What the hell is this giant bug?

Horseshoe crabs are not considered edible by humans, they are related to spiders not crabs.

But their unusual blue blood is useful for medical purposes and they are harvested, have some blood extracted, and returned to the ocean in the United States.

[edit on 7/12/2005 by djohnsto77]

I believe the Horshoe Crab's blood is used to treat Crohn's desease.

The first two pictures are of a type of sea creature, that is the equivalent to a giant under water "rolly-polly." The next two pictures are of giant squids. The picture following, is of a strange event that occured a year or two ago, at the La Jolla Cove, where thousands of squids washed up onshore dead. Not sure what the last picture is, but it looks like a giant horseshoe crab...

Interesting pictures though

can i eat that???looks good

I think some of you guys have severe reading deficiencies Uma told you that he had talked with his. food manager and the food manager told him it was very common. If you found that pic to be fake then that means some fool wanted to fake a pic of a creature that already exists. please people learn to read.

And also what is there to brag about being cruel to animals?? isnt there a law against animal cruelty so its illegal and i think should also be prohiited on this site. wow good for you massacred tiny crustaceans I hope your proud of yourself. and think of where it will get you in "further" stages of your life.

Well ..i like squids so in wouldnt mind having one that size, but the meat would probably be hard to chew... harder than octopus...it would probbaly have to be pressure cooked for a couple of hours....

The longer you cook squid, the tougher it gets. Cook calamari for a couple of hours and you could use it as O-rings for the pistons on your V8.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The longer you cook squid, the tougher it gets. Cook calamari for a couple of hours and you could use it as O-rings for the pistons on your V8.

oooh coolll... so its the oppsite of octupus...ok thanx for the hint

The bug in the first pic. is the Chinese Fuggunbug. Do not attempt to boil, prod, or otherwise consider eating. As it's name implies, it does not like to be fugged with and can and has been known to have a rather nasty attitude if it is not offered a beer and a smoke.

Wow, wonton killing of Horseshoe crabs when they're worth $0.75 to $1.25 each (*alive) for their blood. An extract of the horseshoe crab's blood is used by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries to ensure that their products, e.g., intravenous drugs, vaccines, and medical devices, are free of bacterial contamination. No other test works as easily or reliably for this purpose. (horseshoe crab test)

Little did you know that you've thrown thousands of dollars away.

actually the last picture is very real.. i saw one of those thingy in the market from china..

They are all very real creatures, the only question is whether they've been doctored to look larger. a quick look over the first one, which is on a binder and beside a pen, gives an estimate of about 33-36 cm in length, which is possible. The largest recorded specimen of an Isopod is 40 cm. The Horshoe Crab is probably photoshopped, but I could be wrong there.

www.natuurinformatie.nl...

These bugs are veery possible because of the lack of gravity in the ocean. Because of the fact that when you are swimming you seem lighter to your self, you fall slower etc, gravity has a much smaller effect on you. That is why the biggest creature in the entire world, is a whale.
Furthermore, an animal that large is just the product of this. Animals will grow to be as large as possible as their environment allowed which is why animals will decrease size, and increase size as long as they can. Its the same reaosn why humans have grown to be larger in even the past 500 years. These bugs I find to be incredibly interesting, and also, if you want to read exacctly about these animals, you can read Dan Brown's Deception Point which has some theories proposed in it. Very good read.
Just because our cell hpones are in our ahnds doesnt mean an elephant cant destroy us, which is exactly how evlution works.

(Laugh).. it's a giant bug! I have no idea..

Dallas

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
Well ..i like squids so in wouldnt mind having one that size, but the meat would probably be hard to chew... harder than octopus...it would probbaly have to be pressure cooked for a couple of hours....

ROFL!!!
.

Originally posted by Vegemite







[edit on 11-7-2005 by Vegemite]

This picture is indeed real Its called a Oar fish infact they get bigger then this. Ive seen video of a larger one dying in shallow water. Its thought they live 1000-3000ft down and only surface to die.

Some people think sightings of this creature by ancient saliors is what started the sea serpent tales.


www.ast.cam.ac.uk...

Originally posted by dtifantasma
These bugs are veery possible because of the lack of gravity in the ocean. Because of the fact that when you are swimming you seem lighter to your self, you fall slower etc, gravity has a much smaller effect on you. That is why the biggest creature in the entire world, is a whale.

I'm sorry . . . what? Gravity has little effect underwater and that's why whales are so big?

Where did you hear this? What books are you reading? Websites? Articles?

Furthermore, have you tried running in water? Do this experiment: find a pool that is at least waist-deep and wide enough to do a full circle in (some above-ground, inflatable pools meet this criteria). Hop in and run around the perimeter. Not as easy as it sounds, is it?

Is this because gravity is not in effect?

No. In fact, water is heavier than air, meaning that pressure (the effect of gravity pushing down on the water, which in turn pushes down on our bodies) increases the deeper into the water you go.

