Talk:Jellyfish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Behavior

My Dad asked me about their swarming/schooling behavior and how they know how to behave that way with their limited nerve system (he thought they had none, actually, but it says here they have a nerve net). I checked here and there's no discussion of this. Please add this if you know about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AThousandYoung (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Socratrical Expansion

Can we possibly expand on this blatant description? ... Or not!? yes we can or are you just scared of jellyfish

what can one do, once touched by those terrible tentachales? is ther any medical treatment? and to avoid having prolonged bruises?...please help me?

Pet jellyfish

Is it possible to keep pet jelly fish? I want one! -- Nojer2 14:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As long as you're very careful and give it plenty of space, I don't see why you couldn't... --Beau99 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i had one but it died.

Saw this, and loved it, but there are a lot of photos already. What species is it? Could we put it somewhere else? Guttlekraw 03:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks a lot like a sea nettle, Chrysaora quinquecirrha, but maybe it's some other Chrysaora species. For taxobox images, we should go for images of identified species whenever possible, even at the expense of a lower-quality image. Gdr 18:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but would someone be willing to provide a more detailed outline of this entry? The first section is intimidating, especially when searching for specific information. I'm not complaining... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (talk • contribs) .

Colonies

I was told that jellyfish are colonies of smaller creatures (like the man-o-war?). Is this true? If it is, it was not clear from the article. Kellen ^T 01:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, though the Man o' War is indeed -- but it's not a jellyfish. // paroxysm (n) 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which came first - the jellyfish or the jelly? :-D

Soccerball?

You could think of it as looking like a tiny hairy football. Are we talking about an American football, or a soccer football?

Wouldn't a soccer footbal be just called a soccerball?

-Alex 12.220.157.93 19:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC).

Not in any (almost) any country besides the United States, where it would be called a "football". Kellen ^T

In Australia you'd call it a soccer ball but a football would be either an Aussie Rules ball or a Rugby ball depending on the state/territory. Jimp 5Feb06

So which one is it then? A (proper) football, or a ball used in American and Aussie Rules Football as well as rugby? In instances such as this further clarification is needed as for most people in the world, as mentioned earlier, a "soccerball" is a football. hedpeguyuk 5Feb06

Edit section

Problem: edit section didn't work properly with the images in the article.

Fix: I used the {{ImageStackRight}} template. This is an elegant solution, but leaves the wikitext for all the images in the second section. For a less elegant solution see (or copy) my sandbox version. That version has each image's wikitext in the section where the picture actually appears. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 20:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't work out how to fix it. That looks nice. // paroxysm (n) 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No Problem. I think I prefer the less elegant style (currently in my sandbox). It's less visually appealing, but puts image wikitext in the section where the picture actually appears. However, I leave the final decision to the collective. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed {{ImageStackRight}}. It is meant for uses where there is a group of images that are logically connected, such as in Nelson hold. In this article, the images should be distributed to match certain parts of the text.i think that this is the best part of wikipedia 'EDITING'!!!! ~MDD4696 22:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Location

Where do jellyfish live? --Wack'd About Wiki 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, somebody answer me! --Wack'd About Wiki 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

They live in the ocean, around the world. In northern and southern temperate areas, they can bloom during the summer. This means there are thousands and thousands of jelly fish (they're not fish at all) in one space. They bloom because the right conditions of food and water temperature allow them to grow and reproduce very quickly.Nozano 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a size limit for jellyfish?

I was watching "Newton's Apple" on PBS and they did a show on jellyfish. It was stated the more they eat, the bigger they get, however, if they don't get enough to eat they shrink. Has anyone tried feeding a jellyfish more and more food to see what the maximum size is? I am sure the mimimum size would be fatal to the jellyfish. It is not stated in the article what the maximum size limit is for the jellyfish, or the maximum length the tentacles can reach.24.195.52.131 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

I think there is but I cannot verify this yet. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is according to species. When they grow to a size (different from species to species, or from location to location), they grow more slowly and become mature, release sperm or eggs, then deteriorate and shrink. Therefore, there is limit to size and their diameter can hardly reach 1 m. --Isorhiza 05:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if some kind of size information was listed in the main article. There are urban legends of huge jellyfish 30 feet long. Daniel.Cardenas 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that states that an Arctic Lion's Mane Jellyfish was found washed ashore; it was measured and the 'bell' was 7 feet across and the tentacles were over 120 feet long. That's the largest one on record. The jellyfish article in the Guiness World Records confirms this measurement . [1]204.80.61.10 14:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

She sells Jellyfish by the sea jelly

I thought the preferred term these days is sea jelly, since jellies are cnidarians and not fish.

I note that the term and article name sea star is used on that article (instead of starfish). That article does wander back and forth,. but a paragraph does say, "As these creatures are echinoderms and not actually fish, most marine biologists prefer to replace the term starfish with the less misleading term sea star." Jjinfoothills 01:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Treatment of Stings

I was told an anecdote by my mother who basically stated that one of her sisters was 'attacked' by a jellyfish. My question is the supposed use of treatment -- her father poured coca-cola on the wound. Does the carbonated water neutralise the venom? It seems like it wouldn't because the article states that water is not a good liquid for this purpose. 32.97.110.142 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

I remember hearing that urine is acidic enough to deactivate nematocysts, and can be used instead of acetic acid in an emergency situation. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not -- can anyone confirm? User:Jmayer 13 June 2006

The article says that alcohol should not be used. However, it is recommended that alcohol be used (any alcoholic drink) in first aid manuals. The alcohol kills off nematocysts and thus prevents them from releasing venom. The full treatment recommended: Pour alcohol (any alcoholic drink will do) or household vinegar over the injury for a few minutes to incapacitate stinging cells that have not yet fired. Apply a paste of equal parts of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and water to the wound. Dust a dry powder over the skin around the injury to make remaining cells stick together. Talcum powder will suffice - better still is meat tenderiser, used in barbecue cooking; papain, one of its ingredients, can inactivate venom. 217.145.8.170 09:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The emedicine.com link says that ammonia can be used as well.

This part of the article seems internally inconsistent: "...fresh water should never be used. Rinsing the sting site with fresh water, rubbing the wound, or using alcohol, spirits, ammonia, or urine will encourage the release of venom." Or does it mean that these things will encourage th release of venom _into the body_?

Bicarbonate

This article recommonds bicarbonate, while the Box jellyfish article says it is a crock.I don't know which is right, but the two articles surely should agree. -- cmh 04:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nematocyst persistence

I was stung recently by a small jellyfish in the sea off southern France. Initially painful, the discomfort seemed to subside after only an hour or two. The following day however either the nematocysts had continued to discharge venom or an allergic reaction had occurred as the affected area was covered in what looked like dozens of insect bites. Does anyone know how long the nematocysts continue to inject venom?

Predators

What can eat jelly fish besides humans? I imagine most fish can not eat them. Seals mostly the reason they die is that they mistake plastic bags for jellyfish66.171.76.210 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this would be great to know. I've heard that not only seals, but sunfish (see wikipedia) and loggerhead turtles (also wikipedia) eat jellyfish. But it would be nice to have a more exhaustive list of both predator and prey, and what's needed to maintain a healthy balance in our oceans, (i.e. bans on fishing certain predators? reducing carbon?)

I've read that in eras when the sea became more acid (as it is beginning to do today), much sea life became extinct, leaving huge masses of jellies and bacteria. The bacteria released enormous amounts of poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas, which blew inland and proceeded to cause mass extinctions on the land as well. Without being alarmist, we're seeing huge blooms of jellies in the Mediterranean now, and at least twice some of these normally Mediterranean jellies have been credited with destroying farmed salmon cages as far north as the Irish Sea? Is this a function of concentrating the fish in a confined area? Or is the sea somehow becoming more hospitable to jellies at the expense of other sea life? Are jelly blooms–like canaries nodding off in a coal mine–evidence that something is going wrong?

Apart from these concerns, isn't it curious that while jellyfish can poison some animals–including us–while others can EAT them without harm? Is there some special lining that protects their skin and digestive tract? Or do they have some sort of immunity to the venom? Or perhaps a chemical that neutralizes the venom? Seems like understanding that might have some medical application? Not just to protect swimmers–but maybe to use the venom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.176.195 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Class Scyphozoa

I'm confused by the reference to Flower hat jelly fish which are Anthozoans. I realize that they are both referred to as jellies, but this article is the article for Class Hydrozoa Thanks Avigon 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Flower hat jelly is not Anthozoan, but Hydrozoa, Limnomedusae. This article is not for Class Hydrozoa, but for Class Scyphozoa, but partly includes information for other jellies eg. Class Hydrozoa including siphonophore, Class Cubozoa. Needs to split the article into Jellyfish and Scyphozoa. --Isorhiza 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I saw some recent action on this article which I must disagree with. It concerned comments regarding the use of urine as a anti-venom measure. I believe the poster's comments were unfairly removed. The poster was also put in a position by 2 registered users where he/she could not get his point across. Finally, the 3RR rule should be used appropriately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.32.176 (talk • contribs) .

Referring to the use of urine is fine if a reliable source can be provided. The particular edit you made (stop preteneding you are someone different just because you have a dynamic IP) was inappropriate. You were asked several times to discuss your edit, but refused and continued to edit war. This is exactly the situation that we have the WP:3RR rule for and it was entirely appropriately used. Gwernol 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Continue to make such allegations. It is no skin off my nose.

I do however agree with your view on the use of reliable sources. Hence, I have taken the liberty of removing all unsourced/unreliable content from the article. I will task myself from doing the same from all article I come across from now on. THanks for the tip.

THERE SEEMS to be some contradictions amongst the registered (supposedly more experienced) users of Wikipedia. You have some that say unsourced material should not be used in articles. They action this by actively removing such content. Then you have the likes of BoyRoy or BoyToy adding back unreliable/unsourced content previously removed by a anon user who thought he/she was improving the article. Get your house in order. At least the anons are singing from the same hymn sheet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.32.176 (talk • contribs) .

This anon has been blocked, further removals from this article should result in an immediate, and lengthy block. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deep Sea Jellyfish?

I was watching "Blue Planet"(Deep Sea episode) today, and they showed Jellyfish which was red and moved via rainbow glowing cilia. I can't seem to find any information on this, and I didn't catch the name of it. Any help?

I was watching the episode as well. Great show. I have it saved on my TiVo. I'll check it out in the morning and report the name then. Phauge 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, the narrator, Richard Attenborough, does not name the species you are talking about. He only refers to it as a "deep sea jelly." They are red because of the fact that normally red light does not penetrate that deep, so red animals appear to be completely black to predators. The cilia appear to be rainbow colored because of the lights from the submarine filming it. I hope this helps. Phauge 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ctenophore (undescribed species) --Isorhiza 04:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jellyfish Map

Is there anywhere where one can obtain a jellyfish ´map´, as it were, in specific for Menorca in the Meditteranean? To see which beaches or coasts are best for avoiding the beasts. 213.250.154.88 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very difficult, because they live offshore and sometimes strand to beach by flow caused by prevailing wind. Their distribution changes continuously and there is no (I believe) monitoring program to forecast/observe their small/large-scale distribution daily/weekly. Maybe Bill Gates can pay for such a program. --Isorhiza 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency of information regarding treatment

In one sentence, it states that the sting should never be treated with fresh water. In the next, it cites fresh water as a suitable agent for treating the sting. Which is correct?

The reason why fresh water should be avoided is that when tentacle or stinging cell apparatus (nematocyst) remain attached on the skin, liquid with different osmotic pressure can cause further stinging by disturbing nematocysts. Once the skin is clean, you can safely use freshwater to cool down and clean the injured skin. However, what is most important is to remove tentacles and remain of nematocysts as soon as possible to avoid further stinging. So, first, you should remove visible remain of tentacles by forcep or something gently. Then use enough amount of water to clean the skin. When tentacle dry out, it becomes difficult to remove from the skin. So fresh water may help. --Isorhiza 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies/Errors

Just to notify you all of some inconsistencies I found.

1. The jellyfish article mentions the green fluorescent protein and the species Aequorea victoria as a species of jellyfish. Note that the Scyphozoa links to the jellyfish page, implying that jellyfish means Scyphozoa. However, according to the page on Aequorea victoria, this animal is a species of Hydrozoa. Are Hydrozoa considered jellyfish? If so, then this is inconsistent with the link on the bottom of the page to "Physalia physalis. Portuguese Man O'War, (not a true jellyfish)."

