Talk:Portuguese man o' war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Capitalization

spelled right or should it be "Portuguese man-of-war" or what? -phma —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 29 November 2002 (UTC)

There's no consistency from various authorities doing a google check. But- A man o' war is a warship from the age of sail and the jellyfish was named after this so it definitely shouldn't be 'man of war'. I'm never very good with the capitalization business, I tend to do it unnecessarily and I think I've done that here too. So I'll move it.

Actually, "Man Of War" is the standard name of the warship, coming into use in the late 15th century. By the 19th century (and yes, through all those centuries, of warre and warr and war, it seems to have always been 'of'), it was the most common word to call any naval vessel, at least among the English-speaking public. In terms of the critter, "Man Of War", "Man O' War", "Man-O-War" and all such variants are common. "Man Of War" seems to be prefered officially, while "Man O' War" seems to be preferred colloquially (when it comes to the hyphenation, however, it is completely up in the air...). Nitjanirasu —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 29 January 2006‎ (UTC)

Sea wasp

I thought the sea wasp was a box jelly? Or are both called sea wasps (in which case the sea wasp page needs an edit)? Edd 23:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My thought also: is not a sea wasp the highly poisonous Chironex fleckeri? Wetman 09:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've corrected it; the actual synonym is blue bottle. The erroneous name was introduced here, over a year ago by a user who went on to completely vandalise the page. I'm sorry I didn't catch it earlier, and thanks for bringing it up. -- Hadal 09:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Portuguese man o' war has tentacles which can be as long as 55 m (33 ft).

That can't be right??--Gazebo dude 04:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Update: That edit was made by 169.151.1.213 on 12:31, Feb 11, 2005, additionally that address is a school district with an apparent history of vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:169.151.1.213 . I'm new here; should this be reported and how?--Gazebo dude 04:58, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

A current BBC article [1] states "The long tentacles can grow up to 165ft (50m)", Does anyone have access to an authoritative printed textbook covering this colony animal? (I presume nothing has been found on the Web.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

What makes the Portugese Man o' War Jellyfish Portuguese? Is it really common in Portugal or something? I keep looking and I can't find the answer. Most books say it lives in "tropical waters"--hence no answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.63.224 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2005‎ (UTC)

When I've been on Bermuda, I've been told that it was named so because its sail looked like the sails of Portugese war ships of the time. I don't have a source for this, however. -- Cchiappa 13:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grrrr. It's NOT a jellyfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2005‎ (UTC)

1. It is NOT a jellyfish :P

2. It isn't even found in Portugal - it simply resembles Portuguese ships from the 18th century :) -- Gui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.145.133 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not 18th cenntury! It's 15th and 16th century! (there are no caravels from the 18th century) And it's not any Portuguese ship from the 15th and 16th century. It referes only to the latin caravel. And in Portugal the Portuguese Man o' War can be found only in Azores (middle of the Atlantic ocean) and it's not even comun. 84.39.99.95 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually a few were found in the mainland of Portugal this summer (2012). It was a very unusual situation though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Filled with Argon?

1% of the athmosphere is Argon, but I find it difficult to believe that the creatures can seperate it from the atmosphere?

Any else know better than I do? Jackliddle 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect, siphonophores (the group to which Physalia physalis belongs) secrete gas into their pneumatophore that is approximately the same in composition as the atmosphere. Physalia physalis may have elevated levels of carbon dioxide, up to 90%, but not argon.

References for these facts are:

1) Brusca, Richard C. and Gary J. Brusca. 2003. Invertebrates, second edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. pp. 936.

and

2) Barnes, Robert D. 1987. Invertebrate Zoology, fifth edition. Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth, TX. pp. 893.

The "argon" myth is being propulgated on the web because of wiki-like projects where misinformation can spread rapidly and references are not taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.249.136 (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

So, that might explain the "Portuguese" part, but why is it called a "Man o' War"? It isn't a man, it doesn't resemble a man in any way, and it doesn't seem to be waging war... GBC 06:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the "Man o' War" was a specific type of Portugese sailing ship -- Cchiappa 20:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How can only one of the four kinds of polyps that make up its body be responsible for reproduction of the entire combination-organism? No matter how symbiotic they all are, they still have individual DNA and are basically just four really close friends, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.220.19 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2005‎ (UTC)

a useful article that may clarify things a little - this page suggests that the polyp colonies share identical DNA (excluding mutations) as they all bud off from a single gonozooid. As such, I'm not completely sure if they could be classified as symbiotic as they are all working towards the propagation of the same genetic material (this would need to be confirmed, though).

