Talk:Manta ray/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikipediaDeutsch photo

i have your Photo taken for http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantarochen , tx. --anon source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.135.3 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2004 (UTC)

Dangerous?

Are manta's dangerous? I know they are quite large but would they eat or intentionally attack a human without provocation? Also, are they poisonous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magu2k (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a manta *could* eat a human, even if you held your finger in its mouth. I have never heard of a manta attacking a human, provoked or unprovoked. I believe only some of the rays equipped with stingers are poisonous, and those are not posisonous enough to kill an adult. The giant rays (Pacific) do not have stingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.119.172 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Mantas are very peaceful, they do not attack humans. I have swim with them on numerous occations and they are a popular attraction at some dive locations in the right season where scuba divers dive with them daily. Stefan 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read, mantas are perfectly gentle. However, some have jumped into small boats, unintentionally sinking them. --Gray Porpoise 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Manta Rays are NOT dangerous. They are peaceful, gentle ocean filter-feeders. Sadly, they are hunted for their gills because some believe they have healing powers. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.5 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bone or no bone

In South Korea, the people eat sting rays with the bone in them. In France, they eat them without the bone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.119.172 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rays are Chondrichthyians, and like sharks, have no bones. They are cartilagenous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.104.28.200 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

At times, some remains surprisingly contain bone remnants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.248.57 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Have changed a few bits of the artice. Changed 'Some believe Manta Rays evolved from'...because it sounds a bit creationist. Some of the english in here isn't great either. And I think people also need to cite their sources for some of the info. Moa nalo —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound creationist to me. It says the disagreement is about what mantas evolved from, not whether they evolved at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.225.18 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Better to leave it as a statement of uncertainty if it's not certain. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaching

I removed a section on breaching. The reference was to an amateur photographer's website, and by his own admission didn't exactly know what type and stuff it was. It also had a comment in the middle of the paragraph. If somebody would like to rewrite and get a new reference, a section on this subject would probably be good.

Here is what I removed:

Mantas have recently been captured on film while breaching [1] - this reference does not show mantas, but smaller rays! This had been reported in the past, but without any conclusive evidence. In the last few years, sharks have also been photographed while leaping out of the water. While especially Great White sharks breach while hunting seals near the surface, the reason for this behavior in rays is currently unknown, though may be to dislodge loose dead skin & parasites when impacting back on the water. It's distant cousin of the stingray, which is considerably smaller in stature, but somewhat more aggresive.

Triikan 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

They breach, it's common knowledge, and it has been observed so many times that no documentation is considered necessary. But if you don't believe this, here's a clear and detailed YouTube video which shows a manta breaching - from below, even:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChzktBcXg1k&NR=1

And that IS a manta (Manta sp.), not a smaller mobulid. Maybe the original reference was a Mobular species, but it doesn't mean that mantas don't breach!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.55.22 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Ps. some more evidence, from the blog of one of the foremost experts on mantas, ANDREA MARSHALL, which has a picture of a breaching manta ray: http://saveourseas.com/projects/mantarays_gl/you_gotta_be_kidding_me Do you think she can't tell apart a Manta from a Mobula? Here's what she has to say:

I enjoyed watching the Holbox mantas breaching during their feeding bouts just like both Manta alfredi and Manta birostris.
No matter how many times I witness manta rays breaching, I never get over how impressive this feat of acrobatics really is.

Further evidence - I think nobody would doubt that this is a manta: http://www.oceanfootage.com/video_clips/RBR04_043 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.55.22 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this could be used as a reference, since it mentions in the text (link below the quote):

On ten separate occasions on this date mantas were seen completely breaching the surface of the water.

Reference: http://www.acuatours.com/images/manta_report.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.55.22 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Average size

What is the average size of a manta ray? I've read the article but the only information is gives me there is the largest. I really need this information for a school project' due 4/23/07 (next monday to be exact) but i have a few more questins also, like how they adapt to pressure and light. Thank you!--76.106.31.207 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From personal knowledge not in this article: Three pacific mantas I have seen are estimated at 13 ft, 11 ft, and 12.5 feet, using lasers to measure across the pectoral fins. Estimates sit at around 2000 lb in mass, but that's only from observation and collision. Mantas can swim to 720 ft of depth thanks in part to the large amount of fluid in their bodies, and have shown no adverse reaction to having numerous dive lights shone in their faces. If you click on the reference links at the bottom of the article, you will likely find more information than the article provides. Good luck on the project! 198.53.181.248 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The largest / average sizes

This page reads that the largest mantas are 2.5 meters across, however I have found contradicting information at: http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=49 which gives estimates of 6-7m on average and up to 9m which seems more in line with what I remember hearing on the discovery channel. I'm no expert though : ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.178.13 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Channel is no expert either. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mouth size

The manta ray's mouth can hold 4 full grown men at once? Oh, really..? Even though the pic to the right makes that seem a little unlikely?

