This is the talk page for Thresher Maw.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Note on OdditiesEdit

  • NOTE: My personal experience (with the PC version) is that this happens on both Normal and Hardcore difficulty, and probably other difficulty levels I haven't played yet. I've checked, and I'm certain his health is actually completely gone when I get XP the first time, he disappears, and then comes back with the same amount of health he did the last time he surfaced before I killed him. I'm fairly sure this is some kind of bug, because it only happens about 70% of the time, and it happens on both difficulty levels I've played. --Stufff 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

it is ment to happen. - electrobolt

Maw locations Edit

I've added a section which shows the locations of the planets I knew offhand where thresher maw nests are. If there are any I missed please add them. 03:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

in the image submitted to the mass effect 1 section of the article, where the planets are mentioned, isn't thutchanka supposed to be left out since it doesn't appear in the first game?

Yes it shouldn't be in there. It will be removed in a minute. Lancer1289 22:00, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Habitat Edit

The Thresher Maws are likely inspired by the Sand Worms from Frank Herbert's 'Dune' novels. The large flat slightly lumpy areas are likely sand basins where the ground can be easily travelled through. In a similar way to the Sand Worms in Dune, the Thresher Maws cannot travel over rock or shallow sand areas as they rely on being able to sink into the sand as a natural defence. I might be wrong, but do they only appear on desert planets?

Nope, they appear on Chohe too, and several frozen worlds. (The note about their inspiration is already in Thresher Maw trivia : ) ) --Tullis 15:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So, they are adaptable little blighters then ;) Any hypotheses as to how they ended up on so many planets? I can't see them being introduced for any reason other than a bio-weapon myself. --LeathamGrant 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a better question is: how the bloody hell does something that starts off as a single spore, and eats ores via photosynthesis, grow to be that big? --Tullis 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Unwary travellers? -- 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The same way how a tiny plant embryo can grow the the size of a 300 foot tree.Whachamacallit 23:53, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sarlacc Edit

The Thresher Maw may also be somewhat inspired by the Sarlacc. They have a similar method of dispersion to other planets, spores traveling through space and landing on other planets.--Kahn Iceay 06:31, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree! That connection was actually in the article till recently, when another user removed it, though given the striking similarities, especially in terms of space travel, I assume it was only removed accidentally. Regardless, it's back now! SpartHawg948 06:43, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
I theorize it was just a pack of galactic hicks with pet " 'gators". When they got too big, they were discarded. Frankly, their violence and anger is just xenophobic mistrust and abandonment issues. Little known fact: a well-loved thresher will metamorphose into a gorgeous trans-galactic light-being capable of combating the reaper menace. No one's seen the adult form, however. Apparently, due to all the mineral intake, the chrysalis stage is often mistaken for a massive geode. Greed always wins. O_oBaron Von   Awesome 11:45, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I may have missed this but there is way to much here in the form of similarities to dismiss them. Both survive in or out of an atmosphere, both travel thorugh space as eggs, etc. Lancer1289 14:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

The line "If Shepard defeats the Thresher, the Commander will be told that the only other person to accomplish this was Wrex." seems to be inaccurate. I recall plenty of talking mentioned that Wrex was the last Krogan to kill the Maw, but certainly not the only. Can anyone confirm?

I can affirm that, but not confirm it. O_o It was said that it is a rare event, that Wrex was the last to do it. (Bah, minor edit, forgot the siggie)Baron Von Awesome 00:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes... that is what is said, even when wrex is killed on virmire, indicating it happened quite some time ago, before Wrex went off planet after his incident. 15:29, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Thresher is inspired by both Dune and Star Wars, but the Sarlacc was obviously a rip on the Shai-Hulud from Dune. Dune is the "most original" inspiration. Star Wars and ME are mishmashes of other classic sci-fi. As for Thresher's obviously inspired-by-other-properties details, it has Shai-Hulud's travel restrictions and activity, but the top portion looks more like a Sarlacc. --Rookwood 23:12, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ok is there a source for this information? Granted I can see it, but again, a source would be nice. Lancer1289 00:22, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

space travel? Edit

This article mentions the thresher maws are able to survive in space and re-entry. what i really wonder is how they are able to escape the gravity pull of a planet in the first place, since it requires incredible force...

