Talk:Blue whale/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

unclear display skeleton remark

'The Natural History Museum in London contains a famous mounted skeleton and life-size model of a blue whale, which were both the first of their kind in the world, but have since been replicated at the University of California, Santa Cruz.'

'Replicated'? As in, the skeleton is a replica, or the UCa got their own skeleton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct that first mounted skeleton was in London. The first mounted skeleton of blue whale (27 m) is on the display of Zoological museum in Saint-Petersburg (Russia) since 1901 (In British Museum from 1932).

The myth of being able to swim through a blue whale's arteries

This idea is put around as a fun anecdote to really impress on us just how large the blue whale is and has even been eminem recently repeated by the likes of Sir David Attenborough but is, to the best of my knowledge, totally untrue. Apparently even their largest arteries measure "only" 7-9 inches across; huge, to be sure, but not large enough to swim through.

I take it that the contributors to this article are aware of the falsity of this "fact" as it's not included in the article but does anyone agree it might be a good idea to mention this myth somewhere in the article to educate people that it is in fact untrue? Devoto (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whale song samples

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

Because you wouldn't be able to hear some of the notes (nor could your speakers or headphones reproduce them) at the original speed. (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

this myth is pretty gross but i think its impossible — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Largest Animal

isn't this the largest animal ever to have lived, full stop? -- Tarquin 21:36 Jan 15, 2003 (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 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. 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

There was a dinosaur starting with b that was bigger; the low estimate is 200000 kg. See dinosaur size, it's in the "most massive sauropod section. (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about a later thing is says in the Bruhathkayosaurus article; the low end estimate is actuly 173000 kg. (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That page's reference is [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Lion's mane jellyfish can get longer than blue whales (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

"Largest living animal"-> I think largest extant animal would be better, as this sort of implies that there's only one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this claim was made when Brachiosaurus was thought to be the biggest dinosaur. Several sauropod dinosaurs were slightly larger. Amphicoelias, a relative of Diplodocus, was nearly 200 feet long, nearly twice as long as a blue whale. But at 200 tons, the Blue Whale may be the heaviest animal ever.

It's impossible to say that it's the "largest animal ever to have lived." There are sauropod remains that could, if verified, belong to larger animals (one example: [[2]]), so I agree that "largest living animal" would be more accurate. In fact, without starting a cryptozoologial discussion, given that so little of the ocean has been explored, I would even go so far as to say that the blue whale is the "largest living animal known." HeadVI (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The current wording: "At up to 32.9 metres (108 ft)in length and 172 metric tons (190 short tons)[4] or more in weight, it is the largest animal ever known to have existed." is NOT supported by the reference provided (a very low-quality source, too). Interlope (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Blue Whale is listed at 172 metric tons, with the largest at over 190 tons 1. While the Amphicoelias sauropod is listed as 'only' 122 metric tons. And the estimate of 220 tons for the Bruhathkayosaurus has been reported as inaccurate, with a revised estimate at up to 139 tons. It can be said that "The Blue Whale is the largest animal ever to have lived", knowing that this could be revised in the future. We should not avoid this phrase just because a sauropod "could, if verified" be a larger animal. Until it is verified, the Blue Whale is the largest animal that ever lived. CuriousEric (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The suppossed length of Amphicoelias sounds more like an anecdote or missmeasurement. Isn't it very convinient that the original 20th centurie fossil was destroyed?-- (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


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

It may be the largest animal in the fossil record but I disagree that it was the biggest animal ever – bit daft...the earth has been around for a very long time (approx 4.5 billion years) and the fossil record has been sparse in representation of the earth’s biological history (e.g. the "human" record within the last 145 000 years is sparse – let alone life forms that existed millions and hundreds of million years ago.) I would like my opinion to be considered in lieu of, what I feel, is a gross assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghoets (talkcontribs) 09:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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)


Could someone clear up "two subspecies have been recognised. The species is divided into three subspecies" - SimonP 03:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC) i was kidding i love my hair and i like touching my niose just because i wear dorky teaacher clothes doesnt mean im not anazing at hockey im semi-pro physed was my best subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


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 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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


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)

Since the recent molecullar studies imply that B.musculus might not be as closely related to other Balaenoptera species as previously thought do you think that resurrection of "Sibbaldus" as a genus might happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ours is not to speculate, but to record. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I got your point. Let me rephrase my question then. Has any information come to your attention which implies that the scientific community is reconsidering the ressurection of the genus?
Nope. On a side note, please sign your talk posts with four tildes (~), so that the 'ot won't have to sign for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


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 - 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Gatti (talkcontribs) 15:09, 24 May 2005‎ (UTC)

According to Guinness a 27 m (90 ft) long Blue Whale going 37 km/h (20 knots) generates 382 kW.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2006‎ (UTC)


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. 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)


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.

