Talk:Blue whale

Whale song samples

Does anybody know why the samples are sped up? -Just curious

Largest Animal

isn't this the largest animal ever to have lived, full stop? -- Tarquin 21:36 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC) hahaha this whale is huge and ugly and funky doodle...lol... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.79.157 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Larger than any known dino. --mav

Wasn't there a 30-something meter shark once? Zocky 22:15 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

Yep. Megatooth http://www.sharksteeth.com/megatoothshark.htm But is really long and not very girthy. --mav

Blue whale is the largest animal ever to have lived, bigger than any dinosaur. Recent studies show Megalodon only grew to 20 meters. 61.230.79.242 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Megalodon was big but nowhere near as big. 213.78.183.91 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tons

The article talks repeatedly about tons. What kind of tons? AxelBoldt 16:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Who cares? They are all the same size, near enough. Imperial or metric, it doesn't matter. 1000 kg or 2240 lbs - we are taliking about differences too small to measure in this context. Tannin 21:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I care. In the US, the most common ton is 2000 lbs, not 2240. It makes a difference if NMML estimates the biggest whales to be about 1.8 x 10⁵ kg or 2.0 x 10⁵ kg. AxelBoldt 02:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A trickier question that you might think. Most of the BWs that have been weighed were weighed by whalers (i.e. not scientists) in the 1930s and before. Standards were erratic. E.g. page 23 of Calambokidis and Steiger's book Blue Whales says

Maximum weights have been reported to be about 160-190 tons; there was also some confusion because 'tons' referred to three slightly different units

Most books on the matter appear to be authoritative, but hard data is hard to find, so some circumspection should be taken with any weights you read. Having said all that, virtually all references I have access to are written in metric tons (i.e. 1 ton = 1000kg), and this article (or at least the parts I wrote) can be taken to be a 'conservative average' of the book references and so is in metric tons too. Pete 22:57, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does this apply to the NMML estimates as well? AxelBoldt 02:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Will check on that. Pete 06:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry never did manage to find that out. Pete 09:56, 14 Nov

Range Map

Range map - this is a little inaccurate: the North Sea and Baltic Sea should not be coloured, as the species is no more than a highly exceptional vagrant in these shallow waters. I'd suggest an edge to the range roughly from Orkney or Shetland across to Bergen. Can someone do an edit? (I don't know how to edit the maps!) - MPF 23:57, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. You can edit the map by dowloading it, editing it however you can in your favourite paint/photo editting program and re-uploading it with the same name - if you do this please re-add in your upload summary any description/copyright notices that were there previously. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Should've mentioned they're also not in the Irish Sea, I'll do that as a trial tomorrow to see if I can edit it successfully - MPF 18:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My maps were effectively the intersection of two book sources. They included both the Irish and Baltic areas. I agree with you the chances of seeing a Blue there are virtually nil... yet the guides I took my inspiration from include it all.... what do you think is going on? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pete, No idea! But they certainly avoid shallow seas, I gather because of the higher predation risks by Killer Whales (which they escape by being able to dive deeper than Killers can). Maybe the guides map all known records, vagrants included? .... I produced a new map (basically showing the 200m submarine contour & shallower worldwide, as white), but when I uploaded it, it came up all black, so no idea what's happening there. Fortunately (despite not changing the file name) it hasn't overwritten the old map (I hope!!). - MPF 00:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

new Blue Whale map

Finally got round to doing a new map. It is not based on hard data, just on marking as white the world's shallow inshore waters that Blue Whales (as far as I know) don't visit other than as vagrants. I'm sure it is not accurate, but I do think it is better than the current map. Please feel free to edit it for any improvements, and add to the main article if you think worthwhile - MPF 00:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I won't object to you making the change if you want to make it. However as you're aware all 80-odd range maps for the cetaceans (best accessed through Category:Cetaceans) all use the same lax standard for range inclusion (i.e. include vagrants) because they all come from the same two sources. If there is way/enthusiasm for a) redefining the inclusion standard in a specific way (the current inclusion standard is "it says so in these two books" and b) applying this standard across all articles then my support would be whole-hearted. At the moment I am torn between wanting to provide useful information on this page and consistency across all pages, the usual conundrum! THanks for your work, MPF. Pcb21| Pete 09:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't have the time to edit the map, but just published a paper showing all known positional data for blue whales in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean which would serve as a good template for a revised map in those areas. It is Branch et al. 2007 Past and present distribution, densities and movements of blue whales Balaenoptera musculus in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean, Mammal Review 37:116-175 Trevor Branch (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Subspecies

Could someone clear up "two subspecies have been recognised. The species is divided into three subspecies" - SimonP 03:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

musculus?

