Talk:Jellyfish Lake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General criticisms of the article[edit]

These criticisms of the article were posted before the article was modified substantially and perhaps most of the criticisms have been dealt with. Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Let's see:[reply]

1. Technically, Jellyfish Lake is not really a 'dive site'. You don't dive there, you float around. You are asked not to swim about much so as not to damage the jellyfish. You might snorkel, a little. You certainly don't bring scuba gear.

I agreed with this criticism and the opening section was modified to make it clear that the article was about the lake and not a dive site. I think this issue is closed. Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. There is not one Jellyfish lake in Palau, there are at least eight, perhaps more. Is it not amazing that they would 'evolve' separately this way in more than one lake? 

    -- Assuming that the weak stinging had been evolved, it would not at all be surprising that eight isolated yet nearly identical populations of jellyfish, each subjected to very similar environments, evolved in a similar pattern. If when the jellyfish are isolated in a lake full of algae, it is an evolutionary benefit to feed on the algae no matter how many different lakes there are. 71.167.133.100 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are five lakes in Palau where the golden jellyfish populations were determined to be different enough from the spotted jellyfish in the local lagoons to be designated as separate subspecies. In fact, there is significant physical and behavioral differences between all of them. See this article for more information about that: http://www2.eve.ucdavis.edu/mndawson/MND/assets/PDFs/2005Dawson_JMBA_M.pdf. There is a semantic issue here. There is only one lake, identified as Jellyfish Lake, and there is another lake identified as Big Jellyfish Lake, but reasonably other lakes with unique jellyfish subspecies might be called jellyfish lakes. Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The slight changes in appearance between each clade don't indicate new species any more than Chihuahuas and St. Bernards are different species of dogs or Aboriginals and Norwegians are different species of humans. Obviously within all species there is a range of variation. The Dawson paper documents only superficial differences within the normal range for these jellyfish. It contains no results regarding any differences regarding nemocysts because there are none. The claim is that lake jellyfish don't have stingers because they have evolved to not have them compared to the jellyfish of the exact same species that is a few hundred feet away in the lagoon. This claim is false. All the Mastigias clades at all lakes have nemocysts, all can sting fish, and none have stings that are detectable through human skin. Furthermore, the lagoon Mastigias can and do derive sustenance from algae when necessary, such as when they don't catch fish. It's normal for this species, it is not something that has developed separately and independently in each of the lakes. Xj (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with here Xj. This discussion was from quite awhile ago and the article has been changed substantially since it began. If you disagree with something in the article you might start a new section to discuss it. As it is, it seems like your statements might be consistent with the article. Dawson suggested that the jellyfish in the lakes be designated as subspecies of Mastigias papua and not separate species. Neither Dawson nor any other scientific source that I saw suggested that the nematocysts of the golden jellyfish had disappeared or had been altered and I don't believe the article claims otherwise. There were some suggestions in the literature that the golden jellyfish relied completely on their symbiotic algae for nutrition but I believe this was disproved by Dawson (see reference 7, unfortunately it is not available on line for free) and the golden jellyfish like the spotted jellyfish that live in the lagoons receives nutrition from both small captured prey and from its symbiotic algae.--Davefoc (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Mastigias Jellyfish in the lake are genetically identical to the Mastigias jellyfish outside the lake. The 'evolution' story is unsubstantiated. When Mastigias jellyfish don't have fish to catch, they switch over to their agrarian ways. If you take one of those jellyfish out of the lake, it will 'learn' to sting. If you take a 'stinging' jellyfish from outside and put it in the lake it will 'learn' to grow algae. The fact is that those jellyfish are just capable of eating in more than one way. But evolutionists will grab desperately onto any unsubstantiated imaginary happenings and claim them as proof of their precious macroevolution, won't they?

