Talk:Fin Whale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fin Whale article.
Article policies
Featured article star Fin Whale is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 3, 2008.
WikiProject 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.
Cetaceans Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Cetaceans.

Contents

[edit] Weight at Birth

is this accurate at 3000kg as the Blue whale page says a new born of that species weighs 1350kg. I could almost understand the Fin being a little heavier at birth - but twice as heavy? Surely one of them is a mistake. Petsco 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

ADW says 1,800 kg (4,000 lb) for the Fin Whale, and most webpages give similar figures (usually 1.8–2.0 tonnes). Also, Blue Whale newborns are a bit larger than that, usually 1,800–2,700 kg (4,000–6,000 lb). I've seen much greater figures though: Lyall Watson's Whales of the World: A Field Guide to the Cetaceans (1981) gave the birth weight of a Blue Whale at 7,500 kg (16,500 lb), and I've seen this figure quoted elswhere, but this seems to be erroneus. Perhaps this inflated birth weight for the Fin Whale was based on these same sources.
The weight of 120 tonnes (132 sh t) for the adult is also too much. Few modern sources give more than 70 tonnes (77 sh t) for this species. --Anshelm '77 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of common names

This article was screaming out for a copyedit of all the capitalized common names. This is a point that has been argued many different places (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) and Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin/Move discussion for a couple.) I'm more familiar with the standards outlined at Wikiproject Fishes which uses all lowercase, but this article falls under WikiProject Cetaceans which has chosen to standardize on capitalized common names. This is just a heads up in case someone else gets tempted to help with the "capitalization errors". I'd support changing the standard at that project if there is consensus and I left a note on that project's talk page about it, but I've left everything as is for now. Neil916 (Talk) 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Stupid convention. In the scientific literature, the species names are not capitalized. Rracecarr (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fin whale total population

The article says under Population and distribution: "The total population is estimated to be just in excess of 100,000." According to BBC.co.uk "There are no agreed estimates of current population...". ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456973/html/nn6page1.stm ) Is there any reliable source for this number, 100.000 animals? - gumol 21:47, 22 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I've been in the process of trying to replace much of the unsourced and unreferenced information in the article (hence the confusion mentioned below). I'd take any unsourced information in this article with a large grain of salt for the time being until I can run things down. When checking facts, I've come across some widely varying numbers. Neil916 (Talk) 05:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] current populations

I was curious about current populations but got confused. One paragraph says "...include 24,000 in the Southern Ocean..." and another paragraph says "...although Southern ocean populations are currently estimated to be no more than 5,000 individuals and possibly only 2,000-3,000." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gloryroad (talk • contribs) 05:03, October 23, 2006 (UTC)

Alas, you caught me in the middle of a rewrite. I replaced unreferenced information in the article with cited material, hence the 5,000 number, and hadn't yet gotten to removing the other numbers yet. Still working on it though! Thanks for pointing it out. Neil916 (Talk) 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] migration

"There are three suggested reasons for this. One is that the Atlantic Gulf Stream reduces the north-south temperature gradient making migration a less attractive option. Another is that food may be available in the cold north all year, again reducing the need for travel. Finally, it may be that since Fin Whales stay in colder, deeper waters during the Winter, they are further from the shore and their actual movements are more difficult to accurately track."

I have been unable to locate a source for the temperature gradient hypotheses, so I have temporarily removed it from the article. The second part isn't so much of a statement of migration, so i've integrated it into the habitat section with references, and the third one has been referenced with respect to the Antarctic Fin Whale, but I haven't seen anything relative to the North Pacific and North Atlantic whales. Neil916 (Talk) 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page?

Has anyone put in a request for this to be "Today's Featured Article" on the main page yet? We haven't had a cetacean up there in a long time. Kla'quot 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I pushed it through the featured article process, and I didn't push it onto the main page. Same thing goes for Sei Whale. If you'd like to pursue it, go for it. Neil916 (Talk) 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The lead should be expanded first though. I'll put it on my to-do list. Cheers, Kla'quot 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But by all means, if someone else does it first, you have my gratitude! Kla'quot 06:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree; the new picture is really good. Now LEAD is spruced up a bit, are we happy or do we want to spruce up the rest of the article before asking for a main page request?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can improve it, by all means, do. But, with just a couple of exceptions (compare today's version to the version that passed FAC), the article is pretty much the same as when it passed FAC. Great picture, by the way, nice find. For bonus credit, can you track down any better pictures for the Sei Whale article? That's one that really needs a good picture (or even a marginally decent picture would probably be an improvement; the only actual photo we have looks like a big grey tadpole floating on the surface, dead...) Neil916 (Talk) 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's ready for a main page request. Cas, I'll bet you know where to go to do it, so please take us there :) Agree 200% about ghastly the Sei Whale photo; I'll poke around to see what I can find. Kla'quot 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted photo

