It's a bonus movie for the Friday Cephalopod: the octopus is a master of camouflage.
Search
Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Random Quote
Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
[Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148]
Recent Posts
- Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: Ambition!
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
- More bad science in the literature
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- EntropicForces on Botanical Wednesday: Walking? No way
- kamizushi on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- peter.waine on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- mariadogwood on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- Bill Dauphin, avec fromage on An open letter to the Indiana legislature
- Day2u on American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science
- David Marjanović on Our illness is their profit
- David Marjanović on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- David Marjanović on More bad science in the literature
- Stanton on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Friday Cephalopod: "It's a giant orgy." | Main | A quick reply to some of the arguments made recently »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Friday Cephalopod: Peek-a-boo octopus
Category: Organisms
Posted on: June 30, 2006 8:10 AM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/9284
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>








Comments
Posted by: NatureSelectedMe
|
June 30, 2006 8:33 AM
That's amazing. Chameleons have nothing on Cephalopods. I wonder how they do it. I don't mean the mechanical pigment changes but how do they decide what pattern to make. They have great eye-skin coordination.
Posted by: Barry
|
June 30, 2006 8:35 AM
PZ, there's one part which looks like a CGI effect there, where the part of the octopus on the left changes both color and pattern, to match what's behind it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 30, 2006 8:39 AM
Amazing
Posted by: Matt McIrvin
|
June 30, 2006 9:08 AM
It's the variations in texture that have always astonished me--changing color is one thing, but the octopus can even make parts of its skin stick out in lumps to match the surrounding surfaces. That's what really makes it seamlessly invisible.
Posted by: BigHeathenMike
|
June 30, 2006 9:19 AM
Well that's the coolest darn thing I've seen in a while. The weird part is that I've seen this one (or one very similar) before, and it's just as wicked cool now that I'm seeing it again.
Is there a superhero who can camouflage like that? I'd buy a comic book about a diver who gets beaked by a radioactive octopus and gets its powers of disguise. Oh, and maybe s/he could write with his/her inky finger.
Posted by: CCP
|
June 30, 2006 10:27 AM
"maybe s/he could write with his/her inky finger"
...or Noodly Appendage...
Posted by: Steve_C
|
June 30, 2006 12:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9N5jWC46s&mode=related&search=
Shark vs. Octopus
Posted by: QrazyQat
|
June 30, 2006 1:44 PM
Octopus, I have Mr. Lucas on the line. ILM wants to make you an offer.
Posted by: mjfgates
|
June 30, 2006 3:49 PM
By the fifth time I watched this video, I felt pretty sure I could tell which bits of that-- coral? Seaweed? Whatever that thing is-- were actually octopus; they didn't move the way the rest of it did. Then the octopus turned white, and one of the bits that I was *totally* certain was cephalopod turned out to be some of the plant.
That's just freakin' incredible. All this, AND the greatest nervous system of any invertebrate... you know that one of these days, they're going to come up out of Puget Sound, wearing their armored landsuits, and mercilessly conquer us. You do know that, right?
Posted by: Spike
|
June 30, 2006 4:50 PM
"... how do they decide what pattern to make."
Or do they only put themselves onto surfaces that they have evolved to blend into? Know what I mean?
It's hard to tell how big the shark and octopus were in that other video - maybe 5 or 6 feet for the shark?
I like how the octopi are "smart" enough that, once the jig is up, they don't bother with the camouflage anymore. The one above just turns white before it swims away, and the other one switches back to red just before it grabs the shark.
In _Analog_ magazine there was a story about an octopus in an orbital aquarium. The author surmized that without gravity, the octopus' nervous system would be freed up to the point where it could eventually become a space-shuttle pilot.
Posted by: NatureSelectedMe
|
June 30, 2006 5:44 PM
Or do they only put themselves onto surfaces that they have evolved to blend into? Know what I mean?
I know I've seen clips (I don't know where) about cuttlefish being put on a checkerboard and matching that. It's also mentioned in this paper on Artificial Intelligence.
Posted by: Spike
|
June 30, 2006 6:17 PM
Here'sa great paper about that very thing:
Cuttlefish camouflage: visual perception of size, contrast and number of white squares on artificial checkerboard substrata initiates disruptive coloration
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/12/2119
Posted by: fruktkake
|
July 1, 2006 5:41 AM
Holy inferiority complex, that was sweet... And when they play it backwards, it´s like it´s melting!
...(some joke featuring shark repellent Batspray that I can´t think of right now)...
Posted by: Pieter B
|
July 1, 2006 3:54 PM
PZ, I posted a link to that video on a couple of message boards, and someone responded with this one. Wow.
Posted by: cephalopodcast
|
July 1, 2006 7:18 PM
This video has been widely pirated without attribution. It is the work of Dr. Roger Hanlon at The Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole. On his MBL website, you can see another, smaller video of an octopus trying to look very much like a "moving rock."
Posted by: Paul S
|
July 1, 2006 11:28 PM
Now that is damned impressive.
Posted by: Paul S
|
July 2, 2006 1:09 AM
A curious question about that second video - the one that Pieter posted.
I have read that sharks have an unusual sensory organ that detects the electrical field associated with complex living organisms. I would have thought that something like that would have made the octopus's camouflage irrelevant. Is it species-specific, or imprecise, or is the whole claim just a myth?
Posted by: cephalopodcast
|
July 2, 2006 10:49 AM
I would have thought that something like that would have made the octopus's camouflage irrelevant. Is it species-specific, or imprecise, or is the whole claim just a myth?
Sharks do have electroreception. But one of the dirty little secrets of wildlife filmakering is that natural behavior is sometimes manipulated. The narrator says this actually happened. I don't know for certain, but it would not surprise me to learn that the shark (or sharks) were forced into the arms of the octopus (repeatedly) for the shot. Or maybe the filmmakers got really lucky. It happens sometimes, like with this shot of an octopus tangling with an eel and "winning."
Posted by: lloydletta | July 8, 2006 10:55 AM
These were much more charming than this:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/07/michele-bachtopuss.html
Posted by: Zoasterboy | September 19, 2008 11:07 PM
The video has been removed from YouTube. :(