Talk:Right whale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Life Span
I couldnt find any information on the page about the life span of these whales. How long do they live?
A: Right whales may have a life expectancy of over 60 years, although this figure is not at all certain (very little is known about these whales).
-
- And a couple of years ago a 19th century harpoon tip was found in a right whale, increasing the lifespan estimate to over 100 years. (I should find this citation, but for now...) In addition, there were eye protein studies ongoing that placed the potential lifespan at well into the 100s. Graham 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mass.
(Moving from inline to talk)
Why the specific information about Massachusetts? I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic at large. It doesn't seem to fit in this section, which is mostly about groups advocating protection of the whale.
- The state of Massachusetts conservation efforts include a special driver's registration plate depicting a right whale. Part of the fee for buying such a plate is given to the Massachusetts Environmental Trust.(REF: A picture of the plate and further detail can be found at the Government of Massachusetts website.
I agree. Maybe things will change so it there is a better spot to put. For now it is not important. Pcb21 Pete 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Saw the page and thought it to be somehow relevant
- This is info is very localized. Since it only applies to Mass. about 99% of readers probably don't need to know this. Although, it may make a good external link. --Maintain 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Float when killed?
I understood that they were the "right" whales because they produced a good yield of oil. Surely most, if not all, whales float when killed? I am not an expert of course. --Richard Clegg 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding is that many species of whale sink when killed: that is really the point. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough then. I did say I wasn't an expert. --Richard Clegg 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Paragraph
I find the first paragraph rather hard to understand in terms of the taxonomic arrangement of Balaenidae. I've posted below a possible rewording, feel free to suggest amendmants to it:
- The right whales are baleen whales belonging to the family Balaenidae. This family contains two genera: Eubalaena, in which the three right whale species are found, and Balaena containing the Bowhead Whale.
Suicidalhamster 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Samirat: I agree. The taxonomical reference is too general. "Right whales" can be narrowed down to the genus Eubalaena. They could simply narrow it down at first, instead of mentioning the vague family name, since all "right whales" are in the one genus. This one point can't be edited, however, without changing some of the information later in the article. I think the Suicidal Hamster's change is not without merit, certainly better worded and more specific.
- As I understand it, the Bowhead Whale is also called the Greenland Right Whale - doesn't that make the Bowhead Whale a Right Whale too? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I hadn't realised that the Bowhead whale was also known as a Right Whale. The 'the' could be removed from my suggestion but not sure how much this would improve on what is already present. - Suicidalhamster 18:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article topic - Balaenidae or Eubalaena?
How did this get to be today's featd article. It can't decide whether it's about only the three species of Eubalaena or about the four species of Balaenidae. Nurg 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 4 species vs 3 species?
In the intro, I find this sentence: "The right whales are the baleen whales belonging to the family Balaenidae. There are four species in two genera: Eubalaena (three species) and Balaena (one species, the Bowhead Whale)."
But in the first paragraph of "Taxonomy", I find this sentence: "After many years of shifting views on the number of right whale species, recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are in fact three distinct right whale species."
It seems to me that it's saying there are both four and three species of right whale! Unless there's a difference between a "species" and a "distinct species", I'm not quite sure what to make of this... --T. S. Rice 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like the look of the taxobox either. I think it should use subdivision ranks instead of mentioning Genus twice. Mgiganteus1
Also,
- "The three right whale species live in geographically distinct locations."
- "The North Pacific species is on average the largest of the three." etc.
- and see Callosity.
The article does mention the classification issues, but seems to have made its own decision along the way. Outriggr 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to comment on that first paragraph as well (having just read it on the "featured articles" box on the main page. It is very confusing and comes across as an error (the four versus three thing). No idea how to fix it best, just wanted to mention it. Fram 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Right whales
As opposed to the wrong whales? Vitriol 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most definitely the right (correct) whales, rather than the wrong whales - the ones that float when you kill them, rather than the other ones, that sink. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So can I ask why it is spelled 'right' rather than 'Right'? It leapt out of the page at me when it was the fratured article of the day today?
- For the same reason we write baleen whales not Baleen whales. Nurg 03:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Metric ton vs tonne
I really think that when mentioning the mass (weight) of the right whale the unit should be expressed in "tonnes" rather than the American usage of "metric tons".
- I've changed it — "metric tons" in any case redirects to "tonnes". --Bazza 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Whaling Products Soon Back on the Market?
It seems that pro-whaling interests are methodically setting the table not only to overturn the existing ban on whaling, but also to re-establish the market for the products of commercial whaling. Buyer beware - Having narrowly failed to overturn the ban at this year's IWC conference, pro-whalers are now trying to ease restrictions by downlisting whale oil and spermaceti from CITES I to CITES II. Concurrently, there are moves afoot in Brussels to raise the tariff on the jojoba derivatives which are the closest competitor to spermaceti (whale oil fraction). Spermaceti (although momentarily restricted) is clearly classified under a zero tariff heading (1521.9010), so that when restrictions are eased, the EU will have created a grotesque subsidy for whale oil products over their only botanical alternative, jojoba esters. Istvan 14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
A good description is found here [1] Istvan 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Picture
Is it offensive or shocking to any of you in that its bot what we want to shock people with on the homepage. --68.14.141.146 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC) I, as a biologist, don't find this picture offensive. It is the result of what happens when a whale is killed by a boat, it should be shown in the Conservation section of the article. If you find the picture offensive, go look at something else.PowderedToastMan 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Featured Article Review?
I'm a little shocked that this article achieved FA status. This problem with not knowing how many species there are should have been more than enough to kill the nom. If we can't get this straightened out ASAP, I think we need to put the article up for a FA Review in the hopes of attracting some attention and hopefully getting a resolution. Thoughts? Matt Deres 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this is embarrassing. The featured version (from May this year) had the same confusion. It shouldn't be hard to fix- all four species are already covered here, so it just needs a bit of rewording - but it has to be done (preferably by someone who knows something about the subject). HenryFlower 18:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it should be straightforward, on the condition that there is no wish to have a separate article on Eubalaena. Is this the case? Nurg 05:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Surprising distribution
Is it only me that finds the following extract from the article odd?
"In recent years, genetic studies have provided clear evidence that the northern and southern populations have not interbred for between 3 million and 12 million years, confirming the status of the Southern Right Whale as a distinct species. More surprising has been the finding that the northern hemisphere Pacific and Atlantic populations are also distinct, and that the Pacific species (now known as the Pacific Northern Right Whale), is in fact more closely allied with the Southern Right Whale than with the Atlantic Northern Right Whale."
Why should it be surprising that the populations in the northern Atlantic and the northern Pacific are distinct? To me it would seem much more likely that they would be distinct than populations in the north Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. This is because the barrier that North and South America form between the Atlantic and Pacific would seem like a far more formidible barrier than that of the equatorial regions bewtween the north and south Atlantic. It is conceivable after all that a whale could swim from the north Atlantic to the south or vice versa but it is inconceivable that it could somehow cross the Isthmus of Panama! In addition, the frozen waters north of Canada would surely block any Atlantic-Pacific migration. Booshank 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
This article being on the front page seems to drawing the attention of vandals. Can we get it protected? --PiMaster3 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Predators
I did a literature search and could find no evidence for the claim (often repeated, never supported) that sharks represent a significan Balaenid predator. In addition, it would be just wrong to cite the predators as "some of the larger sharks," as the largest two species are plankton eaters exclusively (cf. whale shark and basking shark). Graham 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smooth.
You made it a featured article what, two days ago? Vitriol 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia featured articles | FA-Class cetacea articles | Top-importance cetacea articles | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles | FA-Class Version 0.7 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.7 articles