# Talk:Homarus gammarus

With respect to it being 'more flavored than the American counterpart'... what does this mean? That it has the same flavor as the American lobster, but with a stronger intensity? This sentence doesn't make much sense to me. 

About the lobster having a finer flavor-I have tasted both. I don't actually recall very much difference in the taste, the only thing I do recall is a difference in preparation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.194.216 (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 
http://www.academia.edu/1332046/Nutritional_quality_of_the_edible_tissues_of_European_lobster_Homarus_gammarus_and_American_lobster_Homarus_americanus
"the European lobsteris much more expensive, as much as 3 times the price,and considered to be more flavored than the Americancounterpart (11)"
Their source 11: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/65/4/551/639240/The-trade-of-live-crustaceans-in-Portugal-space (nothing about taste or flavor, only price in 2007 at a single Portuguese retailer)

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) 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homarus gammarus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ucucha 20:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The way the measurements are given is somewhat confusing: what is the typical length for an adult?
Adults continue to grow until they die, so there isn't really a typical size, merely a minimum (size at sexual maturity), and then a typical size for lobsters considered a worthy catch. The only other measurement I remmeber seeing quoted is a maximum, which is even less representative. I'll keep my eye out for anything else. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps change the "typical for large specimens" into something more explicit.
 Done I found an alternative source, which is slightly less authoritative, but does give clearer information. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Among the small, distinctive populations, where exactly is the Dutch one? Is it isolated in the IJsselmeer or the Zeeland waters?
The IJsselmeer is now freshwater, so it won't be there; I'll check the ultimate source tomorrow to see what details they give. That might also answer your next point. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done See below. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Do both the widespread subpopulation and the Aegean subpopulation occur in other parts of the Mediterranean?
 Done Sadly, it seems the review I was quoting from overinterpreted the results a little. The sampling in Triantafyllidis et al. (2005) was, in general, good, but there was only one location in the Netherlands, namely the Oosterschelde. The next nearest sampling sites were in the North Sea and English Channel. It may therefore be that the distinct population is restricted to the Oosterschelde, or it could range from Wangerooge to Calais; that study wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The review's addition of "especially the Aegean" is also unfortunate. All the Mediterranean samples that were included ended up clustering together; it's just that there were more samples from the Aegean than elsewhere, for some reason. I have re-worded that section, and also cited the original study. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a good reason to make authorities in running text small?
The average reader is probably unfamiliar with the practice of giving authorities directly after (or as part of, depending on your point of view) scientific names, with no punctuation intervening. Since authorities are generally in small type in infoboxes and elsewhere, I thought it would help to set them off from the remaining prose. A non-taxonomist could easily be confused by the otherwise ungrammatical sentence. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why putting such text in small type would not create a confusing impression to the general reader. (However, if the other issues are resolved, I'll pass the article regardless of this point.) Ucucha 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a Direction of the Commission, not the Code? Also, how can you cite something about a 1956 Direction to a 1955 paper?
 Done Yes, that should have read "Commission"; now changed. The citation was only meant to apply to the later sentence, so I have added a citation for the earlier sentence. Since it doesn't explicitly mention 1956, I have removed that date; it's true, but would require an extra citation and isn't particularly important. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Aren't those "paratypes" paralectotypes?
 Done Yes, my mistake; now corrected. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha 20:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (and my apologies for the delay); I will now pass the article. Ucucha 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Homarus gammarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationallobsterhatchery.co.uk/education/lobster-biology.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am considering formally proposing this article is moved to Common lobster with a redirect from Homarus gammarus, however, I thought I would discuss this first before making such a proposal.  I am pinging @Stemonitis: as they have had involvement in this article, but of course, all are free to comment. DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, I think that would not be the best choice of title. "Common lobster" is a pretty ambiguous term. On the Atlantic side of North America, the common lobster is Homarus americanus (although that species is better known by at least one other vernacular name). Elsewhere, the common lobster in any given region may be any of a number of species. When compelled to use a vernacular name, a scientist with a global audience will refer to it as the "European lobster" for precisely that reason, but in fact, reliable sources tend to use the scientific name more often than any one vernacular name, making it the "common name" in Wikipedia's terms. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not changing it to European lobster? --(talk) 11:00, July 11 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Homarus gammarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910101108/http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/lobsters.php?menuentry=soorten to http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/lobsters.php?menuentry=soorten&id=89
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/lists%26indexes.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)