They are spores. They stick to things, like aircraft that leave the planet. Given they can survive burning up upon exit and re-entry, I would think they could hitchhike on asteroids and meteors as well. Where's Terminex a few hundred years later?

I'm also curious about what they use for nutrition... since they seem to live in places where there is no other life, i don't think they can really depend on unfortunate space travelers. 15:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

There is only one explanation....Sci-Fi. It gonna drive us crazy one day :P SoulRipper 15:30, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
...or how they are able to propel themselves in space and control their direction. 15:31, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
nevermind, it's actually the spores that are robust enough to survive space and re-entry -_- 18:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Melee Range Edit

The article rightly states do not try to find the melee range when on foot as one attack will wipe you out. I am pretty sure that the melee range can be determined by whether you can see the monsters stats. After a fair bit of trying I still havent been able to stay close enough to see his life bar and name, yet far enough away to avoid the brutal melee attack. --Imatfaal 19:12, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Drive Where It Was Edit

Is it a sound tactic to drive to where the Maw just went under? I don't recall it ever going down and then appearing in the same place, but maybe I just got lucky. If it really does always change position, should we put that in as a tactics tip? --Lucius Voltaic 22:52, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

 I was killed when it resurfaced exactly where it had just gone under just today.  Definitely not a sure thing.

Split Proposal Edit

With several other examples I can site, I also believe that this article should conform to the standard. There is information in here that should go into, and in all honestly belongs, a separate enemy article. Which leaves this article for describing Thresher Maw's in general. Lancer1289 23:42, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Support split. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:49, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

I was about to oppose but then i saw what you did with Batarian and Batarian(enemy). I support the split on the grounds of consistency.--AdmiralPedro1stFleet 01:39, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

                                                                                                                       Now that I know what is going on I also support split. --Legionwrex 04:33, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Definitely support it. — Teugene (Talk) 05:12, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. Support it. --The Illusive Man 02:44, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Split proposal passes 6-0. Implementing split on this article and I still have another to split and another to fix. I keep forgetting about that one. Lancer1289 17:51, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Terbin Thresher Maw(s) Edit

On the Trebin article in the points of interest it stats their is 1 or 2 Thresher Maws on Trebin. Is this a mistake or are the Threshers to lazy to hunt? Also why when you land on a planet with Thresher(s) they are so close to one another. Sure on Nepmos there on the opposite side of the map but on the Thresher Maw article it stats they are solitary animals with the most on a planet being three. Shouldn't they be spread out. 17:41, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Shadow Broker DLC Edit

Hi, I edited the article to include a section in which, if Shehard has a sole survivor background, it is confirmed by Tela Vasir in the Shadow Broker DLC that Cerberus was behind the attack on Shephard's squad. It was removed because it was 'not relevant.'

However, quoting the current page,

...Shepard may later encounter a second survivor in the mission UNC: Dead Scientists, Corporal Toombs, who claims that a black-ops group called Cerberus caused the massacre at Akuze deliberately. He says Cerberus scientists wanted to study the thresher maws, so they let them kill not only the colonists, but the marine rescue team as well, to watch and study...

I'm wondering why Tela Vasir's confirmation of Cerberus being responsible for the attack on Shephard's team is not relevant if this is? Perhaps I should re-work it into the beginning? I wanted to keep it behind the spoilers warning, though, so I placed it down under Mass Effect 2, instead of general info.