If anyone out there knows for sure which is correct, please make the appropriate changes.

2. On the bottom, on the list of links, the Irukandji jellyfish is followed by the phrase "(the most deadly jellyfish known to man)." If this is matter of opinion, then so be it. However, the largest of the box jellyfish, Chironex fleckeri, has caused most of the 63 deaths due to box jellyfish, and the Irukandji jellyfish, Carukia barnesi, has only caused two known deaths. So, in my opinion, Chironex fleckeri is the most dangerous of all jellyfish.Beezer137 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Beezer137

3. Although there are many webpages that list collective nouns for animals and include "smack" (as well as an equally obscure "fluther"), this term is not in the abridged Merriam-Webster Dictionary or the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. This would seem to make it, at best, a colloquialism.

Not a fish

It would really be appreciated if the author could change the title of the article to "Sea jelly," and redirect all "jellyfish" searches to it. The sea jelly is NOT a fish. It has no characteristics that make it anything like a fish. For one thing, fish are vertebrates, meaning they have bones. Sea jellies do not have bones. Fish have brains, sea jellies do not. Fish have hearts, sea jellies do not. I realize this may take to time to edit, but I'm just trying to make Wikipedia more factual. Thanks! Semajws 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly support what you propose, I don't think this is in the scope of Wikipedia's mission. Jellyfish may not be fish, but that is the name most English speakers have assigned to the animal, and as such I think we should stick with it. A precedent we might follow is that of the Red Panda which, while not really a panda, is still called such on Wikipedia because that is the commonly accepted name. Chrysaora 06:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edible

Shouldn't there be extra information on this? Izaak 13:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "the rhizostomes produce a product that has the desirable, almost crunchy texture" is unsourced and appears to be the POV of the author. 68.165.233.211 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the page history, food uses probably belong on a separate Jellyfish-Culinary page. 68.165.233.211 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Probe Droid?

This seems to me, considering the probes have a definite sense of direction and ability to transmit back to a central ship, more akin to the von neumann probe than a jelly. Alex2579 04:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can jellyfish live out of water?

A child and her mom were telling me how they had just been to Seattle Wash. and seen jellyfish on the beach. The daughter had had a "wonderful" time throwing the jellyfish up against a stone wall and greatly enjoyed the sound they made hitting the wall. (!) I was taken aback. I had always assumed that the jellyfish were either alive and waiting for the tide to come in again, or they were slowly dying. In either case I have always told my kids to be careful not to step on them thinking that they were probably alive.

Does anyone know if jellyfish can live out of water? Are they alive and waiting for the tide? …. Or am I about to learn about another cruel fact about Mother Nature…. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keralahub (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They could've been dead or alive, but either way the nematocysts would continue to sting if touched, so a dead jellyfish is just as painful as a living one. That said, not every jellyfish is painful.. and if you pick it up by the bell you're probably okay.

lk;adfa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.74.224.170 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Invasion

Hi. On a National Geographic episode I heard about the jellyfish invasion and a species called "Nemoura" or something like that, but I don't know the spelling. They are giant jellyfish off the coast of Japan. Apparently they inhabit a dead zone from the east coast of China to Korea to Japan, indicating that human pollution and global warming may be causing them to multiply. Anyway, it said that they are appearing by the tens of billions, and that slautering them is causing millions of more to be produced because the attacked Nemoura are releasing millions of eggs and sperm which attatch themselves to the sea floor and reproduce asexually. Apparently they stay dormant but suddenly release swarms of billions of jellyfish whenever salinity, pressure, temperature, etc in the ocean changes a tiny amount (such as when temperature rises or drops a fraction of a degree). Where is the article? Can someone point out the article to me? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched this too. And some of what this documentary said, disagrees with what's in this article. They said that this particular species of jellyfish had propper eyes and four brains. They showed it reacting to various things placed in a fishtank with it, and it swam towards, away or around the various obsticles depending on what colour they were. -OOPSIE- (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Name redirect

I believe Wikipedia should redirect to Sea Jelly, not vice versa. Technically they can not be called fish, as they are not in Phylum Chordata, in one of the -icythes classes. The proper name is Sea Jelly and "Jellyfish" is a common misnomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.122.252 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(I don't understand how we are supposed to have conversations, so I may be doing this wrong.)

I've worked on these animals for three and a half decades. The people who work on them call them jellyfish and have for more than a century. Public aquariums in America decided sometime a couple of decades ago that people weren't smart enough to understand that things like jellyfish and starfish weren't fish, so started using Sea jellies and Sea Stars as the "right" words. A few of us use those terms, but most scientists do not use them preferentially. We believe that people are smart enough to understand that jellyfish (and starfish) are not fish, just as they understand that seahorses are not horses. Please don't move this topic to "Sea jellies". Leuckartiara (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Leuckartiara (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leuckartiara. According to Wikipedia's title guideline, as a young sea creater the most easily recognizable name should be used. "Sea jelly" retrieves only 42,700 Google hits, while "jellyfish" yields 8,180,000. This indicates that Jellyfish is substantially more recognizable and there is no compelling reason to change the title at this time. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I like the term "jellyfish," some people still think that whales are fish. I like scientific names, although I hardly know any of them.--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

do you have similar complaints about the whale-shark that is a fish and not a whale? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to add my own concurrence to the apparent consensus here. Jellyfish is a fine name. The move to rename the group jellies is ridiculous. How far are we going to go with this nonsense. Should we rename sea horses to something else because they aren't really horses? And what about the name jellies? If people thought that jellyfish were really fish, do people now think that the animals are made of jelly? Davefoc (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A meat tenderizer!? what and bash the venom out? I think this needs to be changed.