Man O' War was a type of Galleon that the Portuguese sailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.172.92 (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Portuguese never used galleons, galleon is a spanish ship. Man O' war refers to a ship invented by the portuguese with the portuguese name of "caravela", "caravel" in english http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.74.40 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical advice section

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. 24ip | lolol 19:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Prey

I removed "Prey: All types of fish" from the facts section because it is wrong. See for example [2]. 24ip | lolol 20:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Length

The article previously gave the tentacle length as both "55 m" and "30 m". I've removed the latter figure, but I'm not entirely sure which is correct: Google turns up a variety of figures, but nothing I found seems authoritative. Can someone who knows a bit more about the subject check this? —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

Several sections in the article apparently vandalized from User:67.10.149.231. Sorry I didn't make that clear in the edit summary. Kineticman 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

More explanation needed

I read the page and was left feeling confused. It is a colony of 4 types of polyp ? What are those types, how do they fit together ? What's the development that leads to an adult colony ? How could such a "creature" have evolved ?

The article really just skims all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.75.135 (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, why dosn't any website say how long they live?....... {{subst:unsignedIP2|16:41, 26 May 2007‎ (UTC)|66.234.197.231

Maybe because nobody knows? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Treatment inconsistency

The article claims that "they stun and kill small sea creatures using poison-filled nematocysts". "Box jellyfish use powerful venom contained in epidermic nematocysts to stun or kill its prey.. " (box jellyfish article).

I found this by clicking on the nematocysts link, read the nematocyst article which mentions box jellyfish, then clicked onto the box jellyfish article.

In this article (Man o' War) its stated that "The use of vinegar to treat stings is controversial. It appears that vinegar can make the sting more painful in some cases, while other victims report relief after applying vinegar. One should __never __apply vinegar while the tentacle is still attached to the body, as this will cause the stinging cells to inject more venom." (never emphasized).

Yet in the box jellyfish article article it states that "Following a sting, vinegar should be applied for a minimum of 30 seconds.[5] Acetic acid, found in vinegar, disables the box jellyfish's nematocysts that have not yet discharged into the bloodstream (though it will not alleviate the pain). Any adherent tentacles should then be removed. Removing the tentacles without first applying vinegar may increase discharge of nematocysts increasing envenoming, however, if no vinegar is available, careful removal of the tentacles by hand is recommended.".

It seems to me that there is a bit of an inconsistancy here-- yes the Man o'war article says that the poison isn't the same as that of the box Jellyfish, however the nematocyst article implies that they [nematocyst's] operate as a delivery device, which seems to presume that vinegar should work?

-- Different organism, different poision, different triggers for the release of that poison. Not all nematocysts are created equal. Chrisbrl88 18:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who did this study?

I notice that the article reads "According to a study done by your mom,and your dad..." I do not recall either of my parents conducting studies of this nature. Does anyone have a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.195.193.191 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Where is it?

I came to this article trying to find out what regions of the world the Man o' War lives in, but apparently this is not a part of the article. Would anyone like to expand on this? Chrisbrl88 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pink?

I seem to remember reading that large colonies of these can get together and when it gets very large it has a pink color... I guess due to the sails? --72.200.73.175 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Venom

We need to get a few things clear. Portugese man o' war are not poisonous. If you touch them you won't die from poisoning. If they sting you you may die of the venom. It is important to remember that poison is inhaled or ingested. Venom is injected through fangs or stingers. So whoever it is that changed it to poison don't. If the article was made this way I can't believe no-one noticed this. Wiki235 21:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some sources for how bad and dangerous the stings are. I was stung just today, and fair enough it was only on a small part of my body but to be honest it was no worse than a bunch of bee stings or a cigarette burn and over in less then 45 mins. All of my friends who have been stung by these things on Sydney beaches have reported much the same. Perhaps if the stingers wrapped round you and covered a large part of your body then maybe it could be life threatening. Either way it would be good to have some sources or more of an explanation about the toxins. Esteban (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• Portuguese Man o' War → Portuguese Man of War — Should the entry in an encyclopedia be fully spelled? —VoltronForce 12:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• The name with the apostrophe is the commoner when referring to the animal (but may not be when referring to ships). It's not massively dominant, but it's enough to make any move unnecessary. I know of no policy that requires such things to be spelt out in their entirety; WP:NCA is more to do with cases like IBM or UNPROFOR. --Stemonitis 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• This is ridiculous and without any merit. Why not Do not speak, Cannot Hardly Wait, I Do Not Want to Miss a Thing or Twisted Sister's seminal classics We Are Not Going to Take It and I Want To Rock. The name of the creature in question isn't Portuguese Man of War, it is Portuguese Man o' War, much like Man o' War Boulevard in New Orleans, Man O'War in Ireland and that great racehorse Man O' War. Its the name. WookMuff 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• It has both spellings, but I see no reason to move. The racehorse may warrant a small o. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• With consenseus heading to "no move," I realize that I was not the only one to raise the issue, after reading the top of the page. VoltronForce 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• WookMuff, it is not necessary to bite the contributor's head off. That said, I see no reason to move the page. In my experience, Man o'War is the more predominant usage. ●DanMS • Talk 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It is possible that the editor in question is new, or just being conscientious, but this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. There is no reason to change from "most accurate" to "looks nicer". WookMuff 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the article be moved to Portuguese Person of War per certain national sensitivities? —  AjaxSmack  01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Actually its full name is Portuguese Man-of-War with the hyphans, and I would support a move to this spelling, but not the other without hyphans. – Axman (☏) 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Move. I join the responders above who claim that no move is necessary. The Man o' War spelling is the one that's more familiar to me, though I see from Google that both are used. In any case we will have a redirect from the other one to the one used as the article title. EdJohnston 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does anyone have a reference for these claims?