I have found more information on ("Blue Whales")and ("Whale Watching").

The three major whaling nations (Norway, Japan and Iceland) have large and growing whale watching industries. Indeed Iceland had the fastest-growing whale watching industry in the world between 1994 and 1998.. January 2010. Many conservationists argue that a whale is worth more alive and watched than dead. The goal is to persuade their governments to curtail whaling activities. This debate continues at the International Whaling Commission, particularly since whaling countries complain that the scarcity of whale meat and other products has increased their value. However, the whale meat market has collapsed, and in Japan the government subsidizes the market through distribution in schools and other promotion. In 1997 2,000 tonnes of whale meat were sold for $30m - a 10 tonne Minke Whale would thus have been worth $150,000. There is no agreement as to how to value a single animal, though it is probably much higher. However, it is clear from most coastal communities that are involved in whale watching that profits can be made and are more horizontally distributed throughout the community than if the animals were killed by a whaling industry. Upon the resumption of whaling in Iceland in August 2003, pro-whaling groups, such as fishermen who argue that increased stocks of whales deplete fish populations, suggested that sustainable whaling and whale watching could live side-by-side. Whale watching lobbyists, such as Húsavík Whale Museum curator Asbjorn Bjorgvinsson, counter that the most inquistive whales, which approach boats very closely and provide much of the entertainment on whale-watching trips, will be the first to be taken. Pro-whaling organisations such as the High North Alliance on the other hand, claim that whale watching is not profitable and that some whale-watching companies in Iceland are surviving only because they receive funding from anti-whaling organizations.[12]

Ref:Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, editors Perrin, Wursig and Thewissen, ISBN 0-12-551340-2. In particular the article Whale watching by Erich Hoyt. Whale watching 2001: Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding socioeconomic benefits, Erich Hoyt, ISBN 1-901002-09-8 . Whale watching, Discovery Travel Adventures Insight guide. ISBN 1-56331-836-9 . The Whale Watcher's Guide: Whale-watching Trips in North America, Patricia Corrigan, ISBN 1-55971-683-5 . Whales and Whale Watching in Iceland, Mark Carwardine, ISBN 9979-51-129-X . On the Trail of the Whale, Mark Carwardine, ISBN 1-899074-00-7 User:Kathy Decker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecqqgar4444 (talkcontribs) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

The page should be updated to reflect the latest estimate of abundance for the Antarctic population (and subspecies B.m. intermedia) which is 2,280 (95% CI 1,160-4,500). This requires editing of an earlier section also which says the largest population is in the north Pacific numbering about 2,000. Obviously the Antarctic population is now about the same size or perhaps a little larger. Source: Branch, T. A. 2008. Abundance of Antarctic blue whales south of 60°S from three complete circumpolar sets of surveys. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9:87-96. Posted by Trevor A. Branch 11 July 2008 [Did not edit the page because of the obvious conflict of interest.]

I have a summary of worldwide status of blue whales, but cannot post edits because of the obvious conflict of interest [Posted by Trevor A. Branch 23 July 2008]

Antarctic At one time the most abundant in the world and probably containing 90% of the world's total numbers, now increasing at 2.4-8.4% per year (median 6.4%) Branch 2008a. Current numbers were 2,280 in 1997 (Branch 2008b). Original numbers were 235,000 to 307,000 (best estimate 256,000) (Branch 2008a). Current population is possibly the most depleted of any large whale population, at less than 1% of pristine levels (Branch 2008a).

