Talk:Sperm Whale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Sperm Whale is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 8, 2004.
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within WikiProject Cetaceans.
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Archived Talk Page 1

Contents

[edit] sperm whale nursing

While watching sperm whales in Dominica the guide suggested that the calf was nursing through its blowhole. I do not recall seeing a published reference to sperm whales nursing through the blowhole, but given the shape of the mouth, with the large overhang of the upper jaw, it seems like it could make sense. Does anyone know if this is correct? Is there any published reference to this effect?Rlendog (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed

Removed:

A hypothesis pertaining to the echolocation abilities of these animals holds that the combination of the shape of the whale's skull, the highly variable geometry (in three dimensions) of the muscle-sheathed spermaceti container, and the presence of this "internal nostril" may endow the sperm whale with astounding powers of sound production - not only being able to echolocate with high fidelity, but to produce other effects with sound waves/ mechanical energy as well. For example, it is postulated that sperm whales, ungainly and ponderous swimmers, may need "something extra" to capture the agile-swimming squid they eat, and the ability to stun or even kill such prey with a burst of sound would "fit the bill". However, so far, this hypothesis remains only intriguing speculation.

This is uncited speculation. Without a source, this cannot satisfy WP:OR or WP:V, and probably runs afoul of some other guidelines as well. If someone can provide a citaiton to support this hypothesis, by all means restore it to the article.--Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest toothed animal ever?

I believe that the sperm whale is larger than any of the toothed dinosaurs. Anyone object if I amend the opening sentence to reflect this?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on most reliable maximum weights Argentinosaurus huinculensis was heavier at 73 (metric) tonnes than Physeter macrocephalus at 57 tonnes (Antarctosaurus giganteus was also heavier at 69 tonnes, as perhaps were some others). Even the higher claim of 72 tonnes would still have the Sperm Whale smaller, and Argentinosaurus was originally estimated as heavy as 100 tonnes. Sperm Whale's satus as the largest ever predator may be under threat too – though I'd still be cautious about this – as two different methods suggest a maximum length of in excess of 18 m for Carcharocles megalodon, the highest estimate of 18.4 m would indicate a weight of 67 tonnes. However, the title of the largest toothed animal ever (so far discovered) – as well as the largest known prehistoric animal – likely goes to the ichthyosaur Shonisaurus sikanniensis, with at least one weight estimate at 100 tonnes (indeed, with 15 m long S. popularis estimated at 40 tonnes, a 21 m S. sikanniensis should weigh 110 tonnes with identical proprtions). For comparison: Balaenoptera musculus averages 90 tonnes for males and 120 tonnes for females, with a recorded maximum of 177 tonnes. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Puertasaurus reuili was apparently even bigger than A. huinculensis, though the size of the former is likely still less thoroughly established than that of the latter (Giants and Bizarres: Body Size of Some Southern South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs). --Anshelm '77 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


If we are willing to accept estimate of 67 tons for Megalodon and 18 meters of length, weare talking about ancient sperm whales also, and that means for Sperm whales, weare getting in to over 100 tons category (Jaws in museums suggests such sizes), and Sperm whale still comes out as largest toothed animal that ever existed. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

[edit] FAR commentry

Perhaps it would be good to list some issues to be dealt with in this FAR that can be addressed? I don't think that the article is unsalvagable, it just needs some updates and restructuring. I'll start off. Strike these out if you've dealt with them.

  1. intro is a bit light, needs to summarise the whole article.
  2. The section that begins Sperm whales are a prime example of a species that has been K-selected, a reproductive strategy associated does not belong in the description section, instead belongs in an as yet uncreated breeding section
  3. The section starting The sperm whale holds some natural world records: followed by a numbered list - is this really FA-ish?
  4. According to a 2003 National Geographic article, sperm whales are said to be the loudest of all animals ("about as loud as a rifle shot three feet from your ear"). What is an important fact is dlivered in a very trivia-ish fashion. Possibly a section on Sperm Whale song/communication?
  5. Distribution needs at least one citation.
  6. Taxonomy and naming section - overlong quote and insufficient information given on evolutionary history. Should probably be split into taxonomy and evolution in the one hand and etymology in the other.
  7. In the news - trivia-ish. Considering the importance culturally of this species we need more in here.
  8. The species is rendered sperm whale and Sperm Whale inconsistently, this needs to be regularised. I notice that it has been moved back and forth a bit in the edit history, so one should get picked.
  9. Feeding needs some reorganisation, interactions with fisheries seems to be covered twice

I'm sure more can be done and this can be saved. I'll give it some time if I can. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I've moved this whole discussion to the FAR page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed line

  • It is believed that this trait is learned and passed on to other whales within the pod or offspring.[citation needed] Needs a source before it can go back in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sabine - good edits to this article, however a couple of them could use references. Also, it's sometimes helpful for other editors if you put a note on the talk page about why the changes were made if you're making as many as you have. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm discussing most of the changes on the FAR page (linked to above). I'm making sweeping changes because this page is a holdover from the era of "Brilliant prose" and needs some drastic action to save it. And I haven't made any substantial edits to content (other than removing duplicated material) without citing myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sperm whaling

I edited the section ("Owing to extensive whaling, sperm whale size has decreased dramatically, mostly because the largest males were killed first and most intensively, for they had more spermaceti (spermaceti oil was of great value in the 18th and 19th century - see below). ") claiming early whaling "first and most intensively" targeted male sperm whales, as this simply isn't true. American ( and later European) whalers from the second quarter of the 18th century to the early 20th century primarily hunted this species in tropcial and warm temperate waters, where they encountered pods of female and immature males. When encountered, adult males were taken, and in higher latitudes they probably encountered "bachelor schools," but for the most part individuals taken by these whalers would have been the above mentioned female and immature pods.

