Jump to content

Talk:Dendrobranchiata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article only mentions prawns relationship with humans

[edit]

I think one of us should help this page by finding someone who knows more about the animal, not only how you can cook them. Perhaps there is a website out there with some helpful facts that could be added? I'll see what I can turn up from the web for now. Goodyfun (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)goodyfun[reply]

Langostino

[edit]
Is this the same as the shellfish found in resturants called a langostino? ZPS102 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langostino literally means "little lobster" and is applied to large shrimp species.

On another note, the term "prawn" is not a scientific term and cannot be "mis-applied", as such. Just as "crab" is used to describe a horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus, which is a chelicerate and not a crustacean), the common terms are used differently in different places and have their meaning within the cultural context. "Prawn" has its roots in Euro-english usage, whereas American English refers to all these animals as "shrimp." Interestingly, the author of the first section uses Leander serratus as their example of a prawn, but L. serratus is not a dendrobranchiate shrimp, as they lay their eggs on their pleopods (a trait of the Caridea), while those of dendrobranchiate shrimp have free-floating demersal eggs.

If you're in the know, jump in and make the correction! :-) Matthew 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - from a European perspective, "langostino" sounds like a reference to Nephrops norvegicus, the langoustine or Dublin Bay prawn. Which is not a prawn but a lobster. However the langostino article suggests that it is an American English term for the squat lobster, which is not a lobster, nor a prawn, but a crab! FlagSteward 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, squat lobsters aren't crabs, either. They're … squat lobsters. I suppose this demonstrates that there's a good reason why the larger group is called Anomala! --Stemonitis 17:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe

[edit]

OK, I'm frankly baffled why the link to Pepe the Prawn is "irrelevant". Kermit is mentioned in the Frog article, and Pepe is one of the primary Muppets these days. It's not like we have too much information in this article and we need to cut something. Powers T 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edibleness

[edit]

I deleted the word "edible' from the intro. This is a speciesist term which does nothing for the article besides reinforcing the idea that certain species exist solely for the purpose of human consumption.

If reference to their exploitation for human consumption is absolutely necessary, then perhaps something similar to Shrimp would be in order: "Together with shrimp, they are widely caught and farmed for human consumption."

--Zerstuckelung 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the human consumption element is important; it's the way that most people come into contact with the animals, and the first thing they think of when considering them. I agree completely that this is unfortunate, and wish that people were as interested in mud shrimp and other obscure animals as they are in things they can eat, but that's just my opinion, and as such is entirely unencyclopaedic. The edibility of prawns is crucial to their human interest, and it's for humans that the encyclopaedia is written, so it has to be given a fair amount of emphasis. --Stemonitis 09:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that interaction with this animals is primarily consumptive. I simply fail to see the reasoning behind referring to them as "edible," especially as nearly all animals are. The fact that they are farmed and fished is adequately covered in the rest of the article. --Zerstuckelung 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart in the head?

[edit]

I've heard of a trivia question which runs like this. Which creature has its heart located in its head? The answer given is "shrimp" or "prawn". Is there an expert out there who can confirm this and, if its true, update the main article. If its true it certainly seems worthy of a mention! If there are other creatures with the same physiology perhaps that can be mentioned there too (or added here with this comment). Thanks. --Tom 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific classification

[edit]

In order to be consistent with most scientific classifications, prawn should list only superfamilies Penaeoidea and Sergestoidea. Lists and links to the families should be provided from within the two superfamilies.

ICE77 -- 84.223.76.72 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that any more scientific, and how is it helpful to readers? Removing the family links makes Penaeidae more or less unreachable, whereas the list does not take up much space, and allows for much quicker and easier browsing between taxa. If anything, it would make sense to list families and not superfamilies, because that's the primary rank. --Stemonitis 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about suborder Dendrobranchiata and not about family Penaeidae. A list of superfamilies is more than enough to see one level below.

ICE77 -- 84.223.77.125 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional Info

[edit]

Can someone knowledgeable put some info on the nutritional info of shrimp - even general stuff like "high in omega 3" or whatever. (I came to this article looking for nutrional info, next I'm going to look up oysters! :D ) Rfwoolf (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UKUS naming confusion Prawn vs. Shrimp

[edit]

Hi, I came to this page expecting to find information about seafood sold in England as prawns. I am English, and I speak native English. I cannot tell from the article whether I am on the right page or not. The sentence 'In the United Kingdom, the word "prawn" is more common on menus than "shrimp"' is particularly unhelpful - does it indicate I'm on the right page, or the wrong page? Can someone with a clear understanding of this UKUS naming issue please add some clear disambiguation? Thanks. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Examples of UK naming:[reply]

Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it's confusing, and for this reason this article should probably be renamed. But roughly speaking, what Brits call "prawns", Americans call "shrimp".. the article unfortunately doesn't make this clear. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complex than that, but let's keep this discussion in one place: Talk:Shrimp. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

[edit]

This article has serious POV issues, and possibly original research issues. See Talk:Shrimp#Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Shrimp and Prawns and the thread after that. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dendrobranchiata. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dendrobranchiata. 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:

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) 16:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dendrobranchiata&oldid=1206932633"