Talk:Box jellyfish

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 6 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peytonw27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angel11235.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Speed

The article cited for the 1.8 m/s claim says nothing about the speed of box jellies. The claim should be removed. I would do it, but this is my first venture into the realm of wiki and I'm hesitant to mess with others' s***. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.25.181 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"The box jellyfish actively hunts its prey, rather than drifting as do true jellyfish. It is capable of achieving speeds of up to 4 knots (1.8 m/s)." - Really? 4 knots through the water is really fast! The world record in 50 m freestyle is around 20 seconds, i.e. 2.5 m/s average speed. I just cannot believe that a jellyfish is capable of that. The claim is also marked "need citation". Jaksel (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous Australians, a Bay Book published in 1985, mentions that box jellies can travel at speeds up to 5 knots if suddenly alarmed. I don't know how to add references and citations though.  121.44.17.86 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

" In fact, speeds of up to six metres per minute have been recorded."

This is really confusing. The page cites two different speeds. This should be clarified. I'm assuming the lower speed is the highest observed average speed, and the higher speed is the highest observed speed when the jellyfish accelerates. The latter lasts probably only for a fraction of a second.

--83.119.189.36 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the article quotes a speed of "4 knots (1.8 m/s)" but when I previewed with the "convert" template I got 2.1 m/s instead. Then I checked the source, which said four knots, but I went online and found another source that said 3 knots (1.5 m/s). 108.18.117.236 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Methylated spirits

In three of the articles listed at the bottom of the page (Box Jelly Facts, Box Jellies-- Danger on the Great Barrier Reef, and ThinkQuest), it is strongly advised that methylated spirits never be used on box jelly stings. The wiki article, however, recommended the use of alcohol. I did a quick fix, although that part should probably be rewritten. 71.205.33.151 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vinegar

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

The information on the page for the box Jellyfish recommends pouring vinegar onto the wound before removing any attached tentacles, whereas the page on the Portugese Man Of War states that it is imperative not to pour vinegar until all tentacles have been removed (as the acetic acid causes the tentacles to release their sting).

Now, I know that the PMOW isn't strictly in the same family group as the box jellyfish, but I suspect one of these pieces of advice is wrong. Although this wouldn't ordinarily matter, the fact that Wikipedia is providing advice which could potentially save someone's life, I think we ought to get it right. I'm not a scientist so not best to advise.

Any thoughts?

RESPONSE (My name is called "It's ya boy Steve". I have been attacked by a Porchagese man o war all around my body on a beach of Hawaii and the only thing that worked was vinegar! I tired hot water and salt water but just made it worse until i put vinegar. about 1 minute later the horrible pain was gone)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.12.198 (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC) The venom of the Box Jelly and Portuguese Man-o-War act in different ways, and are chemically dissimilar. Acetic acid effectively neutralizes Box Jelly nematocysts, but does encourages the firing action in the Man-o-War's stinging cells.

DITTO: The PMOW is a different animal, it is NOT a box jelly. Venom (or toxin if you prefer) acts differently & thus first aid is different. For box jellies always pour vinegar over them first to neutralize the tentacles & to stop the neumatocysts from firing off & injecting more venom into the victim or the person administering first aid.

Health warning

That health warning down the bottom seems kind of awkward for an encyclopedia article. - 128.184.2.1 04:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I just watched a show on the discovery channel that indicated that the SMALLEST form of the Box jellyfish was the most fatal, not the largest form. In fact, the show said that the tiny iracongi (sp?) jellyfish that is the size of a thumbnail is approximately 300 times more potent than the largest box jellyfish.

I think the spelling is "Irukandji " for that small and deadly box jellyfish.

I read in many books that sea wasps that grow to colossal sizes kill faster due to more exposure to skin

The "Irukandji " is actually very different from the box jellyfish, it only has four tentacles and its venom does different things, and if it is truly a 'box jellyfish' they dont get very large at all.

