# Talk:Fin whale

The range shown in the illustration does not include Alaska, yet the picture of the whale says it's from Alaska.  Seems like an issue... 71.192.136.161 (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

This article was screaming out for a copyedit of all the capitalized common names.  This is a point that has been argued many different places (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) and Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin/Move discussion for a couple.)   I'm more familiar with the standards outlined at Wikiproject Fishes which uses all lowercase, but this article falls under WikiProject Cetaceans which has chosen to standardize on capitalized common names.  This is just a heads up in case someone else gets tempted to help with the "capitalization errors".  I'd support changing the standard at that project if there is consensus and I left a note on that project's talk page about it, but I've left everything as is for now. Neil916 (Talk) 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree.  Stupid convention.  In the scientific literature, the species names are not capitalized. Rracecarr (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"There are three suggested reasons for this. One is that the Atlantic Gulf Stream reduces the north-south temperature gradient making migration a less attractive option. Another is that food may be available in the cold north all year, again reducing the need for travel. Finally, it may be that since Fin Whales stay in colder, deeper waters during the Winter, they are further from the shore and their actual movements are more difficult to accurately track."
I have been unable to locate a source for the temperature gradient hypotheses, so I have temporarily removed it from the article.  The second part isn't so much of a statement of migration, so i've integrated it into the habitat section with references, and the third one has been referenced with respect to the Antarctic Fin Whale, but I haven't seen anything relative to the North Pacific and North Atlantic whales.  Neil916 (Talk) 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

although Iceland and Japan have announced intentions to resume hunting.

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

"However, highly reliable (coalescent) genetic-based estimates rises this number to at least 300,000 individuals in pre-whaling times [43]."
Ok, there is no possible way that the historic size of fin whales in the North Atlantic was this large. From 1910 to 2005 some 55,270* fin whales were caught in the North Atlantic, as well as several thousand between 1868 and 1909. Now, how would the population number about 40,000 today if only the above number of fin whales had been taken? Wouldn't there be a few hundred thousand fin whales left if that many were taken? 
Palumbi has been criticized for his work. For example, go to Cetacean Society International's website (http://csiwhalesalive.org/csi03402.html) and scroll down to "Whales before Whaling in the North Atlantic." Also, go to this pdf (http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/meetings/ulsan/CRREP57.pdf) and scroll down to p.17, section 4.5.1.1 and you'll see that even the IWC won't use Palumbi's estimates because of their uncertainty.
With that said, I'm going to remove Palumbi's figures.   

My two main sources are the International Whaling Statistics available on luna.pos and The History of Modern Whaling (1982).
Jonas Poole (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bowhead Whale which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The population section seems strange to me.  It has 3 main headings, but then uses different surveys with different areas to come up with estimates.  It also refers to areas that are no longer used by the IWC.  I removed a reference to "Goujon et al, 1995" as more recent texts state that the survey was primarily for small cetaceans, and it is unclear what area this survey covered, but I don't have a copy of this survey and I'm having difficulty tracking it down - can anybody dig this out and confirm the area for this survey?  No probs if anyone feels it is worth restoring.  Finally, is it worth rewriting the population section based on the defined IWC sub-areas and perhapd to include the latest TNASS survey for relevant areas (and does anyone have a copy)?  I can't locate it at the nammco.no website.  (Update: There's some numbers in the 2010 annual report. Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This article uses UK spelling, not US spelling.  Thank you to all the editors who have tried to help over the years by converting everything from UK to US spelling and vice versa, but per WP:ENGVAR, the article should stick to the earliest English variant used in the article's history to avoid wasting time and energy constantly changing the spelling of words.   My search of the earliest versions of this article turned up [1] this version as the first to contain words that are spelled differently (behaviour in the section headers).  This establishes UK spelling in this article.  Hopefully this will put the issue to rest and save a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of time.  Neil916 (Talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The current one shows that fin whales don't occur in the Bering Sea, the northern Sea of Okhotsk, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Davis Strait, all areas where they are known to occur. Greenlanders hunt them in the last area for pete's sake. Does anyone know how to change it? OhSoHeartless (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Took another glance. It doesn't even show them in the Southern Ocean! Was this map meant for another species? OhSoHeartless (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There appears to have been several revisions without discussion to that range map that contradict the species range as described in the article.  The image file File:Cetacea range map Fin Whale.PNG has an older version (January 8, 2009) that may be appropriate and accurate. Neil916 (Talk) 06:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest the more accurate map be used. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the fin whale, as commonly assumed, the second largest whale after the blue whale? I don’t remember if I had added the "second longest or sixth largest" tidbit, but it was unsourced so I removed it. The commonly cited maximum figure for the species that is 82 ft (25 m) individual is estimated to weigh 70 metric tons (source?). In Reeves et al (Guide to Marine Mammals of the World, 2002), an unsourced figure of 120,000 kg is given (which is simply an estimate). The largest given by Lockyer (Body weights of some species of large whales, 1977) is 69.5 metric tons for a 74.4 ft (22.7 m) pregnant female caught in the Antarctic in 1948 -- and that's minus an estimated 6% for loss of fluids. The largest figure given by Lockyer (1977) for the North pacific right (Eubalaena japonica) is 106.5 metric tons for a 57 ft (17.4 m) female. Meanwhile, bowheads (Balaena mysticetus) may reach 75-100 metric tons (Rugh and Shelden, Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus, in Enc. of Mar. Mam., 2008). Reeves et al. (2002) simply give uncited figures of c. 90,000 kg for both species, as well as the two other species of right (E. glacialis and E. australis). 
Using only reported weights for actual specimens, it is clear that North Pacific rights (and probably bowheads) weigh considerably more than fin whales. The question is whether to use the uncited figures provided by Reeves et al. (2002), which suggest the fin weighs substantially more than any of the other four species in consideration, yet provides no evidence. 
Would anyone else like to chime in? Perhaps provide reported figures for the other three species (E. glacialis, E. australis, and B. mysticetus)? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

