Charismatic cephalofauna

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png

Christine Huffard sent me a note alerting me to the publication of her latest paper, and she thought I might be interested because I "seem to like cephalopods". Hah. Well. I've noticed that Dr Huffard seems to have some small affection for the tentacled beasties herself.

The paper follows on an old tradition and an old problem. While people have no problem distinguishing human individuals, we have a tough time telling one individual animal from another. This perceptual difficulty complicates problems of studying variations in behavior or physiology, or monitoring numbers and behavior, in natural populations. One solution is tagging or marking the animals in some way, but that always has the risk of changing or harming the disturbed animals — non-invasive procedures are much preferred. This is an especially difficult problem with small animals, like zebrafish or small octopus; I've struggled myself with trying to track individual fish in experiments.

I came up with one solution, and Huffard et al. have come up with something similar: humans can be trained to recognize distinctive individual variations, and learn to identify single animals. In this paper, they describe a pattern of white pigmented regions that are consistent within single animals of the species Wunderpus photogenicus…and as you might guess, that is a great excuse to put together a collection of photographs of these aptly named animals.

You might think that animals with a reputation for dynamic camouflage, who can change their skin color and texture at will, might lack any patterns that remain constant. Not so! Cephalopod coloration is not infinitely plastic, so there are always shadows of the underlying biology that can be detected. This is especially true of animals that use distinctive markings, such as warning coloration, like the blue-ringed octopus.

i-fb30c731fec5ebf263c36f7dff0d97ce-hapalochlaena.jpeg
Variable ring patterns on mantles of the blue-ringed octopus Hapalochlaena lunulata. Note the small fleck of blue in the ring
indicated in panel A, which is missing from the corresponding ring in panel B. The individual in panel C bears disproportionally small rings near the
head, as well as merged rings left side. All photographs by Roy Caldwell.

The wunderpus has distinctive markings as well — they look like they belong in the 1960s, either as a tie-dyed t-shirt or better yet, a psychedelic concert poster — and as it turns out, they have characteristic individual white markings that can be easily distinguished. With a little practice, people can get good at recognizing individuals by spotting the spots.

i-ddd39c69aa9078855f52894dc8c0b007-wunderpus1.jpeg
(Click for larger image)

i-c4c8f40efbe725a5b5ceee50842b96ea-wunderpus2.jpeg
(Click for larger image)

Configuration of white markings on the dorsal mantle of five individual Wunderpus photogenicus. Outlines indicate which
photographs were taken of the same individual. Underneath each photograph is the corresponding outline of mantle markings: central white spots in
black, side markings in grey, posterior mantle spot grey with faded center. [photographs by: A-D. Richard Ross (animals A-B and C-D each from the home
aquarium trade); E. Takako Uno (North Sulawesi, Indonesia); F.-G. CLH (North Sulawesi, Indonesia); H-I. Roy Caldwell (North Sulawesi, Indonesia).

Wunderpus is among the most sought after subjects for underwater photography, so this means that the tourist trade can be tapped into to provide data on the populations — all those tourist snaps can be used to record the existence of individuals over time. This is a great idea for monitoring populations. It also opens up another useful possibility: wunderpus is in high demand for private aquaria (at over $700 each!), so with a complete catalog of natural populations, it might well be possible to recognize illegally acquired animals. Look for wunderpus photos on milk cartons someday!

Meanwhile, you can browse the online database of Wunderpus photos, and if you're diving in Indonesia, you can contribute to it, as well.


Huffard CL, Caldwell RL, DeLoach N, Gentry DW, Humann P, MacDonald B, Moore B, Ross R, Uno T, Wong S (2008) Individually Unique Body Color Patterns in Octopus (Wunderpus photogenicus) Allow for Photoidentification. PLoS One 3(11):e3732.

More like this

Huh, that really does make sense. I mean, if I understand it correctly, chromatophores are just little expanding and contracting color sacks right? If so, I guess they wouldn't move around on the body, and thus we would see consistent patterns.

Very cool :)

By Cat of Many Faces (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Cool. This seems pretty similar to the way blue whales are tracked though -- by the patters on their tails. Still, I guess it's good to know more elusive creatures can be tracked without tags.

Is the name "wunderpus" really a portmanteau of "octopus" and the German "Wunder" (meaning "ZOMFSM!AWESOME!!!1")? If so it's highly appropriate.

Wunderpus...what is the secret of your power?
Wunderpus...won't you take me far away from the mucky-muck now?

Why not adapt computer software used to identify human features so that it could be used to identify animal individuals?