"A strange but effective method of treatment of stings is meat tenderizer which efficiently removes the nematocysts[citation needed]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.244.35 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, might not folks get confused and think that a "sea star" is some kind of of astronomical object, perhaps a meteor that fell into the ocean, or that a "sea jelly" is some kind of sandwich spread? ;) 99.146.149.204 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Vodka for stings

I hear that vodka can help with jellyfish stings. 71.227.150.203 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC) It was on Mythbusters, but I'm not sure which types it applies to. 71.227.150.203 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much use without a reliable source. WLU (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about here? http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_68_christmas_tree_ligh.html Jabberwockgee (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but Mythbusters is not reliable. The conclusion is made without a control so there is no way of telling how long Keri's body takes to degrade the venom nor was the amount of venom injected measured. StephenPCook (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Level of content

This page is excellently written, but it's content level presents a very steep curve to the public. The introduction is concise to the point of denseness, and no common names are used for species and groups. To any but a college science major, it is very discouraging. The body of the article is a little more accessible, but tends to college textbook level for the most part. An English or Economics major would have trouble extracting what they were looking for. All but the very best high school students wouldn't be able to get a handhold in the article. (And I'm talking about the average and up student from a good district.) For example, the discussion of the digestive system uses very few common terms. Back to common names; only a very few are used in the article, making it a bit impenetrable to the general public. --One minor point. The section on treatment of stings is the most accessible, but does not address a popularly dicussed treatment: urine. If it works it should be included. If it is a myth, it is a persistent one and should be specifically addressed. --I thank the author(s) for the overall article. I kibbitz from the sidelines not because I am too lazy to try to edit and improve the article itself, but out of a knowledge of my limitations. This is my first communication/addition to Wikipedia of any type. Darwins boy (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I only entered Wiki for the first time to emend and amend the jellyfish article a couple of weeks ago, because it had many problems and misconceptions, particularly about blooms, following some sensationalist articles in the Press. The anatomy and body systems sections need a lot of work and I couldn't imagine where to start, so haven't touched them yet. If I decide to take on those portions, I'll keep in mind who the potential readers are - thanks a lot. (But what WOULD the English major or Economics major hope to find in this page? - Give me some ideas and I'll try to address them. I know a lot about many aspects of the animals, but can't for instance tell you much about stings, which I have avoided carefully over a long career.) There aren't common names for most kinds of jellyfish, and I don't see that inventing them for the purpose of this article would help anything. The Introduction is partly so dense because I tried to add stuff without totally obliterating what was already there, which may not have been the best choice for ease in reading. I am supposing that it is impolite to completely overwrite someone else's contribution, which leads to a very weird style problem. Leuckartiara (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not even from the Western Hemisphere and I find the article's language too dumbed-down. Shrumster (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible citation issue

Sorry if I am doing this wrong, it is a first attempt.

There may be a problem with citations 17 and 21. Both citations 17 and 21 are used in text that discuss treatment of Jellyfish stings. However, they both link to the same article that citation 14 references, and as it is not on the correct topic, I doubt this is intentional. Also, and forgive me for I don't know, is it acceptable for articles on sting treatment to link to PubMed? PubMed does not carry articles, only abstracts. The actual publisher for these articles also does not carry digital copies for articles this old. While these printed articles may indeed substantiate the claims made, does it make sense in an arena that can be edited by anyone to allow claims to stand that cannot be verified online? 69.107.124.17 (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Greg 44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.136.7 (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations in Toxicity to humans section

What puzzles me are citations to the general public under "Toxicity to humans" such as:

1. "Avoid rubbing the wound, or using alcohol, spirits, ammonia, or urine which also encourage the release of venom.[27"

as well as:

2. "As seen in the Friends episode 'The One With The Jellyfish', Joey famously urinates on Monica's leg to relieve the effects of a jellyfish sting. Although fictional, the theory behind this is true. Urine, like the hot shower example above, relieves the pain of a jellyfish sting whilst introducing a sterilising property also. This combination can relieve pain on minor jellyfish stings, whereas a sting from a box jellyfish will not be cureable through this method."

To urinate or not to urinate? There are also confusing notes regarding usage of ice (to use in some section and not to use in another). Maybe this whole section should be re created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.46.14.71 (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes and brain

A clarification of what is meant by these terms in the article would be helpful. I don't think jellyfish really have eyes or a brain do they? Some cited explanation would be great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First-time Wikipedian here, so please point out of I'm doing anything out of bounds. Yes, the line about Box Jellyfish having eyes should be altered. They have light sensing organs, which are a far cry from "well-developed eyes." Furthermore, there is no evidence they use them to "hunt prey." Scientists discovered they can alter swimming movements when they see nearby obstacles, but it is extremely doubtful they can use light information to hunt because they have no central nervous system. Can we change that line to read "Box jellyfish have the most advanced light sensing organs of jellyfish species. Despite lacking a central nervous system, they can avoid obstacles using light information." ScyphoBio (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New Discoveries

The first sentence in this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever: "The booty on the jellyfish is where the posion come from it tries to hump you and if it get stuffed it can kill you." I am removing it. The following sentences need editing as well, as phrases as 'the new millennium' and 'fly in the face' confuse the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.88.157 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal (not mine)

Whoever placed the merge template on Jellyfish and Scyphozoa apparently didn't create a section for discussing the proposal or provide a rationale. I oppose such a merge, because the term "jellyfish" is not a synonym for "scyphozoa/n" ("scyphozoa" are a proper subset of "jellyfish", as the Jellyfish article mentions repeatedly). There is some material in the Jellyfish article that probably should be moved to the Scyphozoa article (particularly anatomical information which I think is specific to the scyphozoa), but I don't have the time to do it properly right now. False vacuum (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument is absolutely decisive. The intro alone says clearly (and correctly) that the term refers to more than the Scyphozoa. The flags were improperly placed, and so I will remove them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

'Blooming' section could use restructuring/rewrite.

It seems less coherent than it should be. And "Jellyfish blooms cause severe problems for mankind" really? 88.159.72.240 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of coherence is due to the magic of Wikipedia. What was fairly coherent months ago when I originally wrote the Blooms section has now received a lot of small additions (and even just portions of sentences edited out without repair of the sentence), many without references, and no overwrite for cohesion - there is no general editor, just volunteers who come in from time to time and do whatever they see fit. It's too hard to monitor the page and keep reworking it when people add little choppy bits constantly. In fact this whole Jellyfish article is pretty funky, but it will take hours to try to make more sense of it and this contributor doesn't want to do that again right now. It's what I refer to as "The Black Hole of Wikipedia" when trying to urge other scientists to contribute their expertise to Wiki. Nothing says that you need to be an expert, or even particularly knowledgeable, or able to write well, to add things to a Wikipedia page. Leuckartiara (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"True" jellyfish term - why do we use this?