PYGMY (Indian Ocean/Australia/New Zealand) Survey: 424 off small area of Madagascar (Best etal 2003). Survey: 671 off small area S of Australia (Kato et al. 2007) Total abundance likely to be high, perhaps 4000 to 10,000 Total catches: 13,022 (Branch et al. 2008) Unknown rate of change over time. If max rate of increase assumed to be 0-8% then original population 10,000-20,000 Obviously this is very uncertain

North Atlantic NA surveys 1100-1900 abundance (Pike et al. 2004), say 2000-3000 total. Increase rate 5.2% per year off Iceland (Sigurjonsson & Gunnlaugson 1990) Total catches: 10,442 Original population perhaps 6000-13000 (assuming ROI 0-8%)

North Pacific Eastern population 2000-3000 (Calambokidis et al. 2004) total oceanwide 3000-4000? Rate of change not clear, could be increasing or decreasing. Total catches: 7973 Original abundance perhaps 4000-11000 (assuming ROI 0-8%)

South-east Pacific Chile 452 survey estimate (Branch etal 2007) but this is not reliable, nonrandom survey. Likely 1000-2000 total. Unknown rate of change Catches: 5383 Original abundance 3000-7000 (assuming 0-8% ROI).

Worldwide Total current abundance 11,000 to 24,000 (better rounded to 10,000 to 25,000). Global rate of change: ranging from unknown to increasing at 6.4% per annum, most likely in the 5% range. Pre-exploitation abundance: 258000-358000 (rounded to 260,000-360,000) Depletion: Likely 3-9% of worldwide pre-exploitation levels.

Refs: Best, P.B., Rademeyer, R.A., Burton, C., Ljungblad, D., Sekiguchi, K., Shimada, H., Thiele, D., Reeb, D. and Butterworth, D.S. 2003. The abundance of blue whales on the Madagascar Plateau, December 1996. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5:253-260.

Branch, T.A. 2008a. Current status of Antarctic blue whales based on Bayesian modeling. IWC Paper SC/60/SH7:10pp.

Branch, T.A. 2008b. Abundance of Antarctic blue whales south of 60°S from three complete circumpolar sets of surveys. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9:87-96.

Branch, T.A., Allison, C., Mikhalev, Y.A., Tormosov, D. and Brownell Jr, R.L. 2008. Historical catch series for Antarctic and pygmy blue whales. IWC Paper SC/60/SH9:11pp.

Branch, T.A., Matsuoka, K. and Miyashita, T. 2004. Evidence for increases in Antarctic blue whales based on Bayesian modelling. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 20:726-754.

Branch, T.A., Zerbini, A.N. and Findlay, K. 2007. Abundance of blue whales off Chile from the 1997/98 SOWER survey. IWC Paper SC/59/SH8:9pp.

Calambokidis, J. and Barlow, J. 2004. Abundance of blue and humpback whales in the Eastern North Pacific estimated by capture-recapture and line-transect methods. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 20:63-85.

Kato, H., Matsuoka, K., Nishiwaki, S. and Bannister, J.L. 2007. Distributions and abundances of pygmy blue whales and southern right whales in waters off southern coast of Australia, based on data from the JAPAN/IWC blue whale cruise 1995-96. IWC Paper SC/59/SH10:14pp.

Pike, D.G., Vikingsson, G.A. and Gunnlaugsson, T. 2004. Abundance estimates for blue whales Balaenoptera musculus in Icelandic and adjacent waters. IWC Paper SC/56/O6:10pp.

Sigurjónsson, J. and Gunnlaugsson, T. 1990. Recent trends in abundance of blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off West and Southwest Iceland, with a note on occurrence of other cetacean species. Rep Int Whal Commn 40:537-551. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2008 (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)


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 (talkcontribs)

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

A recent genetics paper finds evidence for B.m. intermedia and B.m. brevicauda but no evidence for a separate subspecies B.m. indica, although the sample sizes were very small. Additionally, South-east Pacific blue whales (Chile) were found to be as different from B.m.brevicauda as from B.m.intermedia and should be treated separately. B.m.musculus was not examined in the study.

Source: LeDuc, R. G., A. E. Dizon, M. Goto, L. A. Pastene, H. Kato, S. Nishiwaki, C. A. LeDuc, and R. L. Brownell. 2007. Patterns of genetic variation in Southern Hemisphere blue whales and the use of assignment test to detect mixing on the feeding grounds. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9:73-80. [Added by Trevor Branch 11 July 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening comment suggests these are separate species, but the quote from the article seems to suggest 3 subspecies of a single species. Which is correct? Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) .

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


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. 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Largest organism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (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. Zariusт 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is not it a colony instead of a single organism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry got confused with the Portoguese Man'oWar.-- (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


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 (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. 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.

