Talk:Narwhal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cetaceans
This article is part of WikiProject Cetaceans, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use cetaceans resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance within WikiProject Cetaceans.

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Narwhal as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Esperanto language Wikipedias.

I WANT ONE!!! A tusk is a tooth, not a horn, and it is hardly "growing from the forehead". The article seems to be a mixture of zoological and superstitious information.
S.

I added it to my (long) todo list. I am writing articles on species for which we don't have articles at all so far. Then I'll come back and add more to the articles that we were written before we got a framework set up at the project page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unicorns

Another possible vagueness is this business of the narwhal-as-source-for-unicorn-legend. I'd heard that idea before, certainly, but only raised as a possibility; the article at present states it as definite. Are scholars more resolved on this matter than I thought?Iralith 20:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a good explanation of the Narwhal/unicorn connection here. --Clay Collier 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latin name

What is the correct binomial name, the article presents two different spellings? Is it monodon monoceros or monodon monceros?

"Monceros" is a typo. It's "monoceros," per Google, my dictionary, and my sense of the etymology involved. I'll go ahead and change it. Iralith 21:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Map caption

The current english caption of the picture reads:

The summer (solid) and winter (striped) distributions of the Narwhal

However, the german caption imprinted into the picture translates as

frequent occurence (solid) and rare occurence of the Narwhale (striped)

Can someone clarify whether this is a mistranslation? The explanation in the text (that the whales leave the coasts during the winter) sounded acceptable for me at first, but given the fact that the striped areas are covered by thick ice during winter I am starting to doubt it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.86.153.129 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Altho "Vorkommen" is an unfamiliar word to me, i agree that the second English version above is at least closer to the German, and that the first, from the article, sounds completely unjustified by the German. If it the caption is true (but not a translation), then for the sake of non-confusion, the graphic should be edited to remove the German text.
    --Jerzyt 14:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop it!

Stop vandalizing the article, whoever you are!

yes, whoever though it would be funny to put that narwhals swim through sand is an idiot, and very disruptive!

[edit] Two-tusk photo

The two-tusk photo no longer appears in the de: article, & has been transferred from de: to Commons. It is unsuitable for the article w/o deeper discussion of the anomaly (and, unless i misread the German commentary that accompanies our copy, of the embryology), and does not obviate the need for a photo, in similar resolution, of the typical case! As it stands, it is confusing. Someone a little more image-savvy than i could surely replace it with the more suitable (tho disappointingly less well lit & i think lower resolution) Two narwhal skulls (now used in the de: article), which says

...Das Bild ist damit gemeinfrei („public domain“). Dies gilt weltweit.

i.e.

...The picture is thereby gemeinfrei (public domain). This holds world-wide.

--Jerzyt 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the two-tusk photo should be there at all. I came for information about typical narwhals, and the photo of a skull of an anomalous one would maybe serve better as just a link in the article or as an image further down in the article. Dave 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree the anomaly should be given less notice. A-giau 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing ththe photo was actually a male skull, since it is both extremely rare for a female to have tusks, and for a male to have two tusks, so a female with two tusks would be incredibly unlikely.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless the German description clearly states it is a female skull. The author cites the description in the museum: "All these skulls with two tusks are from male animals, but the skull from Hamburg (i.e. this one) has been prooved to be from a female animal. It therefore is unique." M adler 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the gender, I think the two-tusk photo should be deleted and an one-tusk photo added. It is better to represent what is usual, not unique. 201.1.51.72 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on narwhals that contradicts some of the wikipedia article

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060325/bob9.asp

According to this narwhals have been recorded as diving "almost 1800m". It is a fairly long article but it has a wealth of information about narwhals, so someone more well versed in the wikipedia policies may want to edit the article accordingly if this link is considered credible.