--Pokeme444 20:31, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Because we already know that Cerberus was behind the attack from other sources and because of that, we don't need to repeat it twice on the same page. In addition, we don't mention a lot of other things Vasir says and why should this one get special treatment. This one isn't as relevant as you think it is. It's dialogue that is redundant and redundant things don't have a place in articles. It doesn't need to be worked into the article as it is a spoiler and would have to end up under a spoiler tag, but it is mentioned elsewhere, and on this page no less. Lancer1289 20:42, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure how we know from other sources, and I don't see anything about Vasir or the shadow broker DLC anywhere on the page. The article uses language that says it is PROBABLY true, and reveals plot details about Kohoku also. One could easily extend that section to say:
It is likely Toombs' story is true, as Cerberus used a similar technique six years later, luring Admiral Kahoku's marine team to their deaths in a thresher nest on Edolus. Tela Vasir later confirms Cerberus' involvement in the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC.
That doesn't sound redundant. Of course we would place it there, because that part is in Mass Effect 1, which is why I placed it in the Mass Effect 2 section. As far as relevance is concerned, considering the trailers for ME3 showing Shepard fighting Cerberus operatives, him learning this will probably have an impact upon the game. If a player has a character they started in ME2 there is no way for their in-game Shepard to hear about Cerberus' involvement in it other than through Vasir. By the way, Sole Survivor is canon, i.e. default, meaning it's an *important plot point*. As for what she said, and why this gets "special treatment," it isn't special treatment at's just information pertaining to this plot point. Vasir is a dying SPECTRE, she has no reason to lie at that point, etc. etc. etc.
I'm not looking to argue this forever, I'm not a troll, I'm just a random guy trying to understand why the information is *not* important.
--Pokeme444 21:58, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Except that we do know that it is Cerberus and we do not need to include a redundant bit of dialogue. Cerberus was responsible for the attacks, but that is known before LotSB. Maybe it could use some cleanup, but not with the inclusion of redundant dialogue.
As to a new player in Mass Effect 2, that isn't as much of a consideration as you think. Just because it isn't mentioned in Mass Effect 2 explicitly, doesn’t mean we have to repeat information. A player entering in Mass Effect 2 will just have to read up on what they missed.
I also suggest that you read up on what canon and default mean. Default does not, in any sense of the word, mean that Sole Survivor is the canon background for Shepard. Shepard can be of any background and of any personality. Sole Survivor does not override any other background in terms of canon so nothing gets special treatment, despite what you may think. The bottom line here is that any canon argument is really thrown out the window by what BioWare says, there is no canon. It is left up to the player to define their own canon, which is something I like about this series. The default is there for people who don't want to customize their character, but that again in no way means that it is more canon than any other background. This argument has been beaten to death multiple times over and it will not change.
As to the trailers, again you are speculating and it has no place in the article, or really a place on the talk page. Talk pages are not a place to post theories without fear of deletion. If you have a theory about it, then take ti to a blog or forum page because that isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 22:16, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Worm Edit

Someone may be interested in adding the Mongolian death worm to the trivia (

Just an idea, don't know how to do it myself.

And this would be trivia how exactly? Lancer1289 00:49, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
He's asking why this would even be considered to be relevant to trivia on the Thresher Maw?--Xaero Dumort 00:51, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
And I'm asking how it would be trivia. I also realized that I put my comment in the middle of his. Oops. Lancer1289 01:00, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I understood what you were asking Lancer, I was responding to what was under your response that you accidentally put in the middle at the time.--Xaero Dumort 01:02, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Kalros Edit

Is a giant Thresher Maw. Like. Seriously enormous. He ... or she, rather, is the Thresher Maw that's shown taking down the Reaper during one of the teasers.

She's rumored to be the mother of all Thresher Maws, and the area where you encounter her is both a temple and arena dedicated to her. The Salarians built the Shroud, an atmospheric control device, in her arena in order to discourage the Krogans from coming too close.

Two Maw Hammers are used to summon her, after which she proceeds to battle the Reaper, though damaging the Shroud in the process, which contributes to Mordin Solus' Paragon death.

I don't think she deserves a page on her own though, since she's really more of a background character. Not fought or interacted with in any way, save using her as a massive anti-Reaper worm.

Stormkeeper 13:29, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Good info. Also it invalidates someone calling the Reaper 'Hammer' as I saw get edited at one point. --Aryn2382 13:31, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

the threshers on Akuze? Edit

The page says that "Thresher maws are solitary creatures; two or three at most can be found on a single planet" and that they live in underground nests which cover a particular area, yet on Akuze, where it is said that "The shore parties were set upon by hungry threshers", it sounds as if there were more threshers and were somehow accumulated in one area. Is there anywhere a more detailed description of what happened? Were the marines lured into the nests by some false signals, possibly arranged by Cerberus? Or did Cerberus somehow plant more threshers on Akuze? --Ygrain 13:11, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

