself demonstrated that there are exceptions. Thus, we can include "octopi" or "octopuses" as yet one more. Thus, your argument is invalid. Using your own logic we can dismiss your argument.

As I've said before in different context, The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, not that I've heard of such a thing before, is not the authority for good English usage.

If you are going to bother to respond to my arguments, I feel it justifiable to expect you to read them. I made it quite clear that here I'm talking about SCIENTIFIC usage of terms--which IS governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, your ignorance of the topic not withstanding. If you haven't heard of the Code, I respectfully suggest you refrain from stating what scientists must do in regards to species names, as the Code is the rules regarding that topic. The quoted text above is sufficient for anyone knowledgeable on the topic to dismiss your views--because the quoted text above is your admission that you don't know what you're talking about.

Since your statement implies that I've made this stuff up, and therefore implies a rather deplorable dishonesty on my part (don't deny it; I'm sick of trite and transparnetly dishonest attempts to weasel out of the implications of one's statements), allow me to present my evidence:

http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

If you wish to argue about how scientists must refer to species, that Commission is the appropriate authority. Once you've convinced them, get back to me. Until then, you are demonstrably wrong--the rules of nomenclature do not agree with you.

This does suggest a possible way to get around your dilemma. Even if the parents die giving birth to their young, the aunts and uncles (and later, cousins) could teach the kids, as long as the birthing cycle can be properly staggered.

I've highlighted your problem.

One wonders whether this is a fluke of circumstance or if there's a selective advantage.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Gould called this sort of thing contingency; chaos is the more generic term.

The other point that occurred to me was that, given that they show unusual intelligence, and even some attributes of consciousness, yet have a nervous system developed independently of, and quite unlike that of vertebrates, it suggests that intelligence, and perhaps even consciousness, is not unique to vertebrates, which has implications for the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

I've been arguing that since I got onto this forum. Any search for intelligent life that limits itself to looking for things like us is necessarily excluding a huge variety of potential intelligences, and our own planet demonstrates that in numerous ways.

 

[xtifr]

This does suggest a possible way to get around your dilemma. Even if the parents die giving birth to their young, the aunts and uncles (and later, cousins) could teach the kids, as long as the birthing cycle can be properly staggered.

I've highlighted your problem.

Well, I freely grant that it would require a truly bizarre set of mutations. But something triggers sexual maturity in octopuses. A flaw in that mechanism which only gave it a 50% chance of triggering every year could lead to the scenario I propose. For that matter, it doesn't have to be aunts and uncles. It could be third cousins or something.

And even if it's not possible with octopuses, it still could happen with some creature, at least in theory, so it's not necessarily true that advanced intelligence/intergenerational teaching (whether octopoid or not) requires living parents.

That said, I admit that there's probably zero chance of this ever happening with octopuses. But I like to hold on to a sliver of hope, just because octopuses are so cool and intelligent, and I'd like to think there's a dim possibility they can reach the next level.

For that matter, if some third party (like, ferexample, humans) were to interfere, all bets are off. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UpliftedAnimal

 

[anor277]

Welcome to the internet. You're going to wait a LONG time before you hear such phrases as "I'm trying to be the bigger man" come out of my mouth.

Apparently so; my own stance is never to write something that I would not be willing to say personally. This is not the worse position to take.

You came in spitting fire and birmstone about how language MUST work. You're also demonstrably wrong, by your own admission. Pointing that out isn't rude. I'll grant that my tone could probably have been better, but the fact remains that you yourself provided the argument with which anyone can dismiss your own stance. If you look at the content, you'll find that I'm right.

You misrepresent my position. Brimstone was never part of my approach. Your tone remains rude and intemperate ("complete and utter rubbish" versus "you are mistaken"). Is it reasonable to extend courtesy to people whom you have never met?

No, it isn't, for one very simple and self-evident reason: we are speaking neither Greek nor Latin. Contrary to popular myth, this means that we are not obliged to abide by the rules of those languages. Languages change through time; if a large number of people use a particular construction, that construction is right--regardless of the rules of dead languages. This is particularly true in English, which is nothing more than a mash-up of languages with extremely different, often contradictory, rules.

I've been reminded (again) that we are speaking English. Who knew? A solecism is a solecism. "If a large number of people use the construction..." is simply argument by popularity.

In short, if we're not speaking in a language that language's rules have no bearing on how we use words. The only applicable rules are those of the language we're using--and English has essentially NO rules. It certainly has no regulatory body. Therefore whatever people use is, despite what pedants and people with nothing better to do with their lives than police diction of others will tell you, the correct usage.

Do you think you should include yourself among the pedants and those with nothing better to do with their lives? Please, don't include me; simple courtesy dictates this. English has rules that are rules when followed.

You don't. You yourself demonstrated that there are exceptions. Thus, we can include "octopi" or "octopuses" as yet one more. Thus, your argument is invalid. Using your own logic we can dismiss your argument.

What argument? The thread, at the point I entered, had not identified the logical plural of octopus. I did not prescribe this.

If you are going to bother to respond to my arguments, I feel it justifiable to expect you to read them. I made it quite clear that here I'm talking about SCIENTIFIC usage of terms--which IS governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, your ignorance of the topic not withstanding. If you haven't heard of the Code, I respectfully suggest you refrain from stating what scientists must do in regards to species names, as the Code is the rules regarding that topic. The quoted text above is sufficient for anyone knowledgeable on the topic to dismiss your views--because the quoted text above is your admission that you don't know what you're talking about.

I haven't told anyone what to do. Except ask you to temper your responses. Such a request has not been granted. This reflects on you and not me.

Since your statement implies that I've made this stuff up, and therefore implies a rather deplorable dishonesty on my part (don't deny it; I'm sick of trite and transparnetly dishonest attempts to weasel out of the implications of one's statements), allow me to present my evidence:

http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

If you wish to argue about how scientists must refer to species, that Commission is the appropriate authority. Once you've convinced them, get back to me. Until then, you are demonstrably wrong--the rules of nomenclature do not agree with you.

My statement does no such thing. Again, you have been a bit personal and gratuitous. I stated my ignorance, and was perfectly prepared to accept the existence of such a body. If you are sick of trite and dishonest statements, you are not part of a minority.

I apologize for this little hissy fit; especially as it diverts from the thread.

 

[Mark6]

This thread and the OP article very much remind me of this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264858

And how silly Mudcat's reasoning in it was.

 

[marting]

Yum. Got one at the grocery, sliced it up and ate it. Delicious little suckers.

 

[Dinwar]

Yum. Got one at the grocery, sliced it up and ate it. Delicious little suckers.

This is something I'm still debating: are octopi intelligent enough to warrant refusing to eat them? I wouldn't eat a more obviously sentient creature, after all.

 

[xtifr]

This is something I'm still debating: are octopi intelligent enough to warrant refusing to eat them? I wouldn't eat a more obviously sentient creature, after all.

While they're extremely smart for invertebrates, I think there are many mammals in our diet (or at least my diet) that are even smarter. Pigs, for example, and probably goats. Of course, if you don't eat those because of their intelligence, then the question might remain open. I'm not sure how octopuses compare to chickens or turkeys, smartwise.