# Talk:River dolphin

Hope I didn't muck up Rice's classification when reformatting the list. I might have because I don't understanding the foll:
"In the most recent classification (Rice, 1998) there are four families that make up the river dolphins. The Platanistidae is listed as the only extant family of the Platanistoidea superfamily. The previously accepted classification treated all four families as belonging to this superfamily"
Does this really mean Rice has a superfamily containing only one family? Can you have such a thing? Can anyone clarify? And please fix the list if I mucked up. Nurg 08:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only one extant family, so presumably there are extinct families in this superfamily. In any case, if there one superfamily, containing a group of families, then any one other family must be another superfamily by definition. jimfbleak 10:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i've read it four times now, and it still doesn't make sense. there just can't be only one existing family Platanastidae in the superfamily Platanastoidea. if each river dolphin belongs to its own monotypic family (allowing for the exception of the ganges and indus, of course) as both charts show, then we're missing at least one more superfamily. but i don't think that's right. from what i can recall, all four were of late classified in one family in one superfamily -- this is what changed with rice in 1998. this isn't shown on the charts. am i confused, or is it really confusing?  - Metanoid (talk, email) 11:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, so i haven't found anything yet in reeves about previous classifications outside this: "The river dolphins are a disparate group of four species that have been classified in a number of different ways. Scientists have sometimes assigned them to one family, but the current convention is to view them as belonging to four separate families, each containing a single genus. The river dolphins share a few primitive cranial features, and all possess long narrow jaws, but they are otherwise quite distinct from each other. Only three of the four species actually live in rivers." (reeves guide to marine mammals of the world, 2002, p.299.  - Metanoid (talk, email) 11:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Paleobiology Database, Superfamily Platanastoidea (in Infraorder Platanistida) includes Allodelphinidae, Dalpiazinidae, Platanistidae, Prosqualodontidae, Sachalinocetus, Squalodelphinidae, Squalodontidae, & Waipatiidae.  Of these Platanistidae is the only extant family. It lists Superfamily Inioidea (Iniidae & Pontoporiidae) and Superfamily Lipotoidea (Lipotidae)  This would explain the text in the article well.--Kevmin (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It is perhaps not the best place to ask, but can anyone clarify for me term superfamily in context of Platanistoidea and river dolphins? Is Platanistoidea a monophyletic taxon? If yes, how could it occur that related species survived in so isolated and so wide distributed river habitats? If not, why all river dolphins have some features in common, particularly elongated snout? Convergent evolution? What does modern biology say about it?
Besides, taxonomy in River dolphin article shows that family Delphinidae, or ocean dolphins, is included into superfamily Platanistoidea, while taxonomy in Cetacea article treats superfamily Platanistoidea as being isometric to any other family (including Delphinidae). Which interpretation is correct? Clarifying this will help me to understand notions of sub-, super- and infra-taxons, because when I studied in school, there were no superfamilies or infraorders, and that was my last experience of formal biological education :). Verdi1 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not listed in here? Is there a reason?
http://www.mekongdolphin.org/irrawaddy_dolphin.htm

The Irrawaddy Dolphin is not a River dolphin, but is classed with the oceanic dolphins. See the article for the distinction. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 10:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several reasons. Scientifically it is not a true river dolphin, it does not belong to the same group as the other river dolphins. It is a true oceanic dolphin.  Even though it can occur in fresh water, it mainly occurs in estuarine habitats and near coast habitats in southeast Asia and Australia. Killidude (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading a few years back about there being a species of Mississippi River dolphins, hunted to extinction in the 19th Century.  I was not able to find a single corroborating source on the net.  If anyone has information about this, either to corroborate their former existence or to debunk them as a myth, it would be a valuable addition to this article.  Hzoi 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
According to theanimalbible.net link below, a pink dolphin and her pink calf have been discovered in a river in Louisiana.  
https://www.theanimalbible.net/wildlife/pinky-the-dolphin-spotted-with-pink-calf/?fbclid=IwAR2CIajkDjJJvEj0LYXF1W-NHpL8USgvcOsf-mu1oZQiAWB9MtEvS6pIS58
The discovery has been described the finding “Pinky,” “a rare albino dolphin,” but as the author of a book about one of the legends of the Amazon River dolphin (link below) and researcher into river dolphins, I believe the discovery is much more significant.
In the first place I doubt that “Pinky” is an albino.  Most Amazon River dolphins are pink and river dolphins in the Yangtze and Mekong are white.  It is thought that the bright colors are an adaptation that allow mother dolphins to better keep track of their calves in muddy water.  
In the second place, scientists believe that while there is evidence of the existence of a Mississippi River dolphin in the past, they are now extinct.  Happily, “Pinky” and her calf seem to disprove that.  
https://www.amazon.com/Dolphins-Tale-Mr-Richard-Blake/dp/1491252561/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=a+dolphins+tale+blake&qid=1557260795&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