By weight, I am pretty sure you are correct, and there should be several reliable sources supporting the bowhead as 2nd heaviest.  But there are numerous reliable sources supporting the fin whale being 2nd longest. Most sources seem to use length as the basis for the fin whale being 2nd largest. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Shall we just put that it is the longest second then, seeing as how reported weights seem to favor the bowheads in this case? Not sure about the three species of right whale. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The fin whale IS the second largest whale. According to Lockyer's formula, the average weight of an 85 foot fin whale would be 100.4 tonnes, or 110.7 tons. This is the average weight throughout all seasons. In his other paper, "growth and energy budgets of large baleen whales from the southern hemisphere," he calculates that blue and fin whales gain half of their body weight during the feeding months. (a blue whale entering the antarctic weighing 100 tons would leave weighing 150 tons) The average weight would be 5/6 of the "fattened" weight. Therefore an 85 foot fin whale would weigh 132.8 tons at the end of the feeding season, larger than any right or bowhead whale.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Iceland has recently upped the quota of fin whales which are bought by Japan. I think the catch figures of 125, 148 are correct. I'm not sure how to handle the imported meat tonnage. A news site said the figure for 2011 was 500-600 tons. Another gave the figure "133 tonnes" (Environmental Investigatin Agency (September 8, 2011). "Iceland exports fin whale meat as sanction threat looms". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)) but I think I caught a glimse somewhere that due to the disaster, there was some hold-up at customs.
So I went to the Icelandic stats site, and retrieved the numbers using the database engine, but my problem is it returned "635 kilograms" "486,189 ISK" for Month 09, 2011 (0 for all other months) which I assumed had to be converted to 1,000x, except I couldn't find any notice of it. Also I used a recent conversion rate into USD, but if someone will convert it to the rate at the time, I'm not sure what source to cite on the conversion rates. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC) (reedited after 06:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

Several sections, such as the one on size cite incident after incident that adds bulk but not new information. Suggest covering the range of possibilities, but the repetition is not helpful. Lfstevens (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. It gives the longest reported and longest reliably measured in each ocean basin, which is the bare minimum that should be there. No point in giving a worthless range when maximums and averages differ in each hemisphere. SHFW70 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for there to be a wikilink to a section of a page that only lists species occurring in the St. Lawrence River estuary. You might as well add a link to every range state where fin whales have been recorded. The St. Lawrence River estuary does not deserve a special place here. Please do not revert my edit. Thank you. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It has things like 24.4 meters being converted to 80.1 feet and 20.7 meters to 67.9 feet, while I'm pretty sure they were originally covered from/meant to be converted to 80 and 68 feet, respectively. In meters to feet conversions the feet should be rounded to the nearest 0.5 feet or maybe the nearest 0.25 feet; anything more precise than that is just adding in insignificant digits. I think this problem may also be present in the Blue Whale page but I'll have to check.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have fixed this myself but I don't know how to work with Wikipedia's weird length conversion thing.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I fixed it, but now the conversion thing for the problematic figures is gone. If someone wants to put it back without having the insignificant digits back that's fine. I'm not sure why we even use it though.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And that's all that's in the "Nervous System" section? Surely we can do better than this!
MrAwesome888 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This claim definitely needs a citation or it should be removed. Finding reliable data on whale size is tough, and it's definitely not a good idea to have an unsourced estimate here on Wikipedia, especially when it's that big. 
Also (I saw this discussed above but it's kind of a stale thread at this point) where does the claim of fin whales being the second largest animals originate? First of all, "largest" is ambiguous as to whether it means mass or length; second of all, I don't believe it's true either way, and reliable sources seem to support that. By mass, sources usually list higher numbers for most balaenid species (especially bowheads and northern Pacific right whales) than for fin whales. By length, a handful of invertebrates are documented to be 30m or more, which definitely tops the fin whale. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Fin Whale's not to says "giant minke whale", but Fin Whale is not to related a Minke Whale.

There is considerable uncited text and clean-up needed on this article, along with Sei whale for the current FA criteria. 2001:4455:364:A800:545D:5A2E:3020:5FAC (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)