This term really is quite confusing and of no value. If "jellyfish" includes hydromedusae, scyphomedusae, cubomedusae, stauromedusae (and maybe even ctenophores), why are we perpetuating use of "true jellyfish" for the scyphomedusae? This article has already concluded that all are jellyfish, thus none more true than any other. This term moves from textbook to textbook by authors who don't work on the group, and it is just confusing to students. Much better for students and everyone else to grow up and use "scyphomedusa", "hydromedusa", etc., which are at least parallel terms. I tried to remove all uses of "true jellyfish" from this article about a year ago, but it keeps creeping back in, and thus the sentence that I added explaining the problem in the terminology section. It was edited out about a month ago, and I've put it back in until the next edit. Leuckartiara (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A cross section of the jellyfish Olindias formosa

While artistically very nice, this figure is incorrect in a number of ways. The "sense organs" on the aboral surface are actually tentacles, the mesoglea is labeled as endoderm, there are no radial canals, and oral arms appear to be erupting off the oral surface. This is a sort of scypho/hydro hybrid, where the anatomy does not actually reflect that of any jellyfish that I know of... Does anyone else have an issue with this? Solmaris (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)solmaris 03June2010

I agree that this figure is so mislabeled that its value is negative. I don't know how to do it, but would someone please remove this figure? Leuckartiara (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stinging Cells

There was a few years ago an extensive study on how the jellyfish actually "stung," that an individual stinging cell received some sort of stimulus (e.g. touch) and then a long piercing line shot out, which would easily penetrate epidermal cells, and then it would excrete toxins. I recall that one of the fun facts of this all was that the piercing line that shot out of the cell came out at 100-200 mph. I recommend we add a small section to this discovery. It was theorized that uses for this could be in replacing the toxins with medicine and other uses as a microscopic tool. (edited by offline user: inthend9) --64.136.202.74 (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First, can anyone comment on intheEnd's remark? Is there any substantiation to that? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Independent cells or perhaps simple acidity?

This year many people on the Israeli coast where hurt without coming in contact with the Jellyfish. I personally saw two people who showed the sores and were sure they did not come in contact with a jellyfish, large or small. It was also written in many newspapers. I can look it up and bring sources if anybody needs them.

There are trees that are known to prevent growth around their area. Why can't it be that the Jellyfish have a similar action. Was the water PH around jellyfish ever checked? Anybody know of scientific knowledge about jellyfish? [Advance]Thanks[/Advance] פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Human toxicity section

It recommends using vinegar in one paragraph and baking soda in another. So what is it, acid or alkali? Also, I thought WP was not a "how to" guide (although I did get good advice here when my cat got porcupined years ago...)? Huw Powell (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Jellyfish in Palau

I modified the line about the Jellyfish lake in Survivor: Palau. I'm not a native English speaker so please correct me if the grammar is poor. The original text that Jellyfish in Jellyfish Lake are stingless, which is false. The sting of the Golden Jellyfish is just too small to harm humans, except maybe around the mouth area. Added the link to Jellyfish Lake too. JulienBourdon (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jellyfish Are Jellyfish

I get where you are coming from, whoever said jellyfish should be called "Sea Jellies" but I think Jellyfish should be called what they have been called for decades. --Jellyfish Rock (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit

"sting effects range from no effect to extreme pain to death" is gramaticaly incorrect, should be "sting effects range from no effect to death". due to overprotection, i cant fix this myself. Nobody23144 (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as well, since you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.155.123.249 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If some hydrozoa are not sea jellies, then it's wrong to call everything in this subphylum a sea jelly

In the lede, it currently says in its list of things that fit into this subphylum,

   Hydrozoa (about 1000–1500 species that make jellyfish and many more that do not).

However, it also says that everything in this subphylum are known as sea jellies. So these two things are contradictory. Later on in this article, it asserts that the Portuguese Man o' War is not a sea jelly. However, it is a hydrozoa, which is firmly within this subphylum. How to resolve this? If not all hydrozoa are sea jellies, then it's wrong to define sea jelly in terms of this subphylum. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The word jellyfish is not a synonym of Medusozoa, but a synonym of medusa. That is an ancient wiki-mistake (and interwiki mistake now) and someone have to correct it once. Jellyfishes or medusae are only a stage of life cycle in Medusozoa. All jellyfishes are medusozoans but there're a lot of medusozoans that are not jellyfishes. Futhermore some taxa of Medusozoa lack the stage of jellyfish (e.g. Siphonophorae mentioned by you). Mithril (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that explanation makes a lot of sense. However, that would suggest a rather major change to Jellyfish is needed. In particular, Medusozoa should not be listed as a synonym for jellyfish in the lede. Instead, it should be explained that there is a jellyfish stage of the lifecycle of Medusozoa and that not all Medusozoa are jellyfish despite having this stage. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The complete solution includes merging all jellyfish-related materials with Medusa (biology) and creation a separate article on Medusozoa. Mithril (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

For external links, add in the blog "The Jellyfish Lovers Blog" at thejellyfishloversblog.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.13.84 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

SciAm resource

What Is It? Attack of the jellyfish Scientific American November 20, 2011 by David Biello; excerpt ...

Writing in the journal Science, biologist José Luis Acuña of the University of Oviedo in Spain and his colleagues suggest that jellyfish are just as effective at catching prey and turning it into energy as fishes. In fact, they have set the stage for a takeover—dubbed the “gelatinous ocean” by some scientists.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Medusa vs medusozoa

This article seems to be doing a really poor job of specifying its topic.