The Three Gorge dam project made the population of the river dolphin drop but it made 3 persent hydro-electric power (HEP).
Thats better than using coal to produce energy. 
The Three Gorge dam was a bad idea because of the river dolphin and now the river dolphin appears to be extinct.
None has seen a river dolphin since the Three Gorge dam was built.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.31.64 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 

Another endangered species which probably should be mentioned here is the Mahakam Dolphin of East Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo. Actually I came here looking for information on the species91.111.126.196 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Mahakam dolphins are 'facultative' not 'true' river dolphins. This is clarified in the 'non-river dolphins in rivers' section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.102.5 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) 

Not sure if this is relevant. The Hungry Tide plot is centered around a woman studying Irrawaddy dolphins, which are not 'true' river dolphins in the way this article defines them - i.e., planatinistids, iniids, or lipotids. Although the book does mention Platanista gangetica once or twice, which are true river dolphins.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.102.5 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC) 

This article misses any reference to the pottery 'brand' of the same name  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.87.199 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 

Scientists in Brazil have discovered the first new river dolphin species since the end of World War One. 
Named after the Araguaia river where it was found, the species is only the fifth known of its kind in the world. 
Writing in the journal Plos One, the researchers say it separated from other South American river species more than two million years ago. 
There are believed to be about 1,000 of the creatures living in the Araguaia river basin.  . . . ,continues> 
BBC - Brazil dolphin is first new river species since 1918  95.148.205.27 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've proposed that Encantado be merged into here because it offers little to no info or refs, and everything said there can be summed up into two to four very small paragraphs (it probably doesn't even need to be summed up, just copy/pasted). If you feel like this article could be bigger and will... it would've happened by now (this article's been around since 2005). Thank you for your input and/or criticism. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement to this proposal. I think it's better to give a detailed overview of the encantado in the section where provided than to warrant its own, owing to how little is known about this mythical creature. It's better to have a quality article that discusses the encantado comprehensively than have a poorly composed article (quality over quantity I guess). Burklemore1 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the systematic changes of terms from American to British English in the article, and removed the template on this talk page that declared it used British English. These were both done very recently by a single editor, who changed a number of terms from their American spelling. Before reinstating any of these changes, I would like evidence that the majority of this article uses (and originally used) British English; otherwise, the change, if anything, should go to the other direction, and the article should use American spelling in its entirety, as per WP:ARTCON.
I should also note that URLs were changed (automatically, I presume) that were spelled in American English; of course spelling them in British English broke them, so I restored them too.
LjL (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I went through the article history and the first English variant that appears in any non-vandalism edits of the text that I could find was from this edit by Chris141496, that uses American spelling of the word "centimeters".  Other edits by the same editor on the same day introduced "meters" and "color" in this edit.  According to WP:ENGVAR, this article should therefore use American spelling.  Neil916 (Talk) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Templates added accordingly. LjL (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on River dolphin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106152733/https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/ to https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106152733/https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/ to https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).

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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

狹義上的四大淡水豚.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No mention of how long they live anywhere on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhannen (talk • contribs) Revision as of 18:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)