# Talk:Deimatic behaviour

To avoid redundancy, we normally do not repeat in captions what is already stated explicitly in section headings or the title of an article. There is no need to say an animal is a vertebrate in a section or gallery all about vertebrates, and the article is better off without such a statement. For this reason, I have cut a recent addition.Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just been editing the blue-ringed octopus article regarding the flashing of their rings when agitated.  Some references state that the rings are visible even when the octopus is not being provoked.  Should this be included in the "Deimatic or aposematic" section? DrChrissy (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we know? They could be alluring, or just for contact with other happy octopuses ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
From the page on Aposematism: Blue-ringed octopuses are venomous. They spend much of their time hiding in crevices whilst displaying effective camouflage patterns with their dermal chromatophore cells. However, if they are provoked, they quickly change color, becoming bright yellow with each of the 50-60 rings flashing bright iridescent blue within a third of a second. It has been stated this is an aposematic warning display, although it is pointed out that such statements are often made without the hypothesis being tested. It seems it's not just about the rings. Thus stated, however, it is not known (or, at least, it is not clear) whether this behaviour is aposematic or not. Perhaps the case is made a bit more confusing because blue-ringed octopuses are so venomous. If there is an argument for consistency between articles, aposematism should be mentioned, I suppose. At least to state that the relation exists. Which is not the case for deimatic behaviour. Snjón (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I get the feeling, with no evidence whatsoever, that the rings remain visible because of the translucent skin.  They remain visible under normal conditions "by accident". DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Better not mention them here, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For the image "Colombian four-eyed frog, Pleurodema brachyops" I do not see how the image exhibits deimatic behavior. Going to the animal's page: "When threatened, the frog lowers its head and raises its rear. When the frog adopts this posture, the poison glands are also raised toward the predator." Here, the image just depicts the frog with its head raised. 2600:1700:4579:B80:A40D:D31B:3B16:DF34 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Almost half of the text in this article (and several of the images) discusses displays and defense mechanisms that are explicitly not deimatic behavior. Spiders and scorpions are not bluffing because species x, y, and z are immune to them. Moths are not bluffing some kind of retaliation by clicking while under attack. And rattle snakes? Srsly?
Some of these behaviors are even described as plain old aposematic within the article, with no explanation for their inclusion. 99.196.12.236 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this page needs to be reviewed together with agonistic behavior, another page discussing threat displays in animals, as a lot of overlap may be found between the two. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)