Talk:Hagfish

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJManalo25 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Balakay29, Whitefke, JDinauer. Peer reviewers: Knowl8dge, Ashleypress0511, Taylorstokes21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dimensions

What are the dimensions of a hagfish? It is difficult to know from the image.

Also, what does it mean that they 'use a knot' to get out of their feeding places?

I remember reading they tie their bodies into a knot then slide the knot towards the mouth. It then presses on whatever the mouth is attached to, disengaging. I'll add a description.--24.16.72.226 01:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Pacific hagfish are between 20 and 40 cm in length, depending on age.

There is also no mention of their average diameter range, this should be included. Blue Dinosaur Jr 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they vertebrates or not?

This article indicates that they are vertebrates whereas the Chordate article indicates that they are not. There's a clue at the Vertebrate article which seems to imply that whether they are vertebrates or not is a matter of dispute. I wonder whether someone who knows the subject could clarify things so that we could have the most correct information and have it given consistantly. Jimp 06:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, hagfish are definitely chordates, and I've not seen a clear argument against their being vertebrates. But because they are often regarded as the basal group of vertebrates, it is easy for someone to come along with a new definition of 'Vertebrata' which just happens to leave the hagfish out in the cold. I hold that reference works should err on the conservative side, reflecting consensus not innovation, and list Myxini as the basal group in Vertebrata unless a sound citation for removing them can be found. Myopic Bookworm 14:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there still is debate about hagfish being vertebrates. Here's some recent work on their cartelidge and genetic distance from lampreys that suggests they're not vertebrates, though. [1] and [2].--Estelahe 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the anatomical situation is quite clear. Myxioniformes do not have any vertebra, nor do Petromyzontiformes, which only have small cartilage arches to protect the 'upper' part of their neural tube. It depends on what you mean by vertebrate. They have always been included in pylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata. The presence of true vertebrae is not peculiar of all Vertebrata, but only of Gnathostomatha. The main real apomorphy in the skeleton of so-called Vertebrata (sensu lato) is the presence of the cranium and thus, according to many Authros, they should be renamed Craniota. The name Vertebrata is nearly always retained only because of its ancient tradition.

• They are part of the subphylum Vertebrata so, taxonomically speaking, they are vertebrates.
• They do not have vertebrae so, anatomically, ther're not vertebrates.

I'll also fix this, unless somebody who's able to write proper english does it for me ;-) Aelwyn 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagfish aren't vertebrates. I'm taking a course on vertebrate anatomy right now, and hagfish are classfied as Agnathans: a PRE-VERTEBRATE.

As you can see on my user page, I'm studying Natural Sciences in Padua. I had exams of general zoology, compared anatomy and evolutive history of the vertebrates, so I know what I'm talking about, if it's a question about curricula vitæ. Not to seem aggressive, but if you read a little better what I have written, you will notice that I already know they are not anatomically vertebrata. The term Vertebrata is nearly always used to mean the Craniota because of its long tradition, as is in Wikipedia's tassoboxes. If you study vertebrate anatomy, it's quite obvious that Agnathes are not part of the course, which will deal with the skeletons of those animals who do have vertebræ! Please, next time be more careful and kind (you even WRITE THIS UNPLITE WAY!) and sign. Aelwyn 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you study vertebrate anatomy, it's quite obvious that Agnathes are not part of the course, which will deal with the skeletons of those animals who do have vertebræ!"

Actually, the vast majority of courses on vertebrate anatomy deal with Phylogeny, which includes the development from Agnatha into Vertebrates. I find it strange that you haven't studied them.

I'm a zoology graduate; Agnatha were the subject of the first lecture in my Vertebrates course. If "Agnathes are not part of the course", that just tells you something about the professor who wrote the course, not about the animals. Myopic Bookworm 09:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's not worth starting a flame about where a zoology professor should start his courses. Where I study there is no Vertebrate Anatomy course and as it looked like the guy to whom I answered hadn't studied Agnathans on his own, I thought it was something quite different from mine, which dealt with both anatomy and phylogeny and did inculde Agnathans. The point is: we should make it clear for a non-expert how things are and not have discussions about definitions and about our studies. The article was ambiguous, it looked like we didn't know if Mixiniformes have vertebræ or not, when we all agree it is only a matter of definitons. Now it's better than it was, but it can still be improved very much. Aelwyn 11:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needs cleanup and sectioning. I'll try to make everything clear, I just hope 128.189.162.95 does not keep to change the page with his own opinion. Does the category Category:Vertebrates without jaws actually apply here? Ionek (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that recent results have shifted the consensus on Hagfish classification, with prior proponents of the "hagfish diverged before the evolution of vertebrates" view now reversing their positions. See reference at [3]. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Vertebrata is synonymous to Craniota. Some people picked the term as synonym for Myopterygii. And there are indications that ancestors of hagfish had vertebrae. You can argue that hagfish has no vertebrae but then you have to consider that hagfish as no real cranium eihter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.2.94 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the truth is about their status, the opening paragraphs need to be cleared up. The last line of the first paragraph says, without controversy, they are "living fossils" and "basal to vertebrates", the second paragraph begins with controversy.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ota, K. G., Fujimoto, S., Oisi, Y. & Kuratani, S. Identification of vertebra-like elements and their possible differentiation from sclerotomes in the hagfish. Nature Commun. 2, 373 (2011). Hagfish seem to possess vertebra, but these are reduced. April 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.96.155.212 (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Commercial exploitation section

