This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I recently wrote Sperm Whale and in my not really humble opinion think it's not bad. However it's the first article in the area since Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans began and I'd really like to push the standard up and have it is a standard-bearer for articles in that area. An eye from someone who is good with genetics and evolution would be especially good as I know sperm whales are important example of somethings evolutionarily but haven't got the know-how to express that. Thanks Pete 16:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
You are right, it is not bad. I can see a few spots where a copy editor could make some changes, but overall well written and well researched. And very complete. Definitely a standard to meet elsewhere - Marshman 17:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Excellent article. I have a few minor gripes (most importantly, I don't think that capitalization of species names is grammatically correct), but I do hope to see you write more articles like this in the future. -Smack 19:45, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Some discussion (well not so much discussion, more just me writing) on how that capitalization came about in cetacean articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansPete 21:12, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
End text moved from Peer Review
brain size
A 7 kg brain is very little for an animal of 25,000 kg or more. - Patrick 18:21, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Applying a little thought, rather than just blindly trusting the books, makes it obvious to me you are right. I'll move back towards your version.
I've cropped and brightened the photo a bit, but it looks like we could use a pic that shows the whole whale, rather than one that could just as well be a Loch Ness monster sighting :-) -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do that Wapcaplet. It looks a lot better. The original was the best of a not particularly good bunch at http://www.noaa.gov... for other species to come: does anyone else know of any free image resources in this area? Pete 19:50, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Awesome addition of the size-scale thing! Very helpful for appreciating the creature's enormity. Is it possible to get an actual photo at the top though? The painting is nice, and looks cool down below, but it'd be more 'encyclopedic' to get a good, National Geographic-esque photo.
Jackmont Dec 18, 2006.
a typo
"The total number of Sperm Whales throughout the world is unknown. Crude estimates, obtained by surveying small areas and extrapolating the result to all the world's oceans, range from 200,000 to 2,000,000 species." Surely you mean individuals, not species. JDG 03:03, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Indeed! Funny how you can't have been the first to have read that line but slipped by all before you. Thanks. Pete 13:15, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
image
Hey, what do people think of the below image? If you think it's an improvement on current pic, I will email artist and ask permission for use. JDG 03:47, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I like it. Is it a computer-generated pic? Many cetacean books are illustrated by drawings rather than pictures as thats the only way to get the whole animal at once. This article is reasonably long so maybe we could have both images to act as illustration. Feel very to ask permission from the creator. Pete 13:15, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I've received permission from the artist. Here is his return email:
Jim,
You have my consent to use this image as long as the credentials can be listed with the words "Scarred Giant" by artist Chris Harman if this is OK with your curriculum just let me know and a link to http://www.velvetgreencreations.com/Marinelife/marinlife.html
As of this moment, uploads have been disabled on the Wikipedia server. Hopefully later tonight I can upload the image the artist recommends, as well as another of his you may prefer instead. BTW, I think it's a scanned painting. Mr. Harmon is in the tradition of Audubon. I think it's just right for Wikipedia. JDG 21:57, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-can anyone get the rights to and post a real photo and not just a drawing?
Which do you prefer, and where in the article? I think it should go up top, myself (the existing pic really could be anything thrashing around in the water) JDG 03:06, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As it happens there may even be copyright problems with the existing pic (it came from NOAA but may not have been taken by an American government employee, and so may not be public domain). I suggest removing that pic, using the close up for the taxobox and using the other further down the article? Pete 10:04, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Scarred Giant is shown twice in the article, once with the head, and one with the entire painting. This is fine for now, but we should try to get a quality picture of a real sperm whale (or its head) for the taxobox. --Gray Porpoise 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Whale -vs- whale
Sperm Whale or sperm whale? Dysprosia 10:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
After the Great Bird Name Capitalization Wars of Early 2003, the decision was made (on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans) to go with capital letters. However that decision (i.e. the decision to copy whatever the birders decided) was made more-or-less unilaterally by me. So if you want to make an argument that we change the policy, please do at that project page so that the sPeRm WhAlE page doesn't get out of sync with the other cetacean pages. Pete 13:13, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
WP:MoS#Article titles is pretty clear that only the first word should be capitalized except in the case of proper nouns (which "sperm whale" is not). --WhiteDragon (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your map is all screwed up. How did sperm whales get in the Caspian Sea? This is why Wikipedia is a joke, kindergartners are posting articles.
I'll take this occasion to point out that reading captions might aid in clarifying the situation for you. If I'm not mistaken the caption reads "Sperm whale range (in blue)". Also, if I'm not mistaken the Caspian sea is pale red in colour. I hope this addresses your concern. Besides had a kindergartner drawn said map, the colour wouldn't be in the lines. (Cabin Tom 02:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
Function of Spermaceti ?
Its intriguing that we dont know the full functions of this whales most singular feature. Propose that as the spermaceti crystalises from the sperm oil at reduced temperatures, it acts as a temperature buffer. . . . (ie the change of phase involved stores / releases latent heat energy). Nice to see some discussion here. (not so good to see juvenile intellectual snobs flaming other people's work 'though)Jerrykenny 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry Third Edition (by Nelson & Cox, Worth Publishers, NY 2000) says (p 367) that the spermaceti oil, a mixture of triacylglycerols and waxes containing an abundance of unsaturated fatty acids, is liquid at the normal resting body temperature of te whale, 37C, but begins to crystallise at around 31C and becomes solid at several degrees lower than that. It goes on to say that the whales feed almost exclusively on squid at 1,000 m or more where there are no competitors. To remain at a given depth without a constant swimming effort, a marine animal has to be the same density as the surrounding water. The crystallisation of the spermaceti oil makes it become denser, altering the buoyancy of the whale. 'Various physiological mechanisms promote rapid cooling of the oil during a dive.' As the whale returns to the surface, the oil warms and melts, decreasing the whale's density to match that of the water. JV 10:01, 13 November 2006
Moby Dick
Just wanted to add that the "white whale" in Moby Dick may not have been an albino; old sperm whales tend to get white patches on their skin, and as they age these white patches grow bigger. Hence, Moby Dick might have been an albino, but he might just as well have been an extraordinarily old whale. thefamouseccles 12:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, since it's a fictional work the author holds a somewhat godlike authority on what's what. Melville says it's an albino: "...so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?" JDG 18:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Albino has (particularly in the past} been used to refer to white animals that weren't necessarily genetical albinos. While I haven't read the book, I can imagine the author using the word "albino" (which comes from latin for white) as a synonym for white, depending on context. Mikkel 00:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Footnoting
I reverted back to having numbered references because the article text references those references using those numbers. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 20:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
But, it doesn't, really... try to match up [2] or even [3] and you'll see! Bevo 20:12, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmm I see your point... we have references to papers, inline references to other webpages and links to other website (under External links). Maybe it would be best to move all references (paper and electronic) to one section (called references), number those, and then refer to the number in the article body. What do you think? Pete/Pcb21(talk) 20:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it is a lot of work! (And something that's easily messed up by some innocent contributor who doesn't see the plan.) Maybe if you didn't rely on the "autonumbering" feature of the Wikipedia, and forced your own footnotes numbering that would at least give you some control. You've definitely "pushed the envelope" beyond what the typical Wikipedia article has attempted! I'll stay tuned and see what develops. Good luck! Bevo 21:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've implemented the idea. Thoughts welcome. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 21:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I see that User:Frecklefoot has tried to reestablish the standard Wikipedia style without changing the attempted in-article referents. You may have to add both the standard bulleting and your own numbering in order to be given the freedom to do some experimentation. Nothing like an article showing up on the Main page to get everyone "helping"! Bevo 21:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ah! I hadn't realized that, explains a lot ;-). I've just edited over the top of Frecklefoot, hope he doesn't mind too much - but he must've missed the talk going on here anyhow, I guess. p.s. I have now put an HTML comment in just below ==References== explaining why they are numbered. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 21:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There's still something so "different" about how the references are done on this page, that I'm sure there must be a better way. Now there's a #16, but no mention of [16] in the article. Bevo 06:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Fixed, the person who added the Oregon stuff kindly provided a reference but didn't label the paragaph. The "different" thing is that specific facts are linked to specific sources, as is completely normal for scientific works but not for article types. I am personally loathe to get rid of that linkage, as it would decrease the informational content in the article, but of course better ways should be used if we can think of one. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 11:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Cite your sources and also Power outage for the variations that have been attempted in Wikipedia articles. Looks like this is still a "work in progress" to establish a pleasing, easy to maintain citation style with or without footnotes. Bevo 17:02, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Irish Houses of Parliament has a style of footnoting that seems to work well and is consistent with the numbered footnotes use of this article. Maybe this article could try that style. Bevo 20:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This discussion is old, so I hope I haven't damaged too much by changing it to do this:
All references that are cited in-line have been moved into a Notes section separate from the other references
They've all been templated so that there is a direct link between the footnote and the referent.