--Deedle 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)The Irukandji species has a venom that is so deadly that it will kill in hours. The largest box jelly, Chironex fleckeri, along with the majority of other jellyfish, have nematosyts that, when activated, turn inside out and the small venom-needles along the entire side of the stinger inject poison into the victim. In larger jellyfish, the need to kill instantly is not a problem, being as the larger jellyfish can use their tentacles (which are stronger and bigger)to hold on to the prey, while the smaller jellyfish (who only injects a more concentrated poison from a small tip of the nematosis, and nowhere esle) cannot do such things, and must kill their victims instantly. By doing so, the small Irukandji can devour its prey instantaneously, and not risk having the prey escape. Indeed, the smallest jellyfish, Irukandji, sleeps, as well as the other jellies, to conserve energy. THis seems illogical, but during this time, there are more predators than prey to the Irukandji, and so it is ilogical to try to hunt. Also, during this time, it is necessary to conserve energy, because unlike many other animals, the jellyfish cannot store fat, and so must constantly feed. The Irukandji actually has many tentacles, but they branch out from four main stalks. The most interesting thing about the box jellyfish, in my opinion, is the odd sense of intelligence. This bizarre animal can actually see... it has four eyes, plus two that can only sense light. THere are also four "brains". These brains are in fact like a smart nervous system. They don't send info to one center, but instead, when something happens, there is an automatic response. <<<<<<<<<<<<< If you have not seen the Discovery Channel show on these jellyfish, and you are interested in this subject, I reccomend watching it. All of the info on this page has been derived from it, I believe.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The box jellyfish has also been on the BBC radio and I have personally added some info gleened from the BBC radio. Snowman 10:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick note to clear up some of Prof. Deedle's misunderstandings: Sorry mate, I work a lot with Discovery Channel on box jellies and Irukandjis, and usually they are quite good; however, I have not seen the episode you speak of, but I can tell you that either they got it terribly wrong or you have recalled it terribly wrong. The venoms of Irukandji and Chironex are quite different, and act in quite different ways. Both kill their (relatively small) prey very rapidly. However, Chironex kills humans in typically about 2-5 minutes whereas Irukandji syndrome onsets in about 5-40 minutes; the two brain haemorrhages (resulting from Irukandji syndrome-related hypertension) occurred at about two hours post sting, and most cases of pulmonary oedema onset many hours post sting (resulting from Irukandji syndrome-related hypertension). A comment was made that Irukandji is "the most fatal" - depends how you choose to rate it: by venom potency, drop for drop, probably yes; by rapidity of death, nope, that prize still goes to Chironex; by number of people confirmed to have been killed, that prize still goes to Chironex too. Another comment was made that 'Irukandji sleep': this was debunked by numerous researchers very quickly after being published, and is not regarded by the scientific community as accurate. It was also commented that Irukandji have many tentacles branching from four main stalks: this is inaccurate. All cubozoans have four 'pedalia' (sort of like "legs" hanging from the corners of the bell), to which the tentacles are attached. Cubozoans in the Order Carybdeida (including the Irukandjis) have a single tentacle on each pedalium, whereas cubozoans in the order Chirodropida (including Chironex) have multiple tentacles on each pedalium. Finally, the number of eyes was erroneously stated: all cubozoans have two main eyes on each of the four pedalia, each with a lens, retina and cornea; some species have two or four additional 'eye spots' on each pedalium that can only sense light (some species lack these eye spots). For more information, there are lots of credible books and scientific papers, including those listed in the main article. Jfishgoddess (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Irukandji

Irukandji are only responsible for 2 confirmed deaths, through anaphylaxis. Due to their immensely small size, odds are a Box Jelly sting was incorrectly labeled for sensationalist purposes.

The above statement left by an earlier editor is untrue. The two confirmed fatalities from Irukandji syndrome were not from anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis has not been confirmed from any cubozoan, and has only been confirmed in one jellyfish case (Pelagia noctiluca, in Greece -- see Togias, A.G., Burnett, J.W., Kagey-Sobotka, A., & Lichtenstein, L.M. 1985. Anaphylaxis after contact with a jellyfish. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 75: 672-675.) The two fatalities from Irukandji were due to complications from the hypertension caused by the syndrome, as are the many cases each year requiring life support and/or producing ongoing symptoms. There is a huge ramification to the commonly-held (incorrect) belief that death is due to anaphylaxis: "I'm not allergic, therefore I won't be affected by it". A much better common sense approach would be to pro-actively take precautions so that it doesn't happen to you, e.g., wear a full-body lycra suit or wetsuit or other type of effective protective clothing. Jfishgoddess (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph article describing an unexpected survival, says the last death was 4 years ago, suggesting deaths are rare, presumably due to nets etc. I therefore removed uncited claim of hundreds of deaths.
JRPG (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bicarbonate

This article recommends against bicarbonate, while the jellyfish article recommends it. I don't know which is right, but the two articles surely should agree. -- cmh 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Phylogenetic status?