How the HELL did this huge animal ever gain the epitheton musculus, meaning "little mouse"?--Caesarion 13:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

The specific name musculus is Latin and could mean "muscular", but it can also be interpreted as "little mouse." Linnaeus would have known this and, given his sense of humor, may have intended the ironic double meaning.

- UtherSRG 13:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, should have rubbed my eyes then...--Caesarion 19:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How in the hell did you manage to not see that "musculus" is probably translated as "muscular" in this case, especially seeing how this massive beast is about 100 feet long, and over 100 tons? :p -Alex 12.220.157.93 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you miss something, or did we? Pcb21 Pete 08:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Phylogenetics

Removed from the text: "However, DNA sequencing analysis shows that Blue Whales are phylogenetically closer to the Sperm and Gray Whales than other species in its genus"

This does not agree with the rest of the text about the relationships; Sperm Whale is in a different family. Anyone able to comment on this? - MPF 01:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Look at the phylogenetic tree on rorqual. The Humpback Whale is mislabelled as the Sperm Whale. - UtherSRG 01:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll put it back suitably amended - MPF 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake guys. I had brain freeze. The tree on rorqual is also corrected. Pcb21| Pete 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Beaching

Grutness noted on the FAC page that there have been at least some incidents of beached Blue Whales.

In particular there was one on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland in 1920 - see http://www.isle-of-lewis.com/things_to_do/places-to-visit.htm - but this is a special case. The whale in question had an unexploded harpoon in its head, and probably wasn't thinking straight. In general, I believe beached Blue Whales are extremely rare because Blue Whales never really go close to shore - they are so big they stay well away. When I have found some data on this I will add it to the article. Pcb21| Pete 11:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that they don't beach cause they never really come close to shore is pretty interesting, something about them staying in deep water could go in the distribution section. --nixie 14:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Specific Power

The Blue Whale may have the highest amount of Power per unit mass of any large creature - anyway I found some references which suggest it can produce up to 2500Kw whie sprinting and I wondered if anyone had more definitive reference on the horsepower output of the Blue Whale?

According to Guinness a 27 m (90 ft) long Blue Whale going 37 km/h (20 knots) generates 382 kW.

and...

Has anyone looked into the the dangling 'and' in vocalisations

4. Maintenance of social organization (e.g., contact calls between females and

I've made the obvious fix. You could have editted this yourself. Also, please sign "talk" edits with ~~~~. - UtherSRG 17:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to edit without researching. Are you sure the it wasn't females and their calves? --Mclayto 06:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Whalin' on

The mention of Japan and Norway still whaling in this article makes it sound like they're catching blue whales. I don't believe this is the case, so it should probably be qualified or removed. 83.109.30.14 15:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed. There were a lot of edits to this article yesterday as it was on the front page. Someone slipped in that misleading bit of information during the scrum. Thanks for pointing it out. Pcb21| Pete 15:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Average

Could we put an arithmetic mean for the length? I've 105 feet (something like 30 meters) was average. Any confirmation? Cameron Nedland 14:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen an average of 26 m (85 ft) and 120 t (132 sh t) for females, and 25 m (82 ft) and 90 t (99 sh t) for males – or similar figures – in several books.

Blue whale numbers

The article on humpback whale mentions that the number of blue whales is 3000 while this article mentions 10000 as the number. Could you please clarify on this point?

An anonymous editor made substantial changes to the population section on Dec. 30 2005. He/she said there are 5,000 of the Indian Ocean (pygmy) subspecies. This is way off what I was aware of (unknown numbers, unclear if separate population - taken from Blue Whale in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals) Pcb21 Pete 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts the information is so way off what the books say I am essentially reverting those changes... but if anyone has any different information.... Pcb21 Pete 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Simultaneous Comment

The article lists 2 wildly differing values for world population, tagged with {{cite}} by an anon, I've added the contradictory template to make the issue clearer and more urgent, this is a featured article, after all! Circeus 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added a cited population estimate. --maclean25 07:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Shouldn't this page be at Blue whale? They aren't proper nouns, after all--why should both words be capitalized? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other articles on whales (and indeed most animal species) use all-capitalised names, so there must be a naming convention for that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No move. Naming convention at WP:CETA. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; this page is titled as per standard. Don't move it.