This still suffers from confusion due to the software just numbering things sequentially and not attempting to match the numbers up to the numbered list. It happens to match now, but I did that manually. Thayvian 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The numbering of the footnotes does not match the in-text numbering. For example, the story about the exploding while in Tainan City, Taiwan features the number [15] for the footnote, but the link brings us down to footnote #13. Although it is the correct link, the numerbering doesn't match.
Please help fix this: if you check out references 10-16 they are out of wak - clicking them does not take you to the right one in all cases. Any idea how to fix? Thanks --Fitzhugh 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
All footnotes updated to new Wikipedia:Footnotes syntax. Fixed. —Bitt 23:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Common names
I have set up redirects to this page from various common names such a "Cachelot". They don't crop up any more in scientific work, but they do in historical and literary sources. seglea 22:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes redirects are a good idea, thanks for doing it. Some users might be tempted to attach equal significance to all common names because the Red List (for example) lists all names. Normally however these names are not used much except in lists of common names, usage of other terms dying as a result of global communication and better scientific understanding. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 23:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
agreed, and I like the way you've now done the "historically..." para. seglea 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Geneticists describe Sperm Whales as the epitome of a species that has been K-selected, which is to say that the species is believed to have developed primarily under evolutionary pressure from individuals of the same species.
The K-selection article contradicts the above quote, stating that
Some animals ... produce few offspring. Others reproduce quickly, but ... most offspring do not survive to adults.
These two strategies are known as K-selection (few offspring) and r-selection (many offspring).
That is, K-selection doesn't appear to have anything to do with whether an animal's main evolutionary competitors are other members of the same species. Someone who knows more than me about the subject should correct this inconsistency.
Sperm whales are an example of a k-selected species, but not the epitome, elephants for example have a 22 month gestation period to the sperm whale's 16.
As far as I know, sperm whales do not experience a great degree of either interspecific or intraspecific competition for anything except for mates. The role that this competition has had in their evolution is suspect. I am striking this comment on K-selection from the article completely for these reasons.
human consumption of marine mammals
I would like to know the origin of, or reference for, this line from the Prey and Feeding section of this article:
"The total consumption of prey by Sperm Whales worldwide is estimated to be about 100 million tons — a figure comparable with the total consumption of marine animals by humans each year."
Since Japan and a few indigenous peoples are the only ones killing marine mammals purposely these days, this seems like an extremely high figure for the current "consumption of marine animals by humans." Perhaps this estimate comes from a time before whaling was generally outlawed worldwide. If so, the article could use some updating.
Jeff
Could there be some confusion between "marine animals" (i.e. inc. fish) and "marine mammals"? Pcb21|Pete 07:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Population and Hunting
I've removed the following paragraph from the "Population and Hunting" section. It bears no relation to the section in question, has significant grammatical issues, and the information given is unsubstantiated (or, at least, unlinked to other Wikipedia articles).
A significant thing to mention about sperm whale hunting is that sperm whales sometimes resisted, not without bad results for ships and humans, even into the 20th century. Due to its battering-ram (head), the sperm whale is still a dangerous animal, even for ships with a metal hull. There are several examples of such incidents. In 1947, near Komandor islands, the Russian whaler "Enthusiast" was attacked by a sperm whale. The whale tore off the ship's propeller and deformed the hull of the ship. While the propeller shaft was also bent, the whale had only a few "scratches" on its "forehead". In the 1960's, an American nuclear submarine was attacked by a sperm whale. Its propeller was torn off and the left side of the submarine was found to be deformed (a nuclear submarine's hull is made of a titanium alloy to resist pressure). A Norwegian whaler, the "Durei", was attacked by an enraged sperm whale and was sunk. Scientists think that sperm whales have the ability to tear through ships' hulls because of a special structure of his head, spermaceti organ gives sperm whale's head amortisation, thus making a collision last much longer and distributing the pressure over a longer period of time, therefore, whale's head does not suffer as much damage as the thing he collapses with, this mechanism works when whale clushes with a ship. However these attacks were not common, and whaling continued. Due to whaling sperm whale's size reduced dramatically, mostly because whalers needed spermaceti, and the larger the male, the more spermaceti in his head. Largest whales were hunted out, thus leaving smaller ones, and reducing population's size dramatically, sperm whale was considered the second largest animal by whalers, and it was, before whalers killed all big bulls, now it holds third place after blue whale and fin whale.
Glad you did that here and not in the article ;). Pcb21|Pete 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's kind of odd that moby dick... is a sperm whale.
Wallaroo 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Can anybody find out the origin of the name and then put it in the article? --193.198.16.211 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Factual error after another
The standards for a featured article can't be very high, if an article with this much factual errors qualifies!
Size
The measurements given here as average are approaching the known maximum for this species. True average size is around 14–15 m (46–50 ft.) and 30–40 t (33–44 sh. t.) for males, and 11–12 m (36–40 ft.) and 10–15 t (11–17 sh. t.) for females. Guinness World Records put the male average at 14.3 m (47 ft.) and 33.5 t (37 sh. t.), and Lyall Watson's Whales of the World: A Field Guide to the Cetaceans (1981) 15.2 m (50 ft.) and 36 t (40 sh. t.) respectively.
As for the maximum, Guinness recognized a 20.7 m (67 ft. 11 in.) specimen caught in the Kuril Islands in 1950. Though I have some doubts on this one: the weight for a Sperm Whale this long should be in 90–100 t (99–110 sh. t.) territory, but I've never seen a weight greater than 72 t (79 sh. t.) for this species in scientific literature – and indeed, many modern sources put the maximum at 17.5–18 m (57–59 ft.) and 50–57 t (55–63 sh. t.). Watson put the maximum size of females at 17.1 m (56 ft.) and 38 t (42 sh. t.), which seems too high compared to the more conservative estimates for the largest males.
Skin thickness
By far the most absurd claim on this article is the one stating that Sperm Whale's skin is 36 cm (14 in.) thick – in other words thicker than its 10–30 cm (4–12 in.) blubber! Of all animals, Whale Shark(Rhincodon typus) has the thickest skin at 10–23 cm (4–10 in.). Of mammals the Indian Rhinoceros(Rhinoceros unicornis) may have a 6 cm (2½ in.) thick skin, rivaled by the Walrus(Odobenus rosmarus) at 5 cm (2 in.).
Depths
And though there are only minor inaccuracies concerning the depths a diving Sperm Whale can reach, there are some interesting facts on the subject. The greatest depth where a Sperm Whale's jaw was found tangled in a cable was a mere 1,134 m (3,720 ft.), on October 14, 1955, between Ecuador and Peru. According to Guinness, the deepest verified dive was 2,000 m (6,562 ft.) near the coasts of the Dominican Republic in 1991, measured by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The whales' calls have been traced down to 2,250 m (7,380 ft.) by sonar.
But the really interesting report was that of a 3,193 m (10,475 ft.) dive, by a 14.3 m (47 ft.) male caught by whalers 160 km (100 mi.) south of Durban, South Africa, on August 25, 1969. This assumption was made upon the discovery of the remains of two sharks of the bottom-dwelling Scymnodon genus in its stomach. The depth was the lowest point of the ocean within 48–64 km (30–40 mi.) radius. The sharks must have actually been Portugese Dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis), previously assigned to the Scymnodon genus, as it's known to reach depths of 3,675 m (12,057 ft.) – the deepest for any species of shark. According to FishBase tthe only other member of the genus found within South African waters is Velvet Dogfish (Scymnodon squamulosus), not known to reach depths beyond 2,000 m (6,562 ft.).
Brain
Not really a correction, just giving more detailed information. The largest known Sperm Whale brain weighed 9.2 kg (20 lb. 5 oz.), belonging to a 14.9 m (49 ft.) male processed on Japanese ship Nissin Maru No. 1 on December 12, 1949.
Anshelm '77
This information is all very useful and likely have a place on the page. Did you make these edits to the real page or just list them here? If possible, make the additions and add any veriable sources that you can. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.141.135 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 December 2005
Nah, I think I'll stick to my "discussion pages only" policy. After all, English is not my native language, encyclopedic English even less. Plus I'm too lazy for proper referencing. I'm not even a registered user, that's why I've left my comments unsigned. Wha...??? Is that skin thickness thing still there??? Some featured article... Anshelm '77 (just registered)
Sauropod dinosaur size comparisons
"The Sperm Whale ... is believed to be the largest toothed animal to ever inhabit the planet."