Does anyone know the Japanese name for hagfish? How is it fished? How it is prepared? What is the 'eel leather' used for? Are there potential commercial uses for the slime? It'd be nice if someone could expand the information to include a specific section on this.

I am not Japanese. I think very few Chinese people eat this.

Japanese word for hagfish is "メクラウナギ"; "めくらうなぎ" or "盲鰻".

• メクラウナギ (mekuraunagi; in katakana)
• めくらうなぎ (same pronounciation; written in hiragana)
• 盲鰻 (same pronounciation; written in kanji; literally "blind" + "eel")

I know some Japanese people eat lamprey (ヤツメウナギ).

• ヤツメウナギ (yatsumeunagi)
• やつめ‐うなぎ
• 八目鰻 (literally "eight" + "eye" + "eel")

Sometimes, they are known as "七鰓鰻" or "seven" + "gill" + "eel".

In some areas of Japan, costal fishermen use a small boat and a small net to catch lampreys. As far as I know, they may cut the fish into short segments (like chopped sausages) and boil them in water with tofu and some vegetables to make a soup. They may also roast the fish with very thick sauce over charcoal (like roast eel; see unagi).

During the WWII, some people eat the lamprey because it was the only meat they could get. I've never eaten this fish. I saw them eating it once on a Japanese TV show. The reporter said it's very crunchy. Many Japanese people believe lampreys are good for your eyes because of chondroitin sulfate in them. In Edo period, they let nyctalopia patients eat lampreys as a source of Vitamin A. (see: ja:ヤツメウナギ)

I don't know how they cook hagfish. -- Toytoy 13:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they use the 'leather' for stuff like wallets, belts etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.74.145.141 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

i can confirm that they are used for their leather, and are not likely eaten, mike roeMike Rowe of dirty jobsDirty Jobs just did a show on these, he told us at the end of the segment that they are shipped off to korea and used to make wallets and purses, showing us an example whilst barbecuing a few that he took with him, he tried them and didn't seem to like it as he spat it out after. however the dude behind him that was cooking them didn't seem to mind it
thought I'd share :) 24.85.111.11 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)bluefoxx

We definitely eat hagfish in Korea. They’re skinned, covered in spicy sauce, and either grilled over charcoal or stir fried. They’re quite tasty, not slimy at all, like a crunchier version of eel. Not sure about this claim that the slime is used like egg whites, which sounds specious to me. I know they’re also made into fish cakes, which are pretty sticky. They might have some slime in them.-- baekjemiso 10:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Reproduction

Does anyone know how hagfish reproduce? Or if it is not well known, should someone point that out? It would be nice. PhoenixSeraph 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They're not hermaphroditic. Male and female hagfish look exactly the same, except for reproductive structures. It's believed that hermaphroditism was acquired very recently in their evolutionary history. I'll fix this point soon. Aelwyn 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this [4], they have both male and female gonad, but only works per individual. Partially but not fully functioning hermaphrodites I guess. --CrossoverManiac (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This section could use some more information. Some additions I'm thinking of are:

• How hagfish pituitary glands share the structure and function of those found in more recent vertebrates, and what this means in the context of evolution.
• Hagfish have been recorded reproducing annually or seasonally, depending on the species.
• Three hypotheses for how hagfish lay their eggs are: 1) Hagfish lay eggs in small crevices in rock formations. 2) The eggs are laid in burrow beneath the sand. 3) The slime produced by the hagfish is used to hold the eggs in a small area. These are supported by observations of hagfish sperm count and the low number of males recorded in many populations, but there has been no direct evidence to support them.
• Some species of hagfish are sexually undifferentiated before maturity, and posses the tissues for both ovaries and testis..

Also, there is a lot of information in the section that is not cited, and these sources could be used for that as well.

