Talk:Whale shark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whale shark article.
Article policies
Good article Whale shark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Whale shark is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Elasmobrancii or Chondricthyes? The Orectolobiformes article says it is Chondricthyes. - UtherSRG 15:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

Genus: typus is this correct?


Typus is the species. The Genus is Rhincodon. And 'benthic' means bottom, not surface. They do not demonstrate a preference for feeding at the bottom or the surface. They feed throughout the water column. you are wrong....sorry guyz ......

Is the reason for this creature's name based on what it was once thought to be?? 66.32.252.184 01:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 12.65 meters???

Holy that is one big fish! Glad they're not maneaters. Phew.

[edit] Photo

Was there a specific reason for the deletion of the photo that was with this article? It looks to me like something happened to the file, and I was the original contributor, I can re-upload it if needed. If it was deleted for policy reasons though, I won't bother.

Do you mean the photograph by User:Sauron11, taken in the Maldives? It was deleted from en.wikipedia ([1]) because it was moved to the commons, at commons:Image:Rhincodon typus.jpg. I like that picture much better than the drawing that is currently on the page; unfortunately, both images have the same name, and therefore the drawing takes precedence. I'll see if I can move that one to a different name, so we can include the photograph. Eugene van der Pijll 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, that was the one. I see you've recovered it, and saved me having to remember which (of many shots of that shark) it was - thanks. I hadn't realised that was what happens in the event of file name collisions. Managed to log in this time, as I'm on a computer which knows my password... Mike, 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What animals eat whale sharks?

What animals eat whale sharks? I know humans, but I am interested if killer whales or other sharks eat them. They seem rather defenseless.

I do not think that anything expect humans eats whale shark, at least not a full grown and healthy whale shark. As stated in the article its skin is very think and beacuse of its size it is hard to get a bite out of it. But we should verify this and write it in the article .... now where to veryify? Stefan 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If they die, surely other animals eat them? Or did the question refer to when the shark is alive? Gohst 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course, I meant that I do not think any other animal hunts them. Stefan 00:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's something I found from the Australian government, apparently:
Known predators of juvenile Whale Sharks include the blue shark (Prionace glauca), the blue marlin (Makaira nigricons) and the killer whale (Orcinus orca) (Kukuyev, 1996; O'Sullivan & Mitchell, 2000; A. Goorah pers. comm. to Brad Norman). Although unconfirmed, it is believed that an attack on a sub-adult Whale Shark photographed in northwestern Western Australia in 2003 may have been from a great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) (R. Mau pers comm. to Brad Norman).[2]
--Darksasami 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

what oceans does the whalw shark swim in?

[edit] reproduction

The article now states Also the shark can speed up or slow down the growth of the embryons in their body because the sharks meet possible mates around two times in their life. [3], I have never heard this and can not find any proof of this what so ever after a bit of searching, can anyone else confirm this and maybe even give a reference, I'm thinking about removing this statement, but I do not know for sure it is wring. Stefan 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the uterine contents of only one whale shark has been examine (see Joung et al 1996. Env Biol of Fishes). Consequently, no inference of growth rate can be made, and certainly nothing can be conclusively said about the change in the rate of development. It is, however, a nice piece of speculation and makes for a nice story. Capepolly (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section?

Should there be a section called "In Captivity"? The new Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta houses four whale sharks. Are there any other whale sharks in captivity?--Horsenbuggy 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The sharks at the Georgia Aquirium are covered in the 'Importance to humans section' (there are apparently whale sharks in Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium as well), but it might be worth making it a subsection if we get many more. Yomangani 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