Authochthony writes: - surely 20 metres is an estimate - not "exactly half-way between 19.9(999) metres and 20.(000)1 metres"; and surely 20 metres is [a bit] nearer '70 feet' than '60 feet' [I might have estimated/used '65 feet'. but I didn't know enough to add the bit quoted.] Incidentally, unless soemthing is an exact measurement (like, say, Bob Beamon's 1968 long (=broad) jump of 8.90 metres, 29 feet, two and a half inches) - surely it is better to use a similarly rounded figure for the conversion into whichever unit(s) your estimate is not in. Tons, tonnes, and (short) tons - of 2240, ~2205, and 2000 pounds each, respectively, is a case in point; about three tons [hey - whatever!] - but about 200 tons/tonnes [225 (short) tons) - and 25,000 tons/25400 tonnes/27500 (short) tons is surely reasonable. Do think about this, please. Autochthony wrote - 2006z 25 August 2010. (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


for 2 weeks. The amount of vandalism is becoming ridiculous. Please contact if, after 2 weeks, further protection need be applied. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 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 DissidentTalk 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Commercial website links

Hi Clayoquot,

you recently restored the link to the website of 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)


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)

I'd like to see that on this article --Krilldude (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Some idiot created an entire article on it: Blue whale penis. And no one knows anything about blue whale mating, so that's why there's nothing on it. SHFW70 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2013 (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)

“It is rarely that the Sulfurbottom [blue whale] 'bolts' or 'breaches,' yet, when engaged in this sprightly act, the animal presents itself in that degree of magnificence which is commensurate with its inordinate activity and immense proportions.” Charles Melville Scammon, The Marine Mammals of the Northwestern Coast of North America, 1874, p. 72. The term "sulfurbottom" was the name Yankee whalemen gave to the blue whale. Supposedly it had to do with the yellowish sheen created by diatoms on its ventral surface. I believe it is caused by diatoms, but I may have erred on the species. It’s been a while since I’ve read about this particular topic. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen one breach, once, but they don't do it often as far as I am aware. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Life sized picture of the blue whale

This link might be a worthy addition: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewelyn MT (talkcontribs) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Did you know that most news reporters have seen Blue Whales talking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


An adult blue whale can eat up to 40 million krill in a Hunted, rammed, poisoned, whales may die from heartbreak too--Florentino floro (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orca attack on blue whale

I've found an article describing the attack mentioned under 'Threats other than hunting' but I can't add it under the notes because of the page protection(probably not enough edits). If someone could check it out and add it to the article it would be nice. The article has a description and some photos of the attack. (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Mate their big woppen animals —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Horrible term - please remove

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. But could someone please rephrase 'international community'. This is a truly horrible term. And this body does not exist. I strongly object.

The article also refers to 'groups' of Blue Whales in various regions of the world. And yet further on the article states that these mammals usually roam alone or in pairs. Which is it please?

Gregpalmerx (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

reference no:43 is invalid. please remove it. --Challiyan (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Malmska valen

A preserved blue whale bull is permanently exhibited at the Naturhistoriska Museet in Gothenburg , Sweden. [4]--Contributions/ (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy Issues?

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a few taxons missing for the Blue Whale Classification, can someone registered to edit this article add the following?

Place "Subphylum: Vertebrata" under the taxa Phylum.

Place "Subclass: Theria" under the taxa Class.

And place "Infraclass: Eutheria" under the taxa Subclass.

Not done...because, the specification of the major 8 Taxonomic the infobox is an established standard.
If information on these additional taxa is to be added, it would be better explained in the "Taxonomy" section, along with suitable references of course. If you can suggest such an addition with appropriate reliable sources, then please do so, and use another {{editsemiprotected}}.
If I've got this all horribly wrong, then please start a discussion about it below, and let's hope that some other experts (in both taxonomy and in Wikipedia) can help us reach a consensus.
Thank you for your input,  Chzz  ►  05:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Chzz's interpretation of Wikipedia conventions is correct. The box at the upper left part of the article is called a "taxobox" and according to the taxobox documentation we should specify only major ranks unless there is a specific reason to include minor ranks as well. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect current abundance of Antarctic blue whales

Right now it states: "Recent abundance estimates for the Antarctic subspecies range from 1100[51] to 1700.[10]" These estimates come from an incomplete set of circumpolar surveys that have now been completed. The estimate from the complete set of surveys is 2280 Antarctic blue whales, which should replace the existing text. The source reference is a published paper:

Branch, T. A. 2007. Abundance of Antarctic blue whales south of 60°S from three complete circumpolar sets of surveys. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9:87-96.

