Talk:Shipworm

message: This page is shockingly sparse. I will start updating it when possible with more details about the anatomy, life history and taxonomy of this group. 137.219.16.125 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sparse

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
Soulrefrain 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some web sources 

message: Any news on if these guys are being used to digest cellulose for biofuels?
155.97.14.34 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bio-fuel 

message: It would be great to get an image of some really eaten up driftwood for this page. --- BAxelrod (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: A cite is needed for the claim that Columbus's ships used copper sheathing.  And a cite to the wiki on copper doesn't really cut it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.108.47 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of websites out there saying that Columbus's fleet had copper sheathing, i.e. , , and .  But there are also sites that say that the first copper sheathed ship was the frigate Alarm in 1761 (see here  and here ).  I am a bit doubtful of the Columbus story; why would it take the Royal Navy 269 years to follow Columbus's example?  But the evidence is conflicting, so we need some better documents that cite to primary sources. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus? 

message: The Teredo tunneling technology (tunneling IPv6 connectivity over IPv4 using UDP datagrams) was named after the Shipworm but its creator changed its name to Teredo (the latin) to avoid confusion with computer worms (malware). Should this be mentioned in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.89.251 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teredo IPv6 Tunneling 

message: Am I right in thinking that toredo worm is not the same as the teredo worm?
(Google toredo and hull.)  See http://www.shipyard.co.za/index.php?comp=content&op=view&id=2 where under Copper Plating,
From around 1750 the hulls of most ships were copper sheathed below the waterline. This was done for protection against the Toredo worm and also to stop marine growth on the hull. The Toredo was a wood boring worm as thick as a man's finger and as long as his forearm. Once a ship was infested with the Toredo, the end of the ship was in sight.
If true there should be a Wikipedia article written up on this worm.--User:Brenont (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Toredo" is a misspelling of Teredo. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toredo worm 

message: It sure would be nice to know how big these things are. Typically I will eat 10-12 unbreaded buffalo wings in a sitting, but with raw Gulf oysters the number is closer to 35. How do these numbers translate to shipworms?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.104.120 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How big? 

message: I have read that this worm cannot propagate/infest a hull in fresh water or when a ship in under sail at speeds of 3 knots or above.  
I have seen pages that suggest that the Spanish Armada was in part assembled in a salt water port and thus had the worm.
Note that many historical  ports are not at the immediate seaside, but have their moorings further up the river whose inlet forms the port, suggesting that this type of location may have been chosen to eliminate the worm on moored ships.  If so, this worm has had a substantial, and unrecognized, impact on human geography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.80.127 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, an expansion of the discussion of anti-shipworm methods would be enlightening.  Copper sheathing was one of many preventative measures, including coating the hull with tar or pitch, moving into fresh water for a time, or hauling the ship completely out of the water to dry out.  Someone knowledgeable about such things could speak intelligently on the subject.  Wyvern (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other possible points 

message: Please remove the solecistic and erroneous phrase "via Latin" in this sentence: "Sometimes called "termites of the sea", they also are known by the common name "Teredo worms" or simply "teredo", from the Greek language "τερηδων", via Latin [sic]." It should read, after the word "teredo," as follows: "... from New Latin Terd, mollusk genus, from Latin terd, a kind of worm, from Greek terdn." And the phrase "from the Greek language" is redundant; simply say "from the Greek" or "from Greek".
*From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Autodidact1 (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "via Latin"? 

message: Does brackish mean more or less salty than oceanic salinity? It's not clear from the article or from the dictionary definition of brackish ("having a somewhat salty taste").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.44.20 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Less, driven by extensive freshwater input. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The brackish Baltic 

message: From the first paragraph: "a group of saltwater clams with long, soft, naked bodies". Is "naked" a technical term? It's a clam that looks like a worm, how is it anything but naked? Who expects furry clams? Can the "naked" go, please, or is it actually meaningful? JohnHarris (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked 

message: " The bivalve animal is a rare creature that spends its life inside an elephant tusk-like hard shell made of calcium carbonate and has a protective cap over its head which reabsorbs to burrow into the mud for food. "
Can someone who knows about the subject fix this please?  I don't know what the editor was trying to say regarding the creature's protective cap and what it does to burrow into the mud.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genera: Kuphus polythalamia 

message: This part is really odd. It begins with a rambling discourse on molluscs, seeming to bear nothing on the topic at hand. Then finally we get some information about shipworm diet (which is what I was looking for). Mostly wood. Perhaps all of them live on wood.
There's a lot in this section about another species entirely, I think. It should probably be removed. It simply has nothing to do with this at all.
I think it's likely that "Most shipworms are relatively smaller and feed on rotten wood." is all that is on topic.
Perhaps the other "species" being described is in the same genus but shifted to the symbiotic form of feeding described? Which, by the way, is not comparable to photosynthesis in any way at all. Nothing like it.
The article would be better were this entire section stricken. However, there should be a few lines about actual diet? Huw Powell (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Species" section