Talk:Lobster/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lobster. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Needs work

it needs more about what the lobster looks like and what its characteristics are

This page needs work, I think there's a template for taxonomic information out there somewhere. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

--Dante Alighieri 01:04 20 May 2003 (UTC)

You need work ya fuckin bellend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.96.67 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

average lifespan? 01:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Moved this paragraph from the article, it seems debatable at best, and no evidence is cited. How do you quantify the ocean bottom being a more competitive than, say, the African savannah? --Lexor|Talk 04:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Lobsters truly define the statement of “survival of the fittest” from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Only the biggest and the fittest survive the ocean bottom because it is a fierce world with fierce competition. Those that survive end up on dinner plates.

Removed reference to Norwegian study. The study is wrongly cited as determining lobsters don't feel pain. On the contrary, the study found that while lobsters "probably" don't feel pain, there is not enough evidence to determine this ("There is apparently a paucity of exact knowledge on sentience in crustaceans, and more research is needed"), and that "[E]fforts should be made to maintain these animals in the most appropriate way during handling and confinement, giving them the benefit of doubt in situations that have a potential to cause pain and stress".

langoustine redirect

Hi,

Langoustine redirects to this page, but I'm not sure it should do so. Unfortunately this seems to be a language issue!

According to [[1]] a langoustine is what is known as scampi in the USA. In England it is the same thing as a Norway lobster.

I know a langoustine as an animal about 6 inches long and looking like a cross between a shrimp and a lobster.

Can someone tidy this?

Cheers!

As far as I can tell, scampi is the same thing as langoustine (in the UK) - both refer to the Norway lobster, also called Dublin bay prawn, Nephrops norvegicus. This may also be what you describe as being like a lobster-shrimp cross; certainly Nephrops is slimmer than a Homarus-lobster. I think a separate page for Nephrops would be justified, and that Langoustine should redirect there. --Stemonitis 12:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know Russian, and there is a word, лангуст("langust",pronounced /lʌnˡgust/), definitely related to "langoustine;"it refers to the spiny (not clawed) lobster, however.Maybe "spiny lobster" should redirect from langoustine.--Crustaceanguy 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Langouste" is not necessarily the same as "langoustine", not to mention that Russian colloquial terms may not correlate exactly with English colloquial terms. If "langoustine" is used for several different taxa, then it would be appropriate to have it as a disambiguation page, although I really don't know which taxa might be included. --Stemonitis 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

legs

Hi,

Does anyone know how many legs a lobster has, and is it always that same number for any lobster? Would you count the claws as legs (i.e., did they evolve into claws?)? Thank you.

Lobsters are of the order 'Decapoda', the arthropods with ten legs. Not all lobsters have claws (eg California spiny lobster), but of the ones that do, the claws are the first pair of legs. --Elijah 22:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Spiny lobsters are not true lobsters, in fact. Also, many people believe lobsters only have two claws(I thought so myself until very recently), but they actually have six. There are large claws at the two front legs and small, rather unnoticeable claws on the next two pairs of legs. Only the first pair of legs is not used in locomotion, however. Spiny and slipper lobsters are not classified as true lobsters due to the absence of claws.--Crustaceanguy 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

In the article it says a lobster trap has bait and makes it impossible for the lobster to get out. The last line in that pragraph says that the traps are inefficient and that is why there is still such a good lobster industry. These two lines directly contradict each other. In fact I saw a segment on the discovery channel about how a university studied lobster traps and observed via camera on traps that something like 90% of lobster that enter the trap leave it with no problem. This should be verified and updated

The fact that the trap does not permit the lobster to leave doesn't make it efficient. The fact is that trapping is itself an inefficient means of catching lobsters. siafu 21:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the situation is that the mesh in the traps permits small, underdeveloped lobsters to escape while larger ones are trapped. This means that lobsters typically aren't taken until they have had a chance to breed at least once. Take a look at paragraph four of this article at the New York Times, for instance. I've altered the article to reflect this info. --Clay Collier 08:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Blood of the Sea

Is it true that lobsters have blue blood? Or am I crazy and/or thinking of something else?--Atlastawake 14:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, see Hemocyanin. The color is quite pale under normal circumstances, though, it only turns visibly blue when it comes into direct contact with oxygen. Aragorn2 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, lobster blood is indeed blue due to low oxygen content. Few lobsters are red until they are cooked. Apparently, on average, one in every hundred lobsters is blue, and will remain blue after cooking! Rusty2005 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First quality?

The first quality of lobster can be found in Britanny and along the Channel. Since the 16th century, the most famous has been the wild "blue lobster" (homard bleu) of Audresselles, in the strait between France and England, but this species, different from the canadian lobster, is now very rare.

What is this "first quality" - and what is the second quality?

Also, on whose authority is this lobster "first quality"? Food is very subjective, and there's quality lobster all over the world.