Well, although --
1) The greatest size ever attained by a Sperm Whale cannot be absolutely verified
2) The live weights of dinosaurs remain a matter of debate
and
3) Some very large dinosaurs are known only from fragmentary remains
-- the largest known sauropod dinosaurs pretty definitely exceed the largest estimated length of a sperm whale, and the estimated weights of the largest known sauropods are in the same ballpark as estimates for the largest sperm whales. Additionally, fragmentary remains of even larger sauropods have been reported. (And sauropods were "toothed animals".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.105.210 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 January 2006
Sperm Whale range
Sperm Whales seem to live everywhere
Is the range map correct? Right now it shows Sperm Whales swim around every sea there is on earth. --Abdull 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've read that they're basically everywhere except for a small area near the north pole and an even smaller area near the south pole. They're loners, so they're free to just go where the eatin's good. Then when they do have to be a little social (say, to mate), they can easily pick up the locations of others because they can detect the "click" of other sperms from halfway across the globe, literally. Your image caption is funny, but really it's that they "live" nowhere. JDG 07:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Definite improvement. You should put it in immediately... Abdull's question remains, as they're still shown to "live" in every open sea on earth. I'm pretty sure this is correct... Any experts out there? JDG 08:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, actually the stripes aren't showing up very well when downsampled for the article. Can you address that? JDG 08:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sperm Whale range (in blue) - added antarctica -- Expert needed to verify accuracyExpert needed! - After more research I found this [1] thus I tried my best to redraw it... I added antarctica to the map, the proposed version is on the right. I'm interested to know if they frequent the warm waters of the mediterrenian, do they ever enter/go through the strait of Gibraltar ?—This user has left wikipedia 09:09 2006-01-26
Gotta question that map you link to-- according to it these guys frequent even the Red Sea. Double doubtful with a cherry on top. JDG 15:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I just re-tagged the image as it's on the article page: Sperm Whale range (in blue). Eg, grey parts & red parts are NOT a habitat. —This user has left wikipedia 16:40 2006-01-26
Need Photos
This article needs some photos really? Don't you think?
James Bartley story probably a hoax
Many people have written about James Bartley, a whaler sailing on the "Star of the East" in 1891, who was swallowed by a sperm whale, (off the coast of the Faulkland Islands), and after the whale was caught and killed, he was found alive in it's stomach, his exposed skin dyed white. Most of those who have researched this story have found it to be a complete hoax. The "Star of the East" was a real ship, however, James Bartley probably never existed. Bennett Turk
It would be great if you could give us some links or books talking about the hoax. Pcb21Pete 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
www reference: [[2]] Edward B. Davis, professor and Christian, disproves James Bartley story. 24.92.55.166 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
Thanks again. I added a section. Pcb21Pete 08:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Featured article?
I understand this passed a Featured article candidacy at a point but can you please redirect the red link to the FAC? --Catout 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Size?
Why is it mentioned that the Sperm Whale is the largest ever toothed mammal, and then compared to the blue whale and some jellyfish, which are not toothed? IanUK 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Because there was no toothed animals in history of planet (at least confirmed) that would be larger than sperm whale males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.59.7 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Record-Sizes
There are several "record" sizes mentioned in the article, which base on the length of the mandible. The text says the mandibula is about 20-25% of the whole body length. In fact the mandibula is (especially in bulls which have larger heads) about 25%, not 20% of the complete body length. This leads to the result that the sperm whale which had a 5,5m mandibula was not 28, but "only" 22m, and this is a huge difference, furthermore the specimen with the 5,2 mandibula was only about 21m, what´s still huge. I have taken much research in this topic and have made many calculations and comparisons with other sperm whales of known size and lenght of the mandibula, and came to the result that the 28m estimation is much too high. I don´t want to edit this page, but I hope someone else will do it.
I agree, too much credit is given to these estimates. I'll go even further to determine the minimum total lengths: the lower end suggests that the mandibula is some 80 % of the length of the head, and since the head is 25–33 % of total length, a long mandibula could be up to 26.4 % of total length – so this means (much more plausable) minimum lengths of 19.6 m (64.3 ft) and 20.8 m (68.2 ft) for these two individuals. For reportedly measured individuals, the largest size I find absolutely certain is 18.5 m (60.7 ft) length and 53 t (58 sh t) weight, and the largest with a relatively reliable source 20.7 m (67 ft 11 in) and 72 t (79 sh t). And so I find it safe to say, that it's unlikely for a sperm whale to ever exceed 21 metres (68.9 ft) and 22 m (72.2 ft) is certainly off limits. Note that males average 14.3 m (47 ft) and 33.5 t (37 sh t) – the averages given in the article are BS – so a 21 m individual would be 47 % longer, and with the same proportions (calculated weight 106 t/117 sh t) 217 % heavier than average (though long individuals usually seem to be proportionally slimmer than average). So claims of 28 m (96 % above average) and 150 t (348 % – average proportions would suggest a weight of 251 t/278 sh t, or 650 % above average) are just absurd and very much so. For comparison: blue whale females average 26.2 m (86 ft) and 120 t (132 sh t). Or project the same on humans: a man 96 % taller than average would be some 3.4–3.5 m (11–11½ ft) tall – and humans vary much more in size than wild animals in general. The given mandibula lengths also seem a bit impercise (i.e. no inches; rough estimates?), also Guinness aknowledges only the shorter one (with a length of "5 metres" [16 ft 5 in] in the Finnish edition). In conclusion the method of determing total lengths based on mandibula length seems to have a much too big margin of error to be reliable, even whitout considering the possibility of malformations of the mandibula.
There seems to be some discrepancy on the length/weight ratio: for average-sized individuals (based on various sources) this appears to be cirka 10–11.5 kg/m³, but only 8–8.5 kg/m³ for very large ones. Perhaps this is just an indication of long individuals being generally slimmer in proportion.
Thanks for your answer. This is really a problem. It is very probable that some sperm whales were really much larger than average (especially because the old big bulls were favorite objects of the hunters and because they need many decades to reach their full size), but in the case of the mandibles, it really seems that there are gros inaccuracies. I have dealt with this topic for a long time, searching for many skeletons with known proportions and came always to the same result, mandibles are about a quarter, and not a fiths of the complete length, and therefore the calculations are false.
But I was also suprized when I found out that some sperm whale bulls really managed to grow to monstrous sizes. There are some few teeth in the New Bedfornd Whaling Museum which are more than 30cm in length, and I found also some teeth of this size which come from a fossil sperm whale (which seemed to be identical with the modern sperm whales in this case, one of this teeth has a weight of 2353g!). Such teeth could really come from a sperm whale which was a good bit over 20m and probably really more than 100tons in weight. But such cases were really extraordinairy exceptions of only one individual in ten thousands or more. What is a bit strange with the sizes and masses of sperm whales, is that I read comparably often about washed on sperm whales in the last years, which were measured to be 18m long and 50tons in weight, so I have my doubts that this datas are really near maximum.
I agree, I did research on that too. In Nantucket museum, there is a sperm whale jaw that is 18 feet in length, that is, 5.5 meters. This could belong to a sperm whale of very large size, around 25 meters, I also doubt that length of manibula is only 20% of body, I am pretty sure it is 20%, not 25%. What I want to disagree about most imortantly is the fact that it was one in a thousand. You see, during periods of exsessive whaling, the largest sperm whales were killed, since they had larger heads, and hence more spermaceti. Nowadays, whole population of sperm whales is simply smaller than it was say 100-200 years ago, due to whaling. Nowadays, you can find ship logs of whaling ships that are full with references to bulls that gave the amount of spermaceti that suggest they were along the size of 25 meters long, and probably well over 100 tons in weight. I will repeat, scientists today saw no such whales, because all the big ones were killed by whalers, and it will take very long time for modern males to reach sizes of those big ones. As for weight, in general, when you add 25% of bodylength to an animal or human, weight doubles. Of course, it is not precise, but in general, it is along that lines. this can let us estimate the weight of big males. I also disagree that larger males are slimmer. Larger males can dive deeper, hence can get more squid, hence can grow heavier. If anything, longer and larger males are thicker. For example, we know that largest seen sperm whale was 20 meters long and weighed 72 tons (http://oceanlink.island.net/records.html) , form that we can conclude that 25 meters male will weigh allready along the lines of 110 tons. This should be the largest(?) weight for a 25 meters sperm whale. If Sperm whale will be longer, it will be heavier. Even a little bit of length adds a fair amount of weight, if it would not, long sperm whale males would look like sausages, not like whales. ALso, comparing Blue whales to Sperm whales is not really a valid comparison, since Blue whales are indeed slimmer than Sperm whales.99.231.59.7 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)PAvel, October 6, 6:26.
Thickest skin?
