Jump to content

Talk:Beaked whale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservation status

[edit]

The article states that beaked whales may have gotten decompression sickness (the bends) after being exposed to sonar pulses. The reference, however, only states that this is one man's theory. Also, when I was getting my diver's certification, my instructor made the comment that whales and sea mammals cannot get decompression sickness, since they breathe only unpressurized air at the surface. Can anyone with more knowledge in this area help? Mech Aaron (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see below for more comments about DCS (short answer: I think most agree it is possible for cetaceans to get bent, unclear how important a role this is in the impact of sonar).
I think in general this conservation section needs to be cleaned up. it only touches on MFAS in detail and is meandering even there.
--Xarzin (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Phylogenetics info by Oxford Univercity

[edit]

somebody please check this site [[1]] and use it for the article if it is okey with the copyrights. Thanks.--92.118.191.48 (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "shaping the evolution" mean?

[edit]

Surely any secondary sexual characteristic in any animal - such as the elephant seal, or the narwhal - must have "shaped" the animal's evolution: the characteristic evolved. The animal acquired the characteristic, so its evolution was affected. This goes without saying, so it can't be what is meant by "shaped", but I, the casual reader, have no idea what else "shaped" might mean in this context. Perhaps the meaning is right there in the text, but it isn't clear. 213.122.43.218 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that question. --LiamE (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this perhaps refers to the dentition section? which looks like it has changed a bit, but still needs substantial cleaning up I think. It relies almost entirely on one source ([1]) and I think misstates some of the conclusions. For example, the authors didn't discover that the teeth were a secondary sexual characteristic in ziphiidae...
--Xarzin (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dalebout, Merel L.; Steel, Debbie; Baker, C. Scott (2008). "Phylogeny of the Beaked Whale Genus Mesoplodon (Ziphiidae:Cetacea) Revealed by Nuclear Introns: Implications for the Evolution of Male Tusks". Systematic Biology. 57 (6): 857–875. doi:10.1080/10635150802559257. PMID 19085329.

Most extreme divers

[edit]

The claim of being the world's most extreme diver seems to conflict with information on the sperm whale page. The sperm whale seems to have similar (or even greater) diving capabilities. I'm not a whale expert, and the reference for the sperm whale statistics is an encyclopedia to which I do not have easy access. Would someone be willing to check which animal actually is the better diver and to possibly mention how the beaked whale compares to the sperm whale in the article. PSimeon (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this has been corrected on both pages (and new records have come out since this comment posted.)
--Xarzin (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A whale can´t get decompression sickness

[edit]

Some person wrote that the Beaked whale could get decompression sickness (DCS) when they dive so deep. Because a whale only inhale air at the surface no nitrogen builds up in their body. Compare scuba diving with freediving. Scuba divers can get DCS because they breath under water. A freediver can´t get DCS because like a whale they only breathe at the surface.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimlund (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you can get decompression sickness from freediving.
there has been debate about decompression sickness in cetaceans and in response to sonar see: [1][2]. more recently this paper might be of interest on DCS in a Risso's-- the paper also cites evidence from other species.[3]
I think the conservation section needs some cleaning up in general, see above.
--Xarzin (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Piantadosi, Claude A.; Thalmann, Edward D. (April 2004). "Whales, sonar and decompression sickness" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6984): 1–2. doi:10.1038/nature02527a. ISSN 1476-4687.
  2. ^ Zimmer, Walter M. X.; Tyack, Peter L. (October 2007). "Repetitive shallow dives pose decompression risk in deep-diving beaked whales". Marine Mammal Science. 23 (4): 888–925. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00152.x.
  3. ^ Fernández, A.; Sierra, E.; Díaz-Delgado, J.; Sacchini, S.; Sánchez-Paz, Y.; Suárez-Santana, C.; Arregui, M.; Arbelo, M.; Bernaldo de Quirós, Y. (19 October 2017). "Deadly acute Decompression Sickness in Risso's dolphins" (PDF). Scientific Reports. 7 (1). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14038-z.

Film section

[edit]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this section of the article is, or even exactly what it's saying. There's no citation provided, and it doesn't seem, from the information that is there, that this is in any way notable, or of more than passing relevance. It was restored after I deleted it, so I won't edit war over it, but why is it here? Is there evidence of notability? Is it actually meant to be a reference for something (and if so, what?), or an External Link (and if so, to where)? Anaxial (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article
Tracking their silent voices (original title: Auf der leisen Spur der Schnabelwale) is a documentary about an Atlantic scientific expedition. A team of marine biologists tried to find beaked whales and to analyze their behavior using acoustic methods only.<ref> Documentary, 2010, 44 Min., Germany. Production: Bayerischer Rundfunk, Germany</ref>{{Vague}}{{Citation needed}}

And I removed it again. There are actually sightings and some nice images after 38 minutes, but as Anaxial pointed out above, this section adds virtually nothing to the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation: Plastic bags?

[edit]

The cited article mentions plastic debris -- not "bags" -- as one of the potential causes of anthropogenic mortality. It doesn't mention the digestive process or bad within the article itself. It actually quotes a different article that mentions the plastic debris in the stomach of one beaked whale. The claim needs to be better verified if it is going to be included here. [1] Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=258

Hyperoodontidae vs. Ziphiidae

[edit]

Doesn't Hyperoodontidae Gray 1846 have precedence over Ziphiidae Gray 1850? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.5 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

technically yes, but since ziphiidae was used for so long it stuck.[1][2][3] Although something is weird because Mead has Ziphiidae for Gray (1865) [4] and Gray 1846 for the Hyperoodontidae, but the article currently has 1850 for both which I believe to be an error, though one that has propagated widely apparently from a cursory internet search. Berta (2017) also has Gray 1865 for Ziphiiidae.[5] Elsewhere in the same document Mead (1993) has Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., [ser. 1], 17:83. as the citation for Gray 1846, but not within the Ziphiidae entry itself. I'm having trouble tracking down that particular reference though. For Ziphiidae, Gray 1865, I am certain, given 2 trustworthy 2ndary sources and the text in the primary source: "The study of this skull and of the Ziphius... has induced me to reconsider the arrangement of the genera of Ziphioid Whales, which I have formed into a family, Ziphiidae, which may be thus characterized...". For Hyperoodontidae, Gray 1846, I'm relying on a trustworthy secondary source (Mead, 1993).
what do
i'm making the edits Ziphiidae, Gray 1865 and Hyperoodontidae, Gray 1846, but please correct if anyone gets their hands on Gray 1846.
--Xarzin (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the citation for Gray 1846 is almost certainty a chapter in the Zoology of the Voyage of the H.M.S. Erebus and Terror.[6], but it doesn't mention Hyperoodontindae, only the subfamily Hyperoodontina which he puts under Delphinidae. It isn't until 1866 in The Catalogue of seals and whales in the British Museum[7] that he even mentions Hyperoodontidae, which he says should've been what he called the family (presumably in 1865-- the real date for the first appearance of Ziphiidae as the family name) because Hyperoodon the genus is older than Ziphius the genus but he didn't like it because Fabricius (or the publisher) messed up the lower jaw and the upper jaw naming it hyper instead of hypo presumably (what Moore (1968)[8] thinks). The point is Hyperoodontidae is from 1866 almost certainty and doesn't have precedence. It isn't even clear to me that it was technically a synonym at this point, because Gray say he decided against it, but it is used later for instance by Moore (1968) so I guess it is OK to call it a synonym and say the real first citation of it which folks seem to have forgotten somewhere (not Moore though...). the ITIS is just wrong on this matter I believe, although they do clear up the 1850 versus 1865 problem which is just a bunch of mis-citations[9]. change incoming and then I promise I'll edit something that actually matters and makes the article more useful.
--Xarzin (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mead, James G.; Brownell, Robert L., Jr. (1993). "Order Cetacea". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (PDF).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Costa, Ana P.; Archer, Frederick I.; Baker, Scott; Boness, Daryl J.; Brownell, Robert L., Jr.; Churchill, Morgan; Domning, Daryl P.; Jefferson, Thomas A.; Kinze, Carl; McGowen, Michael; Oliveira, Larissa R.; Rosel, Patricia E.; Wang, John Y.; Yamada, Tadasu K. (13 November 2016). "List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies". Society for Marine Mammalogy. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "Ziphiidae Gray, 1865 Taxonomic Serial No.: 770793". Integrated Taxonomic Information System.
  4. ^ Gray, John Edward (1865). "Notices of a New Genus of Delphinoid Whales from the Cape of Good Hope, and of other Cetaceans from the same Seas". Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London: 522–529.
  5. ^ Berta, Annalisa (2017). The rise of marine mammals: 50 million years of evolution. JHU Press.
  6. ^ Gray, John Edward (1844–1875). "On the Cetaceaous Animals". In John Richardson, John Edward Gray (ed.). The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Erebus & Terror, under the command of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, During the years 1839 to 1843. By authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. Vol. 1. London: E. W. Janson.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  7. ^ Gray, John Edward (1866). Catalogue of seals and whales in the British Museum. London, Printed by order of the Trustees, 1866.
  8. ^ Moore, Joseph Curtis (1968). "Relationships among the living genera of beaked whales with classifications, diagnoses and keys". Fieldiana: Zoology. Vol. 53. Field Museum Press.
  9. ^ "ITIS - Report: Ziphiidae, Gray 1850". Retrieved 2024-12-24.

Regarding polygyny

[edit]

The sentence "polygynous mating system – which would considerably limit the number of males a female individual can choose." doesn't really make sense to me. My understanding of the term, as well as the current definition here on Wikipedia, suggests that polygyny means a female only mates with one male while the male mates with many females. If this is not the case, I believe polygynandry is the desired term, not polygyny.

WellRehearsedWhale (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct on the terms, but to you specific point, I don't think the answer is well known or even known to be consistent among species. I think the author probably intended polygyny, based on observations of m. densirostris.[1][2] I think this line in the article is weird anyway though because it is under physical characteristics, it should be probably be addressed under life history or a new matting strategy section? This book chapter is prob a decent place to start:[3] in addition the Baird chapter above. Also under life history and group size/characteristics the article currently notes that only three species have been studied in detail, must add Z. cavirostris to that list.
--Xarzin (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Xarzin (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Claridge, Diane E (2006). Fine-scale distribution and habitat selection of beaked whales (PDF) (MSc thesis). University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
  2. ^ Baird, Robin W. (2019). "Behavior and Ecology of Not-So-Social Odontocetes: Cuvier's and Blainville's Beaked Whales". Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Odontocetes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 305–329. ISBN 978-3-030-16663-2.
  3. ^ Alves, Filipe; Mesnick, Sarah L.; Rosso, Massimiliano; Pitman, Robert L. (2023). "Chapter 17 Beaked Whale Sexual Dimorphism, Mating Strategies, and Diversification". In Würsig, Bernd; Orbach, Dara N. (eds.). Sex in Cetaceans: Morphology, Behavior, and the Evolution of Sexual Strategies. Springer International Publishing. pp. 385–413. ISBN 978-3-031-35651-3.

Caviziphius

[edit]

This genus is listed both as incertae sedis and among the Ziphiinae. That can't be right. Chrismorey (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bianucci and coauthors (2013) call it a possible ziphiinae.[1] the similarities are noted in Bianucci and Post (2005).[2] but Bianucci and coauthors (2024) don't list it in their latest phylogeny.[3] I think I'd recommend removing it from Ziphiinae for this reason. See below for some other suggestions to the taxonomy section.
--Xarzin (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bianucci, Giovanni; Miján, Ismael; Lambert, Olivier; Post, Klaas; Mateus, Octávio (March 2013). "Bizarre fossil beaked whales (Odontoceti, Ziphiidae) fished from the Atlantic Ocean floor off the Iberian Peninsula". Geodiversitas. 35 (1): 105–153. doi:10.5252/g2013n1a6.
  2. ^ Bianucci, Giovanni; Post, Klaas (2005). "Caviziphius altirostris, a new beaked whale from the Miocene southern North Sea basin" (PDF). Deinsea. 11.
  3. ^ Bianucci, Giovanni; Benites-Palomino, Aldo Marcelo; Collareta, Alberto; Bosio, Giulia; De Muizon, Christian; Merella, Marco; Di Celma, Claudio; Malinverno, Elisa; Urbina, Mario; Lambert, Olivier (2024). "A new Late Miocene beaked whale (Cetacea, Odontoceti) from the Pisco Formation, and a revised age for the fossil Ziphiidae of Peru". Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana. 63 (1): 1–20. doi:10.4435/BSPI.2024.10.

captivity

[edit]

I made a correction to the captivity section with an incorrect species, but in general this section is kind of funny, because it just lists some random examples of captivity. while nicholas and alex are probably the most notable examples it is missing missing some of other extremely notable examples, I think-- M. mirus in nyc; Z. cavirostris rehabilitated and released in fl in 1992.