Should we tag this with citation needed? 75.175.0.56 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Idiocy! article needs a rehaul.

Some piece of trash has vandalized this article. Ignorance is not funny. whoever did this just grow up already and get a life. Some people actually use wikipedia as a educational resource.

See bolded sections.

...A giant manta's eyes are located at the base of the cephalic lobes on each side of the head, and unlike other rays it is able to emit gamma rays from them. It uses these gamma rays to hunt prey and ward of predators, and it is due to this defense mechanism that when encountered they must immediately and without questioning be lept upon and wrestled to submission. Their skin is approximately three inches thick and composed of a Kevlar-polyurethane mixture, which serves to keep heat in and bullets out. Manta rays also used to posses the ability to fly, when they first descended upon Earth roughly 1,000 years ago, as documented in the bible, however, they have since lost this ability and descended into the ocean's water depths to await Earth's salvation. ...

Is there a way to find out who made these changes and block their ip address from wikipedia? should be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.74.129 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

edit: nevermind, i figured out how to revert the changes that were made by the vandal XD still, these ppl should be banned. - TheMightyX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.74.129 (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Novel Limbs?

Near the beginning of the article it mentions that the Manta Ray has "novel limbs"

This gives the Manta ray the distinction of being the only jawed vertebrate to have novel limbs (the so-called six-footed tortoise (Manouria emys) does not actually have six legs, only enlarged tuberculate scales on their thighs that look superficially like an extra pair of hind limbs).

I don't know what they mean by novel limbs and I get the feeling alot of other people don't either.--Samineru (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Although they may approach humans, if touched, their mucus membrane is removed, causing lesions and infections on their skin."

This sentence needs some clarification. IMO it doesn't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Game Collector (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

i gather it means something akin to, although they may approach humans, if touched, their mucous membrane is removed, which causes lesions and infections on their skin. the manta is unaware of this so the foreknowledged human should attempt to refrain from touching the manta.

Rays/Flatfish

Anyone know why Rays are not classed as "flatfish"? Vonstahlhein (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A number of resons, they are Elasmobranchii and Batoidea, not bony fish, i.e. they have no skeleton, they do not have both eye on one side of the head (see flatfish) they have a head with one eye on each side, they have 5 to 7 gills as sharks, not one like bony fish, they do not have any swimbladder and so one, i.e. lots of differences even though they look a bit simmilar in shape. --Stefan ^talk 03:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbs??

Do manta rays have the barbs/stingers/whatever-you-want-to-call-its on their tails like most other rays do? 71.126.63.76 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.5 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe (from seeing documentary "Andrea: Queen of the Mantas") that the larger 'birostris' do have a vestigal part of the 'barb' or 'stringer' but it is entirely embedded inside a lump on the body end of the tail and cannot be deployed in defense. It is akin to some snakes having vestigal legs, etc.62.232.250.50 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"In culture" section

There seems to be some conflict in this section, so I thought I'd open the floor to discussion on two topics. First, should the section even be here, since the article is principally about the animal itself (a recent edit summary removed a couple of modern items, saying they added nothing to the discussion about the animal; under that definition the entire section doesn't belong)? Second, if it should be here, what constitutes a notable cultural impact (i.e., if a baseball team with a manta ray as a mascot belongs, why not a Pokemon that looks like one)? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Manta vs. Mobula

I was a bit confused about the difference between these two genera. I found some info at [2]:

"Mantas and mobulas (also known as "devil rays", of which there are 9 species) are similar in form, sharing paddle-shaped cephalic lobes and gracefully curved pectoral wings. Mantas grow much larger than mobulas. Mantas reach widths of at least 22 feet (6.7 metres), while most mobulas are 3 to 10 feet (1 to 3 metres) across. Mantas and mobulas are most readily distinguished by the position of the mouth: in Mantas, the mouth is terminal (located at the front of the head), while in mobulas the mouth is subterminal (located underneath the head, as in many sharks)."