Actually there's quality lobster in very few places. Most of the world is littered with so-called "spiny lobster," also known as "not lobster." Tomyumgoong 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lobster pain

I corrected the sentence about lobster pain, which siad a Norwegian report concluded they don't, and referenced a media article about it. The media article was incorrect, and I instead added a citation for the report itself. I can't find it online, but I have a copy, and here is an excerpt: "efforts should be made to maintain these animals in the most appropriate way during handling and confinement, giving them the benefit of doubt in situations that have a potential to cause pain and stress." (p. 37) Neither is the report representative, so I added reference to another report which concludes "the scientific evidence... strongly suggests that there is a potential for decapod crustaceans and cephalopods to experience pain and suffering" (p. 5).Pasio 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article on lobsters and pain.--Lzygenius 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

US-centric view on the history of lobster as food

It seems to me as that part of the article is written entirely from the perspective of American history, it doesn't mention anything about lobster being eaten prior to the European colonization of the Americas, nor does it mention its status in Europe in post-colonial times.

I pretty much came to this entry because I knew it was a food for the 'poor' in North America untill modern times, but the fragmented information about the outside world in this article seems to indicate this was a unique situation - since markets seemed to instantly open abroad as soon as transportation became feasible. It's interesting that lobster wasn't prized highly in the Americas untill this happened, but why not and where was it prized previously?

So, if anyone could please edit the article to perhaps go a bit further back and from a neutral rather than a uniquely American perspective, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'd guess it's a Canada-centric view since the it touts theirs as the top quality and spells the word "colour" with a "u" like that indicating a non-US author. Disclaimer: I live in Maine, hehe :p (though I'm in the lobster industry). 72.224.187.170 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I would say (at least pictorially) the article is too Euro-centric. Maine lobsters differ from European lobsters. Where are pictures of the Maine lobsters and lobster shacks, or even a picture of the Maine lobster roll?165.123.139.232 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Symmetrically coloured lobster

The reference for the last paragraph of the biology section can be found at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060720-lobster-photo.html. I would do the reference myself but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia citations.

Added, thanks. BFD1 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lobster Blood

Can anyone find any information on the composition of lobster blood? I have searched for a long time and am unable to find any specific information on it.

165.121.144.66 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh

Have you tried a Google search for "lobster blood"? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "slaughter" NPOV?

Is it really NPOV to use the word "slaughter"? I'm aware that it is the correct term for butchering animals for food but it has very brutal connotations, on the other hand vetoing words because of what some people think of them might set a dangerous precedent. Any thoughts?

TheChard 06:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid is probably your best quide. Avoiding words that can cause contention in and of themselves is good for the article. We want to write in an encyclopedic manner, and choose the best words for the purpose. NPOV applies to content, and would apply to the choice of words only to the extent that the choice of words drives a particular POV. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the article so that the "Slaughtering…" heading no longer appears. The two paragraphs it contained were unrelated anyway. --Stemonitis 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. -- TheChard 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason when I think about the word slaughter I immagine there being a lot of blood spilled and since that doesn't really happen with a lobster, it's not much of a matter of being 'PC' but more of a matter of sounding awkward. 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Dead Lobster

size information

"An average adult lobster is about 230 mm (9 inches) long and weighs 700 to 900 g (1.5 to 2 pounds)."—does anyone know what species of lobster is intended? it seems applicable to the american, or perhaps the european; i doubt it's an average length and weight for all of them, and even if it is, such data seems pointless—extremes of size would be more informative. 65.95.37.193

never mind. this information fits the american lobster well, so i'm going to move it to that article. 65.95.37.193 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pride? School? What?

What do you call a group of lobsters in the same effect that a Gaggle of Geese is called? I cant find that anywhere. GreenCherry 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In general Lobster tend not to group together very much in the wild. They are not community animals, and prefer to live a more solitary life. When Lobster do get together, or more commonly, are forced together, it usually ends in conflict. The obvious exeptions to this are mating, and the Lobster march, but as they never really socialise in the same manner as geese or cattle, there doesnt seem to be a set term for a group of them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.49.162 (talk • contribs)

n.b. the "lobster march" is a phenomenon observed in spiny lobsters, not true lobsters. True lobsters do indeed seem to be mostly solitary. --Stemonitis 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying there isn't a common term for a bunch (group, gaggle, herd) of lobster because they don't hang out in the wild. I suggest the term "Pot of lobster" then :) 198.6.46.11 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gastronomy

The whole Gastronomy section bothers me. It reads too much like a cook book. I think the instructions on how to cook and eat lobsters needs to come out, while the article could use more on the development of lobster as a premium food and on the industry around its use as food would be appropriate. -- Donald Albury 14:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Using a microwave oven to kill a lobster would not heat it evenly, as a previous editor has "presumed." This is a common misconception, as the microwaves actually only penetrate a few millimetres--the internal heating is due to conduction, the same as in boiling water. 68.145.160.71 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"lobster liberation"

The "lobster liberation" link is obviously extra-POV, by and for "animal rights" ultras-it should be deleted.172.163.4.16 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they say that you shouldn't drink milk after eating lobster? We've always been told not to drink milk after because we'd get sick but no one seems to know why.

