# Talk:False killer whale

There are at least 2 False Killer Whales at Seaworld in Florida which are also referred to as "Psuedorca" (Correct as of May 2006)
Paul Walsh, 
Stockton, 
England

From this article: "As killer its name implies, the False Killer Whale shares characteristics with the more widely known orca ("killer whale"). The two species look somewhat similar and, like the orca, the False Killer Whale attacks and kills other cetaceans."
From Orca: "The Orca is the only cetacean species to regularly prey on other cetaceans."
Obviously, at least one of these statements is misleading, if not totally incorrect.  I've never even heard of the False Killer Whale before today, so I'm in no position to identify which article needs some clarification.
Also, as a side point, is there any other common name for this dolphin?  With "orca" increasingly being preferred over "killer whale," it seems surprising that "false killer whale" would continue to be accepted as a meaningful name.
Dayv 02:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Orcas are huge business and so have undergone a bit of political rebranding. False Killer Whales are pretty rare and not really known to the public at large and haven't.
The word "regularly" is probably the get-out here that might make both statements true. I'll have a look at my texts when I get home to be sure. It could be the that the (heavily and haphazardly edited) Orca article is just plain wrong. Thanks for the feedback! Pcb21| Pete 08:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
False Killer Whales prey on other cetaceans, but are kept in captivity with other dolphins, and even perform and mate with them? I understand that predation in captivity is unlikely since they are fed, but it seems like their co-captives would recognize them as a predator species and be somewhat less than comfortable around them.--70.156.126.4 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the species is desperately in need of a new vernacular name, such as "Owen's dolphin" or "gray/grey dolphin" (I would have said "black dolphin", but that's already another name for the Chilean dolphin). I wonder how one goes about popularizing a new vernacular name. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Question — "100 False Killers were beached at Geographe Bay, Western Australia on 2 June 2005. The pod of 160 were moved back out to sea with only one death after the intervention of 1,500 volunteers coordinated by the Department of Conservation and Land Management." 
— Which is it? 100, or 160? No source is listed... ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 22:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
--chris_huh 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What i found is a number of different estimates varying from 80 to 140 that were actually stranded, the entire pod included members that were not stranded and may have been closer to 180.

The use of the word "fortunately" to describe the whales which were saved prior to euthanasia does not seem entirely neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.137.223 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 

If only there were some way that we could edit it... Rogerborg (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So we know that recently Seaworld's last False Killer Whale passed away recently.  In the section that currently says "Several public aquaria display false killer whales. For example, Sea World Orlando displayed false killer whales until their last one died in 2012.[7]"  How about instead of includind a location that no longer has False Killer Whales we include some place like the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium in Japan as it still has False Killer Whales?
"Several public aquaria display false killer whales. For example, Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium's Okichan Theater in Japan."  --192.195.66.3 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good as long as there is a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There reads: third largest member of the oceanic dolphin family (Delphinidae).
The killer whale is probably the largest, but what is the second largest? 85.217.23.194 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This sentence contradicts itself: "The false killer whale has not been hunted extensively, for example in the West Indies and Indonesia. In Japan, a large number are killed every year during the annual slaughter in Taiji."  And as there is no citation it is hard to know which it is.  In addition I looked at the Annual slaughter in Taiji and did not see anything on false killer whales.  I will remove this sentence later if there are no objections. VVikingTalkEdits 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Lakshwadweep islands" be "Lakshadweep islands"? Dawright12 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a difference of a single letter. What do you think? SHFW70 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the back the endangered status in the infobox from EN→DD, since that's what's given in the IUCN website (Pseudorca page). I would guess that Mm.BAC (talk · contribs) was misled by the fact that the Hawaii population of false killer whales was listed as endangered by the US Federal government in 2012. I will also update the corresponding Japanese page which lists it as "Least Concern", which is old data on the IUCN website.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you.  The status for the article on the species should reflect the status of the species, not of individual populations. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:False killer whale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Enwebb (talk · contribs) 20:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to look this one over! It looks well done—I'm mostly bringing up minor grammar issues. Enwebb (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This article meets the good article criteria. Well done! Enwebb (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