I read in many books that the skin if sperm whales is in fact very thin, only about 1cm, even at the head. I have also seen many pictures of cross-section of sperm whale heads, photos of butchered sperm whales heads and a sperm whale with a huge wound on the head, and all pictures showed undoubtly that the skin is also on the head very thin, only the blubber under the skin as comparably thick.
You're correct, the given thickness must include the blubber; apparently the original author got confused somewhere. I've pointed out the same thing a couple of times myself, but the darn thing just doesn't go away. Pretty much all of the numeral and statistical information here are wrong, so I'd suggest for everyone to get their sperm whale information from somewhere else. That featured article star is a really bad joke. --Anshelm '77 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Predators
the article says the only animals which attack sperm whales are orcas...but what about colossal squid or giant squid? they regularly prey on sperm whale
No, Sperm whales regularly prey on colossal and giant squid. The largest Architeuthis are about 300kg and the largest Mesonychoteuthis about 1ton. Sperm whales weigh in general 15-30tons. There is no, really not one indication that any squid (can) prey on sperm whales. Even new born calves (which don´t dive) are already bigger than any squid.
"largest predator, apart from the blue whale"
Is it really sensible to call the blue whale a predator? --157.161.173.24 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The blue whale is a carnivore, but its feeding habits are better described with planctivor instead of carnivor.
Would this then make the fin whale the largest carnivore?Rlendog (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Reproduction and mating behaviours
There's nothing in this article on this at all. This is a biology article and has been a featured article. The least it could do is have a short paragraph explaining how sperm whale mating behaviours are or are not different from other whales, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.9.239.185 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Update for Information on the Colossal Squid
Perhaps a correction should be made where the article reads:
"Stories about titanic battles between Sperm Whales and giant squid which are believed to reach up to 13 m (44 ft) are perhaps the stuff of legend, given alone the fact that even the largest giant squid weigh only about 300 kg (660 lb), in contrast to several tons of even the youngest hunting sperm whale, "
given Wikipedia's article on the colossal squid, which states:
"Many Sperm whales carry scars on their backs believed to be caused by the hooks of Colossal Squid. Colossal Squid are a major prey item for Antarctic sperm whales feeding in the Southern Ocean; 14% of the squid beaks found in the stomachs of these sperm whales are those of the Colossal Squid, which indicates that Colossal Squid make up 77% of the biomass consumed by these whales." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.166.175 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Exploding whales segment
While this section is interesting, the writing of it strikes me as excessively colorful for an encylopedia. Is anyone else bothered with the wording of this section? Russeasby 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Exploding Whale
If the incident took place in Oregon, and the demolition team intended the remains to be blown towards the Atlantic, then they suceeded, as the remains did indeed fall inland. 172.134.150.232 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)RKH
Feeding, behaviour and diving - needs work
The first 2 paragraphs of this section read badly. They also include facts and figures that are confusingly different yet similar (e.g. diving to 1.9 miles in sentence 1 and to 2 miles in sentence 4. I think folding paragraph 3 into 1 and then totaly re-writing paragraph 2 would be sensible. Other than that, a nice article.
Very interesting reference source
I stumbled across the following article: http://discovermagazine.com/2003/dec/blast-from-the-vast while looking for something else, that goes into quite a bit of detail about the function of the Sperm Whale's enormous head. Quite a bit of this content could be added to the article if someone has the time and motivation. At the moment, I'm horribly short of the former, so I'll post the link and come back at a later date if nobody's been able to get to it. Neil916 (Talk) 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Chris Harman illustrations
Are there really no good public domain/freely licensed photographs of sperm whales? Must we rely on artwork that requires us to display the artist's name and a link to his website in our article?SteveSims 06:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Diving capabilities of the Sperm Whale and other mammals
The Penguiness Book website provides useful well-referenced information on the diving capabilities of various animals. Based on it I can make these lists of the Sperm Whale and its closest mammal rivals.
Longest-diving mammals (1+ h):
1. Arnoux's Beaked Whale – 2 h 33 min [9]
2. Southern Elephant Seal – 2 h
3. Sperm Whale – 1 h 52 min
4. Cuvier's Beaked Whale – 1 h 28 min 6 s
5. Northern Elephant Seal – 1 h 17 min
6. Northern Bottlenose Whale – 1 h 10 min 30 s
7. Weddell Seal – 1 h 7 min [10]
7. Baird's Beaked Whale – 1 h 7 min [11]
9. Bowhead Whale – 1 h 3 min [12]
Elswhere I've seen a 2 h 18 min duration for the Sperm Whale that is quite well-referenced (Watkins et al. 1985; Papastavrou et al. 1989; Sarvas and Fleming 1999). I think it was in Norwegian waters in 1983; I've seen the place and time mentioned somewhere in the web, but couldn't find them right now. Also, many older books give a duration of 1 h 13 min for the Weddell Seal, and quite a deal of sources say 1 h 22 min, such as this.
Estimates in the region of 2,500–3,200 m for the Sperm Whale, based on circumstantial evidence, have apparently been ignored by Penguiness; and perhaps rightfully so. Ironically the 1 h 52 min dive probably refers to the one in 1969 south of Durban, South Africa, speculated to be 3,000+ m deep. Also, Penguiness gives a more precise figure of 2,035 m (6,677 ft) for the dive measured in the waters of the Dominican Republic in 1991 – the official Guinness record. One has to wonder though, is the absolute record of 2,085 m mentioned earlier the very same dive, and either one of the given figures a typo.
No doubt future research will introduce new species to the list, especially from the Ziphiidae family – the long durations for the two Berardius species, for example, might give one reason to make speculations of various kind.
Sperm Whale is not the second or third largest whale. Besides the Blue and Fin Whales, all members of the Balaenidae family are larger (heavier) than the Sperm Whale. Also, the Humpback Whale is almost the same size, but apparently the Sperm Whale is marginally larger. So this would make Sperm Whale the 7th largest species – 5th if you recognize only one species of Right Whale. --Anshelm '77 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Sperm whales in the past could have been second largest animals ever. Now it is not.99.231.59.7Pavel, October 6.
90 minute dives. Holds breath 2 hours.
In the article it is started that a sperm whale can dive up to 90 minutes and elsewhere it says it can hold its breath for 2 hours. This seems inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEBlood (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I found this a very good article - very informative - and would merely like to express my thanks to whoever wrote it. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree.Rlendog (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I do not have any authority, but I seriously dought that Megalodon was heavier even if it had the same length with modern sperm whales. Take for example the comparison of any cetacean with a shark of the same length (with the exception maybe of the Whale Shark to the largest beaked whales). Even if some sauropods were larger than sperm whales (though now Argentinosaurus' announced maesurements are seriously dought, the Sperm Whale still keeps the title of the largest predatorial animal EVER with only possible rival the Megalodon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Shark's weight is determined by not just it's size but several factors including it's: body mass, liver & quantity of oil in it , quantity of food in it's stomach etc. The Megalodon was also on pound to pound basis, heavier than GWS. Hence, its case is different from that of cetaceans. --LeGenD (talk) 5:25, 07 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
intro is a bit light, needs to summarise the whole article.
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
The section starting The sperm whale holds some natural world records: followed by a numbered list - is this really FA-ish?
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?
Distribution needs at least one citation.
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.
In the news - trivia-ish. Considering the importance culturally of this species we need more in here.
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.
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 Sunbirdtalk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this whole discussion to the FAR page. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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 Sunbirdtalk 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 Sunbirdtalk 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 weroe 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 tok 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)
Thanks for cursing there :) your ass? Post WW2 is in no way ancient. Ancient is pre-17 century. And the largest damage was done before WW2, during 1700's. In MODERN times the most damage was done indeed in 1964, when 29,255 were killed. Pictures are not enough? Also, what does sex or age has to do? OHHHH, sorry, I posted a wrong picture, here is the intended one: http://home.scarlet.be/baleinelibre/dossiers/physiologie/cachalot/dessin_cachalot.jpg. I apologize, I didn't pay attention to what I posted. I have used random photo? You have used random picture. What is better, photo of a real picture or drawing by a human? And I think you are a bit wrong about who Yankees targeted. Do you know why sperm whales were killed? For spermaceti, a type of fat that sperm whales have in their bump on the head. It also allows them to ram and sink wooden ships without harm to themselves (Essex, Ann Alexander are good examples) And sometimes even metal ships (Soviet Enthusiast in 1946 is a good example). I guess you don't know what this thing was used for, do you? Lighting. So, tell me now, what was the more logical, to kill a bunch of females and calves (risking females crushing boats in defence) or kill ONE big bull, who would yield twice as much oil as a female? No, I am sorry, but you are wrong, large bulls were a primary target, since their heads were larger and contained more spermaceti. Now, after WW2, that's where it is probable that females also entered the picture for hunter, not the other way around. Now, estimates are MAXIMUMS, and this is pointed out in the article. It now says "at most". Regarding random photo again, you can take a ruler and measure the length of the jawbone (you can see where it ends approximately). Also, there is a reference (on this article's page) to 20 meter 80 tons whale. Whale that sunk Essex was estimated at 25 meters. 5 additional meters to the length. This whale had to weigh at least 100 tons if it were mature (and if it did not look like a thin weiner, which I doubt), if it were not, who knows to what length and size it would have grown to be, but it was reportedly a leader of the herd, so I think it was a mature whale. Anyway, there is more than enough evidence to the huge sperm whales of the past, have you ever heard of libraries of Nantucket? Unsupported claims of 7.2 meter jaws are made. --9K58 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
“And the largest damage was done before WW2, during 1700’s.”
