Jump to content

Talk:Sperm whale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.243.1.21 (talk) at 03:39, 18 January 2010 (→‎Where are the hind limb?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleSperm whale is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleSperm whale has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 8, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
April 19, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
November 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
WikiProject iconCetaceans GA‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconMammals GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5 Template:Wiki Project Cape Cod and the Islands

Archived Talk Page 1

sperm whale nursing

While watching sperm whales in Dominica the guide suggested that the calf was nursing through its blowhole. I do not recall seeing a published reference to sperm whales nursing through the blowhole, but given the shape of the mouth, with the large overhang of the upper jaw, it seems like it could make sense. Does anyone know if this is correct? Is there any published reference to this effect?Rlendog (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed

Removed:

A hypothesis pertaining to the echolocation abilities of these animals holds that the combination of the shape of the whale's skull, the highly variable geometry (in three dimensions) of the muscle-sheathed spermaceti container, and the presence of this "internal nostril" may endow the sperm whale with astounding powers of sound production - not only being able to echolocate with high fidelity, but to produce other effects with sound waves/ mechanical energy as well. For example, it is postulated that sperm whales, ungainly and ponderous swimmers, may need "something extra" to capture the agile-swimming squid they eat, and the ability to stun or even kill such prey with a burst of sound would "fit the bill". However, so far, this hypothesis remains only intriguing speculation.

This is uncited speculation. Without a source, this cannot satisfy WP:OR or WP:V, and probably runs afoul of some other guidelines as well. If someone can provide a citaiton to support this hypothesis, by all means restore it to the article.--Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest toothed animal ever?

I believe that the sperm whale is larger than any of the toothed dinosaurs. Anyone object if I amend the opening sentence to reflect this?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on most reliable maximum weights Argentinosaurus huinculensis was heavier at 73 (metric) tonnes than Physeter macrocephalus at 57 tonnes (Antarctosaurus giganteus was also heavier at 69 tonnes, as perhaps were some others). Even the higher claim of 72 tonnes would still have the Sperm Whale smaller, and Argentinosaurus was originally estimated as heavy as 100 tonnes. Sperm Whale's satus as the largest ever predator may be under threat too – though I'd still be cautious about this – as two different methods suggest a maximum length of in excess of 18 m for Carcharocles megalodon, the highest estimate of 18.4 m would indicate a weight of 67 tonnes. However, the title of the largest toothed animal ever (so far discovered) – as well as the largest known prehistoric animal – likely goes to the ichthyosaur Shonisaurus sikanniensis, with at least one weight estimate at 100 tonnes (indeed, with 15 m long S. popularis estimated at 40 tonnes, a 21 m S. sikanniensis should weigh 110 tonnes with identical proprtions). For comparison: Balaenoptera musculus averages 90 tonnes for males and 120 tonnes for females, with a recorded maximum of 177 tonnes. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Puertasaurus reuili was apparently even bigger than A. huinculensis, though the size of the former is likely still less thoroughly established than that of the latter (Giants and Bizarres: Body Size of Some Southern South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs). --Anshelm '77 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are willing to accept estimate of 67 tons for Megalodon and 18 meters of length, weare talking about ancient sperm whales also, and that means for Sperm whales, weare getting in to over 100 tons category (Jaws in museums suggests such sizes), and Sperm whale still comes out as largest toothed animal that ever existed. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

I do not have any authority, but I seriously dought that Megalodon was heavier even if it had the same length with modern sperm whales. Take for example the comparison of any cetacean with a shark of the same length (with the exception maybe of the Whale Shark to the largest beaked whales). Even if some sauropods were larger than sperm whales (though now Argentinosaurus' announced maesurements are seriously dought, the Sperm Whale still keeps the title of the largest predatorial animal EVER with only possible rival the Megalodon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shark's weight is determined by not just it's size but several factors including it's: body mass, liver & quantity of oil in it , quantity of food in it's stomach etc. The Megalodon was also on pound to pound basis, heavier than GWS. Hence, its case is different from that of cetaceans. --LeGenD (talk) 5:25, 07 September 2008 (UTC)

this might be interesting: http://cameronmccormick.blogspot.com/2008/10/sperm-whales-jaw-or-sorry-gerald-wood.html So, no 25m spermwhales;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.54.34 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR commentry

Perhaps it would be good to list some issues to be dealt with in this FAR that can be addressed? I don't think that the article is unsalvagable, it just needs some updates and restructuring. I'll start off. Strike these out if you've dealt with them.

  1. intro is a bit light, needs to summarise the whole article.
  2. The section that begins Sperm whales are a prime example of a species that has been K-selected, a reproductive strategy associated does not belong in the description section, instead belongs in an as yet uncreated breeding section
  3. The section starting The sperm whale holds some natural world records: followed by a numbered list - is this really FA-ish?
  4. According to a 2003 National Geographic article, sperm whales are said to be the loudest of all animals ("about as loud as a rifle shot three feet from your ear"). What is an important fact is dlivered in a very trivia-ish fashion. Possibly a section on Sperm Whale song/communication?
  5. Distribution needs at least one citation.
  6. Taxonomy and naming section - overlong quote and insufficient information given on evolutionary history. Should probably be split into taxonomy and evolution in the one hand and etymology in the other.
  7. In the news - trivia-ish. Considering the importance culturally of this species we need more in here.
  8. The species is rendered sperm whale and Sperm Whale inconsistently, this needs to be regularised. I notice that it has been moved back and forth a bit in the edit history, so one should get picked.
  9. Feeding needs some reorganisation, interactions with fisheries seems to be covered twice

I'm sure more can be done and this can be saved. I'll give it some time if I can. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed line

Sabine - good edits to this article, however a couple of them could use references. Also, it's sometimes helpful for other editors if you put a note on the talk page about why the changes were made if you're making as many as you have. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing most of the changes on the FAR page (linked to above). I'm making sweeping changes because this page is a holdover from the era of "Brilliant prose" and needs some drastic action to save it. And I haven't made any substantial edits to content (other than removing duplicated material) without citing myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm whaling

I edited the section ("Owing to extensive whaling, sperm whale size has decreased dramatically, mostly because the largest males were killed first and most intensively, for they had more spermaceti (spermaceti oil was of great value in the 18th and 19th century - see below). ") claiming early whaling "first and most intensively" targeted male sperm whales, as this simply isn't true. American ( and later European) whalers from the second quarter of the 18th century to the early 20th century primarily hunted this species in tropcial and warm temperate waters, where they encountered pods of female and immature males. When encountered, adult males were taken, and in higher latitudes they probably encountered "bachelor schools," but for the most part individuals taken by these whalers would have been the above mentioned female and immature pods.

It was after World War II, in the Anarctic and other areas were adult males are found, that whalers targeted them. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerated size estimation

Let us take a look at these lines mentioned in the "Description" section: In a Nantucket museum there is a jawbone of a sperm whale which is 5.5 m (18 ft). The jawbone makes up to 20%-25% of the sperm whale's overall body length. Thus this whale might have been 28 m (90 ft) long, a mass of around 133 metric tons (150 short tons). Another evidence of large bulls of the past resides in New Bedford museum, a 5.2 metres (17 ft) jaw of a bull that could have been about 25.6 metres (84 ft) long, with a mass of about 120 tons.

I highly doubt the accuracy of these estimates and have pointed out a reason below:

The error: These size estimations are based on the assumption that the jawbone of a Sperm Whale is about 1/5th or 20% the length of its entire body. Now can this be verified through any credible source or any anatomical studies?

It has already been determined through anatomical studies and from close inspection of many Sperm Whale individuals, that the jawbone of the Sperm Whale is about 1/4th or 25% the length of its entire body. Here is an illustration of a Sperm Whale's skeleton for more clarification: Sperm Whale Skeleton.

Now! The more realistic estimates would be like this: "The 18 foot long jawbone represents a 72 feet long individual, whose weight would be around 80 tons max. And the 17 foot long jawbone represents a 68 feet long individual."

It should be noted that the size of the Sperm Whale to which that 18 foot long jawbone belongs, has been generously estimated to be nearly 24.4 m (80 feet). Here is a source that confirms my point: Sperm Whale in Nantucket Mueseum.

So the information in that paragraph needs to be corrected. For now! I will wait for more replies before I decide to make a move.

LeGenD (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reverted. I'm sorry, but there is no way male sperm whales ever grew to 80-90 feet in length. I'm very skeptical of such estimates. Even 72-feet seems a little too large, but not unreasonable like the other estimates. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way? Why? Because you said so? I think jawbones are better estimates than your opinion. Everything is cited and tehre is reference, reliable reference. As for jawbone, the older is the specimen, the smaller is the percent of the size of jawbone compared to the rest of the body. Look at calves to verify this claim. 150 tons is the MAXIMUM estimate. If those male in question was old enough, it's jawbone could constitute 20% and therefore it could weigh up to 130 metric tonnes. Plus, there are endless references in libraries of Nantucket and other cities which were primary whaling ports. 130 metric tonnes at 90 feet is an estimate. It is possible that the whale with jaw of that size could be that long and therefore weigh that much. After all, all estimates are done like that, just look how megalodon estimates or basilosaurus are done. There is even more speculation there. And you don't like this article. Notice though, that I am not talking about modern sperm whales, but about those which were in the ocean before the great era of whaling, during which size of sperm whale declined dramatically as was noted in article, since largest bulls yielded more spermaceti and therefore were primary targets. For modern sperm whale to weigh that much would be indeed freakish, but I am not talking about modern Sperm whales, but ancient ones. AS for jaw, here is the pitcute: "http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/1024/sperm-whale.jpg" Take a ruler and measure this sperm whale, it's lower jaw is about 6-6.5 cm on picture, the whale itself is clearly longer than 30 cm (on picture again), let us take 32 cm. Didive 32 by 6.5, you get ~5 times. this is very crude estimate, but nevertheless, it is from a phot, not a picture, as for pictures, you could have given the folowing picture: "http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/1024/sperm-whale.jpg" and argued that it is actually 40% of hte body, not even 30. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

My opinion? You mean common sense? Really? A 90-foot sperm whale. My ass. Provide me a reliable source that says the average jaw-bone of a mature MALE sperm whale represents 20% of the total length, as well as the most extreme percentage the jawbone represents, which would be the safest figure to use--using the lowest esimate could create a liberal, as opposed to a conservative estimate. Ancient sperm whales? What? I didn't know post-World War II whaling was ancient? That's when mature male sperm whales weroe targeted in higher latitudes and the most damage was done to sperm whale stocks. Yankee whalers from the early 18th to the early 20th century primarily targeted sperm whales in tropical and warm temperate waters, where they tok female and immature groups (later, at least off Japan, there appears to have been a shift from these groups to "bachelor schools in slightlg higher latitudes). When mature bull sperm whales were encountered they would have been taken as well.

You used some random photo of a sperm whale to estimate the size of the jaw? Are you serious? Tell me the sex and age of that whale and maybe we can get something meaningful out of this. Also, as English is apparently a second language to you, could you try extra hard to explain things. Some of your sentences make little to no sense. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cursing there :) your ass? Post WW2 is in no way ancient. Ancient is pre-17 century. And the largest damage was done before WW2, during 1700's. In MODERN times the most damage was done indeed in 1964, when 29,255 were killed. Pictures are not enough? Also, what does sex or age has to do? OHHHH, sorry, I posted a wrong picture, here is the intended one: http://home.scarlet.be/baleinelibre/dossiers/physiologie/cachalot/dessin_cachalot.jpg. I apologize, I didn't pay attention to what I posted. I have used random photo? You have used random picture. What is better, photo of a real picture or drawing by a human? And I think you are a bit wrong about who Yankees targeted. Do you know why sperm whales were killed? For spermaceti, a type of fat that sperm whales have in their bump on the head. It also allows them to ram and sink wooden ships without harm to themselves (Essex, Ann Alexander are good examples) And sometimes even metal ships (Soviet Enthusiast in 1946 is a good example). I guess you don't know what this thing was used for, do you? Lighting. So, tell me now, what was the more logical, to kill a bunch of females and calves (risking females crushing boats in defence) or kill ONE big bull, who would yield twice as much oil as a female? No, I am sorry, but you are wrong, large bulls were a primary target, since their heads were larger and contained more spermaceti. Now, after WW2, that's where it is probable that females also entered the picture for hunter, not the other way around. Now, estimates are MAXIMUMS, and this is pointed out in the article. It now says "at most". Regarding random photo again, you can take a ruler and measure the length of the jawbone (you can see where it ends approximately). Also, there is a reference (on this article's page) to 20 meter 80 tons whale. Whale that sunk Essex was estimated at 25 meters. 5 additional meters to the length. This whale had to weigh at least 100 tons if it were mature (and if it did not look like a thin weiner, which I doubt), if it were not, who knows to what length and size it would have grown to be, but it was reportedly a leader of the herd, so I think it was a mature whale. Anyway, there is more than enough evidence to the huge sperm whales of the past, have you ever heard of libraries of Nantucket? Unsupported claims of 7.2 meter jaws are made. --9K58 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“And the largest damage was done before WW2, during 1700’s.”
The 1700s? How could the most damage have been done in that century? Sperm whaling was confined to the North Atlantic for five decades (1710s-1770s) and both the North and South Atlantic for a further two decades (1770s-1790s), when American sperm whaling spread to the Pacific. You’re telling me more damage was done during this period than in modern whaling, when sperm whales were targeted worldwide and when the most were caught?!!! According to Hal Whitehead (2003), by 1880 the global sperm whale population had declined to 71% of its historic size. This was followed by a period were populations rebounded somewhat. It then plummeted to 32% as modern whaling turned its attention to sperm whales after World War II. In a single year of the modern era nearly 30,000 sperm whales were caught, and you think more damage was done by a fleet composed throughout most of the era (c. 1712-1799) of sloops, schooners, and brigs that probably caught no more than a few thousand sperm whales a year, and only in the last decade or so? Several hundred thousand sperm whales were caught in the modern era, whereas only several thousand would have taken in the eighteenth century. Even during the entire pelagic open-boat American whaling era (1709-1925), only a few hundred thousand sperm whales would have been taken, compared to nearly 800,000 in the modern era! The majority of which were taken after World War II. So in three decades (1945-late 1970s) more sperm whales were taken than in the entire open-boat era.
“So, tell me now, what was the more logical, to kill a bunch of females and calves (risking females crushing boats in defence) or kill ONE big bull, who would yield twice as much oil as a female?”
I’m guessing you haven’t read a single account of a sperm whaling voyage, have you? Well, the Plough Boy, of Nantucket, caught 84 sperm whales during its 1827-30 voyage for a total of 2522 barrels of sperm oil, or an average of 30 barrels a whale. Guess what the average was for a sperm whale cow? THIRTY BARRELS. In its 1830-34 voyage the Plough Boy caught 65 sperm whales for 1741 barrels, or an average of 26 barrels a whale. The Charles W. Morgan, during its 1841-45 voyage, caught 61 sperm whales for a total of 1600 barrels, or 26 barrels a whale. During its 1901-02 the same vessel caught 60 sperm whales to produce 1450 barrels, or 24 barrels per whale. I could give example after example proving you wrong, but I think the above was enough.
They often caught multiple whales during a single lowering, on occasion as many as eight or nine whales. Guess what kind? Females and immatures of 25-40 barrels. Yes, they did take adult bull sperm whales. I’ve even read a voyage that took several, one supposedly of 148 barrels. Any time sperm whales were sighted by a whaleship, they lowered the boats. And guess what? They primarily hunted sperm whales between 40 degrees north and 40 degress south, where they usually encountered, you guessed it, female and immature groups.
“You have used random picture.”
What are you talking about? What picture?
“Do you know why sperm whales were killed?”
Had you looked at my page, I think you would have seen that it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that I know why sperm whales were hunted. They were targeted for speramceti and sperm oil, which were used in the illumination (candles, lighthouses, etc) and lubricating industries (cotton mills, etc).
“Now, after WW2, that's where it is probable that females also entered the picture for hunter, not the other way around.”
What are you, stupid? Read what I said above. The above statement, along with just about every other one you made, proves you know jackshit about whaling history.
“Whale that sunk Essex was estimated at 25 meters. 5 additional meters to the length.”
Estimated? It was a gross exageration. The whale was never measured. And had it been, it would’ve been by some whalemen, who, undoubtedly, would have exagerated its size. Had a scientist measured it accurately to 85 feet (which one didn’t), I would have accepted this figure. Unfortunately, all we have is the testimony of whalemen, which are really just fishermen, and you know how fisherman can be about the size of the fish they catch (or the ones that got away).
“This whale had to weigh at least 100 tons if it were mature (and if it did not look like a thin weiner, which I doubt), if it were not, who knows to what length and size it would have grown to be, but it was reportedly a leader of the herd, so I think it was a mature whale.”
You are quite possibly one of the dumbest human beings (if I may call you that) I have ever been unfortunate enough to meet online. I’m surprised you can type!. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this might be interesting: http://cameronmccormick.blogspot.com/2008/10/sperm-whales-jaw-or-sorry-gerald-wood.html So, no 25m spermwhales;-)

Blogspot is not a reliable source. DurovaCharge! 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do You even read the article? There are alot refernces like papers etc. This is arleast written by an undergraduaded and you call it not reliable? then 50 % of wikipedia is not reliable.

Wow, this guy won't stop, will he now? He just keeps insulting people, without providing any evidence. That is interesting. And then he claims everyone else is stupid. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone should have a look at some really old encyclopedias for more info. I remember my father mentioning a more than 100 years old encylopedia, which mentions this whale as being "up to 30 meters in length". JoaCHIP (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

It's not a proper noun (is it) so it should be sperm whale and not Sperm Whale. It even says sperm whale in the first line of the article. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on this? It looks like there are still noun usage errors... Tan | 39 01:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalizatioon is correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's vague. Which is correct? Is it correct in the article now? After thinking about it, I was bold and changed all instances of "Sperm Whale" to "sperm whale", except at the obvious place of the beginning of sentences. It's very hard for me to believe that capitalizing Sperm Whale is proper. Tan | 39 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you changed it back. Can you cite why this is correct? Every reference I look at says it is not capitalized, this one, for example. Tan | 39 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIRD for the logic behind capitalizing species' common names. Besides which, that is the style adopted by the Cetacea WikiProject. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are right that it should have been left as-is, but you are incorrect that the capitalization is "correct". It appears that this is an ongoing argument - see this link as an example. I would guess that this will come up again and again - and to most eyes (I'm a biochemist myself), it looks foreign, incorrect and "ignorant". Perhaps a comment embedded in the main article text would prevent this from happening again. Tan | 39 04:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict capitalisation of mammal names common names has gotten heated in the past. I honestly lost interest in the argument and don't remember what was decided, if anything, but another edit war over the subject is undesirable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree, and I'm certainly not going to edit war over this. I was actually trying to figure out how we can prevent any time-wasting editing in the future. Tan | 39 04:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging each article where the capitalization is not what people would expect it to be? That's some several thousand articles. Not a very practical solution. How about asking on the talk page and waiting a few hours or a couple days to see if any one responds before making a change against an obvious convention? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say tag each article, Uther. I said to tag this one. And if you don't want to, fine. You might have better luck finding collaboration if you drop the attitude, though. Just a suggestion; I'm moving on. Tan | 39 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't suggest tagging each article, but that's because you're only thinking of this one article. There are some 5000+ mammal species articles, plus the higher-level taxa articles, etc. A solution for making it helpful for an editor on one aritcle should be able to fit to all of the article with the same issue. So, thanks for thinking small, I'll continue to think big. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't belive there is even an argument here. Capitlization rules for species only aply to the Linean names---and even there, it is only the genus that is capitalized. The moment it becomes proper to capitalize "cat" and "dog" then we can capitalize "sperm whale." --Woland (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Settled

Well, I had randomly picked up a book called Hudson's Merchants and Whalers and noticed on page 135 the picture of a sperm whale jaw standing upright. It appeared to be very large. I then noticed that the hinge of the jaw, which you don't really notice in photos, accounted for a third of the length of the jaw. I strangely had forgotten to include this when factoring in the percentage it accounted for in the total length of an adult bull sperm whale. So I thought, I must have a photo of a bull somewhere in one of my books. I open The Hand of God: Whaling in the Azores by Trevor Housby and I find a photo of a 61-ft bull sperm. The body if it is perfectly parallel with the photo and the jaw is clearly visible. I measured the sperm whale in the photo and found it to be six inches long, with the jaw (including the hinge) representing 1 1/2 inches of the whale, or 25%. With this knowledge in mind, I will be reverting the estimated size of the sperm whales mentioned in the article. This debate is OVER. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just happened to be looking through M.F. Maury's Sailing Directions... (1851) and I noticed that he mentioned that a 62-ft sperm whale had a lower jaw that measured 16-ft. That would be 25.8% of the total length. But to make it easier, I'll keep the figure on the article as 25%. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just at the museum and I saw that jawbone. I can't accurately tell anyone the size though. The museum is called the Nantucket Whaling Museum. The whale was killed in the 1800s and the jaw was given as a gift to someone. This jawbone is separate from the whale skeleton that is displayed in one of the rooms. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

catodon

We should follow MSW3, as it is what is used in nearly all other mammal articles on Wikipedia. UtherSRG (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The MSW3 is in error in this case. It will stay as macrocephalus. Tag! You're it. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the correct answer is here, but I'm also not sure what the basis is for stating that MSW3 is "in error". I checked the source (Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals) for the statement in the article that "However, most scientists, the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, and the International Whaling Commission prefer P. macrocephalus over P. catodon", and it is not quite that definitive, only stating that "Currently, most, but not all, authorities preferP. macrocephalus." Certainly, I've seen P. macrocephalus used in many references, including the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, but P. catodon has some prominent proponents as well, besides MSW3. So I am not sure what the best way to resolve this situation for Wikipedia is, but I don't think just presuming MSW3 is in error is it. MSW3 is, after all, the source for most mammal Latin names on Wikipedia. Is it possible to include both Latin names in the taxobox, since both are used by authoritative sources and the text explains the situation in more detail? Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the Encycopedia of Marine Mammals. I used Whitehead's Sperm whales: social evolution in the ocean. And I'll be reverting it back to macrocephalus, again. :) Jonas Poole (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. MSW3 is the defacto standard used in the majority of mammal articles. It's only superceded when there is a preponderance of evidence against it, or when new species have been discovered. Neither of these are the case here, so MSW3 stands. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically its your fucking bible? Well, I'm a man of little faith. I'll be reverting it back. You, my friend, may stop reverting it. It's quite annoying. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UtherSRG is correct that MSW3 is the de facto standard for mammal classification. And it is valuable to maintain that consistency across the encyclopedia. But in this case there do seem to be a substantial amount of references (including by Hal Whitehead, who I wouldn't want to disagree with on Sperm Whales) that use macrocephalus. I don't think either is definitively incorrect and, given that there is not a single definitive correct species name, I'm not sure it is the place of Wikipedia to try to resolve the dispute one way or another. So I am more convinced than I was earlier that the appropriate solution is to include both Latin names in the taxobox and in the lead. Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is a taxobox field for synonyms. We should use one and mention the existence of synonyms, even note that it is disputed, but not suggest that a species can have more than one scientific name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as macrocephalus is there, I'm fine. But if it only had catodon as the species name, I'd revert back right when I saw it. Jonas Poole (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are being contradictory. You are agreeing with Sabine, and yet that was the edit I made. We should list *one* species name, list the other as a synonym in the taxobox, and discuss it in the article. But that's what we both had, we just are quibbling over which should be listed as the preferred name, and which should be listed as a synonym. Since neither of us is budging, I think Rlendog's solution is best for now, elthough it's not best in the long run. In the long run, we need someone to publish an update of the whole frigging order... there's enough jumbling going on in nearly every family.... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. As long as macrocephalus is listed as the preferred species name I would be fine with the current article. It was when it was removed entirely that I disaggreed. I see no condadiction. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, contradiction, because I *had* listed macrocephalus as a synonym. It was never removed entirely from the article, at least not in this round of edits. So, since you say that that is acceptable, I'll restore it to be that way. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said you fucking piece of shit. I'm reverting it back to macrocephalus asshole. Damn you fucking cunt. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Seriously consider taking a Wikivacation to cool off, man. Your heat is way above this conflict. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent). This is getting nowhere and is rapidly becoming very uncivil. I suggest both of you taking a step back and widening the discussion, perhaps asking for more opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Just to give you an update on the catodon vs. macrocephalus issue: I raised this with ITIS (who were using catodon, but "awaiting a ruling from the ICZN"), the Taxacom mailing list (open) and the ICZN mailing list (closed) in late 2008. Most experts (with one exception) were of the view that macrocephalus should be preferred over catodon (note, however, that this is the opinion of indivudual repondents rather than an ICZN ruling; the opinion expressed was that such a ruling was unnecessary). ITIS has subsequently changed their usage accordingly (refer http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180488), so has WoRMS, the World Register of Marine Species) (http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=137119), and Catalogue of Life (which uses ITIS for its mammal names at present) will presumably follow suit in its next edition (2009 checklist), depending on when their information is refreshed from ITIS. So we do finally appear to have a resolution on this one. I can provide more detail if anyone's interested.Tony1212 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym field usage

Please see Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Synonyms and also any basic text on taxonomy, raw species epithets should never be used, authors can be dropped though (per ICZN). Shyamal (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That guide should be changed, as there are times when a bare epithet is appropriate. See any species entry on MSW3's website or the hardbound text. The bare epithet with authority is used. This is because itdoes not matter which genus the epithet is attached to, it is still a synonym. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm whale second or third largest whale?

I don't know about that. You would think bowhead and North Pacific right whales were larger than the largest bull Sperm whales? For example, take the highest yields (at least the ones I know of) of oil for each of the species, as well as a few others for example:

Blue-- 354 bbls (Walvis Bay, 1931) (Ellis 1991)
Bowhead-- 375 bbls (Western Arctic, late 1840s-early 1850s) (Bockstoce 1986)
North Pacific Right-- 300 bbls (Northwest Coast, 1846) (Webb 1988)
Sperm-- 145 bbls (Western Ground, 1875) (Smith 1875)
Gray-- 101 bbls (possibly Western Arctic?) (Henderson 1972)

Also, Goode (1880-84) quotes a captain that says he's "heard" of bull sperm whales that yielded 148-bbls, only a few more than the largest I've come across in my own reading of logbooks and journals. The above table/tally (whatever you want to call it) shows that the largest individuals of bowhead and north pacific right whales (not taking into account whatever exageration that may have occurred) were over twice the size of the largest sperm whale. Perhaps oil yield isn't a fair example? How about the largest reported weights? Well, I can't use the estimates of the two sperm whales mentioned in the article (see the debate on jaw size) as I can't quite recall how those estimates were made, and by who for that matter. I'll use those found in the Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals. Phil Clapham wrote each section for the baleen whales, and Randall Reeves the one for the Sperm whale.

Blue-- 400,000 lbs
Fin-- 260,000 lbs
Sei-- 100,000 lbs
Bowhead-- about 200,000 lbs
Northern Right (two species*)-- about 200,000 lbs
Southern Right-- about 200,000 lbs
Sperm (bull)-- 120,000 lbs
  • Probably in reference to the North Pacific right, which appears to be significantly larger that its North Atlantic cousin.

With this tally, it appears very obvious that the Sperm whale is not the "second or third largest species of whale." It would appear to be the sixth or seventh largest. Not enough? How about the figures (supplied by several authors) in Davis et al (1997):

Blue-- 392,000 lbs
Fin-- 152,000 lbs
Sei-- 64,000 lbs
Bowhead-- 244,000 lbs
Right-- 212,000 lbs
Sperm-- 120,000 lbs

Anyone else like to chim in? Jonas Poole (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Guide has maximum weights of:
Blue -- 200 tons
Bowhead -- 100 tons
Fin -- 81.2 tons
Sperm (bull) -- 55.8 tons
Humpback -- 40 tons
Gray -- 35 tons
Sei -- 30.4
Right -- 30 tons (surprised so low)

By weight, the Sperm Whale is clearly no better than 4th, maybe 5th (depending on the correct max for the Right Whale). By length the Sperm Whale also seems to be about 5th (well behind Blue & Fin; slightly below Sei and Bowhead). So I think the comment about 2nd or 3rd largest needs to go. "One of the largest" would be accurate. Rlendog (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to get my hands on that Princeton Field Guide, but I'm kinda strapped for cash at the moment (damn gas prices!). It must be in error though with the maximum weight of the right whale, particularly given how large the North Pacific species can get. It has to be a typo, a really bad one at that. It should be above the fin and just below the max for the bowhead. It definitely shouldn't be below the gray, humpback, or sei whales! I know this isn't exactly scientific, but there's a photo in Men & Whales (1991, p. 328) of a North Pacific right whale on the flensing plan of the Akutan whaling station in the Aleutian Islands that looks absolutely massive. It looked to be over (a guess, I might add) fifty feet and very rotund. There's no way that thing only weighed 30 tons. Not to mention the number of logbooks and journals that talk of 200-250 bbl right whales taken off the Northwest Coast in the 1840s. And strange that a guide recently published would only give a max for the "right" whale, instead of all three species (also given the varying sizes of the three, with the north pacific the largest, the southern right in the middle, and the north atlantic the smallest). Jonas Poole (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over Spermaceti over sperm oil?