The fact that we seem to float weightlessly has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of gravity and everything to do with the buoyancy of the human body. The air in our lungs--try it: float on your back in the pool and alternate between keeping your lungs full of air and exhaling completely. Note the difference in how well you float--and the fat in our bodies, as well as the entire concept of buoyancy all factor into our floaty selves.

As such, the theory you present is not only wholly disproven, it's also disproven to the point as to make it just the opposite. The further into the ocean you get, the greater the pressure becomes. By your theory, that would make the whales and any creature living under a certain mark very small and flat.

Furthermore, an animal that large is just the product of this. Animals will grow to be as large as possible as their environment allowed which is why animals will decrease size, and increase size as long as they can. Its the same reaosn why humans have grown to be larger in even the past 500 years.

All of this truly makes little sense. Are you referring to the "goldfish theory", in which a goldfish will supposedly never outgrow the bowl it lives in (false, I might add; I've kept goldfish a number of years and can safely say that, no matter what you do, they'll get to be six inches long or die trying)? Or are you saying that, depending on the availability of food and water, an animal will become large or small?

Either way, that's a pretty humorous outlook.

As I already mentioned, goldfish of "goldfish theory" fame are not limited to the size of the bowl they live in. I mean, sure, you can keep a goldfish in a fishbowl and it won't get much further than "grocery store" size, because it will die. Very quickly. And it won't be a happy fish.

When I first started keeping goldfish, I kept three in a three-gallon tank (one gallon per fish; that's ten times the recommended amount). They lived to be a year, because I took very good care of the tank and the fish. However, they didn't remain small, cute little fish. In fact, the biggest became three inches in length and all had to be transported to a five-and-a-half gallon tank (which is still way below recommended size) that I was given as a gift. They lived another year, then died. The biggest goldfish I ever kept had his own tank; he got to be six-and-a-half inches.

So, I suppose in a way, goldfish are limited to the size of their bowls--mainly because the smaller the bowl, the more unhappy the fish will get, and the quicker it will die.

The same can be said for other animals. If you keep a cat in a small, kitten-sized cage for its entire life, you can bet that the cat will continue to grow to the size of a normal cat. Chances are, it will die faster than the normal cat due to the environment in which it lives, but that doesn't change the fact that it will grow.

This same basic idea works for the "food/water" environment. Examine two wolf packs in similar environs, the only difference being the availability of food: one is famished--Wolf Pack I--the other is engorged--Wolf Pack II. Removing the ability of either wolf pack to escape from its environment, you'll find that Wolf Pack I suffers greatly. The size of the pack will diminish as members die off, pups will likely never reach adulthood (if there are any pups at all), and the remaining survivors grow gaunt and ragged. However they do not diminish in height or length, though, granted, they will likely be marginally smaller than the average wolf if they had not achieved adulthood before going into the experiment. I seriously doubt, however, that prolonged exposure would breed a new generation of "midget wolves", simply because, as previously mentioned, any pups born would die off very quickly.

Wolf Pack II, on the other hand, waxes happy and exuberant. The pack, depending on the food, will be quite large in number, and its members will be healthy, very fine specimens. Pups will be fat and playful. Pack members will not exceed the average wolf size--if they do, it's by an inch or so.

If what you say is true, we would have a regular occurrence of gigantic animals worldwide. Coyotes in my neighborhood would be the size of small cars--they have an easy time of it, since they have so much to prey on, cats included. Jackrabbits would be at eye-level with horses, since there's so much clover and other plantlife.

Am I wrong? Am I overlooking something?

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Wolvaurynphamir]

Originally posted by Wolvaurynphamir
Jackrabbits would be at eye-level with horses, since there's so much clover and other plantlife.

Great post!
You have my WATS vote.

But I can't resist adding this...

Goldfish won't "re-size" to fit their bowls, however natural selection as a result of adaptation to environmental constraints is one of the principle fundaments of the theory of evolution. According to the the hypothesis, if you put lots of goldfish in an environment that was restrictive in regards to space and availability of food and kept breeding them with each other, eventually they would start to shrink in average size as the bigger fish died off from lack of space and food to support their larger bodies, and the smaller fish survived to reproduce and pass on their "small body" genetic traits to their offspring.

As far as whales packing on the pounds, if you believe in evolution then the blubber and size could possibly be a result of past ice ages where the insulation from cold and energy reserves provided by the blubber would be a distinct survival advantage.

Then of course there are creatures that exist at vast depths or in light-less environments which develop complete lack of skin pigmentation, useless eyes, hyper-sensitive hearing or vibration-sense, and even biosynthetic illumination.

When I was a kid, I used to hear of people being born with webbed toes and fingers and wondered if you could develop and enhance this trait by rearing such children in an aquatic environment and selectively breeding their offspring. I also wondered would one generation one day sprout gills?! I told this theory to my dad and he sat me down and told me a little story about a man called Dr. Josef Mengele. Needless to say, that was the end of my childhood dreams of creating a new species of human aqua-beings...

Evolution is definitely a fascinating subject.