What is the actual evidence that the cubozoans belong to the cnidarians? Their strange body plan (with an anus at the tip of each tentacle (4 in the case of the simplest species), 4 ganglia, 8 groups of eyes (with one proper eye in each and some simpler light sensitive organs) might be explained as the result of a mutation of a bilaterian ancestor. Consider a worm that, by some "reshuffling of its hox-genes" mutates into an animal in which 4 worms are joined togeteher, sharing a mouth between them. The result would be an animal with 4 brains, 8 sets of eyes and 4 tentacles with an anus at the tip of each, i.e. with the cubozoan body plan. It is just a hypothesis, but I would not be astonished if an analysis of their genes would turn up a close relationship to some phylum of bilaterians instead of cnidarians. So has the link to the cnidarians actually been established or have they just been put into that group based on superficial similarities? Just a question, I am not an expert on them. Nannus 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Brain Informatics (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Two words: life history. Oh, and cnidae of course. You do not get either from reshuffling of hox genes. The genetic data also puts them very close to Scyphozoa IIRC. (You might have confused them with comb jellies - those are indeed entirely different critters)

Also notze that the hox genes themselves probably prevent complex animals from fusing. You the Diplozoon, but I think nothing beyond that, and it basically stays two animals connected siamese twin-like. Hox clusters can diversify, but they come in entire sets per bauplan and hox sets do not appear to recombine easily. In bilaterians they basically use the lengthwise axis as line of reference, so you get stuff like in the Naidinae which might involve hox gene action, but a change of symmetry axes is a bit much. It would probably require re-evolution of the whole system of hox clusters from a Placozoa-like if not unicellular ancestor. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Schypozoa and Jellies

Just a wonder......why do they still use "Jellyfish" here instead of the OFFICIAL name, "Jelly?" And Hydrozoa? Where do they mention Schypozoa? Please answer! le-lover

antivenin vs. antivenom

Someone changed back from antivenin to antivenom, claiming that is the spelling in Australia. Is there actual evidence to support this claim? Most dictionaries don't seem to list "antivenom". Dfeuer 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Its called antivenom in Australia (and most of the world except the USA), CSL make it and its official name is Box Jellyfish Antivenom [1] (link shows all the Australian antivenoms).Mr Bungle 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a brand name. We're talking about a word, not a brand. The Oxford English Dictionary, last I checked, was not American, and it doesn't even list antivenom as an alternate spelling. You're going to have to come up with something better than a commercial website to demonstrate that the spelling "antivenom" is actually the common one in Australia. Dfeuer 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking with dictionary.com shows one definition of "antivenom", in CancerWEB's online medical dictionary. Interestingly, the entries in that dictionary for "antivenom", "antivenin", and "antivenene" suggest that the first, "antivenom", may have a slightly different, more general meaning than the others: it can refer to an antitoxin used against non-animal toxins. Dfeuer 11:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays the most common term is antivenom, it doesn’t mean antitoxin, antitoxin means antitoxin (i.e. botulinum antitoxin). Medical authorities use antivenom, almost all journal articles use antivenom as the preferred term, i.e. Clinical Toxicology the official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists use antivenom, as the following review papers show [2], [3], [4]. Toxicon another leading toxinology journal also uses antivenom [5], [6], [7], The world health organization also prefer antivenom in their literature [8]. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the American Association of Poison Control Centers also run ‘The Antivenom Index’ which show where antivenoms are stored around America.[9] All these authorities in clinical toxicology use the term antivenom, Wikipedia should too.Mr Bungle 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that the term "antivenom" is used. That's a first step. You have not demonstrated that it is "the most common term" or "the preferred term", either in Australia or elsewhere. You also have demonstrated that WHO has used the term, but did not demonstrate that they prefer it, or that they use it more often than "antivenin". Finally, I didn't say that antivenom meant antitoxin. Rather, I said that according to the dictionary I checked, antivenin is a more specific term than antivenom, which seems to be a more specific term than antitoxin. If this is correct, then the differences in meaning between the terms should be at least as significant in the decision about which should be used than which term was used by the original editor. Dfeuer 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To the extent possible, can we shift this discussion over to Talk:Antivenin? Anything specifically relating to this article, rather than antivenin vs. antivenom in general can continue here. Dfeuer 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed "spit" to "venom". Spit is generally regarded as that liquid produced in the mouth or buccal cavity to lubricate food and begin predigestion, and applied from the mouth or mouth parts. The nematocyst acts to deliver a specific venom load and is quite separate from a mouth or similar structure.219.90.246.218 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly if so many prominent scientific journals (e.g Clinical Toxicology, Toxicon and Journal Of Toxicology) use the term 'antivenom', then it must be the prefered term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richo10101 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal survival story

The story of the man who was stung 5 times,clinically died, and awoke during his autopsy comes across as highly anecdotal. Are there any references to this case?

---Would like to know as well. The story ("as told by so and so") has more to do with this guy finding Jesus than in "documenting" his attack. A lot of it reads like...to be polite...a dramatization of events at best, and utter religious/mystical glurge at worst. If nothing else, I think converting the wording from 'documentation' to 'anecdote' would be a step in the right direction. I'd like to see the reference removed entirely. --24.148.236.234 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And to follow up, the story linked from the citation has itself absolutely no cites or references to documentation of the event, and the story is writen by a third party (yet in first person perspective). It's all just weird.--24.148.236.234 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed it (it doesn't say which species or anything specific and it appears to have more to do with the guy finding Jesus). Mr Bungle | talk 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"... arguably the most venomous creatures in the world." I think this needs to be cited or changed to 'among...'--Cammacleay (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence of intro needs grammatical(?) cleanup: "The Cubozoans are a categorized separately other types of jellyfish, and are considered more evolved; Scyphozoans." Phyloptera (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of exposure

I just thought that it should be noted that this article says to use methylated spirits and vodka to treat the stings if its available while another page I have visited (http://www.barrierreefaustralia.com/the-great-barrier-reef/jellyfish.htm) says in big red warning letters that you should NOT use either methylated spirits or alcohol..

Maybe that should be looked into as someone must be making a mistake somewhere about this... 60.241.78.146 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC) he said not to use methylated spirits or alcohol you need to reed more carefully — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.231 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vision

It doesn't mention what species it's describing under the vision section. All 19 species surely aren't the same.167.7.17.3 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering where exactly do the box jellyfish live in Australia, along which coasts can we find them.----

Cuisine

This section seems pretty dubious. Citation is definitely needed. --Pstemari (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, moved from article to here in case someone wants it in the future. Mr Bungle | talk 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Box jellyfish are a particular delicacy in Southeast Asia and can be enjoyed without fear of the venom after heating to an internal temperature of 175 degrees. Sprinkle liberally with lemon and serve with eel roe and fried rice. White rice wine is recommended.

Jelly related deaths

how many times or how much time being stung by a jelly would it take to cause certain death in a human? Like in the movie 7 pounds98.243.239.128 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the species. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo

this article lacks an actual photo of these things. self-shot image at georgia aquarium, can someone possibly verify and add to article if it's correct?

Impasse 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

I think this is not a box jelly but a true jelly (Scyphozoa). As a rule of thumb, box jellies are small, have few tentacles (or if many, they come in 4 bunches), are transparent or with colorful patches on transparent background, and no "veil" or similar tissue hanging down. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a photograph of a box jellyfish from the Commons. I'd have preferred something other than Chironex fleckeri, to illustrate the diversity of the class, but the available pictures of other species weren't quite as good. Anaxial (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I took the current photo. I also have an AVI video of it floating around in a tank that I could upload but I can't find a good .avi-.ogv converter. Would anyone like me to do some digging or don't we need a video of this thing?. Here's one on YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWIunBay4FI--Krambambuli (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Papaya hydrogen peroxide?

From the article: "there is no scientific evidence that urine, ammonia, meat tenderizer, sodium bicarbonate, boric acid, lemon juice, freshwater, steroid cream, alcohol, cold packs or papaya hydrogen peroxide will disable further stinging"

- Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 24.231.218.21 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's chemically similar to mango carbon dioxide.StephenPCook (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

Needs complete makeover. Apocryphal and possibly life-threatening. Group is taxonomically revised completely, the information here is the garbled mess from Commons (which was a garbled mess based on the unreliable ITIS and an early version of WoRMS).