The 1700s? How could the most damage have been done in that century? Sperm whaling was confined to the North Atlantic for five decades (1710s-1770s) and both the North and South Atlantic for a further two decades (1770s-1790s), when American sperm whaling spread to the Pacific. You’re telling me more damage was done during this period than in modern whaling, when sperm whales were targeted worldwide and when the most were caught?!!! According to Hal Whitehead (2003), by 1880 the global sperm whale population had declined to 71% of its historic size. This was followed by a period were populations rebounded somewhat. It then plummeted to 32% as modern whaling turned its attention to sperm whales after World War II. In a single year of the modern era nearly 30,000 sperm whales were caught, and you think more damage was done by a fleet composed throughout most of the era (c. 1712-1799) of sloops, schooners, and brigs that probably caught no more than a few thousand sperm whales a year, and only in the last decade or so? Several hundred thousand sperm whales were caught in the modern era, whereas only several thousand would have taken in the eighteenth century. Even during the entire pelagic open-boat American whaling era (1709-1925), only a few hundred thousand sperm whales would have been taken, compared to nearly 800,000 in the modern era! The majority of which were taken after World War II. So in three decades (1945-late 1970s) more sperm whales were taken than in the entire open-boat era.
“So, tell me now, what was the more logical, to kill a bunch of females and calves (risking females crushing boats in defence) or kill ONE big bull, who would yield twice as much oil as a female?”
I’m guessing you haven’t read a single account of a sperm whaling voyage, have you? Well, the Plough Boy, of Nantucket, caught 84 sperm whales during its 1827-30 voyage for a total of 2522 barrels of sperm oil, or an average of 30 barrels a whale. Guess what the average was for a sperm whale cow? THIRTY BARRELS. In its 1830-34 voyage the Plough Boy caught 65 sperm whales for 1741 barrels, or an average of 26 barrels a whale. The Charles W. Morgan, during its 1841-45 voyage, caught 61 sperm whales for a total of 1600 barrels, or 26 barrels a whale. During its 1901-02 the same vessel caught 60 sperm whales to produce 1450 barrels, or 24 barrels per whale. I could give example after example proving you wrong, but I think the above was enough.
They often caught multiple whales during a single lowering, on occasion as many as eight or nine whales. Guess what kind? Females and immatures of 25-40 barrels. Yes, they did take adult bull sperm whales. I’ve even read a voyage that took several, one supposedly of 148 barrels. Any time sperm whales were sighted by a whaleship, they lowered the boats. And guess what? They primarily hunted sperm whales between 40 degrees north and 40 degress south, where they usually encountered, you guessed it, female and immature groups.
“You have used random picture.”
What are you talking about? What picture?
“Do you know why sperm whales were killed?”
Had you looked at my page, I think you would have seen that it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that I know why sperm whales were hunted. They were targeted for speramceti and sperm oil, which were used in the illumination (candles, lighthouses, etc) and lubricating industries (cotton mills, etc).
“Now, after WW2, that's where it is probable that females also entered the picture for hunter, not the other way around.”
What are you, stupid? Read what I said above. The above statement, along with just about every other one you made, proves you know jackshit about whaling history.
“Whale that sunk Essex was estimated at 25 meters. 5 additional meters to the length.”
Estimated? It was a gross exageration. The whale was never measured. And had it been, it would’ve been by some whalemen, who, undoubtedly, would have exagerated its size. Had a scientist measured it accurately to 85 feet (which one didn’t), I would have accepted this figure. Unfortunately, all we have is the testimony of whalemen, which are really just fishermen, and you know how fisherman can be about the size of the fish they catch (or the ones that got away).
“This whale had to weigh at least 100 tons if it were mature (and if it did not look like a thin weiner, which I doubt), if it were not, who knows to what length and size it would have grown to be, but it was reportedly a leader of the herd, so I think it was a mature whale.”
You are quite possibly one of the dumbest human beings (if I may call you that) I have ever been unfortunate enough to meet online. I’m surprised you can type!. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Blogspot is not a reliable source. DurovaCharge! 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Do You even read the article? There are alot refernces like papers etc. This is arleast written by an undergraduaded and you call it not reliable? then 50 % of wikipedia is not reliable.
Wow, this guy won't stop, will he now? He just keeps insulting people, without providing any evidence. That is interesting. And then he claims everyone else is stupid. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think someone should have a look at some really old encyclopedias for more info. I remember my father mentioning a more than 100 years old encylopedia, which mentions this whale as being "up to 30 meters in length". JoaCHIP (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Article name
It's not a proper noun (is it) so it should be sperm whale and not Sperm Whale. It even says sperm whale in the first line of the article. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Any opinions on this? It looks like there are still noun usage errors... Tan | 39 01:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The capitalizatioon is correct. - UtherSRG(talk) 04:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's vague. Which is correct? Is it correct in the article now? After thinking about it, I was bold and changed all instances of "Sperm Whale" to "sperm whale", except at the obvious place of the beginning of sentences. It's very hard for me to believe that capitalizing Sperm Whale is proper. Tan | 39 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you changed it back. Can you cite why this is correct? Every reference I look at says it is not capitalized, this one, for example. Tan | 39 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BIRD for the logic behind capitalizing species' common names. Besides which, that is the style adopted by the Cetacea WikiProject. - UtherSRG(talk) 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are right that it should have been left as-is, but you are incorrect that the capitalization is "correct". It appears that this is an ongoing argument - see this link as an example. I would guess that this will come up again and again - and to most eyes (I'm a biochemist myself), it looks foreign, incorrect and "ignorant". Perhaps a comment embedded in the main article text would prevent this from happening again. Tan | 39 04:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict capitalisation of mammal names common names has gotten heated in the past. I honestly lost interest in the argument and don't remember what was decided, if anything, but another edit war over the subject is undesirable. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree, and I'm certainly not going to edit war over this. I was actually trying to figure out how we can prevent any time-wasting editing in the future. Tan | 39 04:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Tagging each article where the capitalization is not what people would expect it to be? That's some several thousand articles. Not a very practical solution. How about asking on the talk page and waiting a few hours or a couple days to see if any one responds before making a change against an obvious convention? - UtherSRG(talk) 04:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say tag each article, Uther. I said to tag this one. And if you don't want to, fine. You might have better luck finding collaboration if you drop the attitude, though. Just a suggestion; I'm moving on. Tan | 39 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you didn't suggest tagging each article, but that's because you're only thinking of this one article. There are some 5000+ mammal species articles, plus the higher-level taxa articles, etc. A solution for making it helpful for an editor on one aritcle should be able to fit to all of the article with the same issue. So, thanks for thinking small, I'll continue to think big. - UtherSRG(talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't belive there is even an argument here. Capitlization rules for species only aply to the Linean names---and even there, it is only the genus that is capitalized. The moment it becomes proper to capitalize "cat" and "dog" then we can capitalize "sperm whale." --Woland (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Dispute Settled
Well, I had randomly picked up a book called Hudson's Merchants and Whalers and noticed on page 135 the picture of a sperm whale jaw standing upright. It appeared to be very large. I then noticed that the hinge of the jaw, which you don't really notice in photos, accounted for a third of the length of the jaw. I strangely had forgotten to include this when factoring in the percentage it accounted for in the total length of an adult bull sperm whale. So I thought, I must have a photo of a bull somewhere in one of my books. I open The Hand of God: Whaling in the Azores by Trevor Housby and I find a photo of a 61-ft bull sperm. The body if it is perfectly parallel with the photo and the jaw is clearly visible. I measured the sperm whale in the photo and found it to be six inches long, with the jaw (including the hinge) representing 1 1/2 inches of the whale, or 25%. With this knowledge in mind, I will be reverting the estimated size of the sperm whales mentioned in the article. This debate is OVER. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just happened to be looking through M.F. Maury's Sailing Directions... (1851) and I noticed that he mentioned that a 62-ft sperm whale had a lower jaw that measured 16-ft. That would be 25.8% of the total length. But to make it easier, I'll keep the figure on the article as 25%. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just at the museum and I saw that jawbone. I can't accurately tell anyone the size though. The museum is called the Nantucket Whaling Museum. The whale was killed in the 1800s and the jaw was given as a gift to someone. This jawbone is separate from the whale skeleton that is displayed in one of the rooms. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
catodon