I came up with one solution, and Huffard et al. have come up with something similar: humans can be trained to recognize distinctive individual variations, and learn to identify single animals.

Ah, yes, the standard solution technique employed across the sciences: Let the grad students do it!

If you like cephalopods (identify 'em, I can't even spell 'em) that much why don't you publish a photo of a different one each week. Course if you don't know the markings it could be the same one each week and we'd never know.

Oh hang on.

JSug:

Most identification software is done using Machine Learning techniques, which require large training sets to tune the parameters for identification. So they would need a rather large collection of Wunderpus photos to do a reasonably accurate job, although this database sound like a good place to start training.

Also, animals don't cooperate with photography as much as people do. When photo ID is done on photos of humans, we generally know where, and in what orientation, the useful facial features will be. I'm sure the photos of the Wunderpus will be at many different angles, rotations and appendage positions, which requires either human sorting and adjusting, or very intelligent software, which requires still more training data.

By Jeff Satterley (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Whit Gibbons and crew at the Savannah River Ecology Lab got tired of individually marking the thousands of turtles they were trapping, so they started xeroxing their plastrons for natural ID.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Wunderpus: sounds like the name of the next Bond movie and/or girl.

By Donnie B. (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Hm, I guess I never considered tagging the animals to be an issue in research. Of course now that you mention it, it seems obvious.

Wunderpus: sounds like the name of the next Bond movie and/or girl.

Wasn't there already a Bond movie called Octopussy. I guess you could call the next one Wunder- um on second thought that might sound too dirty.

Once upon a time (okay, two years ago), when I was involved in mouse behavioural research in large, seminatural enclosures, it got to the point where I would recognize mice from about 5-8 metres away. The more time you spend near your subjects, the more you can start learning some of them. I knew some of them better than I knew some of the volunteers in the lab.

Wunderpus? I think we can do better than that!

My suggestion: Übërpüs

You can never have too many spurious umlauts!
Could be a band name too.

@ #7:

Also, most face recognition software is not for particular individuals (or, if it is, it's not excessively accurate). A lot of research is going into facial recognition (I have seen some papers that are trying to use online video databases to recognize famous actors), but the variability makes it extremely hard to do. Individual face recognition can be done with a passable degree of success pretty much only if it is done using pre-set orientation and lighting.

The Nuer people of the Sudan know each of their cows individually and have developed a complicated system for keeping track of the color patterns that identify 'em. Maybe we could hire some of these guys as consultants on the octopus identification project.

Hee hee. Wunderpus is such a great name :D

By ThatOtherGuy (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

@Brad D: I think you mean "Yoü can nëvër have too many spürioüs ümlaüts!"

This reminds me (oddly) of a project years ago at Caltech to get more information out of MRI data. MRI data is actually at least 6 dimensional, so the typical images are just a projection throwing out lots of info. Of course, there are all sorts of cool machine learning techniques using the full data to classify tissue types ect, but this project took a different (eminently practical) approach.

Doctors (radiologists especially) are really good at pattern recognition problems. So just display more dimensions from the MRI in a visual form and have the doctor's brains do the hard work.

What they came up with was displaying points as 'brush strokes' instead of just pixels. Brush strokes have a color, intensity, orientation, texture, ect... and each of those properties was mapped to a different dimension of the MRI data. It made for some really interesting 'impressionist' looking pictures of embryos, hands, and such... but importantly, information like how easily water diffuses was clearly visible and could be used to identify tissues or abnormalities.

Don't think it took off. There was a working doctor on the project who was quite excited and got really good just glancing at the images and being able to extract all sorts of info, but I suppose the discipline as a whole is extremely conservative by nature. Maybe some day.

Anyway, figuring out what information to pay attention to when training a human (or any other system) to do a recognition problem may seem somewhat easy... but it is really important.

I don't understand. Should the band be named "Übërpüs" or "The Spürioüs Ümlaüts"?

Tim H:

Both. Its Übërpüs änd thë Spürïøüs Ümläüts.

There's supposed to be one over the "n" too, but unicode (nor anything else) supports it. :(

Is there any correlation between prospagnosia and animal recognition? I can't tell a lot of humans apart, but I can recognise individual squirrels in the neighbourhood. Squirrels and other animals are easy, but put four brown-eyed brown-haired white guys in identical outfits, and I'll be calling each of them the others' names forever. Humans, with their pesky nearly-monochrome skins and hair, and lack of fur, are simply not as distinctive as animals are...