I just removed some claims about use of vinegar or urine in treating Man o' War stings. Here is the former text:

The use of vinegar to treat stings is controversial. It appears that vinegar can make the sting more painful in some cases, while other victims report relief after applying vinegar. One should never apply vinegar while the tentacle is still attached to the body, as this will cause the stinging cells to inject more venom.

Urine is also another widely-used way of treating stings because urine contains ammonia, which even in small quantities helps counter the venom. It is a quick treatment that can be used when no other option is available.

We should allow therapy recommendations to remain in our articles with no references. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. If anyone can provide a reference, these statements can be restored. EdJohnston 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Different species?

There seems to be some difference between Atlantic and Pacific bluebottles, with the latter known as the Pacific Man O'War [3] or maybe there is no real difference. The article infers they are one and the same. Could someone with more marine knowledge shed some light? IF there is a difference then the 'Newcastle-hot-water' study would have only considered the Pacific version, and treatment may be different or untested? - Tomperc 03:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I only found this when I happened across Physalia while cleaning up this page. The Pacific man o' war has a lonely article at Physalia utriculus, but there's currently no listing at all (even a redirect) for its common name. This strikes me as a significant oversight. It seems to me that the best course of action is to edit the article to make the differences clear, and rename it to Man o' War (organism). Maybe even go so far as to merge with Physalia? I'm also reposting below to reintroduce the discussion (probably best to respond down there). – ClockworkSoul 19:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Four species

This "animal" is not an animal, but four animals. Hence, it does not deserve a taxobox. I'm not sure where someone came up with a genus and species for the colony. I wasn't aware colonies were eligible for their own scientific classification. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you'd need to take that up with science, not this article. It has a genus, it has a species, it belongs in the article, does it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.141.36 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to think that there are scientists who edit Wikipedia, especially articles such as this one. I don't know any other way to communicate with scientists, and was hoping to get a response from one. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is one organism, just composed of multiple types of bodies in one... Hyper Zergling (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre section

I've never seen a WP article with a section titled "About It". In addition this section contains "information" that contradicts information elsewhere in the article (tentacle length), and what appears to be a "broken" attempt at a header called "Etymology". Can someone more familiar with this article's history sort this out? It might be editing error, it might be vandalism, I can't tell. Huw Powell (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

More information on its structure / anatomy is needed. How many organisms in each part of the animal? Can we have a schematic diagram maybe? Shinobu (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A Good Source

I don't have the time, but I found a nice source if anyone would like to use it to contribute to this article. It has much information that is missing, e.g. reproduction. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Physalia_physalis.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

...inconsistency?

"Below the main body dangle long tentacles, which occasionally reach 50 meters (165 ft)[4] in length below the surface, although one metre (three feet) is the average." Question: How can 50 meters be equal to 165 feet, yet one meter is three feet? That doesn't quite check out. Also, some spelling consistency would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.145.55 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1 metre = 3.281 feet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.204.44 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre effect of text in Venom section

What I see in the article online in the Venom Section is this:

red welts on the skin that normally last 2 or 3 days after the initial sting, throghtyhgv the pain should subside after about an hour

I thought it was a typo, but when I went to edit it, the page has:

red welts on the skin that normally last 2 or 3 days after the initial sting, though the pain should subside after about an hour

No idea what is wrong or how to fix. Ileanadu (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC) In case others aren't seeing this, I'm using Firefox 3.5.10 w/ Vista as my operating system. Ileanadu (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reproduction

Could a knowledgeable editor add material about how these things reproduce? If it's really a colony of 4 different types of organisms, then in my mind each of the 4 different types of cells would have to simultaneously, miraculously reproduce and stay together with the other 3 types. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an editor and my knowledge is questionable. However, I would like to offer my understanding of the reproductive nature of the physalias.