There are at least 5 different species in five different lakes that are genetically different from each other and the common ancestor ocean species from which they all evolved. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above says species. Subspecies would have been more correct, but they are different genetically from each other and the spotted jellyfish in the nearby lagoons.Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Mastigias Jellyfish in the jellyfish lakes actually DO have stingers and DO catch small fish that happen into the lakes. This particular species of jellyfish does not have a sting that is particularly strong and most humans don't notice it unless they have sensitive skin. However, if you hold them to your mouth, you will quickly learn whether they 'are stingless' with no nemocysts. Go ahead, try it and get back to me. Xj 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps then you would care to provide some references to add some support to your claims? cheers Goldfinger820 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The golden jellyfish in Jellyfish lake do have nematocysts and they in general are not a danger to humans. Everybody seems to agree on this. They are definitely not used to catch small fish (unless small fish means recently hatched fish floating along with the plankton). If they are used to catch anything it would be small prey such as copepods, however most of the information that I have seen suggests that the golden jellyfish don't eat zooplankton and that they rely completely on their symbiotic algae for energy in the medusa stage. I was considering adding this information to the article but right now there is some conflict in the information published about this and I wasn't quite sure it was important enough to be included in the article. Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you would like to add references for the unreferenced and unsubstantiated claims that are being made in the article? Or like I said, why not visit the lakes and check out what I've said and get back to me. Xj 22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think your missing the point - i won't be adding any refs to the article as i think (like you) that the claims made are unsubtantiated (i'm on your side!)- however if you want to make your points - find refs to support you point of view, else they become unsubstantiated too! Goldfinger820 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Disaster[edit]

Because the waters of Palau are so ideal and perfect, every organism in the water is very sensitive to changes in the currents and temperature. In 1977, the population of the jellyfish almost suffered because the water of the lake rose about 2 degrees. This killed off a very large population of the jellyfish, causing it to suffer. The water soon regulated and the jellyfish were able to grow back again. SOme scientists say this may be an example of what may happen to our oceans in the future: tempereature rising, causing organisms to suffer (espicially coral and phytoplankton). - NF [you would never know me]

The fact of the temp rising and killing off a large portion of the population might be useful for inclusion in the article, if a valid source can be found. Everything else is , at this point, mere opinion and invalid. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded to include information about the jellyfish die off in Jellyfish lake in 1998. There was an earlier population reduction (not in 1977) that was probably incorrectly attributed to human causes that was in fact probably also caused by a temperature rise. I plan on mentioning this in the article. Also one of the lakes has a jellyfish population where the medusa population routinely dies off. I plan on including some information in the article about this also. Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft?[edit]

Survivor Palau was mentioned in the opening section. I moved it to a new section Jellyfish Lake in popular culture.

Should the reference to Survivor Palau be retained in the article? 1. Yes it is essential content. 2. Yes, it is fancruft, but let's keep it. 3. No, it's fancruft and fancrap, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only justification I can come up with for its retention is that Survivor is/was an extremely popular show, which gives the mention an unusual degree of appropriateness. That's the only reason, however, so I wouldn't be displeased to see the reference go. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I was fine with it (although it probably should have a citation and it might be reworded a bit). My daughter gave me crap about it though, (hence the poll).Davefoc (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large viewership peaks for the article[edit]

I was looking at the viewer history for this page and noticed that there are some days where the viewership spikes significantly. Does anybody have any ideas as to why?

Dates of the large peaks in 2009:
Jan 13 & 14 (113 & 166), Mar 3 & 4 (1.2K & 802), April 11 & 12 (583 & 479), June 10 & 11 (397 & 215), July 12 & 13 (440 & 480)

The viewership peaks are roughly three times the average viewership for this article.

Just curious, Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently June 10, 2017 (one of the dates you mentioned, minus the year). I can't speak for the other dates, but it is normally around this time of year that a biology lesson plan I give tests on, among other things, cnidarians. The lake is commonly referenced in lesson plans. Whether there's any true correlation there, I can't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.38.19 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official name of the lake?[edit]

The lake is identified by a variety of names on the web and in various scientific papers. I have tried to pin down the formal name of the lake and to determine if "Jellyfish lake" has any kind of official support beyond it's use as a nickname for the lake.

This is a list of the names that I have seen for the lake:

Jellyfish Lake The most common way that the lake is referred to on the web and in academic papers. Does it have any official Palauan status as the name of the Lake?

Ongeim'l Tketau Commonly referred to as the local name of the lake. Is this the official name? In at least one place on the web this name was translated as "fifth lake".

Ongeim el Tketau The name of the lake on this map: [1]

Ongerul Tketau Uet As per a 1982 article by W. Hamner, et al. the Palaun Historical society changed the name in 1981 to this.