• Cnidarians: a phylum which seems to include everthing (except comb jellies) that could be termed a jellyfish, along with many things that are usually not (including free-swimming species of sea anemones) or definitely not (e.g. corals).
• Medusozoa: a sub-phylum of cnidarians, which seems to exclude many of the things that are obviously not jellyfish, although it still includes some probably-not-jellyfish species too (such as hydra).
• Scyphozoa: a class of medusozoa sometimes called "true jellyfish" since most (all?) species have the ideal proto-/stereo-typical form (a pulsating dish with trailing tentacles and high symmetry?). But this class excludes many things that equally appear as stereotypical jellyfish (one notable example being the freshwater jelly C. sowerbii of the class hydrozoa, and another group being the box jellyfish), so the "true" term seems highly arguable.
• Medusa: a stage in the life-cycle of some medusozoans (exclusively?) and that consist of a multicellular mushroom-shaped individual-organism (that probably pulses to swim) and which looks like a jellyfish, typically interspersed with sessile life-stages which do not.
• Blue-bottles etc: living things that are explicitly excluded from the title "jellyfish" (despite being a fellow species of medusozoa and similarly appearing like a non-planted blob with trailing tentacles) on the grounds of being classed as more of a colony than an individual. Admittedly, these species are easily distinguishable (the large-scale anatomy is quite distinct) although the rationale usually given for their separation seems weak (the meaning of colony here is very poorly explained and desperately needs clarification).

So what is this article about? Is it just medusae? Is it about the set of species that do periodically produce medusae? Is it even medusozoa?

Currently the lead fails to clearly specify: is this page (and the term jellyfish/seajelly) about just one possible life-phase (like caterpillar), or is it about a group of species (and if so is that group paraphyletic or not)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To put it another way, is the species aurelia aurita a jellyfish (or is it merely a species that produces jellyfish)? Should we express a view on the correctness of still referring to individuals as jellyfish during their polyp phase? (Would the same rule apply to "moon jellyfish", which seems to be the common name "for the species"?)

I think the lead should say: "Jellyfish are the mudasae life-stage, or are those species having mudasa phases in their lifecycles, of aquatic animals from the medusozoa sub-phyla of Cnidarians." Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jellyfish and brain

In the discussion of the nervous system it is mentioned that their moving according to tidal waves is a counter to a "brainless jellyfish" hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is in itself pointless. You could argue about the definition of a brain. But once you define a brain as a central nervous system there is really no point to argue that jellyfish have a brain, because they have no central nervous system as we define it.

Who ever wrote this might work under the hypothesis that a brain is the only way nervous tissue can process information and act in the environment. It would be tiresome to list some of the evidence against that. He/she who wrote this paragraph might on the other hand work under the assumption that interacting with tidal waves is a form of higher reasoning. This is a claim that might be worth of consideration, but then still this would not have anything to do with a "brainless jellyfish" hypothesis, but again with definition of brains or reasoning.

An advise would be to write that jellyfish have no central nervous system, avoid the confusing term 'brain', and put the part about interaction with tidal waves out of the paragraph about their nervous system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.214.12 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Also it might be better to link to central nervous system instead of nervous system in this section, or link to nervous system in a part of the article that talks about nervous system, as the distinction between the two terms is relevant at this specific part of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.214.12 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Salt water

in Jellyfish#Treatment, replace

Salt water is an alternative if vinegar is unavailable. Fresh water is not used if the sting occurs in salt water, as changes in tonicity can release additional venom.

with

Salt water is an alternative if vinegar is unavailable; some physicians think washing with salt water is preferred over vinegar. Fresh water is not used if the sting occurs in salt water, as changes in tonicity can release additional venom.

Reference to cite for green text is:

"Does urine help a jellyfish sting?". Health Library > Medial Myths. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Retrieved 2013-03-16. Dr. Pait suggests the best thing to do is to immediately get out of the water and wash the affected area with salt water. Salt water will deactivate the stinging cells while fresh or tap water can reactive the stinging cells. It is also helpful to try to remove the cells carefully with something such as a credit card.

Done - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the treatment section to remove most of the "how-to" style as this kind of content is best left to other sites such as medical sites that are better certified and suited for obtaining information on medical treatment. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sting treatment

Add: However few of these treatments have proven effective in the treatment of jellyfish stings. Most of them in fact cause increased nematocyst discharge and inflammation at the sting site. Only one commercial treatment is designed specifically for mild to medium intensity jellyfish stings: Sting Away, by Elkam Biotech contains compounds shown to reduce nematocyst discharge, toxin release, and pain and inflammation at the sting site. Immunobased antivenins have been available since the 70s and are used in extreme cases as with regard to the box jellyfish, Chironex. These treatments however require refrigeration and use by medical personnel. AaronKampe (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[AaronKampe]

Reference to cite for new green text is:

Nicholas T. Ward, MD, Michael A. Darracq, MD, Christian Tomaszewski, MD, Richard F. Clark, MD (2012) "Evidence-Based Treatment of Jellyfish Stings in North America and Hawaii" Annals of Emergency Medicine. Vol 60, 4: 399-414.

Reference to cite for new red text is:

"Sting Away, Jellyfish Sting Treatment".

Reference to cite for new blue text is:

EH Baxter and AGM Marr. (1973) "Seawasp (Chironex Fleckeri) Antivenene: Nuetralizing Potency Against Three Other Jellyfish Stings" Toxicon. Vol 12 : 223-229

AaronKampe (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I have added the blue text and the reference at the end of the Treatment section. I did not add the green text because the reference is not a reliable, third-party source. After Sting's status as the "only one commercial treatment" seems important, but I could not find sources other than Elkam Biotech that documented the treatment; nor did I find any third-party sources documenting Elkam Biotech. I did not add the red text out of caution; the abstract of the study referenced indicates that vinegar is ineffective; however, this is contested in two replies to the study,

Darracq, M. A.; Ward, N. T.; Tomaszewski, C.; Clark, R. F. (2013). "In reply". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 61 (2): 254–255. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.08.017. PMID 23331653.

Auerbach, P. S. (2013). "In Reply to Evidence-Based Treatment of Jellyfish Stings in North America and Hawaii". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 61 (2): 253–254. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.07.128. PMID 23331652.

as well as the Jellyfish Stings article by Mayo Clinic (a reliable source). At this point, you should be able to edit the article, so please feel free if you disagree with my reasons. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, AaronKampe! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Natural predators of jellyfish

Jellyfish are said to increase heavily due to the overfishing of natural predators such as the bluefin tuna. This has been stated in the documentary "L'homme et la Mer". There might be other fish aswell though.

Add in article KVDP (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pantyhose?

