# Talk:Amphioctopus marginatus

And the other bipedal-walking octopus is? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added reference to second species. Jnpet 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I realise you are just quoting the paper , but I think their assertin of tool use by the invertabrate is a bit of a thin claim. What about a hermit crab, for instance, which not only uses the "tool" but discards it when it finds a better one. Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Vic. According to the AP article: "What makes it different from a hermit crab is this octopus collects shells for later use, so when it's transporting it, it's not getting any protection from it," Finn said. "It's that collecting it to use it later that is unusual." [1] --BorgQueen (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I see the point, maybe its worth adding that to the article as II jusr read the tool definition as the key point. Do feel free to delete/amend my edit. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the Mud Dauber Wasp which carries mud to use for its nest-building? Nex Iuguolo (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Making "later intended use" the nub of the criterion, seems to be the start of a slippery slope, since the researcher is required to speculate about the motive of the octopus - how does one interpret the action of a hermit crab that deliberately removes an anemone from where it is growing and transplants it to its shell - is it a deterrent or camouflage, something symbiotic or perhaps pure decoration? Androstachys (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think part of the argument has to do with the difference between the instinctive vs. the cognitive behavior of an organism.  A hermit crab will attach an anemone to its shell NOT because it is thinking "Hey, if I stuck one of these to my shell, I might deter predators" but rather because it is thinking, "I am a hermit crab and one of the things I do is I take one of these and I put it there I have no idea why but I do" whereas the octopus, already a very highly intelligent animal, IS thinking, "Hey, these coconut shells... I wonder if I could make a shelter out of a bunch of them" and not just, "I am an octopus and I take these things and I put them there I have no idea why but I do."  The Octopus hasn't been doing this for millions of years like the hermit crab-- its behavior is recent and is a new adaptation to a change in its environment (the presence of the shells).  The hermit crabs aren't thinking about anything, but are just doing their best to follow a genetic program that happens to include the apparent "use" of anemones.  KDS4444Talk 11:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We do often have animals at a common name, but in my opinion this should only be done when the common name is in real common use. I am not sure whether that is true for this animal. For mammals, I wrote on this at User:Ucucha/Titles, and the test I devised there has the following result: This name fails the double fives test (11 total hits; 17.2%; common name in Books 9, Scholar 2; scientific name in Books 32, in Scholar 32). (note I used both "Octopus marginatus" and "Amphioctopus marginatus" for the scientific name). Therefore, I think it's reasonable to keep it at the scientific name. Ucucha 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. 124.107.63.20 (talk) 17
06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, so i can change the IW in WP:PT to Amphioctopus marginatus ? Onjacktallcuca? (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please explain. If Amphioctopus marginatus is the name that is most commonly used for this animal in English-language publications, isn't that what we should use? Ucucha 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Do it, but thanks !Onjacktallcuca? (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish a clearer policy would be stated on this sort of thing so there could be less debate.
I don't believe that the intent of WP:naming conventions was to imply usage of the name is statistically the most used. IMHO the policy intended to say which name would be recognizable and accessible to the broadest set of people. In general if there is an accepted informal name, even if a lot of people haven't heard of that name or the scientific name, it is preferable to use the informal name, provided the informal name has notable usage.
In the case of veined octopus, here are a few references that use this name:
Clever octopus builds a mobile home: Finding marks first reported instance of an invertebrate acquiring tools, MSNBC, 14 Dec. 2009
Cephalopods, a world guide: Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Atlantic ..., Norman, p. 231
Encyclopedia of the Aquatic World, Volume 6‎, p. 765
Reefs Revealed, Mustard, p. 154
Zip Code Zoo: Octopus marginatus (Veined Octopus)
The news articles alone demonstrate that Veined Octopus is an accepted term. To me that makes it a preferable title than the scientific name, which is less accessible to the average reader. I move that this be moved to the vernacular name.
--Mcorazao (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I read through the "double fives test" and, though I applaud the effort at establishing a more concrete standard, I believe that this standard is trying too hard to assign meaning to noise. Google is a wonderful resource but relying on the number of "hits" you get for a string is a pretty dangerous thing to do. Aside from the fact that Google can "hit" on things that really were not what you intended Google does not list every possible resource. There are a variety of reasons that using "hit" ratios can be misleading. Tedious though it may be there is no getting around actually looking at the references and thinking about what the right thing to do is.
OK. In this case, the news results do suggest that "veined octopus" may be well enough accepted. I don't agree with everything else you're saying here, but that's not really relevant to this article. I suggest we wait a while and move it back when no one objects. Ucucha 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I grouped the vernacular names;  "veined" may be more common, but "coconut" is more evocative of what stands out about this animal.  All alternate names (potential article titles) should be bold.  Also, I expanded the lede a little.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the scientific names for articles.  The vernacular/common names for more common species, especially the domesticated ones.Mageclansoftheeast (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions coconut "shell" but from the photo and context it appears this animal uses the husk, not the shell. --Una Smith (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied to you on WP:ERRORS. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll copy that discussion to this talk page, now that it seems to be finished.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article states that "The researchers filmed A. marginatus picking discarded coconut shells from the sea floor".  The term "discarded" suggests that a creature actively and intentionally threw them away, instead of moving on and ignoring them after eating all of the available food therein.  Is this actually the case?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I clarified the sentence. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The video clips show them using coconut shells, not husks.  The shells are split in half, very suggestive of having been processed by humans.  This behavior (specifically using coconut shells) must be of very recent origin, because historically coconut shell was too valuable as a fuel source to ever throw away in the ocean.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


### From WP:ERRRORS
By the researchers' definition of a tool as "an object carried or maintained for future use", the behavior of A. marginatus is the first documented case of tool use in invertebrates. While the hermit crab re-uses a shell which it maintains, what makes A. marginatus different from the hermit crab is that A. marginatus collects shells for future use, so when the octopus is transporting the shell, it is not getting protection from the shell. The researchers considered this highly unusual behavior. 
I have taken issue with this section before and feel that it remains contentious.
The researchers' definition of a tool is not shared by the mainstream scientific community. Did they invent this definition or had it been used before? The WP article Tool does not reflect the 'future use' idea. Taking this flawed and very parochial definition and using it to make the statement 'first documented case of tool use in invertebrates' is quite simply an abuse of logic and should have no place in the article. I am removing this section and ask that it not be re-used without being discussed by a wider group of editors. Androstachys (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And be that as it may, I have just removed a final sentence or two containing the analysis of an editor claiming to refute the findings of the researchers.  If we choose not to repeat a parochial and flawed definition of what "tool use" is (I would argue that it is not our place as editors to make such a decision, but rather to report that such a claim has been made in the published literature and to only refute it with additional citations in the same body of literature that argue otherwise) we also cannot make novel uncited arguments as to why we may personally believe that the argument is invalid.  We are not here to evaluate the findings of researchers, we are here to make an encyclopedic record of those findings to the extent that such findings are published and notable-- and to do so whether or not we "agree" with those arguments.  Yes?  KDS4444Talk 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have recently been doing some editing of Tool use by animals.  What constitutes a "tool" is highly contentious and sometimes it appears researchers give difinitions to exclude animals arbitrarily (especially invertebrates it seems).  I see relatively little difference between the behaviour of hermit crabs and their shells, and the coconut carrying of the veined octopus, other than the apparent recency of the latter (although this might have been ocurring for years without our knowledge - note the scallop shell in the picture; these are not a recent "event").  By the way, hermit crabs will select shells to match their surroundings.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Octopus shell.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 20, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-05-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 19:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)