Uet ra Edead Eil Malk As per a 1982 article by W. Hamner, et al. this was the official name of the island prior to 1981

There is some variation in the reported name of the island also. Is Eil Malk the official name today? The island is often referred to as Mecherchar or sometimes Mercherchar.

I looked at the US government GNIS site ([2]) . It listed about eighteen different variations for the name of the island (Mecherchar was the "BGN standard"* and the other names were variants) but it didn't list anything for the names of the lakes on Eil Malk that I found.

I emailed the Palauan Visitor's authority this question but I didn't get a response.

I tried to email the Palauan information officer this question but the Palau government site and all email has been down when I tried.

I emailed the Palauan Conservation Society this question and I haven't gotten a response.

My guess is that the lake does not have a formal name. Palau is a small country and they may not have a bureaucracy responsible for determining and listing formal geographic names. And even if they do have such a bureaucracy they may not have gotten around to conveying an official name on Jellyfish Lake.

* BGN probably refers to US Board on Geographic Names. Davefoc (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more information on the name issue (which I realize probably I'm the only one in the world that cares about, but I like to be precise in anything that I add to a Wikipedia articles): Nobody replied to my queries asking about the official name of the lake. However Ongeim'l Tketau is the name in parenthesis of the lake on a sign installed at the lake itself. Additionally, Dawson, in "Jellyfish swarms, tourists and the Christ-child" on the first page, says that Ongeim'l Tketau is the formal name. Whether it is a formal name recognized by the Palauan government or not I don't know, but at this point it seems clear that for practical purposes Ongeim'l Tketau is the name of the lake and Jellyfish Lake is probably just an informal, although very common, nickname for the lake.Davefoc (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I care! I would propose renaming the article Ongeim'l Tketau, which will also help with the disambiguation issue from the other Jellyfish Lakes, also called Jellyfish lakes when talking to tourists. AdventurousMe (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to ammonia and phosphate as ions[edit]

Ammonia and phosphate were originally referred to as chemicals in this article. The word, chemicals, was changed to ions by a later edit.

Ammonia and phosphate are not ions. A small fraction of the ammonia dissolved in the water can be ionized to ammonium, however it is incorrect to refer to Ammonia as an ion especially in this context. Caveat, I am not a chemist and my knowledge of this based on an understanding of what better informed people than myself have explained to me.

The new edit eliminates this issue by the use of the word, which, to refer to the two substances.--Davefoc (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an appropriate change, and you are spot on about them not being ions. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether ammonia is an ion or not was discussed in this thread on the JREF forum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5835855#post5835855 --Davefoc (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

This is one of several jellyfish lakes: I came here on a search for the one in Siargao, and I know there's one in Sangalaki: they're all called Jellyfish Lake in English. Don't know how to fix it - maybe make a stub for Jellyfish Lake (Sangalaki) and another for Jellyfish Lake (Siargao) and make this one Jellyfish Lake (Palau)??? AdventurousMe (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best known subject typically gets the unambiguated name (and this lake arguably is), with a disambiguation page listing all pages by this name under Jellyfish Lake (disambiguation). If you'd like to start articles about those other lakes, please do (and those proposed names look fine)! Just make sure they are supported by WP:Reliable sources. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hunster is correct here. When I was trying to figure out what the formal name of Jellyfish lake was the vast majority of references to the term, Jelly Fish Lake, that I found referred to the lake this article is about. Jellyfish Lake is the correct title of this article and if there are other Lakes known as Jellyfish Lake then they should be titled with a parenthetical clarification as AdvernturousMe suggested. The other use of the term, jellyfish lake, is as a generic description of a lake which has developed a captive jellyfish population. There might be some confusion with that given the name of this article but I haven't noticed that to be the case. Are there other lakes outside of the ones in Palau that have developed unique Jellyfish populations? If that is true then perhaps a mention of them in this article would be appropriate .--Davefoc (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general info idea is a good one (if good sources exist), though as soon as a disambiguation page is needed the general info likely should go there, since you usually don't want to mix specific and generic info in the same article. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jellyfish Lake. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jellyfish Lake. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jellyfish_Lake&oldid=1203086638"