Talk:Psychrolutes marcidus

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

Ecological Status[edit]

There should be something on the page about how endangered it is.128.84.114.152 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has not yet been evaluated, neither locally or internationally. Narabella (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mating[edit]

Q:How does it mate? 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC) A: poo in cup A:With its eyes closed, I hope. 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Blob fish were first described in 1978, very recently in terms of fish identification. The first blob fishes in reproduction were discovered in 2000 on the Gorda Escarpment off the California coast. The fish were in an area where other species of fish and octopus were also breeding. These fishes were watched at several different locations and levels by a remotely operated vehicle, and have been studied every year since they were found. 

It lacks a swim bladder, a gas-filled internal organ that helps most bony fish to govern their capacity to stay afloat in water. It also has fragile bones and little muscles. Blobfish are rarely seen alive since they are only found in a few places of the world and at depths of 2,000 to 4,000 feet below the surface of the sea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaaameria00 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pic?[edit]

Would be great if someone could upload a pic, i love these wierdos :)--sin-man 10:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These guys look remarkably like Mr. Saturn... Xaque 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These fish are awesome. Please do upload a picture. 72.51.165.224 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite the "movie". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.17.220 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an image here.-- OsirisV (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image I found on http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/810248-extinction-threat-for-worlds-ugliest-animal-the-blobfish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulecona (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use?[edit]

"...the flesh of the blobfish is primarily a gelatinous mass...." "It can be caught by bottom trawling with nets." And why would you want to? Cstaffa (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely they are caught as bycatch, but it would be good to find a reference verifying this. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail article says so. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KISSMYBUM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.59.101 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

A photo of the fish in the wild, if/when one exists, will probably serve this article better than the one that's there. The fish's gelatinous mass is probably shaped significantly differently when it's supported by water than when it's sitting on a dry surface. —Ipoellet (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit hopeful. The two current images are enough, and when I expand the article there'll be enough space for both. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail citation[edit]

is dated 27th January, yet was retrieved on the 25th. Time-travelling Wikipedians? Amzi (Talk To Me) 12:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; someone made a typo. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The picture currently on the article doesn't really say as much as a photograph would. The pictures here are great, but they appear to be copyrighted. I wonder if someone could upload one of the pictures to the article as fair use though?

King Jakob C 19:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue to the contrary, the decompressed out-of-the-water photos aren't terribly representative of what the fish look like in their natural habitat. Such a photo might be valuable as an illustration to the section on the blobfish's internet fame, but something closer to this (but not so copyrighted or tiny) would be a more representative photograph if any for the top box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolddeciever (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing[edit]

There is a picture I removed and put here that is supposed to be by Alan Riverstone McCulloch but he died in 1925. The article says blobfish was discovered in 2003. Something is incorrect here, does anyone know more? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check more later. Provisional reply is that 2003 is not a discovery date, but the date of capturing that particular sample. News are never a trusted source on that, see [1]. Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find not reliable source that says that the name of the picture "psychrolutes marcidus" is correct name for blobfish.
See, e.g., [2] Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a reliable source? I find no print source about it that is reliable. MarioNovi (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, FishBase is accepted as reliable source on wikipedia, as far as I know. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you find picture of blobfish, it has a part that looks like a nose, and has no top fin. Picture has no nose but has top fin. Does not look the same. Correct? MarioNovi (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Top fin is typically extended only in water. Perhaps here [3] it is seen retracted. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about nose? MarioNovi (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of pranks about "the ugliest fish", i.e. blobfish, on the web recently, thus I believe the nose is part of that, i.e., people simply select the funnest pictures. I haven't found time to actually research the topic, yet. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for facts that no one knows are true, so the picture should be removed until there is reliable source. MarioNovi (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources recognize the author of the image as discoverer of the species, which automatically makes this image reliable. Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text in McCullough book says "All the fins are so completely enveloped in thick fleshy skin that their rays can be counted only when this is removed." page 216. This does not agree with the picture. MarioNovi (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific pictures aim to show anatomy, not to impress with funny features like recent news do. The text and picture are actually from same author and same publication, so there is no reason to question it. Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is reason to question because text says fins are not visible but fins are visible in picture, maybe printing error. MarioNovi (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. Fins are visible because it is an anatomical drawing; it doesn't have to show all skin. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then is mislabeled, confusing for someone who does not know what "anatomical drawing" is. Can you give citation for your definition of it? Thank you , MarioNovi (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this drawing in the article an accurate drawing of the fish or is it some how mislabeled and for another fish? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image was recently featured on Smithsonian.com in an article which ascribed the difference to pressure. As the blobfish doesn't have a swim bladder it uses water to counteract the water pressure at depth, and also lacks much of a skeleton, or muscle, hence its blobby appearance when landed. The drawing is thus a representation of what the fish looks like in its natural habitat. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is written for entertainment not science, so poor source. Worse, source that article uses for this is wikipedia. That is the problem. It is creating bad information. MarioNovi (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the Smithsonian Institution could be considered a reliable source. The photo was subsequently widely repro'd - if there were some authoritative dispute to its accuracy, surely it would have surfaced. The photo source distinctly refers to the specimen as a holotype - a single specimen - so there is no doubt that McCulloch was the discoverer. If you want a more up to date reference conflating the two names I'd suggest the 1986 Field guide to trawl fish from temperate waters of Australia. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an entertainment piece. Nothing else you said related to the issue that the piece used wikipedia as its source so we cannot use it as a source too. MarioNovi (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that the Smithsonian article refers to a swim bladder, while the Wiki article talks about a gas bladder. The facts are the same but there is not necessarily sourcing from wikipedia, it could well be the Field Guide above. The only acknowledgement to Wikipedia is for the photo. I suggest that the wide publication of the photo, as an illustration of the blobfish aka psychrolutes_marcidus, including by such a reliable source as the Smithsonian, is a fair indicator that there is little doubt as to its veracity. If there were, the article would be down. Further, I have adjusted my earlier comment to clarify which other source I am speaking of. It seems every authority there is equates the blobfish with psychrolutes marcidus. Can you find one that says different? Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another science-based web site that uses the Commons image: redOrbit.com I looked at the book the drawing came from (linked in the image summary); the specified plate with the drawing is labeled as Neophrynichthys marcidus. A web search shows many web sites documenting the name change from N. marcidus to Psychrolutes marcidus. I think the drawing should be used in the article. Pinethicket (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding Pinethicket. I see what you are saying, I have 2 things that concern me. #1 is where is the nose? #2 is why does McCullough's description of the fish not agree with the picture? "All the fins are so completely enveloped in thick fleshy skin that their rays can be counted only when this is removed." page 216. MarioNovi (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the soft tissue of the fish is distorted when it is brought up from the great pressure exerted by the depths, and that is what causes the famous nose. Regarding the fin issue, when you look at the dorsal and anal fins in the drawing, the rays are shown to fade in intensity as they approach the proximal end. Perhaps that is what was being referred to in the text, but that is a guess from a landlubber. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mario, the features which are described by the previous contributors are highly tied to this fish, its appearance differs drastically in surface due to its natural habitat pressure, so its actual appearance which is widely reported is misleading and your reason that wikipedia is not scientific, but for entertain purposes is also misleading, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as such it must contain facts which are filled with neutrality, verifiability claims, even if media reports say the contrary, which do happen a lot of time. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 27 September 2013[edit]

Switch 'poor drawing' with

two blobfish in situ

or add alongside it.