Not sure where this should be incorporated... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.194.217 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Different species

The article is currently confusing as to how many species there are. After watching a BBC program (clips here) it does seem right to mention that there are two species. However the show said that the new species is larger than the previously known species (7.6m), the article however makes seems to make out as though this larger species is the one that was previously known and that the smaller non-migratory form is the new form. I've looked to see if there are any scientific papers about Manta alfredi but I can't find any, this page mentions that the info has been presented at a conference but that the papers are still being written. Ultimately it seems as though we will need two separate articles for each species and maybe the manta ray is turned into a disambiguation page. Any thoughts/comments? Smartse (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FIrst issue is what you discovered, it is very slow to get sources describing a new species, the second problem with two pages is what to name them, it will be 10's of years, or maybe never, that people know that there are two names, so the page not named manta ray will rarely be found. I suggest to do as in the Scalloped hammerhead article for now, just add extra info about the two species in the same page, when it becomes so large that it needs to be split into two pages then we discuss what to do. --Stefan ^talk 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this page could be kept as the genus page, with two new articles created for each species once the splits are universally accepted and we have enough info for both articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The situation is far (FAR!) more complex and what is described in the intro is just a small taste of this. However, the whole situation remains debated and until an actual scientific paper that presents clear evidence in support of several species (not just a few random websites saying that "evidence has shown there are more species"), it is questionable to deviate from WP:FISH#Taxonomy, even if it of course is fair to mention the possibility of more than one species. Splitting out articles or changing this to a genus article before someone has even published clear evidence for more than one species would also be WP:Undue. Unlike the possible evidence in support of several mantas, the evidence in support of the cryptic species within the scalloped hammerhead complex has been published. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It may turn that there are additional Manta species and in which case there should be a new page for the new sp (and the resultant genus page), however, we're a long way from there right now. Currently there is a proposal, a suggestion that there is a new sp see http://www.saveourseas.com/manta-rays-a-new-species but it's only a proposal so it would be very premature to mint a new URI now. However, it does seem appropriate to reference the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derivadow (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

However, as noted earlier, that page (and a few other) do not provide any valid scientific evidence, which requires for other people to be able to confirm and, if necessary, replicate the evidence. They simply say that genetic and morphological support it. I am sure such evidence really exists, but until it has been published (as I'm sure it will be) allowing for a real scientific judgement of its value by other scientists, it is of limited value. This is exactly what separates it from the scalloped hammerhead case mentioned earlier, where the evidence is available for judgement. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

I'm not sure if this article is long enough to warrant a gallery, but I added one with two photos I took of manta rays last year. I'm new here, so if for whatever reason this gallery is innappropriate for this article please let me know. (Excess clutter etc.) My first picture shows a pretty good manta profile and the second shows the environment in which they can be found. So, that would be some of the value/justification for the photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

confused

"Their spiracles have not become small and non-functional, as all water is consumed orally."

This is either wrong or needs re-wording... "not... non-functional"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

terrible source

Source number 9 (http://www.thebigzoo.com/Animals/Pacific_Manta_Ray.asp) is not credible. I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how to flag it as such, but check it out . . . you'll see that the cited website quotes several facts that are simply incorrect. I now have no reason to believe the top speed of a manta ray is what wikipedia says it is.

My Report

I am working on a report on manta rays for school, so I Googled it. I found this article to be very interesting. It helped me a lot with my report, and I also enjoyed learning about manta rays and where they live and what they eat. Thank you, Wikipedia! I hope I get an "A" on my report. I hope you also find this article very enjoyable.

New subject: If you don't know who Fluffcy is, wait 5-10 years and then go onto Fluffcy.com. I intend to make a cool website then.

You Rock, Wikipedia!!!!! 98.192.145.29 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Captive manta rays

129.238.237.96 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)There is another captive manta ray at Atlantis on Paradise Island in the Bahamas..... There are four captive manta rays at the Atlantis in the Bahamas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.143.12 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Voyager Aquarium

Actually has 4 mantas. From the wiki entry (can be found elsewhere): "The aquarium recently added a fourth manta ray to Ocean Voyager. The newest ray is the first male added to the exhibit. He measures almost 9 feet (2.7 m) across, weighs approximately 265 pounds (120 kg) and was also collected off the coast of Florida."

About the captivity section

I'm not sure about the part where it says that only four aquariums in the world is either true or accurate. Two examples. One, on a scientific museum on florida I visited this year there was an manta alfredi exhibit. Two, on Atlamtis at Paradise Island I saw myself a huge Birostris, it was 8 meters (how is it said in English? From tail to tail? From side to side?) and also they said they also had another specimen that they released after it grew to 11 meters. So I can say that there are more than just 4 in the whole world that display manta rays. Please some one correct this or delete it.

