Academic Approach

After last week’s extensive discussion of octopoid conjugation and etymology, we at Academic Approach could not have been more intrigued to see today’s breaking news on CNN’s website: “World’s first six-legged octopus discovered.” Thank you, CNN, most sincerely, for covering this topic. However, in case you decide to do more reporting in this field, we do have a few points to address—six to be exact…

1.) Plurals: Aw shucks, CNN. You really know how to charm us! You not only avoided the common pitfall of using “octopi” as the plural form of “octopus,” but you also used both preferred plural forms—”octopuses” and “octopodes.” Bravo, eight times over!

2.) Naming of parts: We were somewhat troubled with your naming of parts. In your first paragraph, for example, you explain that “English marine experts have laid their hands on an octopus that’s missing two of its own: a six-limbed creature that they have dubbed ‘hexapus.’” In this sentence, the octopus has both “hands” and “limbs,” and elsewhere in the article you use the words “arms” and “legs” interchangeably. CNN! You can do better! If you have a minute, look at our earlier Grammar of the Sea posting in which the Academic Approach staff insists on consistency in relation to the naming of the octopus’s appendages. The octopus, by definition, has eight (okto) feet (pous). In other words, it has no “arms,” “legs,” “hands,” “limbs,” or “tentacles.” Sorry.

3.) Numbering of parts: I hate to bring it up, but we’re similarly confused about the way you’ve chosen to number Henry’s parts. Why is Henry being called a “six-legged octopus”? You do concede that he is being “dubbed” a hexapus, but “dubbing” implies that you’re bestowing a nickname rather than reporting the facts. Isn’t Henry, a six-footed creature, simply a hexapus? John Filmer, of the Sea Life Centre, seems to think so: he states that “You’d assume if he’d lost one of his legs in an accident, there would be space for an arm to grow back. But there’s no space for two extra legs to grow back. That’s just how he is.” We couldn’t agree more with Mr. Filmer! “That’s just how he is.” Indeed—a hexapus!

4.) Assumption of defect: Sadly, we eventually have to part ways with Filmer. He messes up, we think, when he points out that Henry’s “missing limbs stem from a birth defect.” Mr. Filmer, did you see this diaphanous creature? Defective? We beg to differ.

5.) Henry VIII analogy: CNN, you’re making this hard on us. You point out that Henry the hexapus “was named after King Henry the VIII who had six wives when he should have had eight.” Hmmph! We assume that the “should have had eight” comment relates to the fact that two of Henry VIII’s wives were decapitated!? Here you go again with the idea that Henry is “missing” two of his feet…

6.) Budget cuts: We were fascinated to learn that Henry’s only known hexapoid predecessor starred in a 1955 movied entitled “It Came From Beneath The Sea.” When you explain that “designers left off two legs from the creature because of budget constraints,” you both amused us and alarmed us, CNN. We worry that the impending recession, coupled with the lost revenues of the writer’s strike, will produce heretofore unseen creatures on the screen, all the way from the pentapus down to the unipus. Horror.

In sum, we thank you, CNN, for brightening our day with this story, but we hope that when you do a follow-up on Henry you’ll take our suggestions to heart. Speaking of hearts, how about the fact that the octopus has three of them? Given that remarkable fact, did you ever wonder, CNN, why its name is not based around enumerating those?