References

JDinauer (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Travelling knot

I have heard that hagfish can take chunks out of large prey by fastening on with the teeth and then passing a knot from the tail towards the head. This would be worth mentioning if anyone has evidence for it. Myopic Bookworm 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's on my book, with even a picture, so I think it is must be true. I'll tell about it. Aelwyn 12:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And I've seen it on a BBC (I think) documentary about deep sea thingies. They were feeding on a whale carcass. 78.86.166.49 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to rework the sliming and behavior and distinguish the two. There is video of them using the knot trick to get purchase to bite out chunks, for sure. It's quite scary to see six or so of the buggers all doing it at once on a mackerel carcass. So much for them not being able to get through skin! --mmbutler@gmail.com, still no account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.167.24 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Language

I don't have the time or the expertise to fix this, but the second line of this article refers to the creature's "ass hole". That doens't seem right. -Holshy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.195.193.254 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely long gone. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.167.24 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Venom?

It's not clear to me why a section of this article is entitled "Venom." Apparently hagfish are not venomous, and the contents of the section don't seem to have anything to do with venom. -75.90.166.235 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eptatretus minor

This article currently includes a drawing of Eptatretus minor, which appears to be a hagfish. However the list at Hagfish#Species, which appears to attempt to be comprehensive, does not include Eptatretus minor. Nor does the article on Eptatretus. Is "minor" another name for one of the listed species? I do see E. minor listed on FishBase, but don't know what to do from there. — Epastore (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Analysis

In this section it is noted that Hagfish slime is unique in that it contains threadlike fibres and yet slug slime also contains threadlike fibres. Is there a significant difference between these two slime fibres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElJayDee (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Heart System

The sentence "with a heart system that is more up to date than that of vertebrates..." is completely puzzling and deserves some explication. No, don't look at me to do it - I'm puzzled. Hue White (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hagfish in Korea

Apparently hagfish is popularly eaten in Korea. This may have to do with the fact that Koreans consider hagfish as a type of "eel" but it's pretty crazy. Found some vids on youtube. Anyone have any ideas on how we can incorporate this into the article?

Hagfish in tank: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ-ED2-09as Cutup hagfish being grilled: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=aoTiFlD6S4Y http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=VC0NiF37Jk8 Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but the current description makes it sound like the slime is the only part that is consumed. ("The hagfish is kept alive and irritated by rattling its container with a stick, prompting it to produce slime in large quantities. This slime is used in a similar manner as egg whites in various forms of cookery in the region.") This is problematic because A. Korean cuisine in fact consumes the flesh of hagfish, and B. there is almost no evidence of the slime being consumed in Korea. Clarification regarding where "in the region" refers to is necessary, as this may be true in other East Asian cuisines, but it is not a known feature in Korea. 50.251.209.2 (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I second this, as I have certainly never seen the slime consumed and cannot find any references to it being used like egg whites anywhere on the Korean internet. It seems like a "wacky Asia" claim. I'm going to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baekjemiso (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Assistance in recovering recent edits

Darn it. I am sorry, but I lost a bunch of my recent edits; they were substantive and included cites. I suspect I had an old version of the whole page up for one of the edits and it overrode the other content I added. Would someone please contact me and help me figure out how to retrieve those, if possible? mmbutler@gmail.com, edits were on 25 Jan 2008. Thanks, sorry I'm such a klutz and process-ignorant. And I apologize for not having an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.167.24 (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. By the way, that was my fault. Sorry for removing your edits. Optakeover^(Talk) 11:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! It turns out there's a lot to know about these little buggers. Maybe it's time for me to brush up on my German... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.167.24 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Brains?

The article currently claims hagfish have two brains. I'm by no means a biology expert, but I'm unaware of any animals with two brains, though some have multiple ganglion. A brief google search turned up no other mentions of hagfish possessing this attribute, while the German version of the article seems to discuss a singular brain. I put a citation needed tag next to the sentence in question, as I'm not certain if brain is just a mistranslation of ganglion, vandalism, or what. 129.10.116.80 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)--

Every source I come across seems to suggest hagfish only have one brain and one heart.[5] [6] CrossoverManiac (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The only way I would think that a hagfish would get two brains is by some sort of nuclear mutation. 141.156.47.30 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually hagfish do have two brains, and this is now properly cited in the article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Myxinoidea?

I am currently taking a comparative vertebrate anatomy course, and we are referring to the Hagfish as Myxinoidea, a class, with superclass Agnatha. Anyone know what the current "actual" classification is? In any case, I feel Myxinoidea should be mentioned somewhere, even if it isn't the current "correct" name, as people are still being taught this, and older sources do use it. Dewert (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The classification is disputed, because of an uncertainty whether the lampreys are more closely related to hagfish (which would mean the hagfish are vertebrates that lost their vertebrae) or to other vertebrates. If the latter, than Agnatha should probably not be used at all, or as a grade for jawless "fishes."--Syd Henderson (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting info

I wanted to add this, but it seems to conflict with what is already there. Thoughts?