Rcaauwe (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by ‎Pinethicket. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is situ? MarioNovi (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is blue linked: "to examine the phenomenon exactly in place where it occurs". Pinethicket (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That picture looks different from the one at the top, but I believe they both claim to be in situ, yes? MarioNovi (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this one does not pretend to be accurate, it is an artist's impression. Materialscientist (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[This comment has been removed]


From the article: "This is not consistent with reality for two reasons: the blobfish lives deep in the sea where few of the other creatures can go because of the intense pressure, and in this high-pressure habitat he's not so ugly." I think there's a lot more than those two reasons, starting with: "Sharks can't talk or read."--Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for Popular Culture Section[edit]

Episode 6, Season 1 of the Disney Junior series, The Octonauts featured the blobfish. The Octonauts had to rescue three blobfish from an area surrounding an underwater volcano that was about to erupt. The blobfish were depicted in their decompressed state, as usually seen on internet pics of this fish. The "creature report" song at the end of the segment is also about the blobfish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3DQ7dZvEk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbluspiro (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


In "The X-Files" Season 11, Episode 7 "Rm9sbG93ZXJz" Mulder orders sushi at at automated restaurant and receives a Blobfish by mistake. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.73.94 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mention, not significant enough for inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information[edit]

This article is way too short and is missing important information on the species' ecology, behavior, habitat, diet, and more. These are extremely important pieces of information that need to be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

role with human[edit]

Every year people will vote for the WORLD UGLIEST ANIMAL PRESERVATION SOCIETY but in 2013 our winner is a whole different, a jelly little pink creature call “Blobfish” had been voted for the world’s ugliest animal and become known since then. Thus this makes the Blob become the group's official mascot with its blancmange look and miserable face.

Blobfish have been called as the deep sea blancmange but they definitely don’t taste like it, actually there is a reason behind. Blobfish lives at depths of 500-1,200 meters in the ocean, which produce the pressure many time greater than a sea level. Even the normal fishes can’t survive in the area, their swim bladder that allows most fish to float and swim would collapse under this extreme pressure. Instead Blobfish use a fatty substance to fill its body and it become full of gelatinous flesh without any skeleton or real muscles.

The casue of no real organs that allows them to swim, they just hover above the ocean floor waiting for food to come to them. They mostly eat gormless sea urchins, molluscs and crustaceans that are too dumb and slow to escape. But all those information is just an assumer of an academician. Because Blobfish lives too deep in the ocean, even human can’t go to explore the area. So we barely know about its biology and ecology. All of the information has to be inferred by learning about its relatives since we are not able to go that deep down the ocean to explore or document them. We only see them, if we are lucky enough, when fisherman catch it by mistake. But after this summer everything is going to be changed. Blobfish wouldn’t be a rare thing anymore but it will have their first pop-up café in London. The Blobfish café, open this summer with the slogan of ‘the world first face to face blob fish experience’. Like other animal’s café, Blobfish will be transferred from Australian ocean into the tank. Definitely the tank need to contain pressure as same as in the depths of 500-1,200 deep, so we won’t be able to play with it but they guarantee that you will see them the whole time you visit the café. Now the world will know these little pink creatures as Barry, Lorcan and Lady swift. ( blobfishcafe.com, 2016 ) In conclusion Blobfish continue to play more role in people since they have been declaring as the world ugliest animal in 2013 and no one can stop this anymore. It is the time for you to get in touch with the world, knowing this wonderful creature and be prepared for them.



[2] Jjiibbpp (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-x-files-recap-mulder-and-scully-face-off-against-cell-phones-drones-and-a-vibrator
  2. ^ Sam Haysom June 24, 2015 London's Blobfish Cafe might house 3 of the 'world's ugliest animals http://mashable.com/2015/06/24/londons-blobfish-cafe/#Gz7R8t5aJgqg Ben Norum 23 june 2015 A blobfish café is coming to east London http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/restaurants/a-blobfish-caf-is-coming-to-east-london-10338373.html Bryan Nelson Feb 16, 2016 13 of the ugliest animals on the planet http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/13-of-the-ugliest-animals-on-the-planet/blobfish No 16, 2016 Blobfish — 10 Facts about the Kings and Queens of Ugly http://ipfactly.com/blobfish/

roles with human[edit]

Every year people will vote for the WORLD UGLIEST ANIMAL PRESERVATION SOCIETY but in 2013 our winner is a whole different, a jelly little pink creature call “Blobfish” had been voted for the world’s ugliest animal and become known since then. Thus this makes the Blob become the group's official mascot with its blancmange look and miserable face.