  • Writing is is a little choppy in places, but not too bad. Flow could be improved
Tried to clean the whole page up. Stefan 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "The family Rhincodontidae was not finalized until 1984." - This probably wouldn't be understood by a general reader, as opposed to me, a biology major.
Sorry no biology major here, not sure I can clarify. Stefan 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be saying that the designation of the family only received acceptance by whatever body regulates such things in 1984, or possibly general acceptance, though that seems an awfully specific date for that possibility. Adam Cuerden talk 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Good use of graphics to show their range. Pictures of the shark are somewhat obscured by the water - a taxidermied specimen, or cropping [4] so that it's easier to see the main subject at small size would be a useful additional graphic, but not really required.
Cropped the picture and added to taxobox. Stefan 07:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Paragraph beginning "Hugh M. Smith retells the story of a 1919 whale shark discovery in a 1925 publication; where a huge whale shark was caught in a bamboo fish trap in what today is Thailand." is extremely choppy, and contains the worst sentence in the article: "Some records says this shark was actually accurately measured at 17.98 meters and weighing 43 tonnes)"
This section rewritten, the whole section could do with more copy edit but at least it is better now. Stefan 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Diet section: Quickly describing gill rakers would help a non-specialist, though it's not a horrible omission.
Hmm. But on a second reading, I notice that elsewhere it says that gills are used in feeding, which is anatomically accurate, but awkward. You really could use a concise clarification of how they filter feed. Adam Cuerden talk 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I took that away, the gills is not used for feeding, or not really, lets describe feeding in diet section then it is correct I think? Stefan 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Aye. Though I beluieve gill rakers may originate from modified gills. Still, though.... Had a quick look and it does, indeed, look better. Are you sure it passes OVER the gill rakers? There's several ways filter feeding can work - trappimg in mucus, straining, and so on: Is this the way whale shark's filter feeding works? Adam Cuerden talk 06:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, after seeing your question I must say that I do not know (I though I did :-) ), I did some research and found one ref that seams to talk about this (but not in as much detail as I would like), I have changed the text a bit and hope that I answer your question, it seams like a whale shark does not use gill rakers, it filters between the gills bars (whatever that means). Stefan 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Behaviour section isn't really about behavious in general, just about behaviour towards divers. It could be better named.
Agree, and done, but that basically means that we have very little about behaviour in the whole article... that is not so good. Stefan 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Section "Importance to Humans" is more about their conservation and study.
Renamed. Stefan 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Another good copy edit or so and it should be of GA quality. I'm putting the GA status on hold for now. Please leave me a message at my talk page when you're ready. Adam Cuerden talk 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


One other thing: The article is somewhat low on in-line cites. It isn't necessary to document every sentence, but it would help to note at the end of each section the sources used for it. This may result in a lot of duplication, but it'll make for a better article in the end. Adam Cuerden talk 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I'm trying to add them when I update. Stefan 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GA re-review

Hmm. Nearly there. Thoughts:

The bolded sentence seems out of place: It should come after the list of shorter lengths, and the paragraph needs more transition phrases such as "Similarly", "Likewise", "However", "As well", etc.

In a 1925 publication Hugh M. Smith describes a huge whale shark which was caught in 1919 in a bamboo fish trap in todays Thailand. The shark was too heavy to pull ashore, but Smith estimates that the shark was at least 17 meters (55.7 feet) and weighed approximately 37 tonnes (81,500 lbs). Recent records says this shark was actually accurately measured at 17.98 meters and weighing 43 tonnes. Unverified claims of almost absurd lengths, such as 23 meters (75 feet) have been occasionally referred to. In 1934 a ship named the "Maurguani" came across a whale shark in the Southern Pacific ocean; the ship rammed the huge shark viciously, and it consequently got stuck on the prow of the ship: 4.6 meters (15 feet) on one side and 12.2 meters (40 feet) on the other.[5] No reliable documentation exists of those claims and they remain little more than "fish-stories".

I think that "The family Rhincodontidae was not finalized until 1984." really does need clarified, especially if this is going on to FA.

It worries me that you yourself do not understand how its filter feeding works: It makes it hard to fully trust your description, as it may be unintentionally inaccurate. Please make sure it's right, and, if possible, diagram it. The gill arches, byy the way, are the bones that support and seperate the gills.

I know I'm being a bit picky, but it will, hopefully, help you in the end when it comes time for FA. Adam Cuerden talk 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Right! Filter feeding has definately improved, but the whole thing needs copyediting again. There's several comma errors that have been introduced, and one edit that muddies slightly:

These spots are unique to each whale shark and because of this they could be used to identify each animal and hence make an accurate count of the population (however, so far an accurate census of whale shark numbers has not been completed).

The original read "can be used to make an accurate population count" - this was accurate, because "population count" can refer to a smaller populations than the global one. The change muddles the meaning somewhat, though it does point out an ambiguity in the original that should be fixed.

That said, factually, this article has improved a great deal, and I don't mean at all to denigrate the effort put into it. But once the factual edits are done, it will need a little polish. Send me a message when you're ready again.

N.B. I may just do a copy edit myself tomorrow, but I'd then have to move myself out of the running to make the award. That might slow things a bit, which is why I've been avoiding it. Adam Cuerden talk 05:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GA re-re-review

Right. Quick note before I sleep: The wahle shark is not only the only species in its genus, but the only species in the Rhincodontidae family. (Take your pick of cite) This knowledge should allow the fixing of the two remaining oddities: The opening paragraph (jumps from genus to subclass), and the currently rather oddly-placed sentence "The family Rhincodontidae was not formally accepted by the ICZN until 1984." (this needs worked into the flow of the paragraph, or moved a little later or to a different section).

Otherwise, I think it's largely done. Adam Cuerden talk 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-re-re-review

I helped Yomangani and Stefan with Oceanic whitetip, and recently reviewed this article. Here's what I see:

  • From a MACRO point-of-view the organization of this article is excellent. The graphics and illustrations are superb. The templates are well thought out and sequenced. The references are top-drawer.
  • From a MICRO point-of-view it needs work. Here are some examples:
  • (1) It is too wordy. The prose needs to be tighted up. For example, instead of saying in the first sentence largest living fish species (four words) we really only need two words because we know it's living and we know its a species. That's just one of many examples where words just need to be crossed out. That's how Ernest Hemingway used to write - go back through it and cross words out.
  • (2) Some of the prose sounds pretty sophomoric. For example, the first sentence in the Behaviour towards divers template reads: When it is explained that most sharks are not dangerous to humans, this species is used as the leading example. OK, that sentence is fine in a 7th grade book report. A better encyclopedic sentence might read: This species, despite its enormous size, is a prime example of why most sharks do not pose a danger to humans.--Hokeman 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. Although I had no problem with the original, I've rewritten it to satisfy the few of us here who only read and write on the level of PhD dissertations.128.82.253.33 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... It's acually neccessary to say "largest living fish species", acually: There were karger fish in prehistoric times, unless I'm very much mistaken. Hence, removing the "living" mkes the phrase inaccurate, and "lagest living fish species" is more scientific of phrasing than "largest living fish", largely because "fish" is here being used in a scientific sense (to include sharks), rather than its common usage (only osteichthyes) Adam Cuerden talk 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK...I accept your logic that the word living is necessary because there were larger fish in prehistoric times. This article has improved substantially since I last read through it. I think it is well-deserving of GA status, and gets my vote as the 2nd best shark article (after Oceanic whitetip).--Hokeman 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fish stories

In a 1925 publication, Hugh M. Smith describes a huge whale shark caught in a bamboo fish trap in Thailand in 1919. The shark was too heavy to pull ashore, but Smith estimated that the shark was at least 17 m (55.7 ft) and weighed approximately 37 tonnes (81,500 lb), which have been exaggerated to an accurate measurement of 17.98 m and weight 43 tonnes in recent years. There have even been claims of whale sharks of up to 23 m (75 ft). In 1934 a ship named the "Maurguani" came across a whale shark in the Southern Pacific ocean, rammed it, and the shark consequently became stuck on the prow of the ship, supposedly with 4.6 m (15 ft) on one side and 12.2 m (40 ft) on the other.[5] No reliable documentation exists of those claims and they remain little more than "fish-stories".

Is it really worth listing all of them? Adam Cuerden talk 14:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passing GA nomination

Concerns have been addressed and article meets GA criteria. Eluchil404 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whale Shark Length

