Talk:Cetacea

What does "fish" mean?

Since I was a young child, teachers have always asserted that "contrary to common thought, whales are not fish." I'm pretty sure that nowadays most everybody who knows what a "mammal" is understands that whales are mammals. But is it true that whales are not fish?

The word, "fish" was never intended as a phyologenic term. For centuries, it was understood to mean any sea-dwelling animal. Even crabs, mollusks, and the like are referred to as "shellfish." Historical literaty sources which refer to whales as "fish," (such as "Moby Dick," and, as many suppose, the Book of Jonah) are not wrong; they simply use a traditional definition of fish, rather than referring to the phylogenic classification of "pisces" and related classes. Actually, today, most biologists have moved many other "fish," such as sharks, lobe-finned fishes and hagfishes, into other classes; the phylogenic equation of "'fish' equals 'Class Pisces'" has totally broken down.

I agree about phylogeny, but when people speak of fish they are always mean something that has gills/"breathes underwater". Whales don't, so they're not fish.

People mean that _now_, but centuries ago they didn't. The meaning of the word changed over time. Chaotic nipple 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cetacea or Cetacean?

I prefer the English name Cetaceans to the scientific Cetacea. Just like the project name. Any agreement or disagreement? Nurg 11:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the general policy of "no plural titles" has caused it be the way it is more than anything else. If we had it at Cetaceans, someone would move to cetacean, which to my mind sounds more awkward than both Cetacea and cetaceans. I guess being at the order taxon is a bit of a border between latin (for those taxa further up the tree) and English (for many of those further down). Pcb21| Pete 16:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops, my slip with the plural. I meant to say I prefer the English name Cetacean to Cetacea. Like the project name but singular. I agree that Cetacean sounds a little more awkward than Cetaceans (which is why I made the slip) but so does every singular for a group of animals and I think we have to live with the singular vs plural decision. I don't think the taxo level comes into it - I prefer the English at every level, provided there is a suitable English term, which there isn't for some groups. Nurg 06:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cetacea is plural. Cetacean is singular. If the rule is "no plural titles," then Cetacea would violate that rule. The solution would be to use "Cetacean" or "Order Cetacea." But I would personally have no problem bending the "no plural" word for terms from foreign (including "dead") languages.

Would you use "Order Cetacea," instead of just using "Cetacea" for a title referring to the order?198.100.3.85 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If a rule permits someone from making an article better, it shall be done.--71.126.59.54 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Arteries/babies

"A baby can crawl through the arteries of a blue whale!" (Discovery 2005).

Thanks. Actually we already note that oft-quoted fact at Blue Whale#Size. Shame that we don't have a source for big the artery actually is - some babies are pretty small. Pcb21| Pete 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Breathing in Marine Mammals

That may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder how long marine mammals can stay underwater without breathing air into their lungs. I heard once it can be as long as 50 minutes in the case of certain species of seals and whales. Did their lungs evolve in some specific way to allow them to hold their breath for such extended periods of time ? Thanks for the information.

Yes marine mammals have spent millions of years adapting to being in water! According to the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, the Sperm Whale routinely holds its breath for 40 minutes and can do it for 75 minutes. The Elephant Seal usually dives for 25 minutes but can do so for 2 hours. Pcb21 Pete 09:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Breathing mechanisms for sustaining oxidative phosphorylation is carried out through oxygen storage molecules called myoglobin, similar to hemoglobin. Whale tissues have much more myoglobin that releases oxygen in their tissues, so in a sense, they really aren't just operating with a complete lack of oxygen, as the more ischemic their tissue and organs become, the more the myoglobin will release the stored oxygen, allowing them to stay much longer underwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.220.1.66 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For instance, the beluga whale can hold its breath for 20 minutes, but usually comes up 3-4 times each minute for air. The sperm whale can, and does, dive and not come up for two hours. It differs. The Steller's sea lion can hold its breath for 25 minutes, because of it being larger than the California sea lion, which can only hold 15 minutes worth of oxygen in its lungs. It differs from species to species, as previously stated. Belugaboy535136 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blubber vs. Hair

"After the cetacean's hair disappeared, it needed some way of preserving body heat. This came in the form of blubber, a thick layer of fat between the skin and the flesh that also acts as an emergency source of energy. In some cetaceans the layer of blubber can be more than a foot thick."