Stripes, dammit! I demand that humans develop stripes!

By Interrobang (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

I don't understand. Should the band be named "Übërpüs" or "The Spürioüs Ümlaüts"?

Both. Its Übërpüs änd thë Spürïøüs Ümläüts.

There's supposed to be one over the "n" too, but unicode (nor anything else) supports it. :(

"Übërpüs" was a new idea, but my original idea that was pretty much guessed at was "Spüriöus Ümläut". Since my teenage daydreams of being in a band are long gone, and I'm really not a metal head anyway, I thought I might dabble in writing fiction, it's just a starter idea:
http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/29146.Sp_ri_us_ml_ut

Random thought: Can you use a barcode scanner to identify individual members of a zebra herd?

German "Wunder" (meaning "ZOMFSM!AWESOME!!!1")?

No, meaning "wonder", as in "miracle".

My suggestion: Übërpüs

You can never have too many spurious umlauts!

The one on über is not spurious...

There's supposed to be one over the "n" too, but unicode (nor anything else) supports it. :(

Sure Unicode supports it. U+0308 is called CONNECTING CHARACTER DIAERESIS. Put this behind an n, et voilà: n̈. (Now let's just hope it gets displayed correctly. Which would surprise me.)

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

(Why am I not surprised.)

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Why be sane?

Ü?ë??üs ?ñð ??ë ??ürïøüš Ü??äü??

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

hm.

 a?n?d? 

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

OK:

trying something different...

 a?n?d? 

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

OK, that looks better. I used font-family:Arial (because the typeface that has the most Unicode blocks is an Arial one, at least on this machine).

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Which means that this should look more uniform:

Üƀëȓƥüs ǟñð ţħë Ŝƥürïøüš Üṁłäüťş

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Illegally acquired animals for the aquarium trade is no doubt problematic, but it is the hobbyists who teach the scientists how to breed these exotics in captivity.

I know... I know... "we" all understand that saying "humans and animals" is the equivalent of saying "hammers and tools," but a LOT of other people end up reading these comments, too.

So is it really too much to ask that we take an extra couple keystrokes to clearly differentiate human animals from non-human animals? (human and non-human animals; humans and other animals; etc.)

Otherwise, we may unwittingly reinforce the outrageous idea that humans aren't animals. Yes, it's hard to imagine that anyone could actually entertain such preposterous blather... but you might be surprised at some of the crazy things people come up with. ;-)

Also, animals don't cooperate with photography as much as people do.

yeah, how do you stop the octopus from smiling if it wants to?

By Peter Ashby (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

Üƀëȓƥüs ǟñð ţħë Ŝƥürïøüš Üṁłäüťş

There's a Grocer's Apostrophe in there. Terrible, just Terrible.

By Peter Ashby (not verified) on 17 Nov 2008 #permalink

David Marjanović, OM:

Sure Unicode supports it. U+0308 is called CONNECTING CHARACTER DIAERESIS. Put this behind an n, et voilà: n̈. (Now let's just hope it gets displayed correctly. Which would surprise me.)

I was trying to get it exactly right. Oh and I forgot to remove the dot on the i too. But at least I know the difference between feet and inches. ;)

Brad D.:

Good story. Not that its ever happened to me. If I ever have children they'll have to rebel against me by listening to the top 40.

The Octopus vulgaris said to the Enteroctopus dofleini, "those Wunderpus all look the same to me". The Enteroctopus blushed, chastised Octopus vulgaris for being so... vulgar, and then promptyly ate him.

I know, I know, this conversation could not have happened in nature!!!

THIS is where you excel, even if it is reviewing someone else's work.

It's in the REST of your writings that unmitigated wretchedness reigns supreme.

By pharynguphat (not verified) on 18 Nov 2008 #permalink

I'm not an animal! I'm a human being!

There's a Grocer's Apostrophe in there. Terrible, just Terrible.

I know it looks that way. I thought it was funny, and left it.

(That's actually a LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH CARON)

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 18 Nov 2008 #permalink

Germane to the original post: I sometimes look closely at photos of animals that appear more than once in some image or set of images to see if I can spot distinguishing characteristics. Sometimes small details can be surprisingly persistent, if you pay attention.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 18 Nov 2008 #permalink

"While people have no problem distinguishing human individuals,"

Speak for yourself! I'm part of the estimated 2% of the population with prosopagnosia (faceblindness). Too dang many humans are indistinguishable to me. I'm not "into" tats or piercings personally, but they sure are handy for identifying a few of my students!

andrea