Blobfish have been called as the deep sea blancmange but they definitely don’t taste like it, actually there is a reason behind. Blobfish lives at depths of 500-1,200 meters in the ocean, which produce the pressure many time greater than a sea level. Even the normal fishes can’t survive in the area, their swim bladder that allows most fish to float and swim would collapse under this extreme pressure. Instead Blobfish use a fatty substance to fill its body and it become full of gelatinous flesh without any skeleton or real muscles.


The casue of no real organs that allows them to swim, they just hover above the ocean floor waiting for food to come to them. They mostly eat gormless sea urchins, molluscs and crustaceans that are too dumb and slow to escape. But all those information is just an assumer of an academician. Because Blobfish lives too deep in the ocean, even human can’t go to explore the area. So we barely know about its biology and ecology. All of the information has to be inferred by learning about its relatives since we are not able to go that deep down the ocean to explore or document them. We only see them, if we are lucky enough, when fisherman catch it by mistake. But after this summer everything is going to be changed. Blobfish wouldn’t be a rare thing anymore but it will have their first pop-up café in London. The Blobfish café, open this summer with the slogan of ‘the world first face to face blob fish experience’. Like other animal’s café, Blobfish will be transferred from Australian ocean into the tank. Definitely the tank need to contain pressure as same as in the depths of 500-1,200 deep, so we won’t be able to play with it but they guarantee that you will see them the whole time you visit the café. Now the world will know these little pink creatures as Barry, Lorcan and Lady swift. ( blobfishcafe.com, 2015 )


In conclusion Blobfish continue to play more role in people since they have been declaring as the world ugliest animal in 2013 and no one can stop this anymore. It is the time for you to get in touch with the world, knowing this wonderful creature and be prepared for them.


[1] Jjiibbpp (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Terra ❤ 06:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sam Haysom June 24, 2015 London's Blobfish Cafe might house 3 of the 'world's ugliest animals http://mashable.com/2015/06/24/londons-blobfish-cafe/#Gz7R8t5aJgqg Ben Norum 23 june 2015 A blobfish café is coming to east London http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/restaurants/a-blobfish-caf-is-coming-to-east-london-10338373.html Bryan Nelson Feb 16, 2016 13 of the ugliest animals on the planet http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/13-of-the-ugliest-animals-on-the-planet/blobfish No 16, 2016 Blobfish — 10 Facts about the Kings and Queens of Ugly http://ipfactly.com/blobfish/

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016[edit]

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.84.46.227 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018[edit]

Hi mate, Just wanted you to know that Blobfish and extremely endangered as there are less than 1000 about in the wild. Msmichailaros (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source? We don't report things on Wikipedia unless they are supported by a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture sources[edit]

A few sources that mention how a particular 2003 image went viral and introduced blobfish into popular culture. If there is to be an IPC section in this article, these are vital sources, not random video clips where blobfishes are mentioned. Plantdrew (talk)

You've got it wrong. There are all kinds of reliable sources, and those listed above are some of them, but not the sum total of them. Any item sourced to a reliable source is usable, whether or not their your chosen few. Beyond My Ken (talk)
@Beyond My Ken:, you're defending a laundry list of poorly sourced trivia. A good pop culture section would include something very roughly along the lines of:
"A photograph of a blobfish taken in 2003 circulated the internet for a while. In 2013, in a publicity stunt that was widely reported, blobfish were named the world's ugliest animal. Following this coverage, blobfish saw increasing popular culture notoriety and made appearances in television shows, online newspaper features, advertisements and internet cartoons."
The sources I mentioned above support the 2003 photo and 2013 publicity stunt, which are the key event defining blob fish in popular culture. The pop culture sources now in the article potentially could support blobfish appearing in "television shows, online newspaper features, advertisements and internet cartoons", but it's not appropriate to describe each of these appearances in detail.
However, the sources given for the various pop culture examples aren't necessarily reliable for Wikipedia.
The Homestar Runner examples is sourced to user generated content (another Wiki).
You participated in the discussion regarding sourcing of IPC content, which I understand was closed contrary to your preferences. However, the existing sources for "online newspaper features" (Ted Cruz/NY Daily News}, "television shows" (SNL/Youtube), and probably "advertisements" (CreditStar/deleted video at ispot.tv, with short text description) are all cases of self sourcing which was rejected in the RfC.
X-Files. You replied to a request by an IP to add a sourced mention of an X-Files appearance with "Trivial mention, not significant enough for inclusion" on 7 March 2018. I just now removed a (differently) sourced mention that was added a little later in March 2018. I'm inclined to think that the appearance in X-Files is indeed "not significant enough for inclusion", but the difference in your opinion regarding including the X-Files mention puzzles me. Is it that the IP provided secondary source only mentioned "blobfish" in passing and the Eonline source spends a little more time on blobfish? Either way, the X-Files epidode spent the same amount of time on blobfish. Increased detail in a secondary (non-self) source is not the bar that needs to be passed. Plantdrew (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019[edit]

the Species is wrong its actually microporos 180.150.16.250 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The viral photo that inspired popular culture references is indeed P. microporos. I don't think a detailed discussion of pop cultural is relevant regardless of species, but welcome to Wikipedia. We've got people who insist on inaccurate/misapplied vernacular names as unique titles instead of well defined scientific names. And Wikipedia also has people who insist on including trivial mentions of blobfish in popular culture with zero concern for what subject has the title "blobfish". The solution to these viewpoints probably means moving this article to the scientific name and using blobfish to discuss (Wikipedia's misidentification) of the viral photo and "blobfish" pop culture appearances. Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Common names are way more helpful to readers. In this case however, it is not clear that "blobfish" usually refers to this particular species:
  • The Atlas of Living Australia says that the standard and preferred common name for P. marcidus is "Smooth-Head Blobfish", with "blobfish", "toadfish", and "Australian sculpin" also existing.
  • For P. microporos they only mention blobfish existing as a common name.
  • They also say that the standard name for the family Psychrolutidae is blobfishes.
This is all too confusing. I feel P. marcidus should be moved to Smooth-Head Blobfish. This article could be turned into a disambiguation page.
– Þjarkur (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020[edit]

File:블로브피시.jpg
This is a picture that was selected as the world's ugly fish.

Fuc fact: Blobfish was voted the world's ugliest fish (as of 2010).

마우막 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the part of the article that was the same and left the requested additions.  Not done, the image is copyrighted and it's not quite clear whether that survey was a noteworthy one. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022[edit]

The psychrolutes marcidus was first discovered around the Norfolk and Lord Howe islands, which are found in-between Australia and New Zealand. This discovery was made by a team of two dozen scientist. During this exploration of submarine habitats, the team towed gear on the ocean floor in order to net and study different species. Among the all the new species the caught was the psychrolutes marcidus.[1] Fmass3 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ LIDZ, F. (2015). Behold the Blobfish. Smithsonian, 46(7), 19–24.

Female blobfish eggs[edit]

According to Island Bay Marine Education Centre "Females lay up to 100,000 eggs in a single nest in rocky areas, on top of deep ocean platforms with warmer water temperatures".

Blobfish facts. Island Bay Marine Education Centre. (2020, June 12). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://octopus.org.nz/content/blobfish-facts Kanye H (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychrolutes_marcidus&oldid=1224260610"