We should follow MSW3, as it is what is used in nearly all other mammal articles on Wikipedia. UtherSRG(talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The MSW3 is in error in this case. It will stay as macrocephalus. Tag! You're it. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the correct answer is here, but I'm also not sure what the basis is for stating that MSW3 is "in error". I checked the source (Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals) for the statement in the article that "However, most scientists, the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, and the International Whaling Commission prefer P. macrocephalus over P. catodon", and it is not quite that definitive, only stating that "Currently, most, but not all, authorities preferP. macrocephalus." Certainly, I've seen P. macrocephalus used in many references, including the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, but P. catodon has some prominent proponents as well, besides MSW3. So I am not sure what the best way to resolve this situation for Wikipedia is, but I don't think just presuming MSW3 is in error is it. MSW3 is, after all, the source for most mammal Latin names on Wikipedia. Is it possible to include both Latin names in the taxobox, since both are used by authoritative sources and the text explains the situation in more detail? Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't use the Encycopedia of Marine Mammals. I used Whitehead's Sperm whales: social evolution in the ocean. And I'll be reverting it back to macrocephalus, again. :) Jonas Poole (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. MSW3 is the defacto standard used in the majority of mammal articles. It's only superceded when there is a preponderance of evidence against it, or when new species have been discovered. Neither of these are the case here, so MSW3 stands. - UtherSRG(talk) 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
So, basically its your fucking bible? Well, I'm a man of little faith. I'll be reverting it back. You, my friend, may stop reverting it. It's quite annoying. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
UtherSRG is correct that MSW3 is the de facto standard for mammal classification. And it is valuable to maintain that consistency across the encyclopedia. But in this case there do seem to be a substantial amount of references (including by Hal Whitehead, who I wouldn't want to disagree with on Sperm Whales) that use macrocephalus. I don't think either is definitively incorrect and, given that there is not a single definitive correct species name, I'm not sure it is the place of Wikipedia to try to resolve the dispute one way or another. So I am more convinced than I was earlier that the appropriate solution is to include both Latin names in the taxobox and in the lead. Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a taxobox field for synonyms. We should use one and mention the existence of synonyms, even note that it is disputed, but not suggest that a species can have more than one scientific name. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, as long as macrocephalus is there, I'm fine. But if it only had catodon as the species name, I'd revert back right when I saw it. Jonas Poole (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You are being contradictory. You are agreeing with Sabine, and yet that was the edit I made. We should list *one* species name, list the other as a synonym in the taxobox, and discuss it in the article. But that's what we both had, we just are quibbling over which should be listed as the preferred name, and which should be listed as a synonym. Since neither of us is budging, I think Rlendog's solution is best for now, elthough it's not best in the long run. In the long run, we need someone to publish an update of the whole frigging order... there's enough jumbling going on in nearly every family.... - UtherSRG(talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not. As long as macrocephalus is listed as the preferred species name I would be fine with the current article. It was when it was removed entirely that I disaggreed. I see no condadiction. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, contradiction, because I *had* listed macrocephalus as a synonym. It was never removed entirely from the article, at least not in this round of edits. So, since you say that that is acceptable, I'll restore it to be that way. - UtherSRG(talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I said you fucking piece of shit. I'm reverting it back to macrocephalus asshole. Damn you fucking cunt. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Seriously consider taking a Wikivacation to cool off, man. Your heat is way above this conflict. - UtherSRG(talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent). This is getting nowhere and is rapidly becoming very uncivil. I suggest both of you taking a step back and widening the discussion, perhaps asking for more opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Just to give you an update on the catodon vs. macrocephalus issue: I raised this with ITIS (who were using catodon, but "awaiting a ruling from the ICZN"), the Taxacom mailing list (open) and the ICZN mailing list (closed) in late 2008. Most experts (with one exception) were of the view that macrocephalus should be preferred over catodon (note, however, that this is the opinion of indivudual repondents rather than an ICZN ruling; the opinion expressed was that such a ruling was unnecessary). ITIS has subsequently changed their usage accordingly (refer http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180488), so has WoRMS, the World Register of Marine Species) (http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=137119), and Catalogue of Life (which uses ITIS for its mammal names at present) will presumably follow suit in its next edition (2009 checklist), depending on when their information is refreshed from ITIS. So we do finally appear to have a resolution on this one. I can provide more detail if anyone's interested.Tony1212 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to resurrect and old edit war, but the description in the footnote regarding the seniority of the name macrocephalus over catodon is confusing to me, and I have no idea where else I'd go to ask for clarification on something like this... Anyway, my understanding of the ICZN is that when two taxa are erected in the same paper and later found to be synonyms, no "first revisor" is needed--the senior synonym becomes the one that appeared first in the document, or has page priority. This is the case with Tyrannosaurus, named in the same document as but a few paragraphs before its synonym Dynamosaurus, Assuming both names were validly erected under whatever ICZN articles apply, shouldn't this have just been a simple matter of checking Systema Naturae to see which name appears in the text first? MMartyniuk (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the concepts of "line priority" and "page priority" (which I think I heard stem from the ornithological code of nomenclature that preceded the ICZN?) are not recognized under the current ICZN (see Chapter 6, Article 24. Precedence between simultaneously published names, spellings or acts). A First Reviser would be required if one subjectively believed that two different names from the same publication were applicable to the same taxon, e.g., the Example given under Art. 24.2.2. Arguments that no First Reviser is needed would require that macrocephalus be treated as something other than a synonym of catodon, e.g. a nomen inquirenda representing some species other than the sperm whale (and I don't think anyone is suggesting there is another undiagnosed species of sperm whale out there... the confusions here are of a completely different sort!!) But you can't have it both as a synonym of catodon and NOT as the valid name... WhyAskWhyNot (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Synonym field usage
Please see Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Synonyms and also any basic text on taxonomy, raw species epithets should never be used, authors can be dropped though (per ICZN). Shyamal (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That guide should be changed, as there are times when a bare epithet is appropriate. See any species entry on MSW3's website or the hardbound text. The bare epithet with authority is used. This is because itdoes not matter which genus the epithet is attached to, it is still a synonym. - UtherSRG(talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, while there are times that people do CHOOSE to use bare epithets (such as in a comment above), presenting an epithet (hopefully with clear context of author & year at minimum!) with no indication of the significance of the parentheses put around the author information (as in MSW3) limits the usefulness of the data. The parentheses around authorship tell you if the current genus is the same as the original genus (=no parentheses) or different from the original genus (=parenthesized). What information can I derive if a current name "Alpha beta Smith, 1800" has a synonymy entry "gamma (Jones, 1920)"? Who knows if the combination Alpha gamma has been used, or if it was even the original combination? Proper synonymy should include the full combination that is being listed in synonymy, or at least the original combination of it... Just don't confuse chresonymy with synonymy! WhyAskWhyNot (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sperm whale second or third largest whale?
I don't know about that. You would think bowhead and North Pacific right whales were larger than the largest bull Sperm whales? For example, take the highest yields (at least the ones I know of) of oil for each of the species, as well as a few others for example:
Blue-- 354 bbls (Walvis Bay, 1931) (Ellis 1991)
Bowhead-- 375 bbls (Western Arctic, late 1840s-early 1850s) (Bockstoce 1986)
North Pacific Right-- 300 bbls (Northwest Coast, 1846) (Webb 1988)
Gray-- 101 bbls (possibly Western Arctic?) (Henderson 1972)
Also, Goode (1880-84) quotes a captain that says he's "heard" of bull sperm whales that yielded 148-bbls, only a few more than the largest I've come across in my own reading of logbooks and journals. The above table/tally (whatever you want to call it) shows that the largest individuals of bowhead and north pacific right whales (not taking into account whatever exageration that may have occurred) were over twice the size of the largest sperm whale. Perhaps oil yield isn't a fair example? How about the largest reported weights? Well, I can't use the estimates of the two sperm whales mentioned in the article (see the debate on jaw size) as I can't quite recall how those estimates were made, and by who for that matter. I'll use those found in the Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals. Phil Clapham wrote each section for the baleen whales, and Randall Reeves the one for the Sperm whale.
Blue-- 400,000 lbs
Fin-- 260,000 lbs
Sei-- 100,000 lbs
Bowhead-- about 200,000 lbs
Northern Right (two species*)-- about 200,000 lbs
Southern Right-- about 200,000 lbs
Sperm (bull)-- 120,000 lbs
Probably in reference to the North Pacific right, which appears to be significantly larger that its North Atlantic cousin.
With this tally, it appears very obvious that the Sperm whale is not the "second or third largest species of whale." It would appear to be the sixth or seventh largest. Not enough? How about the figures (supplied by several authors) in Davis et al (1997):
Blue-- 392,000 lbs
Fin-- 152,000 lbs
Sei-- 64,000 lbs
Bowhead-- 244,000 lbs
Right-- 212,000 lbs
Sperm-- 120,000 lbs
Anyone else like to chim in? Jonas Poole (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Princeton Guide has maximum weights of:
Blue -- 200 tons
Bowhead -- 100 tons
Fin -- 81.2 tons
Sperm (bull) -- 55.8 tons
Humpback -- 40 tons
Gray -- 35 tons
Sei -- 30.4
Right -- 30 tons (surprised so low)
By weight, the Sperm Whale is clearly no better than 4th, maybe 5th (depending on the correct max for the Right Whale). By length the Sperm Whale also seems to be about 5th (well behind Blue & Fin; slightly below Sei and Bowhead). So I think the comment about 2nd or 3rd largest needs to go. "One of the largest" would be accurate. Rlendog (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to get my hands on that Princeton Field Guide, but I'm kinda strapped for cash at the moment (damn gas prices!). It must be in error though with the maximum weight of the right whale, particularly given how large the North Pacific species can get. It has to be a typo, a really bad one at that. It should be above the fin and just below the max for the bowhead. It definitely shouldn't be below the gray, humpback, or sei whales! I know this isn't exactly scientific, but there's a photo in Men & Whales (1991, p. 328) of a North Pacific right whale on the flensing plan of the Akutan whaling station in the Aleutian Islands that looks absolutely massive. It looked to be over (a guess, I might add) fifty feet and very rotund. There's no way that thing only weighed 30 tons. Not to mention the number of logbooks and journals that talk of 200-250 bbl right whales taken off the Northwest Coast in the 1840s. And strange that a guide recently published would only give a max for the "right" whale, instead of all three species (also given the varying sizes of the three, with the north pacific the largest, the southern right in the middle, and the north atlantic the smallest). Jonas Poole (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Confusion over Spermaceti over sperm oil?
Well, I'm not particularly fond of the use of the three sources (A Dictionary of Mechanical Science, Arts, Manufactures, and Miscellaneous Knowledge, the AP website, and The Status of Natural Resources on the High Seas (probably the worst offender of the three)) I read on what spermaceti was used for. First off, none of them provide citations, and two of them appear to confuse the uses of sperm oil with that of spermaceti. For American open-boat whaling, sperm oil was used in the illumination and lubrication markets, whereas pure spermaceti was chiefly used in candle-making. The same appears to be the case for the modern era, where the article only refers to the uses of spermaceti, when it in fact appears to be talking about the uses of both sperm oil and spermaceti. With that in mind, I added that these products were obtained from spermaceti and/or sperm oil. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I just realised I forgot to thank you for that. Many thanks! --Philcha (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Editing Needed
Currently, there's too much duplicated information about the spermaceti in both the dedicated and the etymology sections. (And that is after I removed 2 other references in the introduction.) It looks like someone got a bit obcessed. The two need to be edited better, but I'm quitting for the night. CFLeon (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Superfamily Physeteroidea
I inserted a comment that Physeteroidea was a superfamily designation in 2 places (previous text said that this was an unranked clade, which is incorrect), however it has been deleted again by someone who obviously disagrees and just calls it a clade. This may be true (as with many other genera / families / superfamilies etc.), however it is of rank = superfamily as indicated by the termination -oidea (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oidea, and any zoological text on classification). Some classification schemes do not include it but that does not make it any less a superfamily when the term is employed. I would reinstate this however I do not wish to waste my time if it will simply be deleted, so maybe someone with custodianship of the page can do so :) Tony1212 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem was that you changed "... several extinct fossil genera have been assigned to the cladePhyseteroidea, which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants." to "... several extinct fossil genera have been assigned to the superfamily (clade) Physeteroidea, which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants." If you're going to edit an article, make sure that your edit fits the context - which generally means checking at least the whole (sub-)section. --Philcha (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I believe you are missing the point. Someone (?) seems to object to the statement that Physeteroidea is a superfamily, which it patently is, as opposed to an (unranked) clade as previously stated explicitly in one section, and implied in the other. However given the previous history of discussions on this talk page (see above) I have no wish to enter an argument about what is correct or incorrect here. Contrary to your assertion, I did and do check the context of what I edit and I will leave others to judge the accuracy or not of my edits.Tony1212 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants" defines "clade ...", not "superfamily ...", and "clade" is not the same as "superfamily". --Philcha (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I never said that "clade" is the same as "superfamily", just as I would not say that "mammal" is the same as "mouse", however it is perfectly possible for one to be an instance of the other, as in this case. Clades can be orders, superfamilies, families, genera or many things, so long as they are monophyletic. The one thing that Physeteroidea is not, is an unranked clade (which was the subject of my original correction), it is a clade of rank superfamily (e.g. see http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=68814&syn=1). To backtrack a little, I believe the original objection to including it at this rank may be because it does not appear in MSW, however that does not change its status if someone decides to cite it in the context of a wikipedia entry. I am happy to discuss further if you can avoid personal aspersions. Tony1212 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not made personal aspersions. I have pointed out that your change of "cladePhyseteroidea" to "superfamily(clade) Physeteroidea" made the following "which includes the last common ancestor of the modern Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and Dwarf Sperm Whale, plus all of that ancestor's descendants" (a definition of "clade") at the very least misleadingly ambiguous, and possibly plain nonsense. This sentence occurs in section "Fossil record", and paleontologists use cladistics as their main approach to classification. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Feeding
The article states most squid were between 12 and 650 kg in weight. This is an enormous range. Doesn't this really state that all sizes are eaten with a few very small squid (less than 12 kg) and a few truly gigantic? (Do squid actually ever exceed 650 kg?) In any case, the information in this sentence is practictally nil. Cheers 157.157.101.21 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted an uncommented anonymous change of that number to 12-650 grams. Such edits are always suspect. But I too wonder about that 650kg number being quite large, though 650 grams seems quite small, too. The reference citation does not include a link to an online copy, so I am unable to verify the numbers. Someone with access to the source or who otherwise can otherwise contribute authoritiatively needs to revisit this. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The range should have been grams, but was specific to the particular study that was in the prior reference. I think I have that fixed now. Of course, the giant squid that sperm whales are believed to eat can grow to several hundred kg, but that was not recorded in the particular referenced study. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Move?
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was page not moved. @harej 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Move request queried after I obeyed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you please clarify where the requested move of this article is? I don't see anything on the talk page or at WP:RM. Ucucha 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not an uncontroversial request. The Cetacean WikiProject has standardized its naming convention to capitalize the names of species, similar to the Birds WikiProject. Additional information is available in the "standardization" section on the WP:CETA page. Can you please revert your page move? Neil916 (Talk) 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, OK. Well, I'm afraid this isn't quite an uncontroversial request--there have been massive wars on several mammal pages on whether or not to capitalize species names (Talk:Marsupial Lion, throughout the WT:MAMMAL archives, and various other places). I personally don't care much about whether or not to capitalize, but this really shouldn't be done as an "uncontroversial" page move. Ucucha 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean, exactly? Neil916 (Talk) 08:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case, that means prefer the page name Sperm whale. --Una Smith (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing is ridiculous. Since when does WP dictate English usage? Usual usage is no caps. Leave it be. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a wikipedia wide issue, i think a huge discussion between all the WikiProjects related to animals be initiated and decide once and for all the correct naming standards .ZooPro 02:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be helpful to know that the projects using Capital Names do so to reflect the fact that the page names refer to a certain authority's list of names. In some cases, the same vernacular name has been given to more than one species, but on the authority's list, only one species gets that name. I think it is more than a little contrived and very obscure, but that is what these projects do and it does have some logic to it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Likely some people would write "a sperm whale" (one animal) but "the Sperm Whale" (the species as a whole). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Squid Scars
The article mentions scars from the suction cups of squids, and even has a photograph of the scars, but there's not a clue of how large the scars are. Does anybody know? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Where are the hind limb?
67.243.1.21 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
99.35.8.254 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In the complex discussion issues, I hesitate to ask for a sperm whale's image of head instead of a dolphin which I realize is a toothed whale; recent info says dolphins & bats have same gene which alters hair in inner ear, indicating that the dolphin hears its return echo using its ears which do we know that about sperm whales?
Largest living predator
The article states:
"It is the largest living predator and possibly the largest ever, not in terms of its taking animal matter (which is true of all cetaceans, including the larger baleen whales) but in that it actively preys on self-functioning animals."