That article makes it sound like that sharks over 40 feet are merely rumoured. While there have been no reliable reports of whales much larger then this, the general consesus is that Whale Sharks ordinarily grow to lengths of 60 feet, merely averaging out at 40 feet in length. Maybe there should be a sentence to reflect this? Specusci 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Specimen over 41.5 feet are merely rumoured. Reports of 60 footers treated as accurate does not occur in modern scientific literature. "Averaging out at 40 feet" is ridiculous, such enormous specimens are extremely rare at best. The article makes it perfectly clear that there are unverified older legends and myths of sharks up to 60 feet, but those are at best unverifiable today and at worst in part of entirety simply hoaxes. Luka 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's just it:no reliable reports. If you don't have a reliable report, what you are doing is, in fact, guessing. 'General consenus' means nothing without physical proof. HalfShadow 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Nelson, 2006 Fishes of the World, the Whale Shark has a maximum length of at least 12 m (about 40'). However, it goes on to say that it could probably be over 14 m. It also cites "Colman, 1997" as a source that it could perhaps be up to 18 m (about 60'). Thus, while actually reports may put the mark at about 40', there seems to be at least one source that perhaps actually gives good reasoning. If anyone has a way to find this Colman 1997 "A Review of the biology and ecology of the whale shark" in Volume 51 of "Journal of Fish Biology") and read it, that would be great. I think I might be able to get this from my university library. MiltonT 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Butanding to Whale shark

I saw the line about merging the Butanding article to the Whale shark article, but when I checked the talk page no one's made mention of it. So let me start it off:

The Butanding article is about the whale shark living in some provinces of the Philippines, its current status in the country and news of its conservation. And it seems to be the only detailed article about the creature's existence in one particular part of the world. Are there any other articles like this? If this is the only one, how do we merge it? Alphapeta (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to merge the articles. They both refer to the same animal and there is a lot of repetition. Adove (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)adoveAdove (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already an entry about whale sharks. Should this page be merged with that page? pointless 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • support merge. Article is redundant. Shrumster 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. An article on the Whale shark already exists. Injecting it with this Philippine-intensive content would help it achieve a better world view. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agreed, Article is redundant. Plcoffey (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree, merge Butanding into Whaleshark. --Stefan talk 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Butanding into Whaleshark. GrahamBould (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge, let it stay.[5] I viewed this last night. It is pathetic and fatal to Philippine marine biology and tourism, if this great article devoted to Philippine Butanding or whale shark would be just drowned in the whale shark main article. There are lots of whale sharks all over the world, and ours is unique and one of the best, since so many tourist go to Sorsogon. Please let this article live, on its own. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per User:Kguirnela--Lenticel (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

I did a merge and redirect, I can not really find anything to merge though, all the important info is already in the whale shark page, only very specific Philipine info was in the Butanding page. For anyone that wants to save anything, all info is still left in the history, see [6], there where lots of reference, I did NOT check them, they might be good to keep? I redirected Butanding to whale shark. If anyone wants to delete Butanding, do so at WP:AfD I do not think it is nessesary so I will just redirect. --Stefan talk 14:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divers' effects on whale shark behaviour

Hi, I tried to write a paragraph on the effect that tourists have on whale sharks and how operators and tourists can minimize this disturbance (including interaction guidelines). The piece got automatically deleted by a bot (it appears that my being a first-time wiki writer had something to do with it). Anybody know how I could recover the post and have it added? I have a fair amount of experience with the species, as both a scientist studying them, and as part of the tourism industry. Capepolly (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that you where reverted since you are new and linked to blogspot, see links to be avoided, you will probably be able to post what you wrote if you do not include that link, this is a copy of what you typed. --Stefan talk 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question

what is the life spand of the whale shark???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.151.31 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy and appearance

The shark was too heavy to pull ashore, but Smith estimated that the shark was at least 17 metres (56 ft) long, and weighed approximately 37 tonnes (81,500 lb), which have been exaggerated to an accurate measurement of 17.98 metres (58.99 ft) and weight 43 tonnes in recent years.

This sentence has been discussed several times, but I wanted to clarify, as it jumped out at me when I read this article.

If the latter figures were exaggerated, then they can’t also be referred to as accurate, without subsequent verification. This would have to mean the initial estimate was conservative, and the exaggeration was only sufficient to make it more accurate – hardly merits the term “exaggerate”.

Better to say; …exaggerated to a more precise measurement of… which doesn’t imply truth (precise 2. (sciences) …), in conflict with exaggeration.

Note that a measurement can be the act of measuring, as well as the data that this produces: “an accurate measurement” implies the act. The data were produced by exaggeration or measurement, not both.

I’ve done this edit – please revert it if you disagree. Ζζ (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)