Italicized families... euuuuuurgh! If you see this, sure-fire signs that an article is untrustworty. (A variant of the "T. Rex" effect) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a new topic for why I removed this article for being a poor source but it seems you've already said everything already. I'd also like to add that misspelling the name of the species in the article further reduces credibility. StephenPCook (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a garbled mess, and I know nothing about the topic! (Which is why I came to the article.) For instance "The Cubozoa class contains at least 19 different species, some of which are only slightly less lethal than C. fleckeri." makes no sense as an opening sentence in that section. Someone (not me!) who knows this topic should rewrite this entire article. 76.21.120.118 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, this makes a little more sense now. I don't know so much about the stings, so I've left those parts lone, but the comment you mention above has been removed, and replaced with one that is more up-to-date, together with a reasonably modern (2007) classification scheme. Anaxial (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected and updated most sections (just a minor addition to taxonomy as overall updated by Anaxial) but stayed clear of the pure how to 'Treatment of stings' section. If someone still disputes anyting, please re-add the tag and explain what is disputed. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Venom?

Jellyfish do not have venom. The basic, 1st year biology student could tell you that. Jellyfish (now sometimes known as Jellies or Sea Jellies because they are not really fish)have Nematocysts like all 'stinging' creatures from phylum Cnideria. These Nematocysts are released after activation by a pressure or chemically sensitive trigger is 'activated.' How the Nematocytes work is that they are small capsules which contain toxins, these toxins usually either kill or paralyze the victim. The writer of the discussed article does obviously not know the anatomy of the Jellyfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.169.171 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Venom" can refer to any toxin used by animals. Toxins stored in nematocytes are no exception. Don't get cocky because you think you learned something in biology class; do a bit of research before you make claims like that and be ready to provide a source when asked. 75.50.87.130 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Meat tenderizer

I can tell you from personal experience that meat tenderizer works instantly on *Portuguese Man'o'war* stings. The sting and burning just wipes right off. Kid's will stop screaming when it is applied. The park service at the state park in Corpus Christie keep Adolf's meat tenderizer and give it to folks who get stung. Don't know how the Man'o'war are related to the box jelly fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.236.149 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Portuguese Man o' War has its own page. Please take this discussion to Talk:Portuguese Man o' War. Also, please have a source ready; personal experience is not considered valid for citation. 75.50.87.130 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Man o' War is not a box jellyfish, and is, in fact, only distantly related. Anaxial (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Prey

What is this animal's normal prey? What does its normal diet consist of?, i.e. what does it normally use its poison for?

Very fragile

I read somewhere where it said that Box Jellyfish can only be kept in fish tanks that are shaped like globes - reason being that with a rectangular fish tank, when the Box Jellyfish bumps up against a flat side, the slight impact damages it enough that it dies. I have not read this anywhere in this entry. Can somebody that knows write something on this??? I think you are right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.93.156 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Similiarity to Chironex fleckeri

This page seems very similar to the page Chironex fleckeri which is redirected from "sea wasp". Maybe combine the non-duplicated information and put it all in one page? --71.58.25.239 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

This stub of a section is a mess; it includes no citations and has poor sentence structure, information unrelated to the "nomenclature" of the box jellyfish, and even uses "there" instead of "their." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.30.38 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of stings - contradiction

This section contains a contradiction. Para 1 states that Pressure immobilisation can also be used on limbs to slow down the spreading of the deadly venom. while para 2 states that Pressure immobilization bandages, methylated spirits, or vodka should never be used for jelly stings. Such conflicting advice should be corrected one way or another as these stings are potentially lethal.PointOfPresence (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It also contradicts itself about vinegar... In the "Danger to humans" section it implies that vinegar is effective for first aid: "many Australian beaches are enclosed in nets and have vinegar placed in prominent positions allowing for rapid first aid" But later, in the "Treatment of stings" section, it says "Flushing with vinegar, once believed to be useful at neutralizing the tentacle stinging apparatus of box jellyfish, has been shown to amplify rather than palliate the effects of a box jellyfish sting" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.99.46 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact the study that "showed" that has been criticized on several grounds as being poorly controlled, not applicable to reality, etc. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we rename this to Cubozoa?

