Open Ocean Mama Squid Clings to Bundle of Bubble Wrap Joy

Bottom-dwelling squid and octopus usually attach their eggs to a hard surface, but open ocean squid have no such luxury. For many years, scientists thought such squid simply released their eggs to the whims of the currents.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Bottom-dwelling squid and octopus usually attach their eggs to a hard surface, but open ocean squid have no such luxury. For many years, scientists thought such squid simply released their eggs to the whims of the currents. Recently, however, Stephanie Bush at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute discovered that the situation for some open ocean cephalopods living in nutrient-poor environments is not so simple ...

If I didn't know those were eggs, I'd definitely think the second squid had lucked into a Grade A marine bubblewrap deposit.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Bush's efforts have also contributed to a new exhibit recently opened at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California -- the folks that make the Seafood Watch list/app/wallet card that I use before buying or ordering fish -- called "Tentacles: The Astounding Lives of Octopuses, Squid, and Cuttlefish".

Bush searched through records of remotely-operated vehicle sightings of open-ocean squid to help identify the most likely locations for capturing and collecting them. The exhibit features the fruit of her and others' efforts -- about a dozen cephalopods, some rarely exhibited. If you are very lucky, you might get to see a real, live deep-sea vampire squid (if the squid is feeling up to it -- the deep-sea cephalopods have to be rotated in and out of display due to their almost monastic need for dark and quiet) exhibited publicly for the first time ever. If that's not worth a special trip, I don't know what is!

To promote the exhibit, they have produced two excellent videos that highlight two of cephalopods premier skills: hunting and disappearing.

First, the hunting:

Yes, those are the ridiculously long and pitifully thrashing arms of the poor shrimp captured by the cuttlefish protruding from its maw in the first scene. Then, the next cuttlefish hypnotically flashing stripes to mesmerize its prey before striking is just downright creepy. Surprised I haven't seen that one in a sci-fi horror film yet.

And now, the disappearing:

These guys are just delightfully sneaky. You can practically hear them saying, "No octopus here! Just a rock! La la la! Rock rock rock!"

In any case, seeing octopus, cuttlefish and squid in person is always worth the price of admission if you get the chance. If nothing else, you will be mesmerized yourself by the pulsating chromatophores that assist in their dramatic color changes. Just be glad that you're bigger than them -- and separated by an inch of lucite.

**********************

This is also probably the moment to note and mourn the passing of the Invertebrate Exhibit (home to cuttlefish along with other marine and terrestrial invertebrates) at the Smithsonian's National Zoo in Washington, D.C., which closed June 22. The announcement was sudden (June 16) and the outcry was swift, with eulogies coming from Bug Girl Gwen Pearson, Echinoblogger Chris Mah, Maura Judkis at the Washington Post, and Anna DeLoach at the BlennyWatcher Blog. Pearson interviewed museum brass and was disturbed to discover that there may not be invertebrates again at the national zoo for decades. A petition to reopen it was circulated here.

I, too, am sad to see it go, and wonder how much of it is another symptom of the dwindling of natural history I blogged about here recently. Zoos, aquariums, and botanic gardens are important places for children who lack access to nature at home or school to get that all important kid-critter time -- time spent just silently observing a plant or animal, even if interacting is not possible -- and it's especially hard to find places that display invertebrates. I remember a visit to the Cincinnati Zoo (my first zoo!) as a young child in which the Invert House was among my favorite stops. I can't pretend the financial pressures they are under don't exist, but I can question their target. With all the high-maintenance cats, apes, reptiles and birds that live there, that they can't make room somewhere soon for a few inexpensive but fascinating invertebrates (or find new homes for a few high-dollar vertebrates to make room in the budget for them) speaks volumes. It certainly reflects the widespread discrimination against life without spines or fur.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe