Talk:Dolphin

Taxobox removal

I removed the taxobox. The article seems to be about a common name that refers to most (or all) species of two cetacean families. cygnis insignis 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This was reverted here, with the edit summary Revert - information in infobox takes this into account, provides useful information. Dolphin is a common name for some species of the two families, not a single scientific taxon. The article explains this fact, I would not remove "useful information". The specious inclusion is very misleading, it is best explained in the article. What reliable source would state it refers to these two taxa, when some of them have the common name of whale? Why should the taxobox be used for an article about a non systematic name? cygnis insignis 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with having two families in the taxobox, except that under current taxonomy this one is now incorrect. I am not concerned about the fact that some dolphins have a common name of "whale", since most authoritative sources would recognize those species dolphin species despite the common name, since all are in Delphinidae. But the problem is that the River Dolphins have now been split into multiple families, so just using "Delphinidae and Platanistoidea" is no longer correct. And rather than include five families in the taxobox, which becomes somewhat spurious, it seems better to remove the taxobox and discuss the taxonomy in the article. Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What if the family section is just left out? Or be given a note like "See article"? I like the infobox and it does provide useful data and a basic glance at where dolphins fit in in the animal kingdom (it never fails to amaze me how many people do not seem to realise dolphins are mammals!). Looking at some other articles, there's no consensus on the infobox usage. The whale article has no infobox for example, while many others such as the shark, lizard or turtle articles do have them. BabyNuke (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with original research being used in our document. This would include basing a taxon on a common name, there is no concordance between common names and biological nomenclature. A reader comes here to acquire facts, those few who do not know they are mammals can gain that information from the content proper of the article. The two families, or even five, are not given an accepted taxon; the fact that some reliable sources (also!) name some of the species as Dolphins is incidental, not authoritative. Everyone likes the taxobox, let us be careful with our names here most of all, it is not an infobox. I appreciate that the undue weight given to other names appended to the correct name may cause this misapprehension, but the consensus is that a taxobox should summarise a single taxon and be included in only one article. Whale is without one for reasons that are intimately linked with this article's title. The other examples you have given are [hopefully] given in RS that state, unequivocally, a common name refers to a taxon: "Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha)"; "Lizards (Suborder: Lacertilia) are a very large and widespread group of reptiles of the order Squamata" [highly debatable, but still a single taxon]; and superorder Chelonia (turtles) is yet another reptilian (Sauropsida) example that needed resolving. Removing duplicated or specious (spurious) taxoboxes is never popular with those who had a notion to include them, I'm not sure why, but it is certain to be the right path for clarifying explanations to our dear readers. An article on the common name 'dolphin' is justified, it could be more than a dab, but it is not a taxon. Please undo the unfounded revert of my edit. cygnis insignis 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All dolphins belong to the suborder of Odontoceti, every animal mentioned in this article does, so the taxobox "tree" is correct (especially considering my last edit) - so no incorrect data is given in the box. I don't feel the definition of a dolphin as used in this article is based on original research, but is what is quite commonly accepted as what animals are covered under the word dolphin. Encarta for example (in my opinion a good source for reference) also lists the Delphinidae family and the various river dolphins as being the animals covered under the "generic" term dolphin. I don't think it is debated if the various "whale" species of the Delphinidae family are dolphins or not, I've always seen them being referred to as being dolphins, including more scientific literature. It is quite simply general consensus. If you can find scientific literature that argues against these whales being dolphins, feel free to bring it up. BabyNuke (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The taxobox is an infobox for taxa. Dolphins are not a taxon, so they shouldn't have a taxobox. I know some people see an infobox as an imprimitur of article legitimacy, but presenting a taxonomy for a group that is taxonomically unsound is just beyond the pale. It is misleading and unencyclopedic. Hesperian 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Evolutionary Evidence

{{editsemiprotected}} 

Dear Registered User,

Under the subtitle "Evolution" there is a controversial sentence that some readers and scientists disagree with. The sentence is: "In October 2006 an unusual Bottlenose Dolphin was captured in Japan; it had small fins on each side of its genital slit which scientists believe to be a more pronounced development of these vestigial hind legs."

---

However, more recent research suggests that, whereas most dolphins have two fins, some dolphins have four fins, the back two fins simply used for steering (and not evidence of evolutionist change). An explanation to this view: "Today’s two-finned dolphins may actually have the latent genetic information for generating all four fins. All dolphins may have once had two rear fins, and subsequently lost the information for generating them. Since the fins are not used for propulsion but for steering, it may be that one pair is adequate, so natural selection would not work against a mutation that corrupted the information to develop the rear pair." Source: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4748

---

Could a registered user kindly allow for this view of the dolphin as well? I would suggest a new category under "Evolution" labelled "Creationist Response," but if the registered user finds this inconvenient, a simple edit to this sentence would suffice. I would suggest the following edited sentence:

---

"In October 2006 an unusual Bottlenose Dolphin was captured in Japan; it had small fins on each side of its genital slit which some scientists believe to be a more pronounced development of these vestigial hind legs. However, recent research suggests these fins are characteristic of the rarer four-finned dolphin, which uses these fins for stabilization, and therefore may not be evidence of previous vestigial hind legs."

KoreanStephen (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: I've reviewed your link. It does not seem to be an authoritative source. It seems to be mostly speculative. (I.e. there are a lot sentences with "may" and "might" in them.) If you could give a link to a peer-reviewed journal or newspaper report that would be better. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing I did notice is that the word "legs" is probably out of place, so I changed it to limbs. I am not aware of any other "four-finned" dolphins, but even if they would be around, it would not really work against it being a genetic "left over" - basically that is still what you are saying yourself here! BabyNuke (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia can't be used to give support to fringe theories. See fringe theories and undue weight. Giving "equal time" to creationist beliefs promotes it as a valid scientific theory, which it is not. Also, your suggested sentence uses weasel words.Punkrockrunner (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Some unsourced and unspecified statements

It says in the article that "their sense of hearing is superior to that of humans". It think that should be specified, including: what ranges of frequencies can dolphins hear?; how strong are the sounds that dolphins can hear? And since the comparison with humans is made, those same numbers from humans should be mentioned too.

It also says that they are "considered to be amongst the most intelligent of animals". What is this based upon?; Why isn't this mentioned and elaborated upon in the article itself? I know this also, but are there tests for this?; What is the source for this statement? Debresser (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chasing ships

Is there any mention of dolphins chasing ships in the article. I was on a cruise once and the dolhins were trying to outrun the vessel.

I think this is covered (briefly) under the "Jumping and playing" section: "Dolphins also seem to enjoy riding waves and frequently 'surf' coastal swells and the bow waves of boats. Occasionally, they're also willing to playfully interact with human swimmers." Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I need to know how the dolphins look like please write back love,Kennedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.214.138 (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)