This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Does anyone know any museums that have specimens- skeletal or mounted? Also, ANY illustration at all- I've never seen even a drawing. CFLeon 04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
From the Extinction Website, linked from the main page - Skeletal and skin specimens were not collected by zoologists (Sealfon 2007). Sea Mink remains, primarily cranial, have been excavated from Native American shell middens, although no collector is known to have preserved a complete specimen (Dunstone 1993). Specimens can be found in the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (AMNH); the Frick Collection of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (F:AM); and the Maine State Museum, Augusta (MSM). (Sealfon 2007) --Petemella (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I've seen references to the Sea Mink eating sea birds, I haven't seen any indication in any sources I've read that the extinction of the Labrador Duck is in any way a factor in the extinction of the sea mink. Can anyone supply a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petemella (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
One of two terrestrial mammalian carnivores to go extinct in modern times?
What about the Thylacine?--Withlyn (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see, mammalian carnivore is used to mean Carnivora. This should be made more clear.--Withlyn (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There is also the extinction of the Giant Fossa (Cryptoprocta spelea). And besides the Sea Mink, the Falkland Wolf and Giant Fossa there are more recent or historic extinctions in the order of Carnivora, like the Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis) and the Japanese Sea Lion (Zalophus japonicus). Only I guess they are not considered terrestrial. Peter Maas\talk 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear when the giant fossa went extinct, but there are no historic observations. Goustien (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, this article has the same problem as the sea cow had, a description section which has text that should be split into a behaviour/ecology section
I feel like that could also fit under Description, and since it's a small article, it doesn't really seem relevant User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC).
It isn't an issue of overall article-size, but about making it easy for the reader to find the info they are looking for. If 99% of articles have separate description and behaviour sections, there is no good reason to merge them here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to add the word extinction to the section title that deals with this.
Since it is pretty naturalistic, and we know pretty much what it looked like, I think you could put the drawing in the taxobox.
At sea cow, someone said that skeletal remains go in the taxobox for extinct species if no specimen image is available User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is mainly true for extinct species whose life appearance is not entirely known, and in the case of the sea cow, the old drawing was pretty crude. Also, we had good photos of entire skeletons that would look nice in the taxobox. But in this case, I'd say a modern drawing, which is based on a close relative, is better than a drawing of a jaw-fragment. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Any genetic work? If not, state by the cladogram what methods were use din creating it.
none that I'm aware of, I don't think genetic work is really an option considering there aren't any specimens User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm literally leaving for vacation right now, I'll be back on the 12th, so I won't be doing much in the way of editing until then. Is that okay? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I'll be leaving shortly after you come back, hehe. But by the time you come back I will have reviewed the entire article, and we can hopefully wrap it up the couple of days we're both "here". FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
"Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon." This is a bit strange way of opening the taxonomy section, since you immediately jump the the original description in the following sentence. Since the debate obviously occurred later, it would be better to deal with this chronologically.
"said that the size difference was insufficient evidence to classify the sea mink as its own species, and should be considered a subspecies" You should add "and that it should be considered", to make clear what you're referring to.
"furthermore, it had said that the 2000 study" This is awkwardly worded. Just say "furthermore, the study said" or some such.
"and said that they were distinct enough" Saying "concluded" would be better than the very vague "said".
"The taxonomy of minks was recently revised in 2000" Avoid ever writing "recent" in any article, you never know how long the article will exist. And is 2000 really "recent"?
"The study concluded that the size difference was caused by environmental factors" Like what?
I just used this map because the other map of the area confuses me so much because it has so many labels and isn't zoomed out enough to easily make out Canada and Maine. Nothing seems wrong to me factually with this map, but I can change it if you want. Maps are public domain if you're worried about copyright infringement, by the way. This didn't seem to be much of a problem for the Steller's sea cow map, it just needed to have the source missing tag User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll let it slide, but may become a problem at FAC, if you want to go there. Would be easy to just make a new map by cropping a simpler map of North America. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
My computer's too slow to upload anything onto the Commons so I can't really do anything regarding imagesUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
"Relations of the sea mink within Mustela" State in the caption if this is based on morphology.
it's impossible to base it on anything else considering there's no specimen to collect DNA from User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Give etymologies for the scientific names.
Regardless of what you do with the restoration, it should be offset from the image of the teeth: images should never be on the same line opposite each other (thereby "sandwiching" the text). And subjects of images should preferably face towards the text.
"around 4,300±300 years old, around 19 kilometres" Repetitive wording.
"or brought there by Native Americans" By being brought there.
