Reading path: Squid and deep-sea fish →
Questions to keep separate
| Question or feature | Explanation | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Common name | “Blobfish” refers to psychrolutid fishes; the museum identifies Mr Blobby as *P. microporos*. [1] | A shared common name does not establish that two photographs show the same species. |
| Mr Blobby measurement | 285 mm standard length, excluding the tail fin. [1] | This is not total length. |
| ROV image | An in-situ fish was photographed at about 1,220 m off Barrow Island and is described as most likely *P. occidentalis*. [1] | The identification is cautious; it is not the same individual as Mr Blobby. |
| Preservation | The trawled specimen was fixed in formaldehyde and preserved in 70% ethanol; fixation further changed its shape. [1] | The evidence does not quantify how much shape change came from any single cause. |
Start with the name, not the meme
“Blobfish” is a common name used for members of the family Psychrolutidae, not a guaranteed identification of one species. That distinction matters when comparing photographs: two fish both captioned “blobfish” may be different species, and a family-wide description cannot safely be assigned to each one. The family includes cold-water fishes in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific, with reported depths ranging from 100 to 2,800 m; that broad range is not a depth record for every species. [1]
The best-known specimen, nicknamed Mr Blobby, was collected by trawl on the Norfolk Ridge northwest of New Zealand during the NORFANZ expedition in June 2003. The Australian Museum identifies it as *Psychrolutes microporos* and catalogs it as AMS I.42771-001. Its measurement is 285 mm standard length, which excludes the tail fin; do not relabel that figure as total length. Its capture-depth interval was 1,013–1,340 m. [1]
What the photographs actually show
A trawl photograph records a fish after it has been brought up from deep water. Mr Blobby’s tissue was fixed in formaldehyde and later preserved in 70% ethanol, and the museum notes that fixation further changed its shape. Capture, loss of water support, possible damage, and preservation all complicate a simple comparison between a deep-water animal and a specimen image. The evidence does not support assigning a precise percentage of the visible change to decompression alone. [1]
The same museum page includes an in-situ remotely operated vehicle (ROV) photograph of a psychrolutid fish at about 1,220 m off Barrow Island. It describes that fish cautiously as most likely *P. occidentalis*. The image is valuable evidence of an animal in its deep-water setting, but it is not a “before” picture of Mr Blobby: the likely species and individual are different. A two-image meme that treats the photos as a controlled before-and-after test therefore cannot isolate the effect of pressure. [1]
The familiar yellow object on Mr Blobby’s mouth is identified as a parasitic copepod. That small detail is also a useful reminder that a specimen image may show an associated organism as well as the fish itself; it should not be mistaken for a defining facial feature of blobfish. [1]
A practical way to read a comparison
Put the trawled Mr Blobby image beside the ROV photograph, then caption each separately: *P. microporos*, Norfolk Ridge, trawled, 1,013–1,340 m; and a fish most likely *P. occidentalis*, ROV image, off Barrow Island, about 1,220 m. The first has a catalog number and a stated standard-length measurement; the second is a field image with a cautious species identification. This comparison shows both what can be learned and what cannot: one can discuss photographic condition and habitat context, but not claim the images document the same fish changing shape. [1]
A separate Australian Museum occurrence record documents a preserved *Psychrolutes marcidus* collected in New South Wales on 18 July 1984. It is another species and another individual, not a substitute “living” photograph of Mr Blobby. More generally, a museum occurrence record can establish collection information without revealing how a fish would look in motion in its habitat. [2]
What remains uncertain
Habitat depth and appearance are better documented here than the full life cycle. The museum says blobfish eggs and larvae are poorly described. That gap means a confident account of their development, lifespan, or species-specific response to environmental change cannot be built from these records. Likewise, family-level depth and diet statements should not be treated as measured facts for every species. [1]
The most defensible answer to “what does a living blobfish look like?” is therefore a carefully labeled one: the ROV image provides an in-situ view of a psychrolutid, probably *P. occidentalis*, while Mr Blobby is a preserved *P. microporos* specimen whose shape was affected by collection and preservation. Neither image alone establishes the appearance of every fish called a blobfish. [1]
Sources & further reading
Have a correction or a source to suggest? Send a note →