This is a well-known food myth. My grandmother believed that the combination of ant seafood with milk was dngerous - if not fatal. Obviously, this was a popular belief in the late nineteenth century. Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Families of lobsters

The reef lobster page treats them as lobsters. Does this mean that not all lobsters are in the family Nephropidae? --Crustaceanguy 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. As far as I conceive of it, "lobster" would cover Enoplometopidae and Thaumastochelidae as well, i.e. all members of Astacidea that are not freshwater crayfish, but I'm not sure that anyone has ever really laid down the limits of what counts as a true lobster. Since Enoplometopidae has been given its own superfamily, there is no clade name available for such a group, so we either have to restrict our use of the term "true lobster" to just this family, or move the current article to Nephropidae, and have "lobster" as an article for the vague topic of all those things that have "lobster" in their name. I have seen the term "clawed lobster" used, but although it excludes the achelates, this tends to include all sorts of other things, like Polycheles, which are even more distantly related. I would much rather have lobster be a meaningful article (as it currently is) than a confusing disambiguation page, or an article along the lines of "A whole bunch of fairly dissimilar things are called lobsters. Nothing much unites them.", but I'm open to suggestions. We need to consider what the average reader expects when they look for "lobster", which may be anything from Homarus to all larger long-tailed decapods. --Stemonitis 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current "lobster" article is meaningful. Also, this is obviously what many people have in mind when they think of lobsters. Probably we should leave the article as it is now, even though it may not have the exact taxonomic coverage.--Crustaceanguy 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Symbion

I am removing "parasitic" from the sentence about Symbion, because it is not a parasitic organism. The Symbion page says the relationship between lobsters and cycliophorans is commensal, meaning that the Symbion benefits, while the lobster is neither helped nor harmed. I have heard that most lobsters don't even know when the Symbion settles on their mouthparts. --Crustaceanguy 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Marinebio.org

This article contains plagerized information from this source [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added to Talk:Lobster/Comments by 24.34.89.44 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 April 2007.

That source is amply cited in the article, and the text appears to have been re-written rather than copied en bloc. --Stemonitis 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do Lobsters stick to magnets?

Or is that just a common misconception?

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=7914

198.6.46.11 18:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a misconception, but I doubt that it's a common one! --Stemonitis 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction?

What about it? I want to buy some lobsters and film them getting down for some weird porn I want to make. Okay, not really, but I would like to know. I can't be arsed adding stuff to the Wikipedia anymore as Wikipidiphiles tend to edit it out for unstated reasons, but if anyone not as jaded as I would fancy adding it, t'would be nice.

A good idea. I'll look into it over the next few days. It's interesting, because lobsters mate face-to-face (missionary position, if you will) rather than doggy-style (which is how, for instance, crabs do it). --Stemonitis 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do they lay eggs? Do all arthopods? How many? Gestation period? Size of off-spring? Time to maturity? My 3.5 year wants to know... Thanks, --User:Cgthayer 30 Aug 2007

Yes, they do indeed lay eggs, usually many thousand. Most arthropods also lay eggs, although a few species give birth to live larvae. --Crustaceanguy 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, like most decapods, lobsters brood their eggs on their pleopods. In this state, they are known as "berried", and it is usually illegal to catch them while berried. The image at Emerita (Image:Sand-crab-with-eggs.jpg) shows a (distantly) related decapod carrying its eggs in the same way, to give you an idea of what it might look like. --Stemonitis 08:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have heard that lobsters mate for life. Is this true? There is NOTHING about reproduction/lifecycle on the main page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.19.220 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam link?

I removed this link: ^[1] since Wiki kept telling me that the link was spam. This may have been in error, if so, please replace link - my browser won't let me at the moment. Thanks. Bob98133 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientific classification or the linking could be wrong

The scientific classification on this page does not match the scientific classification on the Portuguese version of the same page. Something must be wrong with the classification of one of the two pages or the linking. Something must be done about this. -- 84.223.77.125 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. For some reason pt:Nephropidae redirects to pt:Lagosta, which represents Palinura, an obsolete infra-order comprising Achelata and Eryonoidea. It includes the spiny lobster, also called langouste. There is an obvious similarity between langouste and lagosta. And by the way, don't use someone else's signature as your own. --Crustaceanguy 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: the linking must certainly be changed, but not the classification.--Crustaceanguy 21:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The section fails to describe lobster neuroanatomy. These creatures' nervous systems are so primitive that they require separate ganglia to move each segment of their bodies. The whole section skews toward a highly anthropomorphized interpretation of dubious merit. Kroyw 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, describing the system as "primitive" is pretty amthropomorphic, as it assumes that the condition found in humans is more advanced. --Stemonitis 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More complex, certainly. The centers responsible for basic emotions evolved with reptiles in chordates and no conclusive evidence exists of for comparable complexity in any other phylum. If one were to argue that for any nonvertebrate it might perhaps be octopus or squid, but lobsters require separate ganglia to operate each body segment. This section claims that the jury is out, then establishes a case for only one side of the argument. To anyone who has studied neuroanatomy that comes across as highly irresponsible. Kroyw 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me highly irresponsible for anyone to boil an animal alive if there was even the slightest doubt that it could feel anything remotely like pain, yet the section doesn't even go so far as to say that much. Richard001 07:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[www.andkon.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.239.206 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Lobster-To-Langosta ReDirect

¡Hola!