We only have the information that the game provides. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do people continually think that we have access to information that isn't present anywhere in the series? Lancer1289 13:20, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
Is it really so unreasonable to expect that people around a wiki might be more knowledgeable than others, either knowing the game in-depth up to minor details or interesting speculations that didn't make it onto the page, or possess extra information from the devs? I came over something that seemed to imply an inconsistency in game lore, so I asked; stone me for that. --Ygrain 16:07, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
Calm down, no need for hyperbole and histrionics. No one is stoning anyone. As is stated in-game, the maws on Akuze were being manipulated by Cerberus. Unfortunately, we don't know the full details of the manipulation. However, since we know there was manipulation, we can't really expect what happened on Akuze to conform with the normal behavior for thresher maws. From what we do know, what happened on Akuze was more akin to a gladiatorial bout staged for pseudo-scientific purposes. And no one would look at the behavior of a wild animal unleashed in an arena as typical of the species as a whole, would they?
Lastly, as for your query ("Is it really so unreasonable to expect that people around a wiki might be more knowledgeable than others"), well... you are a person around this wiki, are you not? Does that infer more knowledge than what others have, particularly in the field of minor details or interesting speculations? If the answer is no, then why the angst when one person on the wiki replied without the specific knowledge you sought? That seems unreasonable. SpartHawg948 06:41, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I have no problem being told that there is no more info to be had. I do take offence, though, when my question gets brushed off as idiotic and bothersome for no other reason than just being asked at all, and that by an admin.
Curiously, I've also deduced from my previous experience on other sites that there tends to be a sort of a core community, who usually know almost every single detail and are willing to share their knowledge with a noob or a casual user. That's why I asked. --Ygrain 09:24, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thresher Photosynthesis? Edit

Where is this sourced from? It isnt in any of the 3 main games (as far as I am aware)?

Indeed, the codex and thier in game actions contradict this somewhat. FeckThisShyt 23:47, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Either one of the books (of the four, most likely Revelation), or possibly the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:39, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Which one (if you know)? The claim should really be sourced. As for the GCEE, I though you were supposed to defer to the game rather than that.
Thier actions in the game still contradict this, though I dont know whether books>game. Are the books even canon? FeckThisShyt 13:52, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
It's sourced. It's from the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. It is canon material that does not appear to be contradicted by the game. Unless, of course, it is impossible for a life-form to gain nutrients via photosynthesis and via the capture and consumption of prey. This is, of course, not the case. Carnivorous plants, anyone?
And yes, the books are canon, unless otherwise specified by BioWare. SpartHawg948 06:33, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies Edit

The information on this page is inconsistent in several cases:

“subterranean carnivores that spend their entire lives eating or searching for something to eat” X “thresher maws feed by absorbing significant quantities of solar radiation and survive best on planets, asteroids or moons with little or no atmosphere. They also consume minerals and ores from the ground itself for use in an unusual form of photosynthesis” The former is in concord with the description of the Akuze attack; the source of the latter has already been requested but without effect. I suggest to at least tag the information for confirmation.

solitary creatures; two or three at most can be found on a single planet…. highly territorial” X “The shore parties were set upon by hungry threshers” – the latter seems to be implying more animals attacking at one spot, and this is further confirmed by the information from the Secondary Codex Entries: “When the unit camped for the night, they found themselves set upon by thresher mawS.” Therefore, it seems that in this case, it is the former information that is inconsistent with the lore. Source?

“They live alone in nests spanning large areas underground. They can grow in excess of 30 metres tall above the ground, with a body nearly twice that size beneath the surface” X “, thresher maw nests are uniquely identifiable by a distinct profile of landscape, which consists of a few hills and pits no higher or deeper than 2 meters on an otherwise perfectly flat circular area of land about 50-75 meters in diameter” – the latter seems to be an in-game observation and contains the same information as the page Thresher Maw (enemy). I suggest the information is removed from this page, since it is inconsistent and redundant.

“Threshers commonly have some sort of "lure" in their nest” – now, that assumes some level of intelligence on behalf of the threshers, and may be an incorrect interpretation of in-game observation. Source?