This can not have hapend, if indeed the hair disappeared it could not habe preserved body heat so it would die. It must have hapend around the same time (hairs getting tinner while blubber layer growing) or the other way around (blubber growing and then hair disappearing)

Hearing

"The ear bone called the hammer (malleus) is fused to the walls of the bone cavity where the ear bones are, making hearing in air as good as impossible. Instead sound are transmitted through their jaws and skull bones." contradicts "The inner ear, however, has become so well developed that the cetacean can not only hear sounds tens of miles away, but it can also discern from which direction the sound comes"

It is unclear, but is it a contradiction? Whales cannot hear (much) in air, but can in water. Pcb21 Pete 09:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it clear, but will take a look at making it so to others. I've encountered information, long ago, about their increadible hearing abilities: vast range of frequencies, rate of processing (perhaps somewhat similar to thinking of sample rate in computer audio), ability to communicate over huge distances - hundreds or thousands of miles (sounds impossible, but I think that was said, and water + low freq would be much much more efficient than air, like elephants using low frequency sounds to communicate over distance - you hear the bass of the jerk with the loud car outside, not the treble, after all). Anyone have more information? This section could use some expanding or separate article. Thanks 146.74.231.113 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy

A recent anonymous editor substantially revised the taxonomic listing - essentially promoting several new species. I realise that the jury is still out on some genera where you made changes but in others the type has been widely recognised as a subspecies or synonym. I think the best we can do is to stick with the classification from the two major authorities (and note the differences between them). All further discussion is in, or will be added to (now that I have MSW3!) the relevant sub-articles. Thanks! Pcb21 Pete 09:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Broad Speculation

There seems to be some broad speculation in this article as to the origin of Cetacea. Yes, some hypothesize that Cetacea migrated from land. However, not nearly enough is known to establish that relationship. They may have started in the oceans, and evolved there from start to present. I would like to see this presented in a more unbiased fashion, and am adding a POV-check to the article to attempt to encourage this. Simply adding that "one possibility is that" may be enough.--216.227.83.45 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be some debate as to whether they evolved from mesonychids, anthracotheres, or artiodactyls, but there is zero debate as to whether or not cetaceans evolved from land mammals. These aren't fish. Since this appears to be your POV issue, I'm removing the tag. --Aranae 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't remember saying that they were fish. That doesn't mean that they started on land and moved into the ocean. Are lobsters fish? How about plankton? What did they look like before they "entered the water"? I put the POV tag there because the statement that they started on land is not scientifically valid, as there is no scientific data listed here to support the assertion. They may have started on land, and that may be one possibility. I'm fine with it being listed as a possibility, or conjecture. And I don't know what you are referencing when you say there is zero debate. I am leaving the tag off for now, and look forward to your reply.--205.231.145.172 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply, I am re-adding the POV check. There is no explanation as to the evidence that this order has absolutely evolved from land mammals, as opposed to always dwelling in the sea. Dogs (especially my retriever) love to swim in the water. They can also eat fish. Yet they have not lost hair, gained blubber, and taken to the sea.--216.227.56.70 15:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement that they started on land is scientifically valid - i don't know where you are getting this information from. The article says ' cetaceans most likely evolved from land animals', so it does not say that for absolute certain they evolved from them. They are mammals, and they evolved from land mammals, which land mammals are not known for certain. The ability for a mammal to go in the sea does not mean that they will evolve into animals that will live in the sea for good. Where are you thinking they evolved from? Chris_huh^talk 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Their closest living relative is the hippopotamus, which is more closely related to a whale than a horse (so technically cetacea shouldn't be an order at all). Both molecular and morphological evidence support this. Richard001 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cetartiodactyla

Should Cetartiodactyla officially be put in as the superorder of Cetacea and Artiodactyla? Eli Falk 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's wait a couple of years. In any case, let's leave anything as controversial as this out of the taxoboxes for now... Fedor 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the page asserts that artiodactyla is undoubtedly paraphyletic if it doesn't include cetacea. But even wikipedia's page on cetartiodactyla implies that the jury is still out on that one. Shouldn't the cetacea page be re-written to reflect the controversy?

