Talk:Baleen whale

message: :I've nominated the Baleen whales as a featured topic, but this main article is a bit lacking.  Could someone who knows more abouit them expand this overview a bit?  --Arctic Gnome 07:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Aren't they the largest whales? What are their measurements? Xiner 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More details please? 

message: Oh, so it hunted Shteiven-like cetaceans? That's fascinating. WTF are Shteiven-like cetaceans? The word isn't used anywhere else in Wiki, and Google gives no hints as to what it might mean. Totally mystifying.Ethel Aardvark 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was vandalism in this revision. I've reverted. --Cherry blossom tree 09:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF is a Shteiven?

message: Someone who needs to be put to work in a quarry somewhere has been having a lot of fun vandalizing this page.  In the middle of the "Taxonomic Classification" section is the statement "grace smells."  It's been there for many months, through many vandalisms and reverts.  I tried, but I can't figure out how to remove it.   140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to remove the vandalism in Taxonomic Classification? 

message: 67.243.1.21 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the hind limbs? 

message: The term "mysticeti" seems worthy of some sort of note as to it's pronunciation. 
From various books that mention the term, and from various internet sources, none seem to mention how to actually pronounce it. I've heard it pronounced as miss - tiss - ety, but given the origin of the word, I can't help but think this is incorrect. 
Can someone clarify this at all? 49.199.172.57 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation  

message: Amphitera is actually a misspelling of Amphiptera, a genus of alleged two-finned baleen whale whose existence remains contentious (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giglioli's_Whale). If Amphiptera pacifica exists, then it would reveal a new dimension in the diversity of extant rorquals, but its possible relations to other rorquals remains equivocal if the generic classification scheme for rorquals proposed by Hassanin et. al. (2012) on the basis of mitochondrial DNA analysis is accepted by the taxonomic community.
Regarding the composition of Cetotheriidae, it should be noted that the assignment of Plesiocetus to Diorocetidae by Steeman (2007) was based on the designation of Plesiocetus hupschi (type species of Plesiocetopsis Brandt, 1873) as the type species of Plesiocetus by Winge (1909). However, Steeman (2010) changed his mind about the type species designation for Plesiocetus and has followed Kellogg (1931)  in treating Plesiocetus garopii as the type species of Plesiocetus (based on van Beneden 1872) (largely to avoid nomenclatorial complications and in accordance with current usage of Plesiocetus), which means that  Plesiocetus is a balaenopterid (as pointed out by Demere et. al. 2005) and Plesiocetopsis is a diorocetid. Since Winge's (1909) action has been largely overlooked, there may be a petition to have the ICZN suppress Winge's type species designation in favor of Kellogg's type designation for Plesiocetus. 
Steeman, M.E. 2010. "The extinct baleen whale fauna from the Miocene-Pliocene of Belgium and the diagnostic cetacean ear bones". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 8 (1): 63–80.
Kellogg, R. 1931. Pelagic mammals of the Temblor Formation of the Kern River region, California. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 19(12): 217–397.
Winge, H. 1909. Om Plesiocetus og Squalodon fra Danmark. Videnskabelige Meddelelser Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening Copenhagen, Series 7, 1: 1–38.
Van Beneden, P.-J. 1872. Les baleines fossiles d’Anvers. Bulletin de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Series 2, 40: 736–758.
Steeman, M. E. 2007. Cladistic analysis and a revised classification of fossil and recent mysticetes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 150: 875–894. 
Hassanin A., Delsuc F., Ropiquet A., Hammer C., Janssen van Vuuren B., Matthee C., Ruiz-Garcia M., Catzeflis F., Areskoug V., Nguyen T.T. & Couloux A. (2012). Pattern and timing of diversification of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria), as revealed by a comprehensive analysis of mitochondrial genomes. Comptes Rendus Biologies 335: 32-50. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incertae sedis 

message: I happened across this article this morning and thought I should pass it along: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1753/20122645.short?rss=1  Not sure if you'll find it useful or valid (it's a bit outside of my field), but I figured I should pass it on. HCA (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study of interest 

message: Hi. Does anyone know the precise definition of "great whales"? A quick google search didn't really bring anything up. I was under the impression it included the sperm whale as well, but excluded smaller baleen whales such as pygmy right and the two species of minke. With that said, should "great whales" be included as an alternative common name in the lead? I'm welcome to others' interpretations on this subject. Thanks. SHFW70 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find anything in the books on my shelf in a quick search, but John Bannister, in his book Great Whales (2008, p. 3), in speaking of Australian fauna, states that: "Strictly speaking the 'great whales' comprise the six baleen whales (blue, fin, sei, Bryde's, humpback, southern right) and the one toothed whale, the sperm whale." He also includes the minke in his book, but states that it is "not quite a 'great whale' in the traditional sense". Not sure if you would include Omura's (Balaenoptera omurai), which is closer to the Antarctic minke in size and was never (as far as we know) an important component of modern whaling -- there being little effort within its known Southeast Asian range. You would of course include the bowhead and two other species of right. Any other thoughts? SHFW70 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this got ignored. Seeing as how sperm whales are considered "great whales" and at least three of the species of baleen whales aren't considered great whales, I removed the term from the lead. I don't really consider Omura's whale "great whales" either, as they don't get to 40 ft (arbitrary, yes) and weren't an important component of commercial whaling (the two species of minke, although important commercially, are too small, while one only became important after the larger species had become depleted). SHFW70 (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "great whales"? 