If I chose the language "Español" from the language toolbox at the left from the English Wikipedia pages

Lobster (Spanish: Bogavante)
Spiny Lobster (Spanish: Langosta)

both times appear the Spanish Langosta Page! While the Spiny Lobster ia a Langosta, the Spanish Lobster is a BOGAVANTE...

I have no idea how to change that?

Cheers --RudolfRegez (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On Spanish Wikipedia, es:Bogavante redirects to the Latin name, es:Homarus gammarus. I have changed this English article to now point to Homarus gammarus. — Epastore (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First video

I added this video:Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho: Lobster o 'Banagan', 05/10/2008 --Florentino floro (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pain subsection

I have changed the subheader to "Capacity for pain" from "Do lobster feel pain?". The question mark in the title feels clunky, and on consulting the Manual of Style the use of the subject (lobster) in the header is discouraged:

Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy (Early life, not His early life)

Having a complete sentence is also discouraged. I'll change the link from the angling article, though not that title. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:11, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

Okey-dokey --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Diet etc.

I was looking for their diet (which I know can be found in other places, but isn't Wikipedia going to be the repository of all human knowledge?). I guess this should be included when someone updates the biological information per "this page needs work."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhlynes (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Most common way of killing a lobster?

When splitting, is it more common to cut the entire body, or just the head? I have a book with instructions on preparation of a live lobster, which shows the splitting of only the head, which facilitates steps such as removal of the tomalley, etc. --Elfer (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoology

Honestly this article isn't very good at providing any kind of scientific information with regard to lobsters in zoology. Article should look more like the Tuatara article, with subsections for Taxonomy and Evolution, Description, Habitat, Behaviour / Reproduction, and Cultural Significance. Cultural Significance should link to a different article, Lobsters As Seafood or Lobsters In Agriculture. This would permit more scientific information here and more practical information about cooking and the culture associated with eating lobster, if the article were split. Pssvr (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

--207.134.210.194 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Bold text

Lobsters Taste Good

Capacity for Pain/Animal welfare/ electrocution system -> advertisment?

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but I don't like the tone of this paragraph:

In 2006, British inventor Simon Buckhaven invented the CrustaStun, which electrocutes lobsters with a 110 V electric shock, killing them in about five seconds. This ensures a quicker death for the lobster. Seafood wholesalers in Britain already use a commercial version. A home version was available about 2006.

A "quicker death"? Is it known how long it takes till boiling water kills a lobster? Or splitting it's head? Can 5 seconds be considered to be a quick death anyway?--80.121.70.18 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC) The only comment I want to make concerns the reference to microwaving the lobster. I have done this myself. The lobster went crazy and banged and thrashed around in the microwave for a LONG time, at least 4-5 minutes (the machine was set on "high") and made a tremendous racket. My wife insisted I never do it again. I have seen lobsters struggle for a minute or two in boiling water, but the microwave went much longer. Can't prove anything, but it really unnerved the wife. Sagemenscircle (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If this didn't unnerve you as well, and you'd be willing to repeat it, you are an... interesting phenomenon... to say it kindly. Thanks for the data point though, it's interesting (though indeed horrible). - denis bider, 2010-01-30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.73.51 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good God, I think that would put me off lobster forever... as it is, I have trouble with the "boiled alive" concept. (No lectures, please, just an off-the-cuff response to Sagemenscircle's note.) StrangeAttractor (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole section of the article is an absurd, animal-rights propaganda piece. It takes up a full half of the page. It is not relevant to the subject of "Lobster". This section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.47.107 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the above, but I generally agree with the sentiment and accuracy of the observation. The first comment on this page mentions the need for a more scholarly approach; having this large section (which reads like it was lifted verbatim from a PETA pamphlet) doesn't take the article in a scholarly direction at all. The content of this section should be significantly reduced with a link to a relevant article discussing the issue; almost all life forms have a capacity to feel pain, but it's not worth so many words here. Let PETA put up their own webopedia. Thumbs down. Renaissongsman (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Suffering in lobsters is a common concern due to the way lobsters are killed and cooked, which may be especially painful, and differs from the slaughter process used for most other food animals. Very few other food animals are purchased live, with their killing left to the person doing the cooking. As such, this section is important. I would actually vote for removing insinuations that lobsters might not feel pain. What kind of animal would survive and prosper in evolution while lacking the capacity to feel pain? Would suggest cleaning up that section to discuss the pain issue less (of course they feel pain), and instead enumerate a few ways on killing the lobster humanely. - denis bider, 2010-01-30