Well, I'm not particularly fond of the use of the three sources (A Dictionary of Mechanical Science, Arts, Manufactures, and Miscellaneous Knowledge, the AP website, and The Status of Natural Resources on the High Seas (probably the worst offender of the three)) I read on what spermaceti was used for. First off, none of them provide citations, and two of them appear to confuse the uses of sperm oil with that of spermaceti. For American open-boat whaling, sperm oil was used in the illumination and lubrication markets, whereas pure spermaceti was chiefly used in candle-making. The same appears to be the case for the modern era, where the article only refers to the uses of spermaceti, when it in fact appears to be talking about the uses of both sperm oil and spermaceti. With that in mind, I added that these products were obtained from spermaceti and/or sperm oil. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised I forgot to thank you for that. Many thanks! --Philcha (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Needed

Currently, there's too much duplicated information about the spermaceti in both the dedicated and the etymology sections. (And that is after I removed 2 other references in the introduction.) It looks like someone got a bit obcessed. The two need to be edited better, but I'm quitting for the night. CFLeon (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superfamily Physeteroidea

I inserted a comment that Physeteroidea was a superfamily designation in 2 places (previous text said that this was an unranked clade, which is incorrect), however it has been deleted again by someone who obviously disagrees and just calls it a clade. This may be true (as with many other genera / families / superfamilies etc.), however it is of rank = superfamily as indicated by the termination -oidea (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oidea, and any zoological text on classification). Some classification schemes do not include it but that does not make it any less a superfamily when the term is employed. I would reinstate this however I do not wish to waste my time if it will simply be deleted, so maybe someone with custodianship of the page can do so :) Tony1212 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that you changed "... several extinct fossil genera have been assigned to the clade Physeteroidea, which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants." to "... several extinct fossil genera have been assigned to the superfamily (clade) Physeteroidea, which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants." If you're going to edit an article, make sure that your edit fits the context - which generally means checking at least the whole (sub-)section. --Philcha (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I believe you are missing the point. Someone (?) seems to object to the statement that Physeteroidea is a superfamily, which it patently is, as opposed to an (unranked) clade as previously stated explicitly in one section, and implied in the other. However given the previous history of discussions on this talk page (see above) I have no wish to enter an argument about what is correct or incorrect here. Contrary to your assertion, I did and do check the context of what I edit and I will leave others to judge the accuracy or not of my edits.Tony1212 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants" defines "clade ...", not "superfamily ...", and "clade" is not the same as "superfamily". --Philcha (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that "clade" is the same as "superfamily", just as I would not say that "mammal" is the same as "mouse", however it is perfectly possible for one to be an instance of the other, as in this case. Clades can be orders, superfamilies, families, genera or many things, so long as they are monophyletic. The one thing that Physeteroidea is not, is an unranked clade (which was the subject of my original correction), it is a clade of rank superfamily (e.g. see http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=68814&syn=1). To backtrack a little, I believe the original objection to including it at this rank may be because it does not appear in MSW, however that does not change its status if someone decides to cite it in the context of a wikipedia entry. I am happy to discuss further if you can avoid personal aspersions. Tony1212 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made personal aspersions. I have pointed out that your change of "clade Physeteroidea" to "superfamily(clade) Physeteroidea" made the following "which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants" (a definition of "clade") at the very least misleadingly ambiguous, and possibly plain nonsense. This sentence occurs in section "Fossil record", and paleontologists use cladistics as their main approach to classification. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

The article states most squid were between 12 and 650 kg in weight. This is an enormous range. Doesn't this really state that all sizes are eaten with a few very small squid (less than 12 kg) and a few truly gigantic? (Do squid actually ever exceed 650 kg?) In any case, the information in this sentence is practictally nil. Cheers 157.157.101.21 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an uncommented anonymous change of that number to 12-650 grams. Such edits are always suspect. But I too wonder about that 650kg number being quite large, though 650 grams seems quite small, too. The reference citation does not include a link to an online copy, so I am unable to verify the numbers. Someone with access to the source or who otherwise can otherwise contribute authoritiatively needs to revisit this. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The range should have been grams, but was specific to the particular study that was in the prior reference. I think I have that fixed now. Of course, the giant squid that sperm whales are believed to eat can grow to several hundred kg, but that was not recorded in the particular referenced study. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. @harej 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Sperm whaleSperm Whale


This is a wikipedia wide issue, i think a huge discussion between all the WikiProjects related to animals be initiated and decide once and for all the correct naming standards .ZooPro 02:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be helpful to know that the projects using Capital Names do so to reflect the fact that the page names refer to a certain authority's list of names. In some cases, the same vernacular name has been given to more than one species, but on the authority's list, only one species gets that name. I think it is more than a little contrived and very obscure, but that is what these projects do and it does have some logic to it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely some people would write "a sperm whale" (one animal) but "the Sperm Whale" (the species as a whole). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Squid Scars

The article mentions scars from the suction cups of squids, and even has a photograph of the scars, but there's not a clue of how large the scars are. Does anybody know? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the hind limb?

67.243.1.21 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]