This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cetaceans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The blue whale certainly the heaviest. With regards to Argentinosaurus, see today's news. CMD (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The reason I asked the IP editor about the source of their assertion—I had already skimmed through our article on Argentinosaurus—is because I wanted to ascertain whether they were concerning themselves only with body length, as opposed to other measurements such as mass etc. The real question here is: how is size measured and compared? As CMD states, the blue whale is the heaviest. I note that the article that CMD links to carefully describes the new dinosaur as the largest animal to have ever walked on Earth. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
When animal "size" is discussed in scientific papers and the like, I find that unless qualified it refers to body mass. See for example this book on organism size (a somewhat outdated one, but it shows the assumption is old). Size is of course used to refer to other measurements (eg. [http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/body-size-and-temperature-why-they-matter-15157011 interesting paper on body size and shape, with regards to temperature), but it explicitly mentions length rather than just size. Sauropods are a lot of thin neck and tail, the bulk of the animals fills up a much smaller space. CMD (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be an asterisk attached to the longest animal ever title owned by the Blue Whale. The new gigantic plant eating dinosaurs being discovered in Argentina are from the late Mesozoic and a new one larger than Argentinosaurus has been discovered in Chubut Province that is being estimated at 40 meters in length. So even if the estimate is reduced as frequently happens, the length title is at least uncertain at this point. The weight title remains safely with the Sulphurbottem, as the estimates on that are almost double that of the new dinos. source: NBC News; 5/17/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Where in the article is that claim made? CMD (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I was doing research on the 52 Hertz whale and on the page pertaining to that there was an audio file of the 52 Hertz whales song. Then I went to the Blue whale page, to hear the difference in the songs of these two whales as a comparison of how off pitch 52 was compared to a regular whale, and I started listening to the audio files on the page and realized that the 2nd song is the same as the 52 hertz one. I'm just not so entirely sure that's right, because 52s song is on a frequency that Blue whales cant achieve and they don't even have a species for labeled for him yet, so classifying that information under Blue whales just kinda seemed a bit off for me. But I'm not quite a marine biologist yet, so hey, I may be mistaken. Jarrett Wilson (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)