Has this article been reordered? The first mention of pantyhose is in the sentence 'The pantyhose were formerly thought to work because...' without any clue as to which pantyhose are meant - I thought it must be a term for some part of the jellyfish! However, it becomes clearer with the following section, which made me think they might originallyhave been the other way round. 80.239.194.50 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Added a sentence for clarity. Vsmith (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct classification ?

I've read that there are three kinds of jellyfish, the "clock jellyfish" (meduza, or common type; of wich there are 100's of species), the very dangerous box jellyfish (of wich there are atleast 10 species) and the for humans harmless (of which I don't know any English name), but they are a propblem in the Black Sea due to their numbers (billions). And the "Portuguese Sailor" (if that name is correct) isn't a jellyfish at all. (Although dangerous). At least the clock jellyfish(es) live in four stags, 1. egg (not eating), 2. swimming worm (eating), 3. polyp (not eating) and 4. meduza (eating). Some clock jellyfish are filtering the water, and are not painful (and they lack tentacles). The Lion's Mane (of wich also a blue variant exists) is a typical "clock jellyfish". (Clock in contrast to Box). All box jellyfish are deadly ! They differ from Clock jellyfish atleast by the shape of the "not-tentacle-part", they have four eyes and typically four main branches of tentackles. Some are very difficult to see, as they are transparent or slightly blue, while others are yellowish. The Sea-wasp (a box jellyfish) is belived to have the strongest venom among all animals. A "nylon stocking- body suite" may be enough to prevent the microscopic but very sharp needles from entering the skin. I know how a lion's mane feels like. Like suddenly coming in to notably warmer water, that is bubbeling. Afterwards it's really not pleasant. If a large part of the body is burned, like swimming stright into a large one, then a hospital visit is recomedable. 83.249.169.163 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey there. It would seem that most of the questions you are asking could be answered by exploring this and associated articles! It's not clear to me what you mean with "clock jellyfish", but it's likely you're translating a term from another language that refers to members of the class Scyphozoa, commonly referred to as "true jellyfish", some are harmful, some aren't. This group includes the lion's mane jellyfish you mentioned, along with, for example, the widely known moon jelly. However, the gelatinous creature you mentioned numbers in the billions (likely not that many!) in the Black Sea might not be a jellyfish at all, but a ctenophore from the genus Mnemiopsis. As for the "portuguese sailor", you most likely mean the portuguese man o' war, indeed not a jellyfish at all, but a colonial animal, a siphonophore, which belongs to the class Hydrozoa. And the box jellyfish belong to the class Cubozoa. As for reproduction in scyphozoans: there is an egg, then a larva, called planula, which develops into a polyp form that does feed, the polyp then produces ephyrae which ultimately become adult medusae. Not all jellyfish go through this development. This information, and more, is in the article! Snjón (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs to link to a list of dangerous jellyfish, plus photos and treatments

This would be a good public service as well as a legitimate Wikipedia page. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Evolution

This article really needs a proper evolution section. At the moment the evolution is mentioned only in passing. Fig (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC) no it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.212.180 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible to cover the evolution of a species that leaves behind no fossil records (there are no bones, so what is there to fossilize?) The sentence in the first section about them being around for 500 million years is a complete guess, not even the source cited for that explains how that figure was reached. When it comes to evolution you're apparently free to simply make stuff up and everyone is fine with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.89.178 (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the figure is probably an estimate, but National geographic says "before the dinosaurs" and HowStuffWorks says 650 million years. Can anyone find a better cite for 500 million, or should we be less precise? Dbfirs 07:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Colour?

Colour is only when the sea colour is different so it will make different , it is not the colour of the jellyfish it is owm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.167.128.20 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Error: second paragraph of the "Jellyfish" article

"resent study" should be corrected to "recent study." I would have corrected it, but found no means to edit that article. 70.197.165.73 (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Bret Hooper

Thank you. That sentence has now been corrected and moved elsewhere. Dbfirs 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

longest jellyfish: sun jellyfish

a sun jellyfish is a longest animal in the world. the sun jellyfish tentacles is about 200 feet long. the is very dangerous so don't touch a danger animal like sun jellyfish it may shock harder like electric eel. you can find out sun jellyfish in kids book called biggest, strongest, fastest book (this book is true). the sun jellyfish is in warm water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.72.107 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with undo

Hey - could someone watching this page please undo this edit to the article? It was well-intentioned, but changed the meaning of the sentence. I'd do it, but for some reason it's not letting me edit the article.... Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Jellyfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118171401/http://qanda.encyclopedia.com:80/question/some-determining-characteristics-jellyfish-class-scyphozoa-97854.html to http://qanda.encyclopedia.com/question/some-determining-characteristics-jellyfish-class-scyphozoa-97854.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130712214856/http://www.uamshealth.com:80/?id=11935&sid=1 to http://www.biochem.uci.edu/steele/Satterlie.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130712214856/http://www.uamshealth.com:80/?id=11935&sid=1 to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624995.700-multieyed-jellyfish-helps-with-darwins-puzzle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130712214856/http://www.uamshealth.com:80/?id=11935&sid=1 to http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_49/issue_1/0233.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130712214856/http://www.uamshealth.com:80/?id=11935&sid=1 to http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/home/pages/JellyfishInEcosystems_publication.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090817225655/http://www.airtranmagazine.com:80/features/2009/08/garage-brands to http://www.airtranmagazine.com/features/2009/08/garage-brands
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120302090841/http://www.jellyfishart.com/kb_results.asp?ID=11 to http://www.jellyfishart.com/kb_results.asp?ID=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130712214856/http://www.uamshealth.com:80/?id=11935&sid=1 to http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/ouch_jellyfish.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130130043334/http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=11935&sid=1 to http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=11935&sid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

can you please give me a edit request. Please and thanks you!! 99.244.137.98 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You just made an edit request. If you want to change something on this page please be specific and someone else can make the changes for you provided they are appropriate and all claims are backed up by reliable sources. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jellyfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080516210612/http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~haddock/abstracts/haddock_spectra.pdf to http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~haddock/abstracts/haddock_spectra.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

reference

Hi, i'm sorry about my english. I think can be necesary to reference the part of treatment with antivenom to Irukandji sting. I heard in some documentary doesn't exist a antivenom because the venom it´s a coctail of diferent toxic substances with several diferences in the way of work. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.56.189.31 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Jellyfish and powerplants

Plenty of pictures, videos, and information in this article about jellyfish in Israel's powerplants every summer. Not sure how to add those and what's allowed. http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/1.4212423 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.174.158 (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jellyfish. 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://archive.is/20130102224831/http://picasaweb.google.com/sridhar.saraf.pictures/JellyfishExhibitionAtNationalAquariumBaltimoreMarylandUSA/ to http://picasaweb.google.com/sridhar.saraf.pictures/JellyfishExhibitionAtNationalAquariumBaltimoreMarylandUSA/

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) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please insert an anchor for the "Medusa (biology)" redirect.