New photo uploads

Please see Commons:User:Postdlf/Lobster; I just uploaded to Commons 14 pictures of live lobsters that I think illustrate details of their anatomy better than others previously available, particularly features of the head (and is that their mouth underneath? weird). Please take a look, help me write more informative descriptions and anatomical labels, and determine whether they might be helpful in this article. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clawed lobster (American lobster)

There are 2 major species, the clawed American lobster and the spiny lobster, in addition to many minor variants. Wikipedia is neutral and should not give priority to any one. Therefore, a disambiguation page is done. Amthernandez (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we have specific rules regarding disambiguation, and Lobster is the primary topic with Lobster (disambiguation) as the dab page. Since we use the common name for articles, and since "the clawed lobsters are most often associated with the name", we call this article "Lobster". Furthermore, "clawed lobsters are not closely related to spiny lobsters or slipper lobsters or squat lobsters", hence the article name. Please stop moving the article without consensus. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas is correct - the current disambiguation and clear explanation suffice. The content of the article is the primary topic associated with the word 'lobster'. Knepflerle (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Any reference to the so-called "American lobster" should be changed to Atlantic lobster. I live in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and have been eating lobster my entire life yet have never before heard the term American lobster. In all parts of Canada it is referred to as Atlantic, and since the lobster industry is a much more important staple to the economy and day to day lives of Atlantic Canadians, rather than their New England cousins, it only seems appropriate. Unless of course there is a need to refer to it as North American lobster, however it doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caper146 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Aging

How come this article says nothing about Lobsters senescence, or lack thereof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.83.238 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim that Lobsters live indefinitely is wishful thinking on the part of people of a Transhumanist bent.

Sadly, lobsters do show signs of aging, they moult their shells as they grow. However, the action of telomerase does make it very difficult to judge how old they are at a cellular level. Lobsters may live a very long time (current estimates range from 100-150 years) but the idea that they LIVE INDEFINITELY in the absence of disease or being eaten is speculative to the point of absurdity and highly misleading. While research is being done to determine just how long they could live, no one but Aubrey De Grey seriously belives that they could be immortal. These claims are based on the absence of scientific data, in that it is extremely difficult to find anything that lives as long as a lobster that lives out it's full potential lifespan without contracting a fatal disease or being eaten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StaticRabbit (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cholesterol?

Where's the info? 66.65.140.116 (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on classification

Should the genera Thaumastocheles & Thaumastochelopsis be listed in the family (Nephropidae) or be moved to Thaumastochelidae? Bruinfan12 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Animal and food

Shouldn't there be a different article that talks about lobsters as food. I realise that the article isn't really too big as it is but thought I'd bring it up. Bishopgraeme (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many pictures in gastronomy section

The pictures in the gastronomy section are overflowing in to the sections below it. I suggest two go. The animal welfare section could have it's own picture of perhaps a lobster being dropped in to boiling water or being despatched with a knife. Fishery and aquaculture could also have a picture of a lobster trap.Muleattack (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you add that picture I added earlier? I don't want to break the style. I would appreciate it.--Jsderwin (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

lobster can be broiled

boiled and steamed? My restaurant broils them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.239.215 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fix the reference tag please?

I added a small clarification about what a lobster smack is but cannot make the reference tag work correctly--help appreciated. It is currently footnote 20. Just wanted to link to the url Grumpy otter (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bare-url references need to be in single brackets, but you used double curly brackets (aka braces). Don't be confused by what I did to fix it; since I used the cite web template, you'll see curly brackets in the code there now. Rivertorch (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

difference to other families

Hi! Which characteristics differs the family "lobsters" from other families of the Astacidea? I can't find that in the description. --92.195.59.190 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Almost all the other extant Astacidea are freshwater crayfish, which are morphologically similar (albeit more rounded, etc.), but very different developmentally. The only other living marine Astacidea are the Enoplometopidae, which don't have full claws on the second and third legs, whereas Nephropidae do. I'll try to find a source and put that in the article. The differences from the fossil families are less clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

de Saint Laurent erected the Enoplometopoidea as part of the Astacidea because of the nephropoid character of Enoplometopus. Maybe in his article will be some hints. Sadly it is in french. (Link to the article). --92.195.55.64 (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Colors

I've heard lobsters come in many, many color variations - this article doesn't even mention their usual look. No qwach macken (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It varies from species to species; Nephrops norvegicus is pink, while Homarus gammarus is bluish, for instance. The article on the American lobster discusses a range of rare colour variations within that species. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2012 (UT