All in all, threshers are either carnivores or unorganic-matter eating photosynthesizers, they can't be both. If they are carnivores, they cannot strive on places with little to no atmosphere, since there wouldn't be any prey. If they aer solitary and territorial, they cannot attack the Akuze marine team en masse (unless some specific Cerberus manipulation is involved). If they the measure up to 90 meters, they can hardly be confined to a nest spanning 50-75 meters (which hardly counts as "large") and never move outside it. --Ygrain 08:30, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Habitation section since that is more appropriate for the enemy page and relates only in-game observations. As for the info about the photosynthesis and territoriality, I'm not certain but I believe that originates from the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. I'll see about verifying it.
I would like to note, however, that the info is not necessarily contradictory. The attack on Akuze may have been manipulated by Cerberus as you said, allowing "solitary" thresher maws to overcome their instincts and gather together. Akuze is the only instance in the lore where threshers attack in a group, and the encounters in the games all consist of a single thresher. As for their feeding habits, the game Codex entries calling them carnivores may be an over-simplification or exaggeration. That they are carnivores as we understand the term is unlikely given how several of them nested on inhospitable worlds where no life has arisen that they could feed on. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:22, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
Commdor is correct about the sourcing. The following is taken from the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183:
"Thresher Maws - a rare species usually found on worlds with extremely hostile environments. Threshers are solitary creatures: at most, two or three can be found on a single planet. They live and travel underground; a remarkable fact considering their immense size. Threshers can grow to be in excess of 30 meters tall above ground with a body nearly twice that size hidden beneath the surface.
Aggressive and highly territorial, threshers feed by absorbing huge amounts of solar radiation and best survive on planets, asteroids, or moons with little or no atmosphere. Threshers also consume minerals and ores from the ground itself and use an odd form of photosynthesis to combine solar radiation and minerals into energy they can use to fuel their significant mass."
Now, there don't really seem to be that many inconsistencies here. The source for maws subsisting on radiation and minerals has been given. As for their apparently also eating living things, well, the answer is right there in the quote. Ideally, they live in environments hostile to most life but where conditions for their preferred food are ideal. Nature is rife with examples of animals which, when placed in situations where their access to their preferred food sources is curtailed, turn to alternatives. The maws may very well just be doing this. Regardless, the info is canon whatever the cause. So yes, given the material we have on hand, thresher maws can be both carnivorous and photosynthetic, preferring places with hostile environments. It's all sourced canon material. It doesn't contradict.
As for territoriality, they can indeed be territorial and attack the marines en masse. The marines were attacked by threshers. This term can refer to as few as two. And you have to remember that the maws weren't acting completely of their own volition. Cerberus apparently had at least some involvement in the threshers attacking the marines. As this is the case, the Akuze massacre can hardly be viewed as typical of thresher maws. It would be like unleashing three pumas on a group of test subjects, then claiming that this one instance contradicts the established fact that pumas are solitary hunters and are territorial. SpartHawg948 06:18, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

carnivore: "an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue"
carnivorous plants: "plants that derive some or most of their nutrients (but not energy) from trapping and consuming animals or protozoans" (Wikipedia)
These are scientific terms, with precise meaning. You might label threshers as "carnivorous", but definitely not as "carnivore". Even the use of "carnivorous" would be dubious, as it seems they might be able to derive enrgy/nutrients from eating almost anything, not just meat, and the behaviour is neither typical nor required for every single individual of the species. - It is well possible that the authors simply used the word in a broader meaning, i.e. sort of incorrectly, and their idea of the threshers may not be inconsistent at all, but for a reader like myself, the incorrect use makes it very confusing.
The problem with the use of plural is that while it may mean just two, it generally implies a greater number. If the animals are described as solitary and highly territorial, you have to lure (because you can't really hold them in cages like your puma example) them to one spot somehow. This, of course, can be arranged (Tuchanka), but since the behaviour is highly untypical, it should then raise some questions as to what, how and why really transpired on Akuze, but we don't see this happening. So, there rather seems to be inconsistence/incorrect wording in the canon sources. --Ygrain 09:18, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

While the language is a bit confusing, it's hardly the first time we've seen an issue caused by layman's use of terminology. See, for example, the whole raloi "intergalactic law" brouhaha. I've seen no evidence of inconsistency, just poor choice of wording. As for plural, no, not really. All the use of plural means is more than one. It doesn't generally imply more than two. That is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Even if we were to assume that the use of plural means more than two, it is not unheard of, per the canon source, for three to reside on the same world. Three certainly meets the requirement for more than two. And again, this was an atypical situation. Cerberus could very well have imported more maws for their experiment. From what we've seen of their resources and capabilities, this isn't out of the realm of the possible. So again, I can only conclude that there is no inconsistent or incorrect wording in the canon source, at least none that has been made apparent here. SpartHawg948 20:19, May 21, 2012 (UTC)