POV issues

Hi! This article needs to be adapted for creationists as well as evolutionists, so the "Evolution" section etc needs to account for both groups. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the undue weight clause of WP:NPOVJoshuaZ 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If we were to do that, we would have to include every religion's description of how things came to be. This is clearly silly. Skittle 12:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote the creationism page: "Creationism, as religion, is not within the mainstream scope of scholarly scientific comment. Most scientists, by consensus, reject the claim that creationism meets the criteria to be taught as a science." BabyNuke 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I, with all due respect, disagree with these claims; NPOV explicitly states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias". Being only two major views here (creationism being the smaller of the two) I feel that it is fairly easy to represent both views: "Most believe dolphins evoluted from ...". Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, creationism is not a 'major view' on whales, any more than the cosmic egg creation myth in Hinduism is a 'major view' on them. As I mentioned on your talk page, the Undue Weight section of the NPOV page covers this. It would not be representing views "proportionately" to mention Creationism on the encyclopedia pages of every animal that has any interesting evolutionary history, any more than it would be proportionate to mention Flat Earth in every article on geography. Skittle 11:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the facts have a POV bias towards evolution... What is it that we should say anyway? "An alternative position is that God willed whales into existance on the fifth day." Would that be satisfactory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.2.219 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to our creationist friend, I notice there's no mention at all in the article of cetaceans' place in any religion or culture. There really probably should be a section on that. It would be fair to make a mention of their place in the Genesis creation narrative there. But, of course, treating creationism as a viable scientific perspective is preposterous. Abyssal (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Teeth and Baleen Plates

I have noticed the lack of infomation on how many teeth/baleen plates each cetacean species has. I am thinking of adding this infomation, but I don't know where to put it. Can anyone help me on the matter? (Iuio 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Float

Do dead whales float? --Thenickdude 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it depends on the species. Whalers used to classify whales according to whether they floated or sank when dead, as a sinking whale is quite hard to 'harvest'. But I can't remember where I read that. Skittle 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cephalorhynchus

With an H (Cephalorhynchus) or without (Cephalorhyncus)? The individual pages and the IUCN red list spell them with an H. Is this new nomenclature, because I don't want to change the wrong page(s). Nixenzo 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vestigial Limbs

There is an error in the original article. The Article says that there are vestigial limbs. This is not correct. According to Whale anatomy those bones connect to the muscles used in reproduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.171.128 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; minimum IQ of 85 to post here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.2.219 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written opening

This is an informative article, but at first sight it's atrocious. First, do you really need to 'disambiguate' (or, in English, distinguish) this huge subject from some obscure song on an obscure pop album? Surely people looking for an article about the song would realise they they've come to the wrong page and search for Bjork or something?

Second, there's no need to give both the Latin and Greek etymology, unless you're going to trace the entite liguistic history of the word. It's a Greek word - say so, and leave it at that.

Third, the clause "In Greek mythology the monster Perseus defeated was called Ceto" is horrific. It should read "In Greek mythology, Perseus defeated a monster called Ceto". That is, if you think that piece of information is worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph at all. My own view is that it is not; it's peripheral. Moreover, why then go on to describe the association of Ceto with the Cetus constellation? Again, it's at best peripheral.