Mature physalias are sexually distinct. Males and females release gametes into open water when sufficient numbers of physalias gather. The resulting fertilized cells then reproduce by mitotic fission and differentiation into what eventually becomes a planula, or more simply, a siphonophora larva. At this point, the planula consists of an oral mouth and aboral (not mouth) end, and resembles a tiny flat worm. An ectoderm and an endoderm layer has formed, which of course, is basically the outer epidermal layer and the stomach lining. They also produce a cilia periphery that allows limited mobility, and an inner conglomeration of cells and excretions from the other layers that becomes the 'jelly' or mesoderm (which is largely non-cellular).

Here's where the physalia larva get really weird. Instead of glomming onto a hard surface to develop into a sessile hydrozoan, it remains pelagic (open ocean) and starts to elongate and constrict into a bulbous mouth area, a bulbous arboral area, and a constricted middle. The arboral end develops into a float (pneumatophore), the constricted middle area becomes a hollow stem, and the mouth turns into a gastrozooid (feeding polyp). This is simply the upside down version of their sessile cousins and use a float instead of a bottom surface to develop.

The magic from then on happens in the stem. It develops a budding site that produces asexual cloned buds that at first resemble polyps of most other colonial cnidarians, and therefore are given the label, zooids. However, they soon differentiate into either gastrozooids (with attendant tentacles), or gonozooids, in a precise, genetically determined pattern. The tentacles further become differentiated until they are considered dactylozooids in their own right. Since these specialized 'zooids' can't survive independently, they can not properly be called individuals. It is only because they start as undifferentiated, theoretically viable polyps that the term 'colony' is applied to hydrozoans. An entire Physalia specimen is an individual, not a colony of individuals. "Colonial hydrozoans" refers solely to the initial budding process from the founding polyp that metamorphized from a planula, which in turn, arose from normal cell division of a single fertilized egg. That embryo carried the complete genetic code for the development of the entire organism, from float to mouth.

It is amazing that Physalias can create such a complex synergy of differentiated parts from a single budding site on its stem. It is a process that could provide us a stepping stone to understanding more complex forms of differentation in even more complex multicellular organisms. I certainly hope the sensationalism often associated with physalias doesn't divert us from that path.Gseymour (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

A significant oversight

About three years ago Tomperc correctly pointed out that this article doesn't mention that there are actually two species of man-o-war (two members of genus Physalia), but his concern wasn't addressed at the time. Here's a copy/paste of my response so you don't have to jump up to Talk:Portuguese_Man_o'_War#Different_species?:

I only found this when I happened across Physalia while cleaning up this page. The Pacific man o' war has a lonely article at Physalia utriculus, but there's currently no listing at all (even a redirect) for its common name. This strikes me as a significant oversight. It seems to me that the best course of action is to edit the article to make the differences clear, and rename it to Man o' War (organism). Maybe even go so far as to merge with Physalia?

Thoughts? – ClockworkSoul 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is so wrong. Physalia physalia is the Portuguese Man of War, and Physalia utriculus is the Blue Bottle jelly. I admit that there are many tourist sites out there that get this wrong, but come on, this is Wikipedia. P. physalia has a float up to 11" long, while P. utriculus maxes at about 4". P. physalia has many tentacles, while P. utriculus only has one major tentacle. They are not at all hard to tell apart, even for laymen like me. Oh, and the photo is a Blue Bottle.

As for a colony not deserving a species classification, get real. We humans are a colony if you really pay attention... we could not live without an entire plethora of symbiotic bacteria. Imagine an amoeba's view of the human species... Just a colony of single cells, most of which aren't determined by the DNA of any one cell. Yet the polyps of Physalia jellies do determine the form of the adult medusa. Evolution is just as real for colonies as for individuals, and the same laws of speciation apply.Gseymour (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Range description

I've gone through and lumped the description of the Man o' War's range into two bulky paragraphs, one for the Atlantic and the other for the Indian/Pacific, although they still read like basically a list of sightings. Someone more experienced than I should go through and weed through them to see what's worthy of being kept. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Portugal wikiproject?

Should this article actually be in the Portugal wiki-project? This animal / colony lives all over the world and is not even particularly prevalent in Portugal. Just having Portuguese in the name does not mean it should be part of the wiki-project. I would like to recommend that this article be removed from the WikiProject Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutster (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced it with WP Marine life as the only relation this article has to WP Portugal is the name of the topic, which is trivial in regards to the scope of the WP. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You got that right. I recently changed the "animals" tab to wikiproject animals. It should also be included in the wikiproject that deals with invertibrae.Clammybells (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Change page to Physalia physalis

This page should really be modified to Physalia physalis. The scientific name should be used, not this colloquial name that apparently is so silly it started a debate over "of vs o' ". --108.1.205.40 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical distribution in the Mediterranean

The article states that the species was first recorded in the Mediterranean in the 21st century. this seemed really unlikely, and when I checked the references supplied, they do not in fact make any such claim. The references state that the species was sighted in the Mediterranean in those years, but never at any stage claim that these were the first sightings in human history. SO can somebody clear this up. Is this species a very recent migrant to the Mediterranean, or ha someone badly misinterpreted the references? Mark Marathon (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Pluralization?

