Talk:Conch

Pronunciation

Wiktionary[1] and Dictionary.com[2] both offer 'konk' and 'konch' as valid pronounciations, which is likely why that particular line was removed. -Dawson 17:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm! My copy of the OED lists only koŋk. The second pronunciation must be an innovation. I've certainly never heard anyone say konch, and I've lived for 60 years where people used to line their front walks with koŋk shells (they're too rare for that, these days). Ah well, verifiability, not truth. I won't fight over it. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've actually heard Conch on several occasions. I feel that New England is strictly koŋk. i could be wrong, this is only from personal experience, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.85.194 (talk • contribs)
  • I also grew up in New England saying "konk". On many trips to Key West and the Caribbean (Soufriere, St. Lucia and Georgetown, Grand Cayman), I got weird looks when ordering "konk chowder". Ordering "konch chowder" works just fine. 209.6.19.88 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is there even a reference to the pronounciation in the USA? The area is irrelevent unless it is also listed how each other country pronounces it. The only two pronounciations I've heard are listed already so I'm going to remove the USA bit. VowNix (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Humph! Then shame on the OED. I'm sure it was in Lord of the Flies that i was surprised to hear the final consonant as tʃ (the usually pronunciation of English "ch" or terminal "tch"), contrary to the k that i learned at home. (And tho it was shot in the Caribbean, it had British director, producer, and child actors, playing British children.)
    --Jerzy•t 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    
    • H. I was just about to mention 'konch' in LOTF. Additionally, when using the konch pronouniation should the plural be conches instead of conchs? Moss Ryder (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd be a little confused how a book gives us a pronunciation, except that I know William Golding pronounced it [kɑntʃ] in reading the book. Are you referring to that or one of the movies based on the book? Craig Butz (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Conch development?

I've pulled the section below off the article page because I can find no reference for it.

Software Development
Loosely based on agile methods, "Conch Development" is a methodology suited for teams supporting existing systems while at the same time working on new projects. As a direct reference to Lord of the Flies, team developers rotate "having the conch" (i.e. working on new development) while the other developers on the team handle the support load.

--Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

size?

There was no mention of adult size on the page :-(

Depends on the species, so not appropriate in the article about the genus. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TMS

'Playing a conch' quoted on Test Match Special 2 pm BST, 9th June 2007. MartinMcCann 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Clearly, a significant aspect of the conch is its use as an instrument - this page is even grouped with a musical instrument project. Many readers are interested in learning about, and then acquiring and making a conch shell horn. It is therefore logical that a link be provided with information on how to make your own horn out of a conch shell. One can be found here!. This is a non commercial means of obtaining a conch shell horn which would be found highly valuable by many readers. Does anyone object to its inclusion on this page? CanDo 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The site has Google ads (and you've canvassed numerous other pages petitioning it's inclusion). Please do not add it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Conch as food

why do you need a citation on "some people like the white meat"?

the dark meat in the conch is bitter as hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.32.75 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a citation on the conch as a food, but I couldn't find anything on the white/dark meat. I left it there, though. Kallimina (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about eating conch in Puerto Rico is misleading. We (in PR) eat conch in a type of 'salad' which is a marinade and we call it 'escabeche' the meat is cooked in a pressure cooker. We eat shrimp as ceviche but the shrimp is 'cooked' by the acids (usually lemon juice or vinegar) in its marinade.Dromepixie (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive language

Under the culinary use section, a section begins with, “Conch is indigenous to the Bahamas and is typically served in fritter, salad, and soup forms. It is also eaten in the West Indies (in The Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, and Jamaica in particular[7])” The Bahamas mentioned the second time is unnecessary, and the link to the Bahamas Wikipedia page should be linked to when it is first mentioned. Kibrates (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Conch Pearl Discussion

The referenced article from Gems and Gemology does not indicate that GIA has shifted its position on conch "pearls". GIA abides by the CIBJO nomenclature which still designates conch "pearls" as calcareous concretions. Kenneth Scarrat was simply arguing an opinion at the Abu Dhabi convention.

Further, I removed the article date from the reference. The date displayed on the GIA Web site reflects the current date, not the date of the article. This article referenced is nearly a year old.

Notice how clicking this link now returns today's date for the article. http://www.gia.edu/gemsandgemology/620/30177/this_weeks_news_details.cfm JPShepherd (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nix on "sea snail"

I found myself asking whether all "sea snails" live under water, or some live on tidal zones or on beaches or rocks on sea shores, so i consulted my three exemplary dictionaries. Only the 50-year-old Webster's Second defines the term, so it is ambiguous in current English & may not be used without explanation.
--Jerzy•t 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Extinction

I found

At least 65 species of Strombidae are extinct, and a much larger number of species exist only in the fossil record.

Which is convoluted enuf that at first i vague about how it contradicted itself. On the assumption that it is not complete nonsense, i recast it as

At least 65 species of the Strombidae family became extinct recently enough for their shells to have been collected without fossilization, and several times as many species exist only as fossils.