Merger proposal

I propose merging Paramoebiasis with Lobster. It is a lobster parasite and is an article that literally has 1 line of text (3 sentences). PeterWesco (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's a species in its own right. Why don't you expand the article if you think it is too short? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: According to those references that aren't dead links, Paramoeba includes several species, one of which attacks a variety of crustaceans (including at least one crab and one of the 54 species of lobster). It should definitely not be merged with lobster. There is a good case, however, for merging paramoebiasis (the disease) with Paramoeba (the causative agent). --Stemonitis (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will update the merge request.PeterWesco (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Servants Refusing to Eat Lobster

This article, sourcing The Times, repeats a 19th century legend about colonial America that, in this case, servants stipulated that they not be fed lobster more than a certain frequency. Since it makes such a great and short narrative, this tale has been repeated with variations since that time. Please see: this article.--Janko (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Similarity to bugs, urban legend that they're bugs

I came here to find a definitive answer to whether or not lobsters are bugs; if an arthropod = a bug; the similarities and differences between a lobster and other arthropods we consider 'bugs' like pillbugs and scorpions. There is a lot of misleading information elsewhere on the Internet re: this subject, esp in light of the urban legend w/r/t prisoners protesting being forced to eat too many lobsters.

I suggest adding a "popular mythology" section that clears up this confusion regarding what a lobster is and isn't. 2601:9:1B00:68:9CBE:4E44:44C6:AF89 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

US-Centrism.

The article almost entirely deals with Lobsters from a US-perspective. While the info on the US is fine, more info in regards to other countries could do with being added. --85.210.99.191 (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, any pictures of Lobsters in their natural habitat? --85.210.99.191 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. As I tried to convey in my edit summary, only one part of the article is significantly concentrated on North America (including Canada), and this is largely because the fishing industry, and therefore cultural impact, of this family is largely concentrated there; the fishery for the European lobster – the next most important fisheries species – is a fraction of the size. There is scope for improvement, but it is incorrect to suggest that the entire article is biased in such a way. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP is correct. The lobster article is seriously confused; it conflates the common term lobster with the scientific taxon Nephropidae. Lobster is not a scientific term, it is a word that belongs to common usage, and its meaning is determined by that common usage. This is another crustacean article where Encyclopedia Britannica gets is right and Wikipedia get it wrong. As Britannica says, lobster are "any of numerous marine crustaceans (phylum Arthropoda, order Decapoda) constituting the families Homaridae (or Nephropsidae), true lobsters; Palinuridae, spiny lobsters, or sea crayfish; Scyllaridae, slipper, Spanish, or shovel lobsters; and Polychelidae, deep-sea lobsters." The Wikipedia lobster article is wrong in the same way that, earlier, the Wikipedia shrimp article was wrong. You fiercely insisted here and here that shrimp be identified with the taxon Caridea. I had assumed that as a result of that debacle you would have got the point and corrected the article on lobster yourself. But it seems the penny has yet to drop. There should be a separate article for Nephropidae, just as there is now for Caridea. The article for lobster should be rewritten to reflect common usage, and not misleadingly present lobster as if it was a formal scientific taxon. There are similar, though less severe problems with the crab article, where you again define the common term crab as a formal scientific taxon. There should be a separate article for Brachyura. Again, Britannica gets it right. These confusing misrepresentations are enforced at your insistence Stemonitis, and are a continuing embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Most reputable dictionaries give as the primary meaning the way the term is used here. OED gives primarily "Homarus and other genera, class Malacostraca"; Merriam-Webster gives "any of a family (Nephropidae and especially Homarus americanus)"; Free Online Dictionary gives "Any of several edible marine crustaceans of the family Homaridae". The broader meaning is secondary in every case. Britannica can be unbearably vague on some biological terms, and is not representative of the wider world. Even Britannica admits that Nephropidae (albeit mis-spelt) are the true lobsters. Nor do I see the current shrimp article as being a model we should endeavour to follow. Its topic is poorly defined, and, as a result, the various facts it tries to portray are confused because they refer to different taxa. It is akin to saying "Animals whose names begin with 'R' can be found in coral reefs, savannahs and boreal forests". Thankfully, you did eventually concede that "brine shrimp", "mantis shrimp" and other compounds including the word "shrimp" should not be primarily included there, and the same argument applies here and at "crab". In careful writing, a "spiny lobster" is not a "lobster". Please don't continue to agitate for replacing good, well-defined articles with ones of vague scope. The discussion here, incidentally, is over whether or not the article shows an undue bias towards coverage of North America, and I don't see that your comments have any bearing on that. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There we go again, straight away into the misleading cherry picking and misrepresentation that characterised your earlier interactions. Don't worry, I'm not spending further time here and you can remain the sole proprietor of these articles. It takes too much energy bringing about change. I've recorded how it is, and it will have to rest there. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Cherry picking and misrepresentation"? I picked the first three dictionaries I could find. There was no selection beyond that. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stemonitis, you should remember that English language did exist before 1776 and even before 1492. Please, have a look at the etymology of "lobster", and understand that the latins and the saxons couldnt call "lobster" to the clawed lobster (Homarus americanus), simply because they didnt know that such animal existed.--2.137.5.85 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to understand that general dictionaries are concerned with common usage and will include usages that are not necessarily scientific. General dictionaries sometimes get the science wrong as well. I think what is presumably a scientific article should primarily be based on scientific usage, and should mention important common usages that differ, identifying them so. Abstrator (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "Outside North America, the popularity of lobster is irrelevant because Wikipedia is largely America-centric." Science aside, the sentence is strange and hints at unresolved arguments. Such a sentence should never be found in an encyclopedia article. I think the sentence is a complaint that Wikipedia is focusing on North American terms and ideas. The sentence needs to be removed. 216.185.242.208 (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That was a temporary nuisance, added by a vandal and removed here. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I have edited the subtitles of a couple of sections to make it clear that they are only dealing with the subjects from an American point of view. at present I am NOT complaining against Americans- it is up to other people to write about the world view and expand the articles! I suspect that the comments about American vs European are neglecting a market etc around the whole of the rest of the world- no?

