This is an archive of past discussions about Scallop. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are scallops farmed? I've heard from other gourmets that 'diver scallops' are really just farm-raised. Kent Wang 03:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They are, I've seen it.
Agreed. I happen to know one such farmer. They gather baby scallops after spawning, and put them into large nets tied to posts in food-rich and easily accessible area to grow. And then they dive only once to collect the whole batch. --Khathi08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Common names and species
The listing of genera is excellent, but I would like to more species and common names (these are mostly the common species of ecological or economic/culinary importance). I've added a few to the genus list but it could do with many more - and like many species in Wiki, some Asian or other names too. Pat Heslop-Harrison 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Peacock Terms
"Many scallops are highly prized as a food source. Some scallops are valued for their brightly colored shells."
Why are they highly prized? Perhaps something more objective such as "they are prized for their delicate taste or they are high in protein and a good source of XYZ minerals." or "they are an essential part of seafood diet in coastal communities. etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.213.78 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oysters have a larger adductor muscle than scallops.
I have no idea which is correct, but they can't both be... --Celada 23:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
That's why contributors really should list their references. My less-than-extensive search didn't prove any help, although I do have a useful book that may shed some light on the subject, which I'll check when I get a chance. [maestro]11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I think scallops must have the stronger adductor muscle because that's what they use to swim. [RedViking]
As far as I know, scallops themselves are at least twice as bigger as oysters. And their abductors are pretty large -- a round muscle about 5 cm across and 1 cm thick. Oysters' ones are much smaller. --Khathi08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as fake scallops in restaurants?
Question: Does anyone out there have any information on skate wings and other fish fins being punched out and passed off as scallops? I consider this to be an "urban legend", and would welcome any info on the subject.
Please sign your name so that we know who asked this and when... Yes, this "passing" takes place. It is very easy to tell because the fibres in a real scallop all run longitudinally, parallel in the "cylinder" of muscle, just as you would expect from an adductor muscle. The fake scallops have fibres that run other ways or run in more than one direction. I have had direct experience of being served fake scallops in a restaurant in Manhattan during the 1980s. Invertzoo23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
controdiction
generally scallops have large abducter mussles than oysters, if fact i'm pretty sure all scallop species do when they have matured, the olny one that might not have a larger mussel is that of the bay scallop. also an oysters abducter mussle is fairly underdeveloped.
Yo, A scallop is also a fried potato snack available from Fish and Chip shops. This page does not reflect this fact.--Scarfo03:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to create a page for this snack feel free. Make sure to make a disambiguation page to avoid confusion. Darkwraith15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Environmental Status?
I would like to see a section on environmental status (overfishing?), and what parts of the world produce scallops (are there specific fisheries, or is it widespread?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.35.79 (talk • contribs) .
"They are characterised by having two types of meat in one shell: the scallop (white, meaty) and its coral which is red or white and soft, which is its roe."
I have added the {{wiktionary}} template because Wikipedia does not see to include the geometry definition of scallop. The term is used in mechanical engineering, and also evidently in textiles. Actually Wiktionary doesn't adequately cover it either; see dictionary.com, etc. —Fleminra (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please help settle a bet between my lover and I. I would argue that the part we eat as a 'scallop' is from a scallop (understood) and is the section of the scallop that connects the shell to the 'body' of this bi-valve. He claims the scallop part that we eat is neither the connecting paart nor the 'body', but another part unique to this oestredia (SP?!).
Sorry if this doen't make sense, but I think you might agree that our disagreement is a matter of the blind discibing to the blind.
In the US, the only part of the oysterscallop that is sold as seafood is the adductor muscle, which is attached to both valves and can "snap" them closed. In other countries the roe or "coral", when present, is also eaten. Invertzoo (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Today I restored fiveinterwiki links that were corrupted in two edits, revs. 250748192 (15:10, 9 November 2008) and 250748562 (15:12, 9 November 2008). The latter edit by Robbot added links to a related taxonomic article about the Pectinidae family for de, es, fr, it and nl, replacing the correct links to "Scallop" in those languages.
The bot edit was perfectly understandable, since Scallops are indeed in the Pectinidae family, but the difference is in the type of article, the one (scallop) being about food, fishing, importance to the Middle Age pilgrimage site, history, and so on, and the other being about the biological taxonomic system, orders, genuses, species, etc.
The confusion probably arose from the fact that most foreign sites have two articles, one about the Scallop and another for the Pectinidae. The English site, however, just has the one article which is a sort of mish-mash of the two articles found elsewhere. This ended up making the interwiki links on the EN site a confusing jumble--some of our links pointed to "Pectinidae" in foreign wikis, and some of them pointed to the local equivalent of "Scallop".
Splitting our article in two, like most wikis do, would clarify the situation, and there would be no more ambiguity in what the interwiki should link to. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that.