The mouth of the hagfish has two pairs of horny, comb-shaped teeth on a cartilaginous plate that protracts and retracts. These teeth are used to grasp food and draw it toward the pharynx.[7] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of hagfish feeding

A higher-resolution of hagfish feeding is coming soon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs lots of work

This article is deeply confused concerning the principles of systematics and the current state of understanding of vertebrate phylogeny. As well, it contains a number of odd assertions about hagfish (e.g., the lack of an operculum causes them to rely on cutaneous respiration). Someone with actual knowledge of the relevant literature needs to redo much of the articlChore.MayerG (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this article, and its sister "Chordate" treat the membership or exclusion of Hagfish in/from Vertebrata as settled. Are the artifacts we observe in extant hagfish something that may evolve into vertebra? Or are these the footprints of what used to be vertebrae? Much of the confusion in the article could be resolved by acknowledging the shape and boundaries of the uncertainty. Maybe ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny but iirc that meme has given us some spectacular failures. Cybersharque (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hagfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.southernencounter.co.nz/seanews_whatsnew.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.networksplus.net/maxmush/myxinidae.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Phylogeny

The phylogenetic tree is a bit confusing and could use more information. The symbol next to Myxinikela siroka, for example, is not explained in the description. It could be an improvement if a less focused tree was used to better show the Hagfish's place in the Chordata phylum and in the evolution of vertebrates. JDinauer (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

† indicates extinct, I have updated it. I think a problem is that the deep phylogeny of the early vertebrates is not that well understood (as far as I'm aware); although there is a reasonably detailed phylogenetic tree on the article Conodont. It's only when you get to the Gnathostomata that things become clearer. See also the phylogenetic tree on Chordate. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hagfish Anatomy

Regarding possible additional images that could be added, an image of a hagfish using its slime could be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefke (talk • contribs) 23:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There are some sections in the article regarding hagfish anatomy that could use more information in general.

An example of edits that could be made is adding some more sentences to provide more information, such as:

• The dorsal and ventral muscles located towards the side of the hagfish body are connected to spinal nerves.

• The brain of a hagfish has parts in common with the brains of other vertebrates.

• The slime that hagfish excrete contain very thin fibers that make it more durable and sticky than slime excreted by other animals.

References

Whitefke (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit that does not belong in the article

@Takraphael: added the following material to the article:

In 2017, Oregon, On the U.S. Highway 101, there was a accident that 7500 pounds of hagfish was spiiled due to a turning down of container truck containing them. These hagfishes were spread through whole road, causing massive slime from them covering road and nearby car.[8]

I reverted the edit as off-topic and irrelevant to the subject of this article. Takraphael then re-added that material, with additional verbiage, to the article:

Its famous feature is to emit slime from its body when they are stressed. In this way, they could avoid being eaten.

There is one accident that the slime has harmed the human infrastructure. In 2017, Oregon, On the U.S. Highway 101, there was a accident that 7500 pounds of hagfish was spiiled due to a turning down of container truck containing them. These hagfishes were spread through whole road, causing massive slime from them covering road and nearby car.[9]

I still hold that the material added by Takraphael is inappropriate for inclusion in the article, but I will not edit war over it. I request comments from other editors. - Donald Albury 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. but I don’t really think that that accident is not that “inappopriate” for Wikipedia. it is a real accident that occured in US, and its cause is hagfish’s slime. Then What can I do to contribute this info to wikipedia? Should I make another article? Takraphael (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

edit: I don’t really think -> I think Takraphael (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is about the species, it is not about random events that happened to involve that species. There is no need to include that information anywhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Donald Albury 18:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I should mention that that accident is not just random, it has been written and broadcasted by multiple medias.. and I still have no idea that this information is no worth to be contributed. Well, also some articles in Wikipedia mentions big incident that was happened by some creatures. Why not hagfish? Takraphael (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the hagfish. What happened to a bunch of dead hagfish in a road accident is not relevant to this article. That irrelevant things have made their way into other articles does not justify doing so in this article. News coverage is not the opposite of randomness. Donald Albury 12:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Takraphael: I have asked for opinions on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Edit dispute at Hagfish. - Donald Albury 23:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lede. The lede should summarize content in the article and it is not mentioned anywhere.

The questions are should it be included and where. [s]At the moment there is no section dealing with hagfish slime.[/s] [Edit: How did I miss that?] If this is important then there should be something somewhere about the hagfish slime and its biological importance. A very brief mention of the accident could be relevant as part of a section, but not as a standalone addition, and certainly not in the lede. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Then would you mind if I just mention it in paragraph “Slime”? I’ll just add it shortly, please point out if it is still inappropriate Takraphael (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Condensed it to single sentence. Still not sure if it's due there, honestly :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced as it's essentially trivia. But a brief statement might be acceptable if it can illustrate the properties of the slime. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)