I'm afraid the whole paragraph reads like it was written by a 10 year old, in that it displays an inability to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant. Then again, maybe it was written by a 10 year old... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.215.230 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the opening is full of irrelevant information, and is very poorly written. I'm considering simply removing the majority of the first two paragraphs, or at least slimming them down considerably. Moosesheppy (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Whippo clade

In the mammalian nature section the whippo clade (WHales + HIPPOpotamuses) is presnted as a definite fact and two news articles are cited. There does not seem to be a consensus on the whippo clade now. A recent PLoS ONE paper put hippos in a clade with pigs rather than whales. And are the current citations to ScienceDaily sufficient? Innotata 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Here's another article contesting the whippos: Geisler.Dave (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Eobalaenoptera

Does Eobalaenoptera have any reason to be on the species list? And if so, why doesn't it include Basilosaurus, Mammalodon, et cetera ? Innotata 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

eg78ishduhsdiji e9iwhijkdfsu eh8qjiojd iqhr8iujewh uhewrhkqhn UHJE4WRB 3HIQW3JIQ 12W89HNFCNJ YQTGWSYGG UI3EGUIYHS UEGHWUHAKLDF HE3FU4WRVBHWEDQOUIERHYUB J342OUIH39U1IRGU1I2GRUIOB 12EGBYG8OEFJBHR123UIOGBF3YGVY UH32RUYG3F2UI112DFIUGQ3FGW8UI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.45.28 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove the clades from the box please

The box I thought was for officially sanctioned classifications of the ICZN Code. The clades, which are tentative anyway, ought to be in the text under "Classification".Dave (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the automation of the taxobox, which made undiscussed changes; one of the consequences of this was making a classification that displayed as Order/clade/Order:Cetecea. I very strongly agree that the text in the body of the article is the place to mention this, the taxobox should be a summary of that (if possible). cygnis insignis 07:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite easily done, fortunately, and I've already made the edit to the automatic taxobox. Restoring the automatic taxobox would therefore keep the listing the same as it is now. However, I haven't done that (yet) because it looks like some editors may be questioning whether we even want the automatic taxobox on this page - however, if we do, I'd suggest further discussion as to what it should say might be better held at Template:Taxonomy/Cetacea, so we can keep a track of any further changes to that template there. After all, that template will affect all cetacean pages, not just this one. Anaxial (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of content in articles should be on each talk, that the introduction of content affects other articles is not a new issue, and different wikiprojects have imposed their own solutions. A template and 'automation' creates a problem and the solutions ro those are technical ones, that is not the problem with introducing facts without context and references; the implementation of this scheme should follow behind the content of the article, not introduce ill-ordered taxonomies that silently assign it to a proposed clade. cygnis insignis 10:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the principle that the automated taxobox should not change information without consensus on all pages it may affect. Since, in this instance, it can easily be amended to resolve that issue (and already has been), I don't see an issue with making the edit to that page, and discussing that edit on the relevant Talk page. However, if, as you seem to be suggesting, we don't want the automatic taxobox on this page at all - and I can see a good case for that - then, yes, there isn't much point discussing that anywhere else than here! Anaxial (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomic breakdown

The species listing under taxonomy does not agree with that in {{Cetacea}} template. Any thoughts on how to treat this issue? I will crosspost this question under the template.Lfstevens (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Cetaceans the Best adaped Marine Mammal ?

The statement that Cetaceans are the "mammals best adapted to aquatic life" is subjective. By what criterion is "best" defined. Perhaps "mammals well adapted to aquatic life" or "mammals adapted to aquatic life" is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amezcackle (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How about "most fully adapted"? All other mammals that have adapted to aquatic life spend some amount of time on land. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with data

In the Respiration section, there appears to be a problem with some data. Within the first bullet near the bottom of the section it reads:

"New Zealand white rabbits have 0.08 grams (0.0028 oz) +/- 0.6 grams (0.021 oz) myoglobin in 100 grams (3.5 oz) of wet muscle, ..."

The standard deviation is an order of magnitude larger than the value itself, which is absurd. Does anyone know if they are just switched, i.e. it should read "...0.6 grams (0.021 oz) +/- 0.08 grams (0.0028 oz)", or if the data were just entered incorrectly? Eganio^Talk 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)