For example, the French site has fr:Coquille_Saint-Jacques and fr:Pectinidae. I enjoy a good plate of Coquilles St. Jacques in a French restaurant, but just try ordering "Pectinidae" and see how far that gets you, here or there!
For the time being, since our article is called "Scallop" and does include the historical stuff, I've relinked it (as it once was) to the "Scallop" articles in other languages. Once we split off the long taxonomic section that doesn't really belong here into its own article, this problem will go away. (It's perfectly fine to include the taxonomic name and link in the opening paragraph of course.)
Please be careful in editing interwiki links and allowing bots in behind you, as they can't always make this distinction, especially when parallel article structure is not maintained across language pairs for the topic.
Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, they say "Be bold", so I went ahead and killed two birds with one stone, by creating new article Pectinidae and moving the Taxonomy section from Scallop over to the new article.
I think in general this is a definite improvement, although I agree it leaves a hole top right on the Scallop page that we might want to fill with an image, or appropriate template or something, but I'm sure someone will come up with just the thing.
If you are or have been an editor for the Taxonomy section here, please have a look at Pectinidae to see how the new article stands on its own or doesn't, and whether it perhaps needs additional references, or links to other, similar, taxonomy articles, or one of those category things on the bottom.
Re: "In European cuisine, scallops are often prepared in the form of a quiche or cooked and then set into a savoury custard." Doesn't ring true, Larousse Gastronomique 2001 edition does not mention this and I'd rely on that. The writer may be thinking of Scallops in Mornay sauce, but it's not custard! Quiche is not traditionally eaten with scallops in either.
You're right, of course. It's not part of the cuisine of any European country I've lived in--certainly not in France. And "European cuisine"? Surely they jest. "Let's call out for some European take-out tonight, honey," --nope, fails the common sense test. I deleted that sentence. Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if I am posting this is the proper section. However, I noticed that under regions, the United States was referenced but not Canada. I think that there should be a reference to "Digby Scallops", under the heading "Canada", since these scallops are quite famous across North America, and the town even has a scallop festival. A simple Google search will reveal this. 15 April 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.186.72 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Is scallopshells.net Link Spam?
I removed the link to "Scallop Shell Information"... as I found very little info, and big buttons asking me to buy scallop shells. This link had been present since Jan 2010. Below is how the line was in the article. Azoreg (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate very much the effort of producing a resumé of the different contributions. I appreciate also that you reflect my small contribution to the article. Nevertheless I find inconsistencies.
1º. Venus cannot be considered goddess of fecundity in ancient Rome. Her speciality was the “horti”. She was the goddess of love and beauty. Fecundity has to be searched between other Roman divinities. It is true that often prehistorians call Venuses the statuettes of fat prehistoric women; but they cannot be identified with the Roman goddess, born in a scallop. Artemis is a better choice for fecundity in ancient Rome.
2º. Woman fecundity is connected with mammals rather than with what you call
“feminine principle”. “Feminine principle” is more connected with love. Voilà Venus. Salisbury says that symbolizes fecundity in “Women in the in Ancient World”. You have to search for a better reference. We are in de Middle Ages in Santiago de Compostela. Symbol of fecundity in medieval Galician world —and still today— is the penis of man.
3º. It seems —maybe I am wrong— that you have learned recently the connexion between Venus and scallops and you jump to the conclusion that the pilgrimages to Santiago where done for fertility reasons. After that, you searched for the opportune references. San James is the patron of Spain and symbol of the fight against Saracens. He is represented riding a horse and holding a sword. It has nothing to with fecundity. The support of these pilgrimages by the Church cannot be explained in terms of promoting fecundity. I cannot allege such an authority as Slavin and Gauding, for I have not a large library, with which to support every kind of opinion. I want, nevertheless, to emphasize my deepest respect for Salavin and Gauding, although I never heard about them.
4º I find reference 12 unnecessary and pompous, as well as many of them. They accentuate rather than eliminate the inconsistencies. I miss instead a reference for explaining what a shrine is. Such a word! I miss also references to Spanish authors. The only one who writes about medieval Galicia uses English.
5º My personal opinion is that scallops for Galicia have the same significance than maple leaf for Canada or the quetzal bird for Guatemala. They are abundant there. The sun and Santiago, the scallops and Santiago, etc. are for me farfetched and inconsistent erudition. Sorry that I have not published that opinion, and you have to turn to the Ancient Wold, for explaining medieval Europe.
The article about Pecten jacobaeus says it is the one traditionally associated with Saint James.
Is this correct? If so, should there be a link from this Scallop article to that species article?
Whiteghost.ink09:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
word with 2 meaning
scallop is both the muscle of a shellfish and a certain specie of shellfish, apparently there's no article for the other and it's quite confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The claim that scallops are "the only migratory bivalve".