A quick survey of the net reveals three different ways of pluralizing this beastie:

1. Portuguese men o' war
2. Portuguese man o' wars
3. Portuguese man o' war (same as the singular)

The article currently uses both 1 and 2, and possibly 3. Wikitionary prefers 1. We should standardize. 38.111.35.2 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Treatment with ammonia

I've removed this section for the following reasons:

1) No credible references. The second reference is written by a travel agent. Nuff said, but it also contradicts the rest of the article, for example claiming that the sting should be irrigated with fresh water. The first is to a medical article where the "pathology seems unique to medical reports concerning the Portuguese man-of-war". Hardly supportive of general treatment guidelines.

2) It's a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not supposed to include. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How many individuals in one Man O'War?

I'm not clear from this article how many individuals (i.e. genetically separate individuals) make up one Man O'War. My reading of 'One of the polyps, a gas-filled bladder' is that the whole bladder is a single individual, which makes me wonder about the other three parts. Or should this be read as 'one of the polyp *species* form a gas-filled bladder'. Currently I'm not clear if this 'colony' consists of four individuals or many thousands. 62.232.250.50 (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Loggerhead Turtle as predator

"The loggerhead turtle feeds on the Portuguese man o' war, a common part of the loggerhead's diet. The turtle's skin is too thick for the sting to penetrate." Presumably they don't eat the sting then? 62.232.250.50 (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Evolution

There is nothing here on the evolution of these fascinating organisms. It should probably be mentioned, if only to state that little is known about the details, if that is the case. Or perhaps the Man O'War (or some of its parts, anyway) have know related species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.250.50 (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2012‎ (UTC)

While many details of the phylogeny of Cnidarians (sea anemones, corals, hydras and jellyfish) have yet to reach scientific consensus, the overall structure of the evolutionary tree has recently started to come into focus with the help of molecular analysis. The large and diverse phylum Cnidaria diverged from the Bilateria phylum about 600 million years ago. It is currently undecided whether the diploblastic (two-layered) condition of cnidarians results from a secondary simplification of a triploblastic ancestor of bilaterians, or from a diploblastic common ancestor, since cnidarians possess most of the genes that are implicated in mesoderm (middle layer) development in bilaterians. The expression of these genes in modern cnidarians does not confirm the simplification hypothesis, however, since bilaterians may well have co-opted their function after divergence. Future molecular studies will likely resolve this issue.¹

Early in its evolutionary history, the Cnidaria phylum split into two major lineages: the class Anthozoa (anemones and corals), and the superclass Medusozoa. Medusozoans encompass three classes, Hydrozoa (hydras and hydromedusae), Scyphozoa (true jellyfishes), and Cubozoa (box jellies). Most medusozoans generally alternate between an asexual polyp phase and a sexually reproducing medusa (jellyfish) phase. Certain lineages subsequently lost their medusa phase, such as freshwater hydras.²

The last common ancestor of modern hydrozoans likely produced medusae by a developmental process involving an entocodon (non-embryonic middle layer) and lateral budding from polyps. Hydrozoans then diverged into two clades: the Trachylina group that retained statocysts (balance sensors), and the Hydroidolina group that lost statocysts. Within the latter group, the order, Siphonophorae, eventually emerged, and subsequently parented three suborders, Cystonectae (with a float), Physonectae (with swimming bells), and Calycophorae (with both). Cystonectae has a budding zone on only one side of the base of the aboral float, without bracts or swimming bells.³ It contains the family, Physaliidae, with its only genus, Physalia, which in turn contains a disputed number of species. New molecular data suggests at least two distinct species, P. physalis (the large, Atlantic Portuguese Man of War) and P. utriculus (the small, Indo-Pacific blue bottle). A global taxonomic review using modern methods of analysis would likely change the cosmopolitan view of the Physalia genus in the same manner that a review of the Aurelia genus confirmed seven new, distinct species of moon jellyfish, where recently just one cosmopolitan species had been assumed.⁴

1) Investigating the origins of triploblasty: ‘mesodermal’ gene expression in a diploblastic animal, the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis (phylum, Cnidaria; class, Anthozoa) http://faculty.virginia.edu/shook/JustForMark/Martindale04MesoInDiploblst.pdf

2) Medusozoan Phylogeny and Character Evolution Clarified by New Large and Small Subunit rDNA Data and an Assessment of the Utility of Phylogenetic Mixture Models http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/6242/1/Collins_etal_2006_SystBiol.pdf

3) Pages, F., & Gili, J.-M. 1992. Siphonophores (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) of the Benguela Current (southeastern Atlantic). Scientia Marina  56: 65-112.