It was after World War II, in the Anarctic and other areas were adult males are found, that whalers targeted them. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exaggerated size estimation

Let us take a look at these lines mentioned in the "Description" section: In a Nantucket museum there is a jawbone of a sperm whale which is 5.5 m (18 ft). The jawbone makes up to 20%-25% of the sperm whale's overall body length. Thus this whale might have been 28 m (90 ft) long, a mass of around 133 metric tons (150 short tons). Another evidence of large bulls of the past resides in New Bedford museum, a 5.2 metres (17 ft) jaw of a bull that could have been about 25.6 metres (84 ft) long, with a mass of about 120 tons.

I highly doubt the accuracy of these estimates and have pointed out a reason below:

The error: These size estimations are based on the assumption that the jawbone of a Sperm Whale is about 1/5th or 20% the length of its entire body. Now can this be verified through any credible source or any anatomical studies?

It has already been determined through anatomical studies and from close inspection of many Sperm Whale individuals, that the jawbone of the Sperm Whale is about 1/4th or 25% the length of its entire body. Here is an illustration of a Sperm Whale's skeleton for more clarification: Sperm Whale Skeleton.

Now! The more realistic estimates would be like this: "The 18 foot long jawbone represents a 72 feet long individual, whose weight would be around 80 tons max. And the 17 foot long jawbone represents a 68 feet long individual."

It should be noted that the size of the Sperm Whale to which that 18 foot long jawbone belongs, has been generously estimated to be nearly 24.4 m (80 feet). Here is a source that confirms my point: Sperm Whale in Nantucket Mueseum.

So the information in that paragraph needs to be corrected. For now! I will wait for more replies before I decide to make a move.

LeGenD (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be reverted. I'm sorry, but there is no way male sperm whales ever grew to 80-90 feet in length. I'm very skeptical of such estimates. Even 72-feet seems a little too large, but not unreasonable like the other estimates. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no way? Why? Because you said so? I think jawbones are better estimates than your opinion. Everything is cited and tehre is reference, reliable reference. As for jawbone, the older is the specimen, the smaller is the percent of the size of jawbone compared to the rest of the body. Look at calves to verify this claim. 150 tons is the MAXIMUM estimate. If those male in question was old enough, it's jawbone could constitute 20% and therefore it could weigh up to 130 metric tonnes. Plus, there are endless references in libraries of Nantucket and other cities which were primary whaling ports. 130 metric tonnes at 90 feet is an estimate. It is possible that the whale with jaw of that size could be that long and therefore weigh that much. After all, all estimates are done like that, just look how megalodon estimates or basilosaurus are done. There is even more speculation there. And you don't like this article. Notice though, that I am not talking about modern sperm whales, but about those which were in the ocean before the great era of whaling, during which size of sperm whale declined dramatically as was noted in article, since largest bulls yielded more spermaceti and therefore were primary targets. For modern sperm whale to weigh that much would be indeed freakish, but I am not talking about modern Sperm whales, but ancient ones. AS for jaw, here is the pitcute: "http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/1024/sperm-whale.jpg" Take a ruler and measure this sperm whale, it's lower jaw is about 6-6.5 cm on picture, the whale itself is clearly longer than 30 cm (on picture again), let us take 32 cm. Didive 32 by 6.5, you get ~5 times. this is very crude estimate, but nevertheless, it is from a phot, not a picture, as for pictures, you could have given the folowing picture: "http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/1024/sperm-whale.jpg" and argued that it is actually 40% of hte body, not even 30. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

My opinion? You mean common sense? Really? A 90-foot sperm whale. My ass. Provide me a reliable source that says the average jaw-bone of a mature MALE sperm whale represents 20% of the total length, as well as the most extreme percentage the jawbone represents, which would be the safest figure to use--using the lowest esimate could create a liberal, as opposed to a conservative estimate. Ancient sperm whales? What? I didn't know post-World War II whaling was ancient? That's when mature male sperm whales were targeted in higher latitudes and the most damage was done to sperm whale stocks. Yankee whalers from the early 18th to the early 20th century primarily targeted sperm whales in tropical and warm temperate waters, where they took female and immature groups (later, at least off Japan, there appears to have been a shift from these groups to "bachelor schools in slightlg higher latitudes). When mature bull sperm whales were encountered they would have been taken as well.

You used some random photo of a sperm whale to estimate the size of the jaw? Are you serious? Tell me the sex and age of that whale and maybe we can get something meaningful out of this. Also, as English is apparently a second language to you, could you try extra hard to explain things. Some of your sentences make little to no sense. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)