IceDragon64 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What are your suspicions based on? The fishery for clawed lobsters (as opposed to things like spiny lobsters or slipper lobsters) is indeed pretty limited in scope, both geographically and taxonomically. It's basically just Homarus gammarus, Homarus americanus and Nephrops norvegicus in the North Atlantic, and Metanephrops spp. in Australasia. The Nephrops and Metanephrops species are typically called "langoustine", and so would not be included in many people's definition of "lobster" anyway, so the apparent bias towards the large Homarus lobsters of the North Atlantic is actually a pretty fair approach. Here are the latest fishery landings, mostly from the FAO: Homarus gammarus, 4805 t; Homarus americanus, 139363 t; Nephrops norvegicus, 59283 t; Metanephrops australiensis, 23 t; Metanephrops challenger, 1291 t (there may also be a few other species subject to small-scale fisheries). Homarus americanus therefore accounts for around 68% of all lobster landings on its own; the three North Atlantic species may account for 99%. There is scope for a bit more about Nephrops and Metanephrops in the article, but it is not as biased as one might think. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Largeness?

" the largest lobster ever caught was in Nova Scotia, Canada, weighing 20.15 kilograms (44.4 lb).[20][21]" Largeness has to do with the size (dimensions), whereas this statement gives the mass (&weight). This statement should say "the heaviest lobster...", or else give the dimensions. Also, the overall tone of the article is that a lobster is a menu item, whereas it should be treated as a marine arthropod species, and deal later with its exploitation by humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.11.173 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creature First

Doesn't anyone think it's inappropriate to present lobsters primarily as human food? The first photo is a banded lobster, the next is on a plate. How about first acknowledging their existence as creatures in their natural environment? Abstrator (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Animalparty (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. I have replaced the title image with the image from the European Lobster page, which depicts a Lobster in its natural habitat. --MattLBeck (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree (although I dislike use of the word "creature"). I feel that all animal pages should be about the animal first. Then, there should be a section toward the bottom of the articles "Animal X as food". I actually would prefer to see these as seperate articles, i.e. Animal X and Animal X as food. This already occurs - type in a search for "as food" to see these.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree strongly with this. There is nothing wrong with the word "creature", but since it isn't used in biology, should maybe be avoided in the article. It is a marine animal, and there should be info about how it lives, reproduces, what it eats, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.11.173 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Plural - "lobsters" or "lobster"?

User:Cornellier made a search-and-replace fix of the former with the latter, explaining "correct plural". But is it? Talk:lobster on wiktionary has a thread on the distinction with no solid conclusion.

User:81.131.171.191 has just partially and manually reverted the change saying "plural unless used in sense of meat". Since the indiscriminate search-and-replace broke some links, changed the quoted reference titles, broke some grammar ("lobster' natural predators"), lowercased the starts of sentences and didn't distinguish cases where the article was discussing multiple species ("refers to the clawed lobster of the family Nephropidae"), I've reverted it it back to an earlier version. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I inserted plurals because I found the article difficult to follow: in some instances "lobster" referred to individual lobsters, sometimes to the species, and sometimes to lobster as meat. In some parts of the article, this ambiguity is not clear from the context (unless you are a crustacean expert, I suppose) and utterly confusing. In other words, a Wikipedia article for the expert, not for the layman. Pity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.171.191 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 July 2015‎

The term "lobster" can be used to indicate part of a lobster or more than one lobster, particularly when lobster is offered as food, as in: Would you like some lobster?. The National Geographic Style Manual says: "The preferred plural for live animals is lobsters, although lobster is an alternate form of the plural that is commonly used in a culinary context: He served his guests lobster." [3] This make better sense here if you think of "lobster", not so much as a plural, but as a mass noun referring to a quantity of flesh rather than something you are counting.[4]

Similar conventions apply to the flesh of other marine animals such as crabs or shrimps, and to the meat of many land animals, such as lamb and chicken. There is an relevant forum discussion here, which has been ongoing since 2006, and another one here, but I can't find an extended account of the issue in a reliable source.