4) Pontin, David R., 2009. Factors influencing the occurrence of stinging jellyfish (Physalia spp.) at New Zealand beaches http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/dspace/bitstream/10182/1580/3/pontin_phd.pdf

Gseymour (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Carbon Monoxide in the Bladder

Wittenberg (1960)[4] reported that the gases in the bladder contained 0.5 to 13% Carbon monoxide. The remainder was Air (oxygen, nitrogen and argon). CO2 was present in negligible amounts. Is this correct? --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portuguese man o' war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304194756/http://www5.pbrc.hawaii.edu/pcrl/pdf/ultrastructure_physalia_Hydrobiologia.pdf to http://www5.pbrc.hawaii.edu/pcrl/pdf/ultrastructure_physalia_Hydrobiologia.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of stings

I have found that using a topical concentrated form of benadryl on the site of the man-of-war stings does a better job than taking benadryl tablets. Not only for this but I have used it similarly for bee stings is why I originally purchased it for. And have used it on myself friends and kids for the following, sting ray which is considered the most painful in my area, jelly-fish, wasps, ants, spiders, other than the sting ray in 5 minutes even the children 4 yo are ready to go back into the water. Have given it to the local doctor clinic and doctor reported to me she used it on several people, even a adult male with extreme man-o-wars severe full tearing mode. And he was fine again in 5 minutes.

I was not able to find any citations for this 5 or so years ago when I started using it, tried to but have been telling people about it. But now I have found even on the Mayo Clinic 's website they list it for many things not listed even by others like I have found like the ants and spiders. They added Scorpions, which where I live we have many and I have been waiting to use it but we see they listed it. On one of my particularly bad hits of man-o-wars under the arm-pits I was not capable of swimming back to shore and had to let the waves bring me in. I was able to walk home 200 yards with assistance with severe breathing problems, and sprayed myself and also took an oral benadryl because it was so severe, and in 3 minutes I was able to tell i was going to be fine. My breathing was getting easier. The oral had not had time to help because I have used it for 15 years and know how fast it takes to help, usually 10-20 minutes.

Here is some back-up information that benadryl is effective, the Mayo clinic as I said did not specifically list man-o-wars but they have listed many similar types of stings/venom that with the other sites I have here all put down benadryl, those seem to be all tablets. I even have one citation for someone ringing the tablet into a powder and putting on the site. As we know skin is an organ and can absorb chemicals like this. And the manufacturer has even put on shelves these extra strength with a generic label for itching, pain rashes associated with insect bites.

Too be clear none below specifically say use the concentrated spray here, only one says grinding powder on a very bad sting area, which was not man-o-war. Mayo clinic does not include man-o-wars, but has many other stings including scorpion again for tablets. I am connecting the dots and have 100 percent success rate with just this topical spray only, no other treatment needed. Which was independently verified by a local doctor in her treatments. I live in a active beach community where all these are present.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/first-aid-insect-bites/FA00046

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090315170352AA0FvrE

3) Benadryl is one of the faster-acting antihistamines, and is also very versatile in it's method of administration, important in severe, rapidly escalating anaphylaxis. You should carry the 25mg. gelatin-capsule form. The powder in the capsule form disperses rapidly, while the solid "caplet" takes longer to dissolve. Also, in severe cases, the sting site(s) can sometimes become extremely swollen and painful, due to a localized hyper-allergic reaction in addition to the bee venom. In this situation, if it is necessary to treat these sting site(s), an additional capsule of Benadryl can be opened up and the powder sprinkled directly on the skin at the site, and then moistened to a paste. The antihistamine is directly absorbed into the skin at the site, providing stronger local histamine blocking to the inflamed tissue. Additionally, Benadryl has (an unintentional beneficial side-effect) substantial anesthetic (pain-numbing) properties that begin to relieve local intense pain within about 30 seconds. Note: this additional topical dose of Benadryl does not need to be taken into consideration with regard to the original oral dose - it is absorbed locally and very little is absorbed into the bloodstream.

http://www.medicinenet.com/bee_sting_treatment/views.htm

http://chemistry.about.com/b/2011/06/01/treating-jellyfish-stings-and-man-o-war-stings.htm

http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/images/Product/medium/0824819004.gif

http://www.freemd.com/man-o-war-sting/treatment.htm

La ventana (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important if giving first aid advice that it is correct. The following sentence is controversial, gives the wrong medical advice and should be removed. "Vinegar has been shown to inactivate undischarged cnidae on tentacles. Vinegar has also been shown to inactivate venom." No citation is given and I would argue that the opposite is correct. It certainly seems to contradict the paragraph immediately before it. If the words inactivate were changed to activate, it would be more correct. Most modern professional advice suggests that both vinegar & fresh water distresses the organism, causing it to release more poison. Further using an acidic substance is said to increase the distance and speed at which the toxin travels from the site of the sting to the closest joint, making recovery slower. 203.118.157.84 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't urinating on the sting help? Explorer22987 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Explorer22987

References

More etymology.