### Copyediting
"It is a deep-diving dolphin, maximum depth recorded as 927.5 m (3,043 ft), and it has a maximum speed of around 29 km/h (18 mph)." should probably be "It is a deep-diving dolphin with a maximum depth recorded as 927.5 m (3,043 ft), and it has a maximum speed of around 29 km/h (18 mph).
"The false killer whale has a tendency to mass strand, given its high social nature" should be highly social because you're describing an adjective.
"Zoologist John Edward Gray, in 1846, assigned the false killer whale..." I think it makes more sense to start with the introductory clause "In 1846, ..."
"Based on these and a pod that beached itself three months later in November, the species was moved in 1862 by zoologist Johannes Theodor Reinhardt to the newly erected genus Pseudorca, established as being neither a porpoise nor a killer whale." this could be ordered better so that the year and person don't break up the action of the sentence and you use active voice. I suggest "...later in November, zoologist Johannes Theodor Reinhardt moved the species to the newly erected genus Pseudorca in 1762, establishing it as neither a porpoise nor a killer whale."
No, he didn't move it in November, the pod washed up in November, that's why the sentence's separated that way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The November part is irrelevant, I was just using that to lead into the clause in question. You're using passive voice saying the species was moved. Active voice would be x moved the species. So instead of "Based on these and a pod that beached itself three months later in November, the species was moved in 1862 by zoologist Johannes Theodor Reinhardt to the newly erected genus Pseudorca, established as being neither a porpoise nor a killer whale" I think it should be "Based on these and a pod that beached itself three months later in November, zoologist Johannes Theodor Reinhardt moved the species to the newly erected genus Pseudorca in 1862, which established it as neither a porpoise nor a killer whale." Does that make sense?
Darn I like the passive voice, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Some phrasing could be tightened up to remove extra words
"A pod was observed near Chile to have a 15 km/h (9.3 mph) cruising speed" --> "A pod near Chile had a 15 km/h (9.3 mph) cruising speed"
"In Japan, one individual was documented to have dove 600 m (2,000 ft)..." --> "In Japan, one individual had a documented dive of 600 m (2,000 ft)..."
"It is thought their maximum dive time is 18.5 minutes" --> "Its maximum dive time is likely 18.5 minutes"
"The false killer whale is known to be host to several parasites" --> "The false killer whale is a known host to several parasites"
Make sure you consistently refer to the species as singular or plural (you switch to some plural usage in the Population and distribution and human interaction sections)
"In the Eastern Pacific, the false killer whale has been known to target smaller dolphins during tuna purse-seine fishing operations, and there are cases of attacks on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and one instance against a calf of a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)." this could be two sentences.
"Individuals were, until 1980, mainly captured off California and Hawaii, and then the switch was made to Japan and Taiwan." this sentence is unclear to me. Do you mean that individuals were transported to Japan and Taiwan after they were captured? Or Japan and Taiwan became more popular places to catch individuals for captivity?
"However, they also take fish off of hooks, which sometimes leads to entanglement–which itself can cause drowning, can cut off circulation to an appendage, or impede the animal's ability to hunt–or they may swallow the hook–which can puncture the digestive tract or can become a blockage." This is a very long & complex sentence. It could be two or even three sentences.
"...and the remoteness of the area resulted were detrimental to rescue efforts, causing the deaths of 81 whales" --> "...and the remoteness of the area was detrimental to rescue efforts, causing the deaths of 81 whales."
I think it's technically incorrect to start a sentence with "Though," as it's a coordinating conjunction. In the 3 instances where you use it that way, you can either remove it or replace it with "however."
Okay all done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


### Content
I think the sentence about Paules Edward Pieris Deraniyagala suggesting a subspecies could be rephrased. It currently almost sounds like WP:OR (I looked at the source and know that it isn't, though). Instead of "though there was not sufficient justification," you could say "though later publications determined this was proposed with insufficient justification."
I don't see the difference, it just makes the sentence longer   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Also, different populations around the world have different vocalizations, similar to other dolphins" I'm unsure if Taxonomy is the best place for this information. Perhaps it could move to description?
Moved to Behavior   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The description section seems pretty lean, especially considering you are covering physical description and life cycle/reproduction. Ideas for expanding this section include more morphology (cranial and dental characters could work) or internal systems. You could also describe their senses or brain characteristics. To expand the reproduction paragraph, you could detail more about pregnancy/parturition, how long calves nurse, how long they stay with their mothers, post-natal dispersal...
The morphology thing would just be a really big repeat of the Biology section at toothed whale, it's just a bit too broad, but I added a sentence about teeth and another on echolocation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Also it seems that the reproductive information is split between the description and behavior section. Perhaps you should have a reproduction section where you can detail information on sexual behaviors, reproduction, and life history
"Diving behavior is not well recorded, but one tagged individual near Japan dove for 12 minutes to a depth of 230 m (750 ft)" clarify what you mean by tagged. I'm assuming a satellite tag?
It's unnecessary, I deleted the "tagged"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Members stay with the pod long-term..." long-term is vague. Can you provide an example of how long individuals stay with a given pod?
yep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In the conservation section you could explain why the species is listed as data deficient by the IUCN
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Killer whales are known to prey on the false killer whale, and probably also large sharks, though there are no documented instances" sounds like you're saying killer whales eat both false killer whales and large sharks. You can rephrase this to make your meaning clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It's unclear what you mean when you say they are unpopular aquarium specimens due to "aggression." Are there documented attacks on humans? That would help illustrate your point clearer (though in looking for such information I did find a 1966 publication where they write about how non-aggressive they are [1])
I find this source very interesting, and the source I got that from stopped at "false killer whale aggression towards humans and other marine mammals in captivity," so I think I'll just remove it. Also I can't believe the other sources didn't mention its homosexual relations, this seems very important   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you should expand the idea that they help other species in childbirth. It's intriguing and not immediately apparent to the reader how that would work.
I've added all that I can now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"The false killer whale is more susceptible to organochloride buildup than other dolphins, being higher up on the food chain, and some stranded individuals around the world showed higher levels than other dolphins." Again, I find this vague. You start off by saying that it is more susceptible to OC buildup. However, your supporting information is only that some individuals showed higher levels than other dolphins. Necessarily, that means that some have lower levels than other dolphins. I don't know what is in the literature, but you could try giving a more specific fact such as "The false killer whale is more susceptible to organochloride buildup than other dolphins, being higher up on the food chain; stranded individuals have a organochlorine concentration of X μg/kg, which is XX% higher than x species." A statistic would do a much better job of supporting the notion that they have higher OC levels.
I deleted "some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I still think it would be improved by adding more detailed information. This paper [2] (which you haven't cited yet) talks about heavy metal and OC buildup in marine mammals in Australia and P. crassidens had very high mercury concentrations relative to the other species. This article here [3], particularly pages 1934-1935, have a good overview of persistent organic pollutant levels in live false killer whales. By removing "some" you went from a vague-ish statement to an absolute one. Now it sounds as if all stranded individuals have higher OC levels than all other dolphin species.
Basically what's going on here is that the higher an animal is on the food chain, the higher its susceptibility to organochloride buildup, and false killer whales are higher up on the food chain than most other dolphins. That's all. What I could do here is say, "stranded individuals around the world have been known to show higher levels," and add an explainer like, "Animals higher up on the food chain are more susceptible to organochloride buildup"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


### Copyvio check
content passes copyvio check; only hit is a mirror site
Images are used in accordance with the proper licenses
Drive-by comment - I think this image[4] of the head shows some anatomy better than the many similar images now used where only half the animal is shown. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The habitat map in the article (File:Cetacea range map False Killer Whale.svg) is quite different from the one from IUCN. Is there any particular reason for that? Leyo 19:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they were very different. The article's map extends the range to the Black Sea and to the Baltic; the IUCN's doesn't, but its accompanying text says the species has been sighted in the Baltic (calling these sightings "extralimital", whatever that means) and lists it as "Native" to the Mediterranean and Black Seas. I note in passing that per Lyall Watson Whales of the World (Hutchinson 1981, p215), the first non-fossil observation of the species was in 1860(-ish) when 100 beached themselves in the Bay of Kiel in the Baltic. Oh, I now see the article also alludes to this.
The main difference is that the article's map doesn't join up the East and West coast ranges in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans through their mid-ocean areas, as the IUCN's does. This might reflect different assumptions, such as actual sightings versus assumed travel routes between known areas through areas where fewer observers have been present. Another factor might be recent range changes due to warming oceans – the dates and source data for both maps are not obvious.
Further reliable sources might be required to resolve this. You might enquire at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It is very likely that attempts have been made to rename the species from the clunky and confusing and unfortunate term "false killer whales." In the ideal article that hopefully will exist someday, reports on those attempts would be included.Rich (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't find anything on renaming attempts. If you have any sources on this it can of course be added, but right now it doesn't seem like any renaming attempts exist: hence they wouldn't be included evne in an 'ideal' article. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)