Currently, the redirect Medusa (biology) merely jumps to Jellyfish#Terminology, which is not quite helpful. The actual explanation of the term, which begins with "The term medusa was coined by Linnaeus in 1752, ...", which begins out-of-sight of the current redirect landing point (the first line in the section), after five paragraphs that presume understanding of the term.

Please insert an anchor within the Jellyfish#Terminology section slightly before the paragraph beginning:

The term medusa was coined by Linnaeus in 1752, ...

I suggest using {{anchor|term_medusa}}

and then replace the text "#Terminology" with "#term_medusa" on the redirect page: Medusa (biology).

A perfectly reasonable alternative would be to move the two consecutive paragraphs beginning "The term medusa was coined by Linnaeus in 1752, ..." and "In biology, a medusa (plural: medusae) is a form ...", which might make a better introduction to the terminology section. 172.56.38.94 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Plantdrew (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! 172.56.38.94 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Subheadings for Jellyfish#Terminology

Please insert three subheadings into the section Jellyfish#Terminology:

=== Jellyfish and jellies ===

immediately above the paragraph that begins with "The popular English name jellyfish has ...", with the first occurrence of the word jellyfish in bold, as shown here;

=== Bloom ===

immediately above the paragraph that begins with "A group of jellyfish is sometimes called a bloom ...", with the first occurrence of the word bloom in bold; and

=== Medusa ===

immediately above the paragraph that begins with "The term medusa was coined by Linnaeus in 1752, ...", with the first occurrence of the word medusa in bold.

172.56.38.94 (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Plantdrew (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again; blindingly fast work! 172.56.38.94 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Jellyfish's response to climate change?

For a university course project we are required to add a new section to the Wiki Page discussing the response to climate change using reliable and credible sources as well as abiding by the wiki guidelines. Some ideas I have in mind are:

Generally climate change is detrimental to species. Counterintuitively, may benefit from increasing temperatures. They can live in oxygen depleted habitats and high nutrients therefore where fishes die, the jellyfish can thrive. Overfishing problems results in less predation. Eutrophication in some coastal regions usually suffocate the marine life but increase populations in phytoplankton which is a food source for jellyfish. Because jellyfish can reproduce asexually and sexually, a decline in population is not of concern. Especially since jellyfish can revert back to polyps. Lastly, changes in currents due to warming oceans will affect the jellyfish since they usually ride the currents.

This is just information I have pulled from the wiki page. I will obviously pull from credible journals. This is just a brainstorm

Huatammy (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Tammy Hua McMaster University

Hello Huatammy, you are correct that climate change may help jellyfish at the expense of other organisms. If available to you, try this book as a reference where jellyfish are described as "weeds invading disturbed spaces". 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So far I have come up with this: "Jellyfish have seen a drastic rise population, even clogging pipes in Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey Bay, California. These blooms often occur in warmer, more acidic, and oxygen depleted environments. The ocean's response to climate change is creating the ideal environments for jellyfish to thrive. Studies suggest that with a more positive North Atlantic Oscillation, the jellyfish population will increase over the next 100 years. " Can I get an opinion on my draft so far :) Huatammy (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Huatammy, sounds good but would still need a citation to the source you found the information in before publishing to the article page. If you need help with adding references, you can contact me on my talk page. Loopy30 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30, here is the source code which provides the citations :)

Draft

The significance of jellyfish on the Earth’s two systems such as the hydrosphere and atmosphere bring upon many fascinating answers to today’s issue of climate change. These unique species can alter the ecosystem, food chain, and are an indicator species of changes in ocean chemistry.Jellyfish have seen a drastic rise population, even clogging pipes in Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey Bay, California.These blooms often occur in warmer, more acidic, and oxygen depleted environments. The ocean's response to climate change is creating the ideal environments for jellyfish to thrive. Studies suggest that with a more positive North Atlantic Oscillation, the jellyfish population will increase over the next 100 years.Due to cultural eutrophication and hypoxia, and overfishing, the oceans are becoming more acidic and oxygen depleted. The use of dams and other hydrological controls, can affect ocean salinity therefore benefiting the jellyfish . Per ppt salinity change resulted in 28% increase of benthic polyps and jellyfish production.

Ocean acidification heavily hinders the development - whether it be metabolism, growth, reproductivity, or calcification of majority of marine organisms . Ocean acidification occurs from rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.This creates unfavourable conditions for other marine animals while jellyfish blooms increase. Rising temperatures in the atmosphere are warming up the oceans. Particularly, Cassiopea sp. medusae gains body mass and reduced aerobic energy consumption at 32ºC . Studies show that the polyps also had higher survivorship in hypoxic conditions. In addition, eutrophication provides an abundance of phytoplankton, a food source for jellyfish.

The increasing population of jellyfish can be positive for opportunistic species that use jellyfish as an alternative food source. A study on St. George Island off the coast of Alaska in the eastern Bering Sea found that jellyfish blooms provided a "jellyfish buffet" for diving seabirds. Another service jellyfish provide includes transporting carbon and nutrients to deep oceans through their carcasses and their sloppy feeding habits. Their movement contribute to ocean mixing by the expansion and contraction of their bell-shaped bodies. However jellyfish blooms are dangerous to humans as their sting can cause swelling, burning, and various other effects therefore negatively affecting the tourism industries. Jellyfish also cost fishing industries by clogging nets, and indirectly costing fisheries by killing off fish .   Huatammy (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Replied on user talkpage. Loopy30 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)