In the Southern Pacific - Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, possibly others - this is commonly known as a "bluebottle". Indeed, a search for bluebottle directs one here.

• Incorrect - the Blue Bottle of the southern Pacific is a different species, Physalia utriculus, also called Blue Bottle or Indo-Pacific Man-of-War. It has a number of significant differences: much smaller with a single tentacle that is usually not longer than 30-40cm (12-15 inches). The photo labelled Portuguese Man of War on Maroubra Beach in the present article is misplaced - it belongs in the P. utriculus article. The Portuguese Man-of-War is unknown in the Pacific Ocean. Ptilinopus (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• On a different note, it'd be nice to have a source to support the use of the term FLOATING TERROR to refer to these fellers. 73.88.217.93 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • upon further investigation, it looks like this was vandalism by 2602:306:329b:8870:25be:d27:de86:fa7a back in 2015... I'm gonna take it out; feel free to revert if you can find a source for this usage that hasn't been influenced by this article within the last three years. 73.88.217.93 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Move interesting material from this talk page into the article

There is more info on this page, particularly in the reproduction and evolution sections, than in the main page. Much of it should be shifted into the main page, with suitable editing. Don't rely on readers coming here because the main page is sparse. Fig (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Fig (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Substantiation

Hi there. My first time here so hopefully I am doing this correctly.

I have a question regarding substantiation of one sentence.

Under section 4.1 (Treatment of stings), the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph reads "The current recommended treatment from studies in Australia is to avoid the use of vinegar, as local studies have shown this to exacerbate the symptoms." I would like to know if there is any substantiation for this sentence, particularly the first half of the sentence (up to the word 'vinegar').

Thank you.

Regards Rickey Takhar

RickeySRT (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

just clarifying

So, the Man o' War is made up of many individual animals, which present as markedly different, one from another, but all are the same genus and species? Totally fascinating.... PurpleChez (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Life cycle?

Anyone? Karin Anker (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.124.21 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing. How do they reproduce, given that they consist of four different types of individual?Gymnophoria (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

After 7 years still no description of their reproduction and life cycle? Sounds like it must be interesting. Anyone want to add this? --Chetvorno^TALK 23:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Working on a section on reproduction!

There's a lot of confusion about man o' war coloniality, which I'm hoping we can clear up here. It is colonial in the sense that it is composed of multiple polyps, but it's still a single individual ecologically speaking (all polyps in a colony are genetically identical and develop from the same fertilized egg). So it's not a colony in the same way that, say, an ant's nest is. Mabolle (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reproduction

"Gonozooids are responsible for reproduction." Really? How do the gonozooids go about creating new individuals of the *other* three parts of the organism? What does 'responsible for' actually mean? Do the parts reproduce by cell division and then grow? If so, how do the new cells/individual parts organize themselves into a new Man O'War? If the three parts don't all reproduce at the same time, are there Men O'War floating around (temporarily, at least) lacking the full 'set of parts'? It would be nice if there was a separate section on reproduction, I'd bet the details are quite interesting, whatever they are. 62.232.250.50 (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Comet Tuttle (above) seems to have answer much of this. One further thing is unclear - who many distinct genomes are involved? From Comet's comments it would seem to be just one; and the whole many individuals/colony issue a red herring (i.e. just as true of any other multicellular animal). 62.232.250.50 (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Comet Tuttle asked the question, and I answered it. You have it absolutely right, it is a red herring. A Physalia colony is little different than a tree, which can bud roots, branches, leaves, flowers, fruit, and seeds. All of these tree parts work in synergy, have specialized functions, are physically attached to each other, and can't survive by themselves. Like the buds of a Physalia, they are not individuals. And we do not call a tree a colony of 'treeids'. So why is a Physalia called a colony of zooids?