I am the author of both the original estimates (1100, 1700) and the most recent estimate (2280). I have previously posted this correction but no action was taken.


Trevor A. Branch 29 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbranch (talkcontribs) 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) I've updated the article. I don't know why we didn't respond before, but I have the article on my watchlist again now. We'll try to keep up in future. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add the link to Short tons, since this term is absolutely non-intuitive for all European readers, for instance (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Can someone fix the vandalized image on the right side of the article? 'WHEREVER THE FUCK I WANT TO GO' Mineralè (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's accurate. Knosoup42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

Someone needs to reinsert the image. The version without text is highly confusing - .as the whales range pretty much everywhere, the blue used to indicate the range of the blue whale can be confused with the colour the sea has been coloured in with in the map! The image with text is much better at resolving the issue. Could someone with access please revert Rrburke and Mineralè's vandalism to the correct version by Jmf145. (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Jmf145 replaced a good image with a (now?) non-existent one (in the article as well as a comment here on the talk page). The current range map looks fine (maybe expecting people that wish to use a map to know about the sea between Europe and Africa or is unreasonable). --Swift (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bowhead Whale which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC) ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


i say we remove threats other than hunting and move into threats —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} "With global warming causing glaciers and permafrost to melt rapidly and allowing a large amount of fresh water to flow into the oceans..."

This line is unproven and even dramatic ("melt rapidly...large amount of fresh water..")

It should be changed to something along the lines of "With the possibility of...", or something signifying that this is not fact but is a possible result of possible global warming. (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a request for citation in that section, but you haven't provided a reliable secondary source for what you are claiming, so I cannot change it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

bue whales

could you tell me whether what blue whales feed their young with?-- (talk)-- (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)beth

Like all mammals, blue whales nurse their young. From the article: "During the first seven months of its life, a blue whale calf drinks approximately 400 litres (100 U.S. gallons) of milk every day." For future reference, you can ask general knowledge questions like this at WP:REFDESK. Steve Smith (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 June 2010


|The museum of Nature in Ottawa Canada now has a blue whale skeleton on display. It opened in May 2010. (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. fetch·comms 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Social structure

Groups and social structure is mentioned almost in passing but the details are lacking. "Blue whale strandings are extremely uncommon, and, because of the species' social structure, mass strandings are unheard of." is an example. The social structure just isnlt as clear as it could be. I see that this is FA and it really does have some good info. This is one aspect that could be improved if anyone has the sources available.Cptnono (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dexterford, 15 September 2010


Add to "Whale Watching" section:

Blue whales are increasingly seen off Southern California. There is a consistent summer population (July-September), estimated at 2000-plus, that converges between the Channel Islands of Santa Rosa, San Miguel and Santa Cruz and the city of Santa Barbara. There have been summer blue whale whale-watching cruises run out of Santa Barbara on commercial boat The Condor for at least the last 14 years, with a high success rate of encountering blue whales.

The Voyager, out of Redondo Beach, also runs blue whale whale watching tours during the summer months. And a small but consistent population of 5-10 blues also lingers between the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Catalina Island in the summers, which can be accessed via the Voyager or by private boat. There are also whale-watching boats out of San Pedro and Long Beach that frequently encounter blue whales during the summer.

A population of 20-to-50 blue whales was been seen off Redondo Beach in early September, 2010. Stand-up paddle boarders, kayakers and other small-boat sailors encountered the Southern California/Northern Pacific blue whales from shore to about 4 miles offshore, feeding on large quantities of krill near the surface.