James F. (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC Proposed

There are many problems with this article:

1. It is not well referenced, with few in-line citations in the "Notes" section, and the formatting of the "References" section is rather disordered.
2. Its "Physical description" section does not have a single image to illustrate it.
3. The list of reasons in "Vocalizations" could be expanded.
4. The redlinks in the "Feeding" section need to be removed, modified, or created.
5. There are issues with being well written: 1) the second paragraph in the lead has comma errors and awkwardness 2) the second paragraph in "Size" has choppy sentences.

Therefore, I am giving 1 week from today to correct these problems, or it will be listed on WP:FARC. I will check the progress and strike out problems as we go. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One week may not be an adequate amount of time. Two weeks to two months notice has been floated around at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates as a reasonable amount of time for contributors to answer and resolve issues, depending upon the complexity of the issues. Some of the issues you note, like lack of footnotes, are general in nature so you can help the timeline along by listing here specific claims/facts that require citations. I have not had anything to do with this article until a few days ago but I will try to contribute where I can. --maclean25 06:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I will also work with you KoH to improve this article. However I hope you don't mind if I say that your tone comes across as bullying and even hectoring. We are all volunteers here and all want to see improved articles. A more pleasant attitude from you would be helpful in avoiding a "them-and-us" feeling. But anyway onto the changes I have made:

Re 1) I have retro-fitted the article into the now-preferred inline citation format, and think it works a lot better now.

Re 2) I have added several images from Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for the suggestion.

Re 3) Are you saying the we should add more reasons? That list of reasons was taken from a premier paper on the topic. Why is it incomplete?

Re 4) Sorry if I haven't been following FAC criteria changes closely enough, but I understand a few redlinks in an article are not a problem. De-linking those species is not a good idea.

Re 5) I have reworded, but only slightly, the two paragraphs you specified in particular. However I disagree that the second paragraph in "size" is problematic. Contrarily, I believe the "machine-gun" writing style actually works well for the topic in hand.

Thus as you can see I have taken all the points you raised and made several improvements. The ball is now back in your court :). Pcb21 Pete 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. There's no need to FARC it anymore. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, Pete. This is exactly how these should go, with maybe a little extra effort at a polite initial request :). The observed problems were mostly good, and the responses and fixes were spot on. - Taxman ^Talk 14:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments both. I think we are all agreed that the article is improved which is the main thing. Pcb21 Pete 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

this page contance more information than needed

What do you think should be removed? Pcb21 Pete 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blue whale taxonomy

Genetics reveal that that the four types od blue whales are distinct. The northern form should be Balaenoptera musculus, the southern form B. intermedia, the pygmy form B. brevicauda, and the nothern Indian Ocean form B. indica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk • contribs)

Do you have the source (scientific article)? KimvdLinde 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AMNH, NYC

I suggest someone write a nice blurb about the life size blue whale sculpture that hangs in the American Museum of Natural History in NYC. --Monday, July 24, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.185.133 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Be bold and write it up. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ejaculate

For the anons who keep adding that the Blue Whale ejaculates 400 gallons of sperm, and that only 10% of it reaches its mate (the implication that 90% of it goes into the ocean), you are wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Artic Jellyfish is Longer

Is it worth it to add to the article that the Artic Lion's Mane Jellyfish has tentacles that are over 100 feet long and is the longest known animal? The longest one ever measured had tentacles reaching 120 feet.204.80.61.10 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Largest organism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

It might be worth mentioning if it was indeed the longest known animal. But... it's not. And many dinosaurs were longer than the Blue Whale, if not heavier, though it's doubtful that any were as long as Lineus longissimus. PenguinJockey 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed Igor nav edited the article to note this jellyfish as "bigger" than the blue whale. Whilst the longest discovered Lion's Mane jellyfish may be "longer", I wouldn't class it as bigger when you take weight and bulk into account. Reverted the changes and left a note on the user's talk page directing to the conversation here. Zarius^т 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vocalizations

The text makes a comparison between the blue whale's 188dB re 1 uPa at 1m production, and a jack hammer that measured 100 dB at 2m, and i assume re 20 uPa which is common for in-air. I think this is misleading and that the jack hammer should be removed. Direct comparisons of between in-air and underwater levels are difficult anyway (taking into account directivity and frequencies). Additionally, the sperm whale can produce up to 230dB for its sonar when it's measured on-axis, making it 'louder' than the blue whale.Vencedor 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pistol Shrimp

The Animal Planet program "The Most Extreme" claims that the Pistol shrimp can produce a sound with its claw that is louder than a whale's call, and the Wiki entry backs this up (200 vs. 188 decibels). PenguinJockey 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Feeding not explained?

