collision detection: Giant squid captured on video!

September 28, 2005

Giant squid captured on video!

I am beside myself with excitement. After hundreds of years of hunting, scientists have finally caught the elusive giant squid -- Architeuthis -- live on camera.

How did they pull off this historic feat? Well, a Japanese team sent a robotic camera down to 3,000 feet, just off the Bonin Islands. They also sent down a hook baited with a fresh Japanese Common Squid, as well as a mesh bag filled with "freshly mashed euphausid shrimps" -- mmmmmmmm -- as an odor lure. Then after days of waiting, pay dirt: They felt an enormous tug, as a 26-foot-long giant squid grabbed hold.

And hey -- you know all those supposedly crazy stories told by half-deranged sailors about giant squid attacking their boats? Maybe those aren't so half-cocked after all, because Architeuthis turns out to be one hell of a brawler. It struggled for four solid hours to get free, alternately jetting away at full speed, then zooming back in an attempt to subdue the robot. As the New York Times reports:

The giant squid, the researchers conclude, "appears to be a much more active predator than previously suspected, using its elongate feeding tentacles to strike and tangle prey." The tentacles could apparently coil into a ball, much as a python envelops its victims.

To truly fry your mind, check out the time-lapse-photography video of the squid in action posted at MSNBC. Keep in mind, while you're looking at it, that the span of those tentacles is larger than most people's front yards. Yiiiii! For additional fun, check out the paper written the scientists published today in The Proceedings of the Royal Society (PDF version here). The thing that cracks me up is that they actually don't have a whole lot of data to report; the main thing, I gather, is that they get the totally cosmic street-cred of being able to write a paper with the title "First-ever observation of a live giant squid in the wild".

I wonder if any other scientists will be able to copy this technique -- and catch another one? On the other hand, it might not be a good idea to piss these things off too much.

(As regular blog readers can tell by the fact that I've not posted in a week, I've been positively slammed by work. So a huge shout-out goes to all the folks who emailed me to make sure I'd heard the news -- including John Tinmouth, Andrew Griffin, Robin Sloan, Guillermito, Justin Yoshida, Tony Blow, Koutnik, Alexander Khost, Ian Daly, Peter Krekel, Rob Toole, Jeff MacIntyre, Joe Adiletta, Brian Corcoran, Lisa Fortin, Jonathan Korman, Andrew Rickard, Sam Feinson, and Bret Dawson!)

Posted by Clive Thompson at September 28, 2005 10:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1331

Comments

Thrilled to read about this, Clive! Thanks for posting it. I'm reminded of how I felt after learning about Hans Fricke's pioneering video of a coelocanth off the coast of the Comoros Islands, back in (I think) 1986. The deep ocean never fails to amaze! :)

Posted by: Chris Bateman at September 29, 2005 3:58 AM

What I'm really hoping now is that the amount of worldwide press attention this garnered will encourage money to be thrown at researchers so that we can try and get a better film of the beasts. Maybe even learn a bit more and (dare I hope) do so without hooking and maiming one next time!

Just think … The press went ape over these pictures, how insane would they go for shots of a living colossal squid?

Posted by: Tony at September 29, 2005 6:11 AM

Yesterday I read in the spanish press an interview with a spanish scientist who is also working in the same field, and he was sceptic about this discovery. Among other things, he pointed out that there seems to be too much light in those pictures, if they were supposedly taken at 900m. depth. He also wondered why the japanese scientists had taken so long to publish (the pics were first taken in September 2004).

I noticed myself the brightness of the pictures when I first saw them, but I don't know about the second point. Can anybody who knows more about the subject explain this?

Posted by: PaulJBis at September 29, 2005 6:25 AM

Paul, the brightness is simply a result of the robot camera's flash, which was pretty intense. If you read the paper by the scientists, they themselves note that the camera was at a point so deep that no light from the surface penetrates -- it's absolutely black.

Chris, yeah, the coelocanth parallel is similar! Tony, yeah, I'd kind of like to see 'em repeat this trick without totally maiming the poor beast.

A colossal squid -- now that would be cool.

Posted by: Clive at September 29, 2005 9:23 AM

Hehe, yeah, I guess MSN got the scoop on you this time. A lot of us must have thought of you when we saw this. Even if it is a hoax, it's pretty scary looking. They should make the "Blair Witch Project" of underwater exploration.

Posted by: Alfred Cloutier at September 29, 2005 12:29 PM

Ahahha! Yes.

Posted by: Clive at September 29, 2005 2:05 PM

I find it hilarious that so many people thought of you when reading that article, Clive. I suppose if I were being asked to associate words with one another, "Clive" and "giant squid" would somehow be synonymous in my mind!

(Great idea, Alfred. Too bad Jacques Cousteau passed away... he'd have been perfect for the part.)

Posted by: Pork Chop at September 30, 2005 9:35 AM

Heh,

Saw it in the paper and immediately meant to write you... But I had gone out on the road without my laptop cord. oops. (all better now, thanks to overnight mail).

Now that we've got a way to videotape giant squid in their native environment, isn't it time for a reality show?

Posted by: johntunger at September 30, 2005 5:47 PM