Hong kong ocean park now has one too. The captivity section is just outdated. Anyone add that?--218.253.17.64 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The largest known specimen was more than Expression error: Unrecognised word "m" feet (Expression error: Unexpected < operatorExpression error: Unrecognised word "m"m)

The largest known specimen was more than Expression error: Unrecognised word "m" feet (Expression error: Unexpected < operatorExpression error: Unrecognised word "m"m) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.132 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what this section means. Hopefully, you real editors do? Can your share that knowledge? So much about WP is Greek to me! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:MantarayMocheLMC.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MantarayMocheLMC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MantarayMocheLMC.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

After following the link to the WM Commons page, there seems to be the strong possibility that this photograph can stay (IF I am interpreting the page correctly). If so, can the up-loader please supply a caption that explains the image? Is it a living animal? Is it a fossil? Is it a cave painting? Is it a ceramic work of art? And what is the explanation for that top-hat like dorsal projection? It looks very odd to me. I just don't think the image is so self-explanatory. Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced and inconsistent weight

The weight of the largest known manta is stated to be 1300kg at the top of the page, but it is not referenced. Also, in the description section, it states that mantas can reach up to 1400kg, which is even more than the previously mentioned largest manta, 1300kg, and is similarly unreferenced. Because I know nothing on the subject, I cannot correct it.

New species articles

I have created two species articles, Reef Manta Ray and Giant Oceanic Manta Ray as stubs. If moving or copying text from this edit, to them, please be sure to give attribution to ARKive. I've also redirected Manta (genus) here; but that's perhaps where this article should be moved to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gameplan FA

Okay there's a suggestion on how the article should be structured.

• Etymology and taxonomy
• Evolutionary history
• Physical description Biology (subsections: physical description, reproduction)
• Behavior and Life history (subsection: Reproduction)
• Ecology (subsections: Range and habitat, Feeding and predation) Behavior and ecology (subsection: feeding and predation)
• Relation to humans (kept as is)
• Status (kept as is)

The article looks like its in okay shape but could use more cites, some expansions and section merges. LittleJerry (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added "Evolutionary history" to the list above. We also need to decide exactly how we will formulate references so that we don't work at cross purposes. I normally use the following but can adapt to a different format for any of them: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Suresh, V. R.; Mathew, K. J. - for authors' names
• Retrieved 2013-02-07 - for access dates
• Capitals for book titles - "Corals of the World"
• Lower case for journal articles - " Growth of staghorn coral Acropora aspera"

I can't find much information on their evolution. Just this. I also have a little problem with taxonomy. Sources attribute its species description to "Dondorff, 1798". However I can't find anything on this person and he doesn't have his own wiki article.

I'll work on behavior and ecology at my sandbox see what you can do with taxonomy and evolution and maybe check the sourcing from them and the sections "Relation to humans" and "Status". We can worry about formatting after we finished the articl, but I accept your versions. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll get started. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now let's work on its biology. How about I work on physical description and you work on reproduction? LittleJerry (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I did taxonomy but then I got diverted onto something else. I will have a go at reproduction and come back to evolution later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done Evolutionary History but did not use the source you indicated above as I thought it was a bit wishy-washy and might be unreliable. I have merged Etymology into Taxonomy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Now can you work on the human relations and status sections by making sure they are properly sourced? After you do that, I'll work on re-writing the opening paragraphs. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we are making progress and the article is taking shape. There is a sentence that seems to be incomplete in the second paragraph of "Physical appearance and Anatomy" -- "Unlike most elasmobranches, the telencephalons and cerebellums; the reason for this is not known."
• Where I added (and you removed) a bit about swimming continuously, I was trying to make the point that mantas don't rest or remain stationary at any time because of their means of respiration. I think this information should be included somewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed both. Respiration is in the anatomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add an "Ecotourism" subsection and some more cites for the rest of the "Human relations" sections later this week. Can you look over and spotcheck the "Threats" subsection? LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, my next task would be to re-write the opening. I'll do it this weekend. You can look over the source formatting and make sure they're consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I propose to remove the statement "This article incorporates text from the ARKive fact-file "Manta ray" ". I doubt there is much left that is copied from ARKive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. LittleJerry (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. As soon as you fix the referencing, we can get this article copyedited and/or submit to GA review. LittleJerry (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this article is ready for GA. One minor thing, I think the reviewers are going to expect us to state the manta's weight. I could only find mention of maximum weight. LittleJerry (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think maximum weight should suffice if you can't find an average weight. I also think the article is ready for GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll nominate it as soon as I get a reviewer that will treat it like a potential FA. LittleJerry (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominated it anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)