Kommunal.az

A fact from Lion's mane jellyfish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Lion's Mane Jellyfish is the biggest jellyfish in the world? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/May.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Low‑importance Lion's mane jellyfish is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Marine life (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life

Can I enquire as to whether the cyanea arctica should be named the biggest jellyfish in the world? The BBC claims that is the case. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26062303 reading the quote "The world's largest jellyfish shares the same genus - Cyanea - as the Lion's Mane. Found in the North Atlantic and Arctic, the Cyanea Arctica can grow up to 3m (10ft) across the body, Dr Gershwin said." Would it as the Portuguese man o war is much bigger and deadlier? But you have to say all jellyfishes are deadly even the smallest ones.

Any objections to changing the title to lower case? cf Portuguese man o' war. Markalexander100 04:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC) well we all know that lions mane jellyfish are the largest of all the species but there is one significance they all live about 45 degrees north of the western hemisphere.[reply]

Well, that's a tricky subject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive4#Common_Names for justification. Uppercase titles are (as far as I know) the agreed upon style for organisms with formal names, which helps prevent any potential ambiguities (the example given in one of the links above being "common sparrow" versus "Common Sparrow". Uppercase names aren't unheard of, especially in field guides and the like. -- Hadal 05:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear- I don't want to walk into a hornet's nest. (or a Hornet's?} For the moment I've lower-cased the other critters mentioned (lion, medusafish and so on). I'm sure lion should be lower-case, but not so sure about the fish. Markalexander100 05:28, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "it is rarely seen farther south than Washington state." what are they doing off the coast of Australia? I think the state description should be replaced by something more accurate.Lisiate 20:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opening paragraph's quite clear: there's one population of big jellyfish which lives in the eastern Pacific, north of Washington state; there's another population near Australia. These populations may be part of the same species, but they may not. Markalexander100 01:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, it's a rather Americanocentric way of putting it. How about 'south of 45 degrees north'. They're definitely all -called- the Lion's Mane Jellyfish.

I haven't a clue where 45 degrees north is, and I suspect nor do most people. These things (apparently) spend most of their one year in deep water, then move to coastal waters. That implies that the northern Pacific ones must tend to live either on the American coast, or on the Asian coast. Does anyone know if there are any on the Asian side? If so, we can give a more helpful reference for the Asian coast too (e.g. south of Japan). Markalexander100 03:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

well, personally, I was talking about the British(European?) Population, the one I'm most familar with, that inhabits the Irish sea.

The article already says where those ones live- I don't see how we can make it any clearer. Given that no-one is quite sure what a Lion's Mane Jellyfish is, this article's never going to be neat. Markalexander100 07:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to 42°N; just "Washington" is not very helpful. It occurs throughout the North Atlantic, on the US side south to Woods Hole, Mass (at 42°N) and the European side south to about 50°N, as well as the Pacific. For the Asian Pacific, googling found a report from Hong Kong, but it is a rarity there, not regular. - MPF 11:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new picture of a Lion's Mane Jellyfish has turned up on the Luminous Landscape web site. Although it includes other details, it is a remarkable photograph of this creature. It may be worth contacting the owner of this photo for permission to use this or another photo (if he has one) of the jellyfish to compliment this page. (<-- unknown poster, no signature)

The opening paragraph no longer seems to be "quite clear", as it now reads: "... Its range is confined to cold, boreal waters of the Arctic, northern Atlantic, and northern Pacific Oceans, seldom found farther south than 42°N latitude. ... Lion's mane jellyfish have been frequently observed below 42°N latitude for some time—specifically in the larger bays of the east coast of the United States." I cannot reconcile "seldom found" and "frequently observed" into a clear piece of information. --98.236.143.124 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 meters? Where is the scientific citation for it? If it is only this link, then that is hardly an official report. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Guiness Book of World Records" has the same facts in them. It has been confirmed the bell had a diameter of 7 feet 6 inches and the tentacles reached 120 feet. It washed up in Massachusetts Bay in 1870. The record length was also stated on an episode of Nature (TV series); the 2006 show that focused on the California Monterey Bay Aquarium and talked about jellyfish, (narrated by Peter Coyote).20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

And to this: "Although capable of attaining a bell diameter of {dubious}18.5 m (42feet){/dubious}, these jellyfish are highly variable in size; those found in lower latitudes are much smaller than their far northern counterparts with bells about 50 cm (20 inches) in diameter. The tentacles of larger specimens may trail as long as 180 m (284 feet) or more. These extremely sticky tentacles are grouped into eight clusters, each cluster containing 65-150 tentacles, arranged in a series of rows." I haven't found any resource, who would have information with so great numbers. - RSXLV —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSXLV (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit schizophrenic. In the section referenced above the claim of the bootlace worm's length is treated as being pretty dubious, whereas at the end of the article, (re the QI show) it is stated as definite that the bootlace worm is longer. The tone of of this article ( and that of the bootlace worm article where the same claims are made) needs to be adjusted so that the reports of the length are treated with equal skepticism throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.133.4 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the television show QI with Stephen Fry, the answer to one of the questions was that the Lion's Mane Jellyfish was the longest creature in the world. If this is true, it should probably be in here. I have found some indications elsewhere on the internet that indicate this might be true, with the largest specimens clocking in at just a little more than the biggest blue whale.