The only general statement about captivity isn't well supported. There is a note for a citation request there, just something about beaked whales doing poorly in captivity in general. (this i think could be argued for all cetaceans, but obviously some do live longer than others in captive situations.) I think generally it would be the guess that they don't do well given their pelagic deep diving habitat, and someone may have written it down somewhere that could be cited, but given the paucity of real examples and the uncertainty about health (or certainty that it is poor) when they enter captivity, it would be difficult to find strong evidence. I may edit this part.

what do?

ok so what suggestions in general? does it make sense to compile an exhaustive list of beaked whales in captivity? does this become a separate list article? The ceta-base blog has already done this, but appears defunct now.[1] Ok alternative: include a general statement about only a few and they didn't stay long and find a citation that hypothesizes that they'll probably not do well in captivity if it exists and then list some of the most notable examples, i'd suggest nicholas and alexander, the rehabilitated ziphius, and the mirus someone put in their swimming pool.

--Xarzin (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Beaked Whales in Captivity". Ceta-Base Blog & Captive Cetacean News. Archived from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 23 September 2016.

taxonomy

[edit]

McGowen and coauthors (2020)[1] claim to have well resolved nodes for all Ziphiidae in their data set and find "Berardius as the most basal genus in the family, followed by Tasmacetus, Ziphius, Hyperoodon, and Mesoplodon". They find good support for Hyperoodon and Mesoplodon monophyly.

Bianucci and coauthors (2024)[2] used a morphological character matrix and found Tasmacetus in an unnamed clade with Berardius and Nazcacetus.

While not in perfect agreement, I think these results are similar enough to improve the taxonomy section.

suggestions for section

  • remove Caviziphius from the Ziphiinae (it is still under insertae sedis so just leave it there for now?)
  • move Tasmacetus and Nazcacetus out of Ziphiinae into an unnamed clade.
  • reorder to reflect earlier divergence of Tasmacetus, Nazcacetus, and Berardius followed by Ziphiinae and Hyperoodontiinae

--Xarzin (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) Xarzin (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this more and probably Tasmacetus gets nested with Berardius in the new Bianucci paper because it has a full set of teeth which is a basal characteristic, while the McGowen paper which is relying on genetics places it between Ziphius (2 teeth) and Berardius (4 teeth) which is somewhat surprising but not impossible. Therefore, I think the best interpretation of those two different lines of evidence is that Tasmacetus is probably between Berardius and Ziphius in terms of divergence. For the fossil Nazcacetus, I think probably the best available evidence is that it belongs in an unnamed clade with Berardius.
So I think the above modifications are good, but it should be an unnamed clade with berardius, Nazcacetus, Chavinziphius. another unnamed clade with Tasmacetus and then Ziphiinae and then Hyperoodontiinae.
is this too much interpreting? I think it is reasonable to take the McGowen paper is the authority on the extant species, but the trick comes from adding in extinct species. If no one objects I'll make the edits and you can change them back if you like or a new study comes out with updated information.
--Xarzin (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McGowen, Michael R; Tsagkogeorga, Georgia; Álvarez-Carretero, Sandra; dos Reis, Mario; Struebig, Monika; Deaville, Robert; Jepson, Paul D; Jarman, Simon; Polanowski, Andrea; Morin, Phillip A; Rossiter, Stephen J (1 May 2020). "Phylogenomic Resolution of the Cetacean Tree of Life Using Target Sequence Capture". Systematic Biology. 69 (3): 479–501. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syz068.
  2. ^ Bianucci, Giovanni; Benites-Palomino, Aldo Marcelo; Collareta, Alberto; Bosio, Giulia; De Muizon, Christian; Merella, Marco; Di Celma, Claudio; Malinverno, Elisa; Urbina, Mario; Lambert, Olivier (2024). "A new Late Miocene beaked whale (Cetacea, Odontoceti) from the Pisco Formation, and a revised age for the fossil Ziphiidae of Peru". Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana. 63 (1): 1–20. doi:10.4435/BSPI.2024.10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beaked_whale&oldid=1265059683"