Dexterford (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dexterford (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Not done for now: Please provide references for your addition. Thanks! -- Crazysane (T/C\D) 12:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NobodyOfNaught, 28 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This article contains 10 references to measurements in "metric tons" could someone correct this to the correct spelling of the metric unit "tonne" (with the correct spelling the use of the word "metric" is redundant but should probably be left for clarity)

NobodyOfNaught (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently 'metric ton' is the correct US spelling of 'tonne', and this article seems to be written predominately in US English (with some odd non-US spellings, e.g. 'metre'). The template used to generate conversions ({{Convert}}) does not support the output 'metric tonne' (though it does support simply 'tonne'). I'll leave it as it is for now. Intelligentsium 00:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Museums section

I would propose some new language for the front of this section:

The Smithsonian Institution created the first full cast of a blue whale in 1903. It was first displayed at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition and then subsequently at the National Museum of Natural History, where it remained until around 1960, when it was replaced by a new, even bigger blue whale model. This blue whale, a museum favorite, remained on exhibit until 2000. (Today the museum exhibits a model of a right whale rather than a blue whale.)[1]

For the sentence about the London model, I would propose the following edit:

The Natural History Museum in London contains a famous mounted skeleton and life-size model of a blue whale, which were both the first of their kind in the world, but have since been replicated at the University of California, Santa Cruz and elsewhere. Cestertonio (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to remove whitespace below "Size"

There appears to be an inordinately large blank space beginning the section on "Size". Is someone able to fix this? I don't want to break anything... Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 09:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


There's disagreement in the article about the quantity of milk drunk by a BW calf - it says 400l/day in size but then 380-570l/day in Life history. Obviously a neonate will need a lot less than a huge almost-weaned teenager, so the range given seems much more plausible, but I'm a bit concerned at the difference. Thoughts, anybody? Beccaviola (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy - List

Since the list of different species is complicated, semicolons should be used between list elements.

e.g. B. m. musculus, the northern blue whale consisting of the North Atlantic and North Pacific populations; B. m. intermedia, the southern blue whale of the Southern Ocean; B. m. brevicauda, the pygmy blue whale found in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific; and the more problematic B. m. indica, the great Indian rorqual, which is also found in the Indian Ocean and, although described earlier, may be the same subspecies as B. m. brevicauda. (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Size - paragraph 3

"The longest whales ever recorded were two females measuring 33.6–33.3 metres (110–109 ft) respectively."

When two amounts are listed, they should be separated by a comma, not a hyphen. A hyphen should be used when there is a range (several samples).

Also, "repectively" should be used when two sets of data correspond to each other. It should also have a comma before it. e.g. Alice and Betty weigh 40 and 44 kg, respectively.

I propose the sentence be revised to, "The longest whales ever recorded were two females measuring 33.3 and 33.6 metres (109 and 110 ft)." (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tincanmansiimon, 16 August 2011

i have a knowledge on how blue whales feed and so interesting facts like the technic on the way they feed and why reserch about 10 miles off sri lanka is being done

if thats not what i was supposed to write heres another please add to the end of the feeding section some blue whales have been sighted near sri lanka diving to get deeep krill eg if there is some school of krill at -500m the whale will go down -550m and swoop up into the school open its mouth and then fliter out the water with its keratin and keep doing so

please accept this request and i will try to improve the page to my full extent

Tincanmansiimon (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Has any of this research been published, either on the internet or in written form? If it has, can you provide a quote of information you would like to add here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


The Blue whale is listed on Appendix I[2] of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) as this species has been categorized as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant proportion of their range and CMS Parties strive towards strictly protecting these animals, conserving or restoring the places where they live, mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them. In addition, Spinner dolphin is covered by Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of Cetaceans and Their Habitats in the Pacific Islands Region (Pacific Cetaceans MOU). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Water manager (talkcontribs) 10:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for Sleeknub related to migratory patterns

In the "Population and Whaling" section under the heading "Threats other than hunting" the article currently says: "The whales summer in the cool, high latitudes, where they feed in krill-abundant waters; they winter in warmer, low latitudes, where they mate and give birth."

I suggest adding to the end: "However, although other baleen whales follow this basic pattern, scientists no longer agree that blue whales do. Evidence is mounting that the whales in fact remain in feeding grounds year-round."

Using this, or any other appropriate citation:


Sleeknub (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Sleeknub

A single instance of blue whales being sighted off the Washington coast in late fall (which early December is) shouldn't result in such an edit being made. Some blues, like fins and minkes, may remain in northern feeding grounds year-round, but the fact is many still migrate south to Baja and Costa Rica to breed (at least in the eastern North Pacific). Heck, some stay year-round off Baja feeding. They might not follow the "basic pattern" you mentioned above, but they certainly don't all follow the simplistic pattern you've proposed either. With that said, I see no point in any revisions being made. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ Smithsonian's Whale Exhibit History
    • ^ "Appendix I" of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). As amended by the Conference of the Parties in 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2008. Effective: 5th March 2009.