TV quiz show as a source? I don't think so. -- Donald Albury 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are also abundant in the North Sea during the summer months. I know this because I used to get stung by them many times per day when I was a trawlerman. Its worst when you get stung in the eye(which was an almost daily occurrence), its like having your eyeball tattooed with a hot needle though the pain only lasts for a few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After an anon IP changed the southern limit of the range to 52 degrees North from 42 degrees, I went looking for a source. I found a lot of websites citing 42 degrees, but they are all copies of this article. Does anyone know of a source, not descended from Wikopeida, that gives the range? -- Donald Albury 10:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently contains the text "towards the end of their one-year lifespan". This seems a remarkably short time to grow to the size these animals are. If it's correct it would be worthy of comment how they achieve this or at least a citation. Kiore (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the paragraph "At 120 feet in length, the largest known specimen was longer than a Blue Whale and is generally considered the longest known animal in the world.[6][7][8] However, in 1864, a Bootlace worm was found washed up on a Scottish shore that was 180 feet long. But because bootlace worms can easily stretch to several times the natural length, it is possible the worm did not actually grow to be that length," to go off the topic. I think that this paragraph should be condensed down to something like: At 120 feet in length, the largest known specimen was longer than a Blue Whale and is generally considered the longest known animal in the world.[6][7][8] However, this fact is debated, as findings like the 180 foot Bootlace Worm challenge this fact, although specific circumstances make these uncertain (link to bootlace worm article that explains the worm's stretchability). (or something like that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.184.119 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

69.251.180.224 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio was removed in a cleanup - revdel applied -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caution is advised when considering information from RedOrbit.com as it both provides inaccurate information regarding this topic (and likely others) and provides no citation for its source of inaccuracies. Other references cited by this article also remain questionable as few of them are academic or peer reviewed. Hinkus0183 (talk)

(moved from main article to talk page by Dger (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

There is information on the page (see Description)that the title of "longest animal in the world" may or may not be given to this jellyfish--that it is contested by the bootlace worm, though not strongly.

Yet at the bottom of the article (see "popular culture"), it is stated that on the show QI, a mention of the lion's mane as the longest animal was corrected to the bootlace worm on-air.

Both the above instances do not cite sources. This issue remains to be resolved--I don't have the time now to do this research, but I might come back to it later. In the meantime, It Has Been Announced Here. Rengas (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/07/world/asia/australia-giant-jellyfish/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 ScienceApe (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lion's mane 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/20110108024017/http://www.typesofjellyfish.net/lions_mane_jellyfish/lions_mane_jellyfish.html to http://www.typesofjellyfish.net/lions_mane_jellyfish/lions_mane_jellyfish.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007115613/http://www.mbl.edu/marine_org/marine_org.php?func=detail&myID=BX796 to http://www.mbl.edu/marine_org/marine_org.php?func=detail&myID=BX796
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830234416/http://jellieszone.com/cyanea.htm to http://jellieszone.com/cyanea.htm

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) 14:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several Talk criticisms along with my own queasiness over some hyperbole prompted me to revise the description of the LMJ. I drew largely from Eugene Kozloff's book, which despite its age (my copy is 1983), is highly informative and consistently used as a reference. While some may dislike that I removed some poetic language, or that I shifted all description of the bootlace worm to Popular culture, my intent was to improve the actual description of LMJ. Hope you agree. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion's mane 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/20111014004929/http://www.wmur.com/news/24341753/detail.html to http://www.wmur.com/news/24341753/detail.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) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is clear and concise, thorough in covered sections. some of the cited information is from some questionable sources. cited links work,info is not fabricated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brivel9501 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The final photo entitled Blue Lion's Mane Jellyfish is a different species. Surely it's a photo of the Blue/Bluefire Jellyfish, Cyanea lamarckii and not the Lion's Mane, Cyanea capillata ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.142.0 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The longest known lion's mane jellyfish specimen was observed in 1865 by Alexander Agassiz and measured 112 feet. However, a claim has been repeated in many books and websites that the longest lion's mane jellyfish was 120 feet long and was observed in 1870. Since I have found no historical source for this claim, I am left to believe that Agassiz's sighting simply morphed overtime into this claim. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got that wrong; the 120 feet measurement is by Agassiz, from 1865 ("I measured myself a specimen at Nahant, the disk of which had attained a diameter of seven and a half feet, the tentacles extending to a length of more than one hundred and twenty feet"). Have a look at the reference. However, the authors suggest that this may have been a misidentified individual from another species of the genus, so a note in that regard seems appropriate. I have inserted that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can this 157 year old source be trusted? What tools and what method was used to measure the creature? Seems something like "in recent times the longest specimen recorded is" is warranted. Dionyseus (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agassiz was one of the most reknowned naturalists of the 19th century, and I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the measurement he reported. People have been measuring terrestrial distances quite accurately for more than the century-and-a-half since Agassiz's report. What is in doubt, as was mentioned above, is the precise species of the specimen he measured. Donald Albury 18:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Lion's mane jellyfish in Gullmarn fjord at Sämstad 8 - edited.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 25, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-07-25. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 06:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lion's mane jellyfish (Cyanea capillata) is one of the largest known species of jellyfish, with a range confined to the cold, boreal waters of the Arctic, northern Atlantic, and northern Pacific Oceans. These photographs depict a lion's mane jellyfish in Gullmarn, a fjord on the western coast of Sweden, with its bell alternately expanded (top) and contracted (bottom). The specimen was likely a juvenile, with a bell 10 to 12 centimetres (3.9 to 4.7 in) in diameter and tentacles 60 to 80 centimetres (24 to 31 in) in length. The largest recorded individual of the species had a bell approximately 210 centimetres (7 ft) wide and tentacles around 36.6 metres (120 ft) long. Photograph credit: W.carter Recently featured: Turgot map of Paris Argentine real Wells Cathedral Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file pages
  • 1
  • 2

C. tzetlinii has been in WORMS since 2018 https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1304971#sources. Aozalevsky (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2026 and 24 April 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Robinnotthebird (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kspychalski, Xallowed, Bastion.Sock.

— Assignment last updated by UMaineInvertZoo (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]