The manner in which the FAO uses plurals is an important indicator, since they set the international standards for assessing and regulating world fisheries. Their publications are written by specialists steeped in the appropriate language. They use terms such as "lobster fisheries".[5] This seems to be another example of its use as a mass noun. The term "lobster" is also often used in a generic sense, as in the biology of the rock lobster, sometimes referred to as an unmarked plural.

Apart from that, the plural term "lobsters" is widely used both by the FAO [6] and on Google scholar [7] as the plural form for individual lobsters (dead or alive). I agree with McGeddon's revert. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation issue

How to solve the issue:

Hi Guys, also: User:Epipelagic, User:DrChrissy, I have a question as I tryed the following things today: a) adding //Meat// to the Lobster article, because: like Llama, Lobster are listed, that was reverted. b) adding a link to "Crayfish as food" was also reverted.

So I think b) was a mistake and a) should be okay, because it's listed under "Fish and seafood" in the //Meat// article. Any comments on this? Thanks! --Never stop exploring (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted "Crayfish as food" because this article is about Lobsters, not Crayfish. It is misleading to put this in the Lobster article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all good it was my mistake, but how about Lobster and food, I'm vegan but 99% of the conversations about Lobster I hear is about people eating lobster and the like. Maybe a good time to add a section (which is already there) and adding MEAT or a separate article about Lobster as food (so no need for MEAT), all other MEAT articles have the MEAT section. Just my 2 cents. --Never stop exploring (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Mercury

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the mean level of mercury in American lobster between 2005 and 2007 was 0.107 ppm.[28] Is that good or bad? There's not much point in mentioning this, unless the safe limit for mercury content is also given. (A comparison with the mercury content of other seafood would probably be useful as well). Iapetus (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Welfare section

I am not sure if citing David Foster Wallace's "Consider The Lobster" is appropriate to make statements regarding lobster welfare. For one, "Consider The Lobster" is an English essay by a creative writer and English professor, not a scientist. I do not think it is appropriate to include the statement "disabling only the frontal ganglion does not usually result in death or unconsciousness", considering that whether or not lobsters are conscious in the first place is a contentious issue. I believe that part of this article should be removed. Sega31098 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above ^^, this section delves into a presupposition that lobsters are conscious and that they feel pain. That discussion may or may not be valid, but it doesn't belong here. It has been shown that fish don't have the physiology to feel what we call 'pain' (I suspect the same is true of crustaceans) so statements based around 'cruelty' in this regard amount to little more than anthropomorphism. Having fished crab and prawns on the west coast for many years, I see nothing to suggest anything more than a purely physiological response to physical stimuli. Personally, I would like to remove that entire section as it implies an agenda without providing any information regarding the species and is not based in fact...but I don't want to do so unilaterally. Chigwalla (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The current scientific position is not as simple and clear cut as you would have it Chigwalla. See pain in fish, pain in crustaceans and consciousness in animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Epipelagic. I think the section reflects current scientific consensus. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet when I reach into the livewell for a herring or an anchovy, they display a visceral response to being grabbed and held...but no response at all when a hook is pierced through their mouth and up and out their eye socket...sometimes the voice of experience carries the furthest....

Chigwalla (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me re-threading your post. What you are suggesting is original research. Please read WP:OR. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lobster. 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) 01:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lobster. 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) 09:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Word origin: Lobster

Some sources say that "lobster" is derived from the Latin word "lacusta" which means locust. It sounds more plausible that "lobster" means "something to be lobbed back over the side of the boat," when it was caught. Does anyone have any supporting evidence for this? Landroo (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Dating when price is involved?

There is a line in the food section "One seafood guide notes that an $8 lobster dinner at a restaurant overlooking fishing piers in Maine is consistently delicious, while 'the eighty-dollar lobster in a three-star Paris restaurant is apt to be as much about presentation as flavor'." Would it be appropriate to include the year of this publication in the sentence itself? $8 from 2007 isn't the same as $8 now and it won't be the same as $8 in ten years. Or maybe a line indicating the current value? I guess it's perhaps too soon for it to be too relevant. Not sure on the protocol just thinking out loud :) I haven't made any edits at this time. Userbrn (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

An interesting and valid observation. Time and date sensitive info like that has the potential to mislead. The only purpose that sentence serves is to say "Maine lobster, it's great" in my opinion, making it promotional, slightly, rather than encyclopeadic in nature. I'd just delete the sentence on that basis, but let's see if anybody else has an opinion. (Also note that I put your signature at the end of your post, for neatness) -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is not an encylopaedic statement or even that useful, even though I agree with the sentiment! I will delete it. |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 05:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

reproduce

the word 'egg' does not appear in this text.85.149.83.125 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

^ Brian O'Connor (2005-02-09). "Lobster Pain: Prove It". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] Brian O'Connor (2005-02-09). "Lobster Pain: Prove It". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]