This sentence is not really correct, and makes no sense. Baleen whales actively pray on krill, other zooplankton and small fish. What is a "self functioning animal" anyway? Are not fish and krill as self-functioning as any other animals?
I think this would be better re-worded to something like "... but that it actively predates on animals that are not orders of magnitude smaller in size" or similar.
I'd love a better suggestion though.
MFdeS (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it makes better sense this way. I think it sounded a bit "Discovery Channel-ish" to be calling it the biggest this or the most ferocious that... MFdeS (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As to the disputed origin of the terms "cachalot," "cachalote," and "cachola," it is remotely plausible that early European explorers/whalers transliterated indigenous Polynesian names for sperm whales, such as the Samoan "kafola" and Hawaiian "kahola" (Maori and Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, Edward Tregear, 1891, as well as more recent Samoan and Hawaiian dictionaries). Both Samoan and Hawaiian were undergoing consonant shifts from "t" to "k" so that the terms might alternately be rendered "tafola" and "tahola" respectively ("*T to K: An Austronesian Sound Change Revisited," Robert Blust, 2004).
155.97.236.101 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, please make any future requests in the format of "Please change x to y", otherwise it can be difficult to understand what edit you would like to be made to the page. What would you like us to add to the article and where? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done:'Per above.'Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
use of whale oil in living whale?
I think that the explanaion of reason for the sperm oil for diving is suspect. The assumption is that the specific gravity is changed as the oil changes from solid to liguid. Is this even true? Do phase changes really change specific gravity that much. And if so, an internal SG change can't have any meaningful impact on the total bouyancy of a whale. Also, the part about making the impact of a whale greater doesn't seem true either. The highest impact would be from a solid object. It doesn't seem as though the oil would amplify thisLonginus876 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why macrocephalus if it was second?
let me get this right: Linnaeus mistakenly raised P. macrocephalus as a distinct species just after P. catodon, and now it turns out not to exist, P. catodon has to be called P. macrocephalus instead? I love taxonomy but the people running it really do have their heads up their arses on this one. 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.65.51 (talk)
Answer: If Linnaeus (or anyone) published multiple names for the same "thing", then the principle of priority applies - whichever was published first gets priority. In the case of multiple names in the same work, they are deemed to have been published simultaneously so the principle of "first reviser" then applies - the first worker to spot the duplicates and designate one or other as the preferred name is then followed. Simple even if non-obvious. Tony1212 (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Expert T. Kasuya
In the Description -> Size section, I've added a couple of weasel words / peacock term tags - the wording is grossly offensive to any reasonable form of neutrality. At present it reads:
However, contrary to this popular belief, expert T. Kasuya concluded through his study that exploitation by overfishing virtually had no effect on the size of the bull sperm whales, and their size may have actually increased in current times on the basis of density dependent effects.
How can you overfish a whale, by the way? ;-) Is it called 'overwhaling'? Anyway, instead of the above I propose something like:
Another view holds that exploitation by overwhaling had virtually no effect on the size of the bull sperm whales, and their size may have actually increased in current times on the basis of density dependent effects.
Any thoughts? I'll edit in a couple of weeks if no one objects.
Above edit was made, despite the wording had been changed to
"In 1991, T. Kasuya concluded that exploitation by overfishing virtually had no effect on the size of the mature male sperm whales, and that their size may have actually increased through density-dependent effects. "
I think the wording I initially proposed is more balanced by virtue of excluding the word "conclude", and I think the reference to Kasuya in the text is unnecessary.
The generated downforce due to the spermaceti is given as 392 newtons (860 lb). 392 N would be nearly 40 kg (it seems that this was the original value, which was then converted to N and rounded), which in turn are 88.2 lb (although the use of non-SI units doesn't look desirable to me here). It seems that the error was due to reading N as kg. However, looking into the reference given (M.R. Clarke in Nature), I the values quoted seem a bit on the low side, there he quotes a value around 90kg. Seattle Jörg (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sonar, and the head structure and composition.
Typical soft mammalian tissues don't lend themselves to high Q (multiple echo) resonators, because they have similar compressibility and density to each other and to sea water. The perpendicular reflection coefficient (used in high frequency approximations) depends on the ratio of the acoustic hardness or surface impedance of the two materials on either side of an interface. This is the ratio of the density to the compressibility, which affects the ratio of the pressure change to the range of motion of the sound waves.
Spermaceti has a low density, and its nearness to a phase transition that changes volume implies that it has relatively high compressibility. This increases the sound reflection at the boundaries, at lower frequency by contrast to sea water and at higher frequency by contrast to the dense hard case that Melville described. David R. Ingham (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Population decline
The numbers don't seem consistent. First, the population declined by a third in the 19th century and another third in the 20th, then there were several times as many taken in the 20th than in the 19th.David R. Ingham (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
On reading more of Moby Dick, perhaps that only represents the inefficiency of collecting the dying whales with only muscle and wind power. Perhaps the numbers killed were similar, but the fraction of those taken and butchered was greater in the 20th century.David R. Ingham (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that big of a difference between the two. While modern whalers retrieved the vast majority of sperm whales killed (90+ % in the early modern era, higher after WWII), during the open-boat era they still retrieved a majority of their catch/kill (e.g. I recall one voyage that caught 36 and only lost 1, while the average was usually 80-90%). SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This photo is not in the public domain. Though it was taken from the NOAA website, the photographer, Flip Nicklin, works for National Geographic since the 1970s.Kurzon (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sperm whale creak.ogg
I'd like to know the original source for the sperm whale creak audio file. Where did User:Kurzon get it?BaronBifford (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The "See Below Link doesnt work.
The link in the Etymology area with that name doesnt actually do anything. I don't know how to fix it. 74.132.252.16 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: Mother and baby sperm whale.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 23, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Spinach Dip 06:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The sperm whale is the largest toothed animal on Earth. The species was hunted extensively by humans throughout history, until protected by a worldwide moratorium on whaling starting in 1985–86.Photograph: Gabriel Barathieu
Original reference for the 67-ft male cited in the lead and size section?
The claim that a 67.9 ft (20.7 m) male was caught off the Kuril Islands by a Soviet fleet in the summer of 1950 has been repeated by Guinness World Record books since at least 1970. I'm guessing the original reference for it is the International Whaling Statistics or perhaps some Russian paper. Does anyone now the origins of it? I know of longer reported lengths, but none approaching that length that were measured by scientists -- the longest I know of was a 60-ft male brought to the Coal Harbour whaling station on the west coast of Vancouver Island in 1954 which was measured by biologist Gordon Pike or one of his assistants. SHFW70 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I changed the date from 1965 to 1950. The reference is a Japanese site I can't read and the only other hits on Google all appear to be wikipedia mirrors. The date 1950 has at least been published, whereas I got nothing for 1965 on GoogleBooks. I was under the impression there were few bulls even over 55-57 ft in length by the mid-1960s, let alone 60+ feet. A better reference needs to be found for the length and date though. SHFW70 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Look up Epithet in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
According to Wiktionary, the term epithet, as used in biology, does not apply to the Animal Kingdom. It is appropriate for all other kingdoms but for animals the term 'specific name' should be used instead of 'specific epithet'. I have edited the section accordingly.Probing Mind (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Size at birth
'At birth both sexes are about the same size,...' I think the exclusion some numbers here make this sentence shallow in content.
The use of the Spermaceti organ or head as a battering ram is not commonly accepted within Scientific circles as accurate. Most Sperm Whales when attacked are very passive and adopt the Margherite formation (or others) as described earlier in the article. While some Sperm Whale counter attacks may have happened, they are an exception rather than a rule. The Spermaceti organ is not designed or regularly used as a battering ram. This is a common misconception from the book Moby Dick. See Hal Whitehead's "Cultural Evolution in the Ocean" for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.205.31 (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Louder than a lion's roar? I don't think so
The claim that a sound in water is louder (or quieter) than one in air makes no sense. The sound pressure might be higher (or lower) and the sound intensity might be higher (or lower), and it is also possible to the sound pressure to be higher and the sound intensity to be lower, all at the same time. But louder?!? No. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Long-Line Trawler confrontation.
Does anyone know of the source for this incident. "An incident was filmed from a long-line trawler: an orca pod was systematically taking fish caught on the trawler's long lines (as the lines were being pulled into the ship) when a male sperm whale appeared to repeatedly charge the orca pod in an attempt to drive them away; it was speculated by the film crew that the sperm whale was attempting to access the same fish."
No unfortunately not. It seems the reference at the end of the paragraph was not to the account, but in reference to female Sperm Whale's "Marguerite formation" defensive tactic. The Wiki Rabbit 01:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Sperm whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Sperm whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
![[1]](http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sgifs/Spermwhdist.GIF){kind=link}
Not done:'Per above.'Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
