from The Century Dictionary.

  • A division of malacostracous Crustacea, having the eyes borne upon movable eye-stalks or opnthalmites, and the cephalothorax forming a carapace; the stalk-eyed crustaceans: distinguished from Edriophthalmia.

from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

  • noun plural (Zoöl.) The stalk-eyed Crustacea, -- an order of Crustacea having the eyes supported on movable stalks. It includes the crabs, lobsters, and prawns. Called also Podophthalmata, and Decapoda.


Sorry, no etymologies found.


    Sorry, no example sentences found.


Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • An order of Crustacea having the eyes supported on movable stalks. It includes the crabs, lobsters, and prawns. Called also Podophthalmata, and Decapoda.

    December 16, 2008

  • I've always wanted eye-stalks.

    December 17, 2008

  • *sigh* Me too. Moveable ones.

    December 17, 2008

  • It makes you wonder why we haven't evolved them yet. I mean, assuming they were fully retractable, would there be any disadvantage to having them?

    Surely it's only a matter of time before the first podophthalmic child is born - and that child will dominate his peers and produce podophthalmic progeny.

    December 17, 2008

  • *ponders*

    Would such a development devastate the periscope industry, mayhap?

    December 17, 2008

  • Strange. I've always wanted moveable eyestalks too.

    But if I know humankind, we'd ruin it somehow. Before you could blink those eyestalks just once, there'd be a burgeoning market for eyestalk apparel, eyestalk tattoos, eyestalk jewelry, eyestalk makeup....Oh, it would be terrible.

    Give me two plain eyestalks any day, though.

    December 17, 2008

  • It's remarkable to return to my computer after several hours away and find all of this discussion by so many people on a topic such as this.

    BTW, how does one go about making an addition like the one I made appear as a gray definition beside the word rather than as a comment. I referenced FAQ and found this: "The definitions come from an open-source project called WordNet. If they don't provide a definition, then Wordie doesn't show one. So far, there is no way to add a definition - but you can add it as a comment on the word page." That's got to be an intrabuccal linguisticism again, n'est ce pas?

    December 17, 2008

  • Yaybob: originally those definitions weren't there, and all you got was the word page and whatever comments were left. You are more than welcome to post your definition of choice as a comment, though. It wouldn't make sense to have some WordNet definitions be from WordNet and some from users.

    December 17, 2008

  • To add to Chained_Bear's reply, you can also add a private note (that no other Wordie will see) by clicking on the link just above the comments. So if you'd rather keep a definition to yourself--or just curse uncontrollably--that's the place to do it. :-)

    December 17, 2008

  • Yaybob-this is a very mild example of the wordie treatment, a phenomenon of some standing around here; first identified by reesetee on the luncheon discussion as far as I can tell. A more spectacular (and more deliberate) example may be found at greetings. And just about everywhere else, now that I think of it.

    December 18, 2008