"and it is said that they formerly existed" Said by who?
a lot of people (Canadian field naturalist, IUCN, etc) should I pick one? I have to double check but I'm pretty sure that the source just said "people" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
" its range may have extended south of the Gulf of Maine, and may have even evolved there" And it may have.
"Accounts from Native Americans in the New England/Atlantic Canadian regions" You state earlier it may never have lived in Canada?
"most of its external measurements are speculation" Speculative would sound better.
"he dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades."
"the most aquatic member of the taxon" I would say group here.
It would make more chronological sense to mention hunting by native Americans before that of later settlers.
"the largest family in the order Carnivora." Why is this info relevant to this article?
"Distinctions made between the two minks is that the sea mink was larger and had redder fur. In fact, the justification for it being its own species is the size difference between it and the American mink." This is awkwardly written. Also, you state twice that it was distinct because it was larger. Could e a single sentence. Also, it seems it is distinguished by its teeth, which are not even mentioned here.
You should mention something about its behaviour in the intro.
The intro could be split into two paragraphs.
That is all, I am going on a trip from Friday night and some weeks after, not sure how my Internet will be, but I will try to close this when you have replied. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added two comments above, but generally looks better. "Humans and extinction" seems very generic as a title, though, I would called it "interaction with humans and extinction" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "decline and extinction", as in quagga? FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Well I put "Humans and extinction" instead of just "Extinction" because one paragraph talks about extinction and the other paragraph just talks about its interactions with native americans User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Still looks awkward. How about "hunting/exploitation and extinction"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, do you see anything that would be a significant problem in FA (other than the map)? Thanks, User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, I would expand it with anything if possible, since it is a bit short. I think the restoration could be moved to the description section, doesn't seem to have much to do under extinction. Also, I think you could be more specific about its behaviour in the intro, simply saying it was similar to another species doesn't really explain anything to the reader (who may not know the behaviour of the American mink). FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I expanded the lead and moved the image, but I'm not really sure what else can be said about sea minks. Maybe someone'll think of something at FA, thanks User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Last thing, I think it should be mentioned in the intro that it is only known from skeletal fragments today, and if you can find the info, list which elements are known of the skeleton, and perhaps how many specimens exist. But I will pass now, the first point I mentioned should be done afterwards in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is about a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
"It was found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?
"and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." If you mean the century, perhaps "the late 19th century" would be less ambiguous?
I always thought they were synonyms, is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
"Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon." I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense
Pausing there, sorry- a little distracted... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
A few more thoughts:
Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.
I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
"914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is false precision.
" The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." This sentence is all over the place.
is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century? ...No... There isn't. This suggestion is confusing. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have always referred to 1800-1899 as the 1800s, also I find 19th century confuses some people because they might confuse it with the 1900s, but I'll do it if you insist User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.
¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.
Taxonomy and etymology
¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."
Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new ecological niche."
¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?
Exploitation and extinction
¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?
Just realized this is still an issue. See . Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:
"Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.
It's saying that the closest mink subspecies to the sea mink is the common mink, not that the common mink's its own species User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))
I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.
"Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.
Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.
Yeah, common names change but the scientific name is generally the one you wanna trust with species identification User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but where does Manville specifically say "however, these kills are speculated to be of large American minks."?
oops, it's only for the 1894 kill. Manville's describing the specimen collected in 1894, and at the end concluded that it's an American mink User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.
That's all I have for now. If I find the time, I may check the other source, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).
The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"
In the Exploitation and extinction I'd flip the material in the first para, so that methods of killing come before last killings and vanishing.
I just ordered it in level of importance, people're gonna wanna know when they died out before how they died out User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but it sounds funny as it sounds like the hunters are trying to kill them...when they are all already dead....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't help. I think I am not so opposed to it to make it a deal-breaker..so I can agree to disagree on that one. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I can't see anything else jumping out at me prose-wise nor can I see anything missing..so a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Support - this looked good when I GA reviewed it, and it has obviously been improved, so here's my support to get things going. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The sea mink (Neovison macrodon) is a recently extinct species of mink which was most closely related to the American mink (Neovison vison); though there is debate about whether or not the sea mink should be considered a subspecies of the American mink (making it Neovison vison macrodon) or a species of its own. The main justification for this is the size difference between the two minks. Its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains. The sea mink was first described in 1903, after its extinction; its appearance and habits stem from speculation and from accounts made by fur traders and Native Americans. Its behavior may have been similar to the American mink, in that it probably maintained home ranges, was polygynandrous, and had a similar diet. It was probably found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces. Largest of the minks, it was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s or the early 1900s. (Full article...)