Ah, there is the crux of this entire dilemma. Both the term 'zooid' and 'colony' are slightly misused in this instance. Normally in biology, the term zooid is used to describe an independently motile cell (or organized body) within an organism, like a spermatozoon. The term can also be used to describe an independent organism produced asexually by budding or fission. Normally, in a coral colony, an asexually budded polyp matures into a complete organism, connected to the entire colony while sharing nutrients and other essentials, but capable of survival if physically separated from the parent. Hydrozoans, on the other hand, bud connected polyps that mature into specialized entities that also share essentials with the entire group, but in this case, they can not survive if separated from the rest of the animal. It is my humble opinion that the term, colony, when used to describe an hydrozoan individual leads to a misunderstanding of its true nature.

When a plant has an underground runner that creates sprouts along its length that mature into independent plants, that could be described as a 'collection' of individual plants. However, a 'collection' of dependent parts within each individual plant would not be analogous to a 'colony'. It is amazing that hydrozoans have taken the budding of colonial coral polyps to the point that the parts are synergistic, but I really fail to see how that is more impressive than a tree. Didn't Joyce Kilmer say that first?

Gseymour (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the article or something? I had the same issue and maybe I'm an idiot but the explanation above is a bit confusing, not least the plant metaphor, plants that form runners are essentially clones, they aren't performing a specialised function within the organism. Also, if its the polyps being connected that determines it, why isnt it the same for jellys and other similar cnidarians? I still fail to understand exactly how these are a colony of animals as opposed to one animal, they are all connected, they are incapable of independent survival, they all reproduce from the same organ, they perform functions analogous to organs in other animals, also if they're all different animals do they each have different taxonomical classifications? This just doesn't make sense. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and my own recent confusion over this, I added "(of the same species)" to the description. Why wasn't this added years ago? My educated guess: The organization of each polyp has structural features that separate them from their neighbors and which are more similar to free-living polyps, but which can't live on their own, and each polyp differentiates from an original multipotent polyp or cell.132.183.145.79 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So much guess work but still no section on reproduction. I basically came to this wiki page because I read on a YouTube comment that it's not one animal, and immediately wondered how it could reproduce in that case. So far, nothing is listed in at least HOW it reproduces regardless of whether it's classification as an organism(s?) is misleading or correct. I would absolutely love it if some of you wonderful people could add a section on the curiosities of its reproduction! :D Sweeeetheart (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the article has been very confusing about this issue! Especially since the man o' war is such a talked-about but widely misunderstood creature in the public consciousness, popular science media, etc.

I've tried to address this in two ways: I added a section on the life cycle of the man o' war, and I also added a subheading in the anatomy section briefly discussing why the man o' war is considered a colonial organism despite functioning as a single reproducing individual. Mabolle (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

contradiction with Colony (biology)

P.S.: I just noticed that this problem was already pointed out at Talk:Colony (biology) in November 2006 (!), but was never resolved.

There seems to be a direct contradiction between this article and the article on colonial organisms it links to. Here it says:

"[...] the Portuguese man o' war is [...] a colonial organism made up of many highly specialized minute individuals called zooids. These zooids are attached to one another and physiologically integrated to the extent that they are incapable of independent survival."

At Colony (biology), it says:

The difference between a multicellular organism and a colonial organism is that individual organisms from a colony can, if separated, survive on their own [...].

The contradiction might be resolved if the man o' war has intermediate self-sufficient units on a level between the individual zooids and the entire man o' war, but if so, this should be explained.

Joriki (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This definition of the colony is not universal. In biology of cnidarians the term “colony” is used for any modular organism originating in course of unfinished asexual reproduction. It doesn't depend on ability to stay alive after fragmentation. It's more traditonal than strict logic. Mithril (talk)

Certainly the use of the term 'colony' in cnidarian biology does refer to 'any modular organism in the course of asexual reproduction', I agree. Whether that is appropriate or not is the question, since the connotation of that term's usage in other biological circumstances leads to the completely incorrect assumption that the individual physalia is a conglomeration of synergistic individuals, as often ascribed to their nature. Clarity might be better served by acknowledging the narrow use of the term, colony, in this case. Gseymour (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The usual comment that Blue Bottles can be considered a colony felt irritating to this biology generalist, given that eukaryotes are descended from a symbiosis with mitochondria and other organelles, and are many kg of HeLa cells scattered around the world. So I investigated further. Viewing the first siphonophore shown in https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=1510822078995318 nicely demonstrates why every siphonophore expert mentions coloniality; see also https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(09)00675-7.pdf IMHO the depth and detail of the current wp article is about right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.102.182 (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Treatment of stings

I swam into a Portuguese Man O'War in 1976, in South Carolina. The hospital advised me to wash my wounds with vinegar, and apply a topical application of a paste of a common meat tenderizer. This contained Papin which may be related to Bromelain. They also told me to take an antihistamine. Any thoughts about the reasons that Papin/Bromelian would be efficacious for stings? At any rate, for a few decades, I had some interesting tattoo-like scars! Thanks...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)