The article says "after lunge feeding (see feeding below)", but where exactly is that statement telling us to look? I can't find any explanation of how they feed in this article. Dionyseus 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had exactly the same question! Did this article manage to reach FA status without mentioning, "blue whales eat krill," or has it been removed in vandalism and never noticed? Kla'quot 07:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it & put it back. It had been blanked by a vandal in September 2006. Kla'quot 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Underwater Picture

Is there a picture that exists on the Wikipedia database somewhere that shows a blue whale under the water? I think that would be a much better picture to put at the top of the article, rather than a couple of drawings. Just my opinion. Mientkiewicz5508 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The picture at the top of the article is washed out and difficult to recognize, and I think one of a blue whale under the water would better represent the article. There must be better pictures out there. Sorry if I responded wrong, I'm new. Gibberish517 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually you do not have clear enough visibility underwater to be able to photo such a huge animal in one frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Trigger finger

Dear all, I rollbacked my rollback as on second reading I think this is true - we just need a ref. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, that'll teach me to read things more slowly. Never mind folks. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protection?

This page seems to be copping alot of vandalism. I'm musing on a semi-protect. what do others think? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, as long as we use template:sprotect rather than template:sprotect2. Kla'quot 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've semi-protected it for a week and see how we go. :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

massive vs largest

there are strong distinctions between the terms "heavy," "massive," and "large." It seems to me that, per volume, the blue whale may not be the largest animal known, but it probably is the most massive ("heavy" implies the force of gravity, rather than specifically mass; of course, NASA trains in water because it is close to "weightless," meaning one could legitimately claim that the blue whale is nominally weightless). Given that it has relatively small dimensions compared to its clearly gargantuan mass, it might be fun to speculate about the "most dense animal that ever lived," but that's kind of tangential. I'd have changed the simple word in the leading paragraph from "largest" to "most massive," but of course, the page is protected, preventing such clear vandalism. 69.143.136.139 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Largest organism (I really should check a reliable source, but I'm too lazy right now), the blue whale is largest by both volume and mass. Has anyone heard differently? Unfortunately many of our articles about whales get vandalized a lot, so there are weeks at a stretch when the article is semi-protected. You can edit these pages (and please do!) if you have an account that is more than four days old. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What animal could possibly be larger than the blue whale by volume? Mgiganteus1 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too. Amphicoelias and friends are all tail. PenguinJockey 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an account, but I just wanted to mention that the conversion from metres to feet under the Life section is wrong for the males. 20m is equal to 66ft, not 70ft.

Sprotected

for 2 weeks. The amount of vandalism is becoming ridiculous. Please contact if, after 2 weeks, further protection need be applied. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Range map

How can this be a featured artictle? There was a range map that showed there are blue whales in the Baltic sea. I removed the map. --SM 09:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is an error in accuracy, then please help us fix it. One error does not mean that an otherwise well-written and comprehensive piece of text should not be featured. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Commercial website links

Hi Clayoquot,

you recently restored the link to the website of Oceanlight.com with the justification of " restore oceanlight link, wonderful pictures, no excessive advertising " .... Whilst I do understand you, it is however, a commercial website link, if we allow links to websites of commecial stock photographers because of that justification, then we´ll be inundated with commercial links, hell, I´ll add my links - I think they´re wonderful pictures, and there´s no excessive advertising on my website(s) either ;) I think you should revert the link tbh SammytheSeal 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Sammy, Your point is a very good one. In this case I thought the educational value of the page is much higher than for most commercial photography sites, so it would be worth including. I've removed the link (Blue Whale photogaphs) and will not put it back unless there is consensus to do so here. Best wishes, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Penis

Why is there no mention of the blue whales penis? It's meant to be really big and the testicles are meant to weight quite a few kilgorams. Also no mention of how blue whales mate. How did this article manage to get featured status without these things!?! JayKeaton 18:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NMML acronym

Greetings. In the Size paragraph, I moved the full statement of NMML next to the first instance of such acronym. I presume this is the appropriate way of dealing with acronyms. If I'm wrong, please drop me a message. Pallida  Mors 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridges on throat

An anon IP placed a sentence about the ridges helping the throat to expand. I do recall seeing something similar which I guess if sourced would be good to place in hte description. I remember as a kid wondering what the ridges were for....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Blue whales breach?

The Whale surfacing behaviour page lists Blue whales as one of the species that exhibit breaching behavior, but there is no reference there and no mention of it here. If they do breach, I would think that should be included in the behavior section. If not, the other page should be corrected. Anyone know (or preferably have a reference stating) if they do or not? --Noren (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)