What is the basis of the claim that the scallop is the only migratory bivalve ?
It is certainly able to swim better than most other bivalves. But being able to move about does not constitute "migration". Many animals of many different phyla are capable of moving, but don't necessarily migrate either large distances or in any systematic way. How far can a scallop swim ? Is there any evidence of actual migratory behaviour ?
Furthermore, most marine molluscs have planktonic larval forms, which often results in wide dispersion by ocean currents. While this dispersion is not "migration" either, it may be much larger in scope than the "swimming" activities of the adult scallop, rendering the migratory ability of the latter unremarkable.Eregli bob (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is a confusing question. Technically, the "correct" placement of a scallop for an anatomical illustration is with the flat hinged part of the shell towards the top and the curved open part towards the bottom. Given this, the images on the left (as they currently stand) are "upside down." Now, when correctly oriented, you can usually tell if an image of a scallop has been flipped left/ right by locating some key features: the anus, a hook-shaped tube near the middle of the animal, should be on the right side and should hook upward. It should run through the heart, also on the right side. On the left side you may see the long loop of the intestine, another tube running from the stomach and going down along the visceral mass on the left. However, scallops do not have a strong left/right consistency, and a great deal may depend on how you open them up. The preceding comment is based on my own study of anatomical drawings of them, which consistently are arranged as I have described them. I hope this helps! KDS4444Talk04:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
KDS4444 thanks for taking the time to reply. I see you've also re-oriented the .svg file as well. Sorry, but due to my lack of experience with such, I still don't trust my ability to parse 'what's what' in the photo images. So I made this:
I'm thinking "A" might be the Labial palp and "B" the foot? Or is "H" the foot — or just an anomaly? Is "C" intestine and if so which end? "J" has the frilly look of the gill drawing. Does that make "F" a very large female gonad? And so on...
Even someone else's pure speculation would be helpful at this point. Of course educated assertions would be even better. Or a labeled life image with which to compare... hmm... Google suddenly comes to mind...
If more labeled arrows are needed let me know and I can likely add them or make other modifications.
Here's my take on it: D is the labial palp, A is the heart/ pericardium, F is (without question in my mind) the gonad (one color, probably only female) with J as the gills beneath it. The foot should be about where H is, but H does not look much like a foot to me. I am not sure B is actually an organ. As near as I can tell, all of this makes C part of the intestine, near the anus (though I do not see the usual "hook"). Further, I read E as being part of the intestine that has just left or is just entering the stomach/ digestive gland (easily identified as G here). But the truth is, though I have spent many hours pouring over drawings and photograph of scallops, I have never dissected an actual scallop myself, so these are only semi-educated guesses. Still, they are far from random guesses. If only everything always looked the way it should in the spot it is expected! I hope this has been helpful.KDS4444Talk13:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, see: Image from The Habits Anatomy, and Embryology of the Giant Scallop, G. Drew, 1906. Diagram of the internal anatomy of a giant scallop, left valve.KDS4444Talk15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a version of the open scallop pic with the background darkened and 'focus blurred' to emphasize the foreground. I also tweaked the white balance a bit to add more definition to the individual organs.
A few days ago it finally came to my attention (thanks to User:KDS4444) that a few years ago User:Mathglot had divided off part of what was originally in this article, and created a separate article called Pectinidae. However Mathglot left a great deal of the scientific information here in this article, therefore causing some confusion and duplication of effort from people who assumed there was only one article on this group of bivalves. When I discovered this, as a founder member of WikiProject Bivalves and of WikiProject Gastropods, at first I felt that the two articles should be merged back together again, but as they have been separate for so long, yesterday I tried to make the content of the two more logical. That included moving all the scientific info about the family to the other article. There is still more work to be done on both articles, so any help would be welcome. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Merger proposal
After reviewing the results so far of the WP:RfC taking place at Talk:Pectinidae, I am proposing that the content of Pectinidae be merged here to Scallop so that we have a single article dealing with both the scientific as well as cultural contexts of scallops (which are also all pectinids). This means undoing some of the work started by Invertzoo as mentioned above, but I suspect she will understand and approve. If anyone else has any thoughts on this proposal, please add them here so a discussion can take place. Thanks! KDS4444Talk16:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead and merge, why not? The same thing had happened to the article on Simple English, and by the same editor. I've just finished merging them. For the purposes of Simple, I chose 'Scallop' as the article title with 'Pectinidae' as a redirect. [1]Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Support - Scallops the animals are the same entities as scallops the food, and both contexts should be discussed on the same parent article at the main title ("Scallop"), with summary-style offshoot articles if necessary. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you meant "scallop", yes? - Kevjonesin (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Opened scallop shell (3).jpg: 180 rotation w/ colored texture background, no hand.
Scallop Diagram2.svg.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)