I would like the article to focus on the scientific class rather than a generic name of the class. I was fairly confused when I first came here, since starting the article with "Box Jellyfish (Class Cubozoa)" implies that I am reading about something called a box jellyfish which is *in* the class cubozoa, rather than the class itself. J1812 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Box jellyfish is the common name for Cubozoans. Also per WP:FAUNA and WP:UCN the title should be a common name if it has one, otherwise the respective classification name. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 01:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I agree with J1812 that "Cubozoa" should be the title of the page. This would align it with the classes Hydrozoa, Scyphozoa and Staurozoa, but in any case I intend to expand the article to include more information on the anatomy, life cycle, feeding habits etc of the class. I propose removing the sections "Danger to humans", "Treatment of stings" and "Protection during swimming or diving" to a new article to be named "Box jellyfish stings" or something similar. Any comments? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as the name, I disagree, it should remain as its common name. Per WP:FAUNA and WP:UCN we should use the common name if it has one. While those you listed have kinda, sorta common names, they aren't really commonly used. Box jellyfish is pretty distinctive as far as a common name goes. As for the how-to, I agree, either removing it or writing it so it isn't a how-to. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 01:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Defense/Feeding contradiction

The "Defense and feeding mechanisms" portion contradicts itself:

"The box jellyfish actively hunts its prey (small fish), rather than drifting as do true jellyfish." and "Their speed and vision leads some researchers to believe that box jellyfish actively hunt their prey, others insist they are passive opportunists, meaning they just hang around and wait for prey to bump into their tentacles."

I'm not sure which is correct, but it clearly needs fixed. --Talvieno (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In popular media

Perhaps we should add a "In popular media" section, and mention Seven Pounds, where the main character commits suicide by entering a bath with a box jellyfish. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That is much more notable than many other such additions in articles. I would support its inclusion. Scr★pIron^IV 14:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Me too, if you're certain its the right species. juanTamad (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like one. And the name "box jellyfish" was specifically mentioned in the film. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Box jellyfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022011342/http://jellieszone.com:80/cubozoa.htm to http://jellieszone.com/cubozoa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304123428/http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1444198839&typecate=06&section= to http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1444198839&typecate=06&section=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050817023655/http://library.thinkquest.org:80/C007974/2_1box.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C007974/2_1box.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.honolulu.gov/esd/oceansafety/boxjellymainpage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Box jellyfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927021922/http://nt.gov.au/nreta/publications/museums/pdf/beagle/beaglev22_p8.pdf to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/publications/museums/pdf/beagle/beaglev22_p8.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011117175037/http%3A//www.aloha.com/%7Elifeguards/jelyfish.html to http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New illustration

Graphic illustration comparing three typical cubozoan bauplans

Hi! I am a new user I still don't have much familiarity with wikipedia. I am a sci-illustrator and I thought this sheet may have been useful and nice for this page. Danny Cicchetti (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction

Reproduction

Box jellyfish can reproduce sexually or asexually. Box jellyfish gather in freshwater rivers every spring to reproduce and die after spawning. The adults release their eggs and sperms to fertilize them. The fertilized egg will hatch into a larva and grow into a polyp. Most polyps reproduce asexually. Unlike “true” jellyfish, polyp does not divide into segments, it grows into the medusa stage entirely. Then it keeps developing and grows into an adult.

Why is this unsigned section on reproduction on the talk page? I was actually coming here to suggest that such a section is warranted. This is imperfect, but it's a decent start, in my opinion. IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Typos

"Golf of Mexico"

"with vinegar—considrred"

Be bold and fix them. IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Done thank you, but you could've been bold and fixed them yourself. I made some minor copy edits too. MartinezMD (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Another name for them

I think another name for these dangerous jellyfish is "Sea wasp". Or am I thinking of another similar jellyfish? --D-BoyWheeler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.45.115 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A useful source...

Anyone buffing this article should look at this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: apparently posted here by the author, who quite properly did not link to his own research in the main article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Invertebrate Zoology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melvinpritchett, Zbelinfante (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ladyoflorien75, Sloan Freeman.

— Assignment last updated by Whiteamphipod (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Invertebrate Zoology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jack.chaput (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lucia.liet, Passer1ne2001.

— Assignment last updated by Wildlife Nerd8694 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)