Mimic octopus or wonderpus?
Posted 23 January 2008 - 04:24 PM
Thank you very much!!
Posted 23 January 2008 - 05:47 PM
S&S YS110's & YS27's
Posted 25 January 2008 - 04:30 PM
I can't see the picture!
I don´t know why the pic changed its link ....
Posted 25 January 2008 - 05:12 PM
The wide webbing and wide bands made me think wonderpus. Then, it ran off like this;
I would say this one was a definite Mimic.
So, in answer, hard to say!
Posted 25 January 2008 - 07:30 PM
Posted 26 January 2008 - 02:58 AM
Just noticed something in that pic: How come 2 of the arms are so much smaller compared to the others?
Any speficic reason/function?
Posted 26 January 2008 - 07:50 AM
Yes, agree with Alex. Dave's is definitely a wonderpus and Allison's is a mimic. The fastest way I tell is that the mimic has a thin white margin edging its legs, and the wonderpus does not. To me, they look distinctively different when I watch them in the water, but it's hard to describe.
In the process of trying to identify our images from Bali I've read the paper by Hochberg et al (2006) describing the wonderpus. They give a list of features that distinguish between a wonderpus and a mimic. The most useful (least subtle) ones are:
1. Shape of papilla above each eye
wonderpus: inflated and blunt-tipped
mimic: very elongate and finely pointed
2. Number of suckers on the long arms
wonderpus: up to 233
mimic: up to 283
3. Color pattern
wonderpus: well-defined, round white spot at rear tip of mantle
mimic: less well-defined, U-shaped white patch at rear tip of mantle
Feature 2 would be problematic working in the field or from a photo, but 1 and 3 should be do-able. I don't know how reliable the papilla shape is (how variable are they in each species?) but it seems to me that this criterion alone identifies Dave's as a wonderpus and Allison's as a mimic.
The paper doesn't mention width of webbing or white margins on the arms as distinguishing features, but they may not have examined enough specimens.
Posted 30 January 2008 - 02:07 PM