The new picture of the Fin Whale is, unfortunately, not a public domain image as it was not taken by a NOAA employee in the course of that employee's duties. I emailed the photographer and her response was:

Dear Neil-
Are you inquiring because you have used or want to use the image?
I am the copyright holder all images on my website, thus the image is not public domain. This images was taken ancillary to research (with my gear) and I have allowed courtesy use of the photo on NOAA websites and a few non-profit types of places. The site you originally saw it on (written by Sue Moore) is a colleague of mine and asked for the use of it on that site.
I was also co-author on a publication related to that image. If it appears on NOAA websites, it is okay and use has been authorized.
Have you seen it used elsewhere? If so, either I allowed use or the use is unauthorized. Please let me know if you see it floating around out there!
Thank you for contacting me and let me know if you need anything else.
Lori

I've taken it back out of the article, which is a shame because it was so nice. Neil916 (Talk) 21:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I'm glad you found out about the problem and removed the image. I'd like to see if we can still work out something with the photographer which would not detract from the commercial value of her work. I'll email you with ideas. Cheers, Kla'quot 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
We got it. Yippeeeee!!!!! Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resumed Hunting

although Iceland and Japan have announced intentions to resume hunting.

A citation will be welcome for this. Thanks. Jeroje 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palumbi unreliable

"However, highly reliable (coalescent) genetic-based estimates rises this number to at least 300,000 individuals in pre-whaling times [43]."

Ok, there is no possible way that the historic size of fin whales in the North Atlantic was this large. From 1910 to 2005 some 55,270* fin whales were caught in the North Atlantic, as well as several thousand between 1868 and 1909. Now, how would the population number about 40,000 today if only the above number of fin whales had been taken? Wouldn't there be a few hundred thousand fin whales left if that many were taken?

Palumbi has been criticized for his work. For example, go to Cetacean Society International's website (http://csiwhalesalive.org/csi03402.html) and scroll down to "Whales before Whaling in the North Atlantic." Also, go to this pdf (http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/meetings/ulsan/CRREP57.pdf) and scroll down to p.17, section 4.5.1.1 and you'll see that even the IWC won't use Palumbi's estimates because of their uncertainty.

With that said, I'm going to remove Palumbi's figures.

  • My two main sources are the International Whaling Statistics available on luna.pos and The History of Modern Whaling (1982).

Jonas Poole (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for ferreting out some info on strengths and weaknesses of references.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Distribution map

The map: I think a lot of what I've put at Talk:Blue Whale also applies here too (e.g. Fin Whale is extremely rare in the North Sea and Baltic Sea) - anyone care to comment? - MPF 00:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Any whale sighting in the Baltic Sea is a major news item, and exceedingly rare. --Chino (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if we can flag down a mapmaker in the next few hours. Are any of the maps here better? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've read the discussion at Talk:Blue Whale, it appears that inclusion of rare sightings in range maps is the convention here. The discussion includes a link to an alternative map. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

Is it really nescessary to have such a section, which contains two links, one of which (whaling) is wikilinked in the article already, the other (whaling in iceland) could easily be incorporated into the text, or simply just left out as an off-shoot of Whaling. Twenty Years 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy

The cladogram of the taxonomy of rorquals is not consitent with cladistic convention, as it clearly shows Blue Whales as more closely related to Humpback Whales and Grey Whales than other Balaenoptera. If this is accepted, than Balaenoptera would have to be redefined to exclude Blue Whales (as discussed in the Blue Whale page). But the inclusion of this cladogram in the Fin Whale page with this obvious but undiscussed inconsistency is confusing. I suggest a note explaining what the cladogram is based on and the problem it presents to currently accepted taxonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Gussie (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fischer 1829

In the taxonomy section Fischer 1829 is used as a reference in the (Fischer 1829) format. However, it or he is never mentioned again on the page. Why and could someone ref this? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)