Talk:Apparent death

message: Surely sharks don't breathe, they don't have lungs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.166.64 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have always understood the method in which sharks breath, though, is that they actually cannot breathe in the same manner that bony ray-finned fishes do. Those fish have 'gill flaps' that open and close, and facilitate the flow of water through the gills. sharks, however, have only 'gill slits' that do not open and close, and in order to breathe they must remain in forward motion in the water, so water can passively flow through their gills. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharks breathing

message: I have added a section on tonic immobility as a scientific tool.  There are many papers on this, so I restricted my coverage.  Unfortunately, this entire page is now a little clumsy with several interpretations and descriptions.  I have added one of several verifiable sources regarding sharks and tonic immobility, however, I feel using sharks as the lead example of this behaviour is rather imbalanced.  I'm prepared to make the changes to redress the balance, however, I do not wish to cause offence or be accused of vandalism.  Does anyone have any comments?DrChrissy (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Added section 'As a scientific tool'

message: either this article is partially plagarized, or has been plagarized in the following article:
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Tonic-immobility  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishibbard7 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the bottom of the page you link to it says:
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL. --86.151.252.119 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse Report: Plagarism 

message: Does "tickling trout" have anything to do with this subject? Poachers claim to be able to catch fish this way.
It has been said that a useful means of calming an angry hornet is to catch it in one's mouth, then close the lips. The hornet, believing it to be night, will immediately fall asleep, though this may be a vicious lie.
:Like anybody in their right mind is ever gonna try it!
::Haha, it's easy enough (and much safer) to test it by simply trapping a hornet in a tight box, which should have the same effect as trapping it in your mouth, and see if it falls asleep.  Doesn't seem like it would work though.--M m hawk 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tickling Trout 

message: I wanted to research the subject of "Playing Dead", but there was only an article on a band called Play Dead.  After searching a while I found this article, and also one on Playing possum.  Seems they should be merged, and there should be a disambiguation link from the band's article. Metaeducation 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing Dead 

message: Saw this on Discovery Channel.  Does it have a place here? --Zeizmic 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainting goats

message: Tiger sharks cannot be placed into tonic immobility by placing them upside down. Additionally, you can also put most sharks (tigers excluded) by putting your hand on their snouts. Tiger sharks are a bit different in the sense that instead of putting your hand on their snout, you must use 2 hands, one on each side just in front of the eyes.
This was evidenced by Discovery's Shark Man which aired during the 2007 Shark Week.
:Actually, a tiger shark was shown successfully placed into tonic by inversion (turning upside down) during the same program, after the tiger had been hooked and pulled up alongside a boat.  It was only when "inversion tonic" was attempted in open water, on a free-swimming tiger shark, that it failed (the shark simply turned back upright and went back to swimming).  Mike Rutzen, the man making the attempt, believed that "inversion tonic" failed in that case because the shark was unconstrained and not under duress.  "Snout tonic" (placing the hand on the snout) appeared far less disabling than "inversion tonic".  The shark becomes largely immobile, docile, and relaxed under "snout tonic", but still seems vaguely aware of its surroundings, unlike the coma-like state "inversion tonic" induces.  Some sharks appeared to voluntarily seek out "snout tonic", in one case even pushing another shark out of the way to be the one to receive it, and eschewing food in favor of it.  My speculation (which wouldn't belong in this article, I admit) is that this "snout tonic" can be an enjoyable state for sharks, but that the shark must more-or-less voluntarily submit to it for it to last for very long.  Prio 11:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiger Sharks

message: Is the link to tonic (physiology) the accurate etymology for the word in this context?  I thought it was short for catatonic.  -- AvatarMN 09:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tonic" 

message: "Such actions often prove beneficial in the natural environment but, in the modern world of human intervention, can also be fatal."
It would be good if that last part were to be explained further to the reader. --72.197.35.238 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only thing I can think of that might be meant is a "deer in the headlights" effect - an animal freezing on a road is just staying in the risk area for much longer. --86.151.252.119 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain? 

message: According to this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9750471/Connecticut-school-shooting-six-year-old-stayed-alive-by-playing-dead.html
...a six year old girl survived by playing dead during a mass shooting.  I doubt a child that young would do that through calculated tactics.  Are there any studies suggesting that humans instinctively have this behavior?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.172.35 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Humans playing dead

message: The article currently states:
:The term "thanatopsis" (Greek: thanatos "death" + opsis "a sight, view") may be more correct than "thanatosis" which simply refers to death. The addition of the term "-opsis" lends the meaning that the animal only appears to be dead but is in fact alive..
This is a kind of pointless tangent for the article. Thanatopsis already has an understood meaning – a contemplation of death (possibly more as the title of Thanatopsis by Bryant).
I think the editor perhaps means that, analyzed properly, 'thanatosis' is the act of dying or the state of being actually dead. However, life scientists and physiologists particularly have used -osis somewhat loosely for centuries for the physical condition of various things, and it's not a huge leap for 'death state' to be the gist of it, without implying that anything has died.
It just seems somewhat weird and speculative so I removed the section. moogsi(blah) 19:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology / thanato(p)sis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apparent death. 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/20111001110406/http://www.wonderfulwv.com/archives/july00/fea2.cfm to http://www.wonderfulwv.com/archives/july00/fea2.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! I am going to remove the disputed section on tonic immobility in rabbits and replace it with new (hopefully less contentious). I'm making the change due to the following reasons. The resource they sited only led me to conference proceedings, not a peer reviewed paper where the researchers scientifically reported their methods, data, results, conclusions, etc.. The article was about how tonic immobility in rabbits induces a stress response, which makes sense when you remember that TI is usually induced because of attack by predators. The article was also very neutral in its wording, unlike the tone of the rabbit paragraph. I think whoever wrote this section in the wiki article was referring more to the consequences of the work (e.g., the proceedings were supposedly cited to support the notion that rabbits "hate what they appear to enjoy"), rather than what the authors actually concluded and were trying to report in their work, so what was written wasn't an accurate (or neutral) interpretation of the study. The proceedings said nothing about rabbits "hating" being put in tonic immobility, just that it causes a stress response in them. Furthermore, I couldn't locate any articles (scientific or otherwise) that cited this article to advance or perPETuate (haha) the idea that rabbits "hate what they appear to enjoy." The wiki paragraph also did not provide a citation for rabbits "sometimes sleeping on their backs" but uses that statement as a basis for refuting the meaning that they inferred from the article. Finally, language such as "a single study in rabbits" and "failed to explore" is not neutral which violates the Wikipedia rules for articles. That combined with the rest of the paragraph that extrapolates the meaning of the article, I decided to remove this paragraph and start anew. RandomCitizen27 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the change now and deleted the tag that labelled the section as disputed. It has been there since June 2020, so I think it was time for an update. Cheers! RandomCitizen27 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of rabbits section