(I also reworded "much larger number" into more direct form.)
All of this wording needs sourcing more urgently than usual bcz i had to rely on careful guesswork.
--Jerzy•t 04:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The term "fossilization" is misleading here, and seems to suggest mineralization. Mollusc shells from the Miocene and probably older can be found without obvious mineralization. According to Fossil, the term "Fossil" merely means older than some arbitrary date: "a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago". Also, what's the source for that statement? Ecphora (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured this out. The article used to state: "At least 65 species of Strombidae are extant, and a much larger number of species exist only in the fossil record." See this version. Someone replaced "extant" with "extinct." The statement that there are about 65 extant appears to be correct. See this website, which uses the "65" figure. That site, however, isn't very authoratative. A more authoritative site identifies 74 living Strombidae. See here. Accordingly, I have rewritten the sentence: "About 74 species of Strombidae are living, and a much larger number of species exist only in the fossil record." and added the previous reference. Ecphora (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Split off Strombus

This article combines and confuses two different subjects. First, it discusses the "conches" as that term is commonly used, which includes a variety of snails from various families, and even apparently a bivalve. Second, it covers the so-called "true conches", i.e., those in the family Strombidae. (Actually, the article Strombidae implies that not all of its genera are called "true conches") Although this article seems to be primarily about the commonly used term (see, eg. the folklore discussion which involves snails other than the Strombidae (or where it is unclear exactly what "conch" is eaten, worn or used)), the taxobox does not fit as it deals only with the Strombidae and in fact only the single genus Strombus. Because the term "conch" is ambiguous and is not limited to Strombus, I suggest that a new article Strombus be created and the taxobox moved there. Ecphora (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I moved the taxobox to Strombus which now discusses the genus and does not redirect here. Ecphora (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that was a good idea, thank you. Now both Conch and Whelk are general articles. Invertzoo (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing info about El Salvador

Conch is not consumed raw with lime in El Salvador. What people eat in this fashion are actually mussels. I've lived here most of my life and I've never seen people eat raw conch before, it is usually prepared in other manners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1lux (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Strombus2larcomuseum.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Strombus2larcomuseum.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Compare and contrast

By golly, the Whelk looks just like the conch. What's the difference? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Does this help? <grin> Taxonomically, huge difference. Popular usage, hmmm. One of the problems with preferring common English names for living things. -- Donald Albury 12:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we laymen often take that liberty :-) I gather confidence now about the conch eating algae, but I feel overwhelmed by the whelk which eats meat. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Distribution

There does not seem to be anything about distribution of these globally.Justinc (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you know of or can find a reliable source that discusses the distribution of all species commonly called 'conch', that's great. I can find a lot of links about the distribution of the queen conch, but very little else. Because this is an article about an informal classification, I don't think we can synthesize a distribution from the distributions of individual species, even if we can find reliable sources for the distribution of every species. -- Donald Albury 14:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Conch pic variation

• 
  Sea shell (Trinidad & Tobago 2009)-solid field.jpg

Not sure if this version is appropriate for the article but it's kinda' fun. The solid background and pushed color levels give it a bit of a caricatured appearance. But not necessarily in a 'bad' way. Sorta' reminds me of classic illustration plates a bit. I may push this resemblance a bit further at some point with some faux digital FX. Really don't suggest it for the article at present as it would probably look a tad garish next to the neutral tones of . but thought I'd share it just for fun. Wallpaper/screen_saver potential perhaps? :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology of the current version (April 2014) is misleading. The Latin (concha) and Greek (conchos) words long predate the Portuguese trade with India. In fact, the word was used in 1391 in English, before the time of the Portuguese trade with India. 06:05, 6 April 2014‎ 75.80.126.16 (talk)‎

If you can find a reliable source for that information, please go ahead and include it in the article with a citation. Invertzoo (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

conch biology

What a crappy article. Everything you could ever care to learn about what humans do to and with conches, and next to nothing about the conches themselves. Heck, there's not even any mention of what they eat! 206.130.136.162 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason why there is almost nothing about "conch biology" in this article is because "conch" is simply a common name that applies to a large number of very different sea snails in many different families. Some graze on algae, some are carnivorous, and so on. You cannot generalize because it is such a diverse group -- "conch" is not a scientific grouping. You need to read the introduction more carefully next time, and then decide which conch or conches you might be interested in, then then go to that article using one of the blue links that are included here. Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Under the religion section, there is extensive information on “Hinduism” and not much on the other religions posted. The stark difference in the amount of information gives the impression that the other religions were not given an equal amount of consideration during the research phase. Contributing more research on the relevance of the conch to other religions would create a more balanced perspective. Kibrates (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Internal Wiki links

Under the general description, “calcium carbonate” and “organic matter” could be linked to their Wikipedia pages for further clarification on their definitions. Kibrates (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Links that do not work

Six links were found to be defective: (2) ISBN could not be found, even by Google search; (8) and (12) had Error 404; (19) Site could not be reached; (21) led to CITES, but “Page not found”; (22) brings up the correct site, however the video itself is unavailable there. No plagiarism or close paraphrasing was found. Kibrates (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Image failure

How do you have zero images of an actual conch, just the empty shells of dead ones and then - hilariously - a hermit crab IN a conch shell. LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)