message: : Quote from 
; V. Life History: Young baleen whales, particularly the fetus and the calf, grow at an extraordinary rate. In the largest species, the blue whale, fetal weight increases at a rate of some 100 kg/day towards the end of pregnancy.  The calf’s weight increases at a rate of about 80 kg/day during suckling.  During that 7-month period of dependence on the cow’s milk, the blue whale calf will have increased its weight by some 17 tonnes, and increased in length from around 7 to 17 m. Blue whales attain sexual maturity at between 5 and 10 years, at a length of around 22 m, and live for about 80–90 years.  Adult female blue whales give birth every 2–3 years, pregnancy lasting some 10–11 months.
: Other balaenopterids follow the same general pattern (Fig. 4).  Mating takes place in warm waters in winter, birth following some 11 months later.  A 7–11 month lactation period may be followed by a year “resting,” or almost immediately by another pregnancy.  Most adults are able to reproduce from between 5 and 10 years of age, and reach maximum growth after 15 or more years.  The smallest balaenopterid, the minke whale, is born after a pregnancy of some 10 months, at a length of just under 3 m.  Weaning occurs at just under 6 m, after 3–6 months.  The adult female can become pregnant again immediately following birth, but the resulting short calving interval is generally uncommon in baleen whales: 2–3 years is the norm, although humpbacks can achieve a similar birth rate, enabling their stocks to recover rapidly after depletion.
: Right whales follow a similar general pattern, but there are some differences.  In northern and southern right whales, gestation lasts about 11 months, weaning for about another year. Females are able to reproduce successfully from about 8 years (there are records of successful first pregnancies from 6 years), but the calving interval is usually a relatively regular 3 years.  For bowheads, while growth is very rapid during the first year of life (from ~4.5 m), it may be followed by a period of several years with little or no growth.  Sexual maturity occurs at 13–14 m: at the reduced growth rate that would not be reached until 17–20 years.  Similarly, there is evidence of considerable longevity in this species: harpoon heads and an unexploded bomb-lance found in harvested whales and last known to be used off Alaska in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries indicate individual animals can be over 100-years old.
: The information I added to the "life history" section is from the source quoted above.  I assume you are right in your changes, but the article is now using my reference to claim something that is not in it.  I don't have any problems with you editing the page (or correcting me), but please add your references. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life history 

message: Fin, sei, and Bryde's are all baleen whales. The cited sources mentioning those species give age at physical maturity (20-25 for Bryde's, 25 for seis, and 25-30 for fin whales, iirc). Evans gives age at sexual maturity, duration of lactation and gestation, etc. for various species of baleen whale. Rommel and Reynolds give the estimated length of minkes at weaning. Go find the pages yourself. SHFW70 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reverting my edit without posting here or providing an edit summary. You asked for refs and I provided them. The three sources on fin, sei, and Bryde's whales provide ages at physical maturity, thus providing a citation for the "20-30 years" reference. I've moved the other refs accordingly. SHFW70 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  And thank you for adding crappy outdated references.  Your style of contribution is really helpful too. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I thought you'd like to know that that giant wall of text you quoted from Bannister was from data obtained during the whaling era (i.e. prior to the dates of publication of my cited sources, which rely on the very same data). This shows what a novice you are. Perhaps you should argue about a subject you actually know something about? SHFW70 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs in Life History section 

message: I think it might be useful to include something on fetal development within the "life history" section. Specifically that of tooth formation/resorption. Particularly since the baleen dental structure is one of the most interesting adaptations of this organism. It's definitely eluded to within the first paragraph but not elaborated upon. Furthermore, the sections on certain physical structures (ie jaw) don't seem to be fully fleshed out. Finally, I feel as though this article could benefit from a more in depth Evolutionary history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy.6osu (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Improvements 

message: I'm putting together an extensive rewrite in my sandbox. You can find what I've done so far here, and feel free to make whatever changes you feel necessary. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: Baleen whales are nearly or entirely hairless mammals. I assume the reference to molting is vandalism? I'm not just deleting it because it's possible it has some specialized meaning here I'm not familiar with but ... molting?
IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They moult to shed whale barnacles and other external parasites. I'll revert your edit and add a source and explanation as to why so this doesn't happen again.  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

text: what do they eat 47.200.47.87 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Amphibious mammals shed skin and hair on land   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at the reference in the article, and I am not sure it is accurate to describe this as "molting".  Molting is essentially a passive process, often determined by seasonal conditions.  What the reference describes is more of an active, anti-parasite behaviour in which the whales deliberately rub their bodies on substrate to dislodge the parasites.  I'm happy to rewrite the statements if we agree the change is needed. DrChrissy (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. DrChrissy (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molting? Molting?! 

message: Congratulations on getting this to FA but I just noticed that this article doesn't actually describe baleen much. What its made of, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to the External anatomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baleen 

message: This section is like most sections on whales etc, contradict itself, or repeats redundant info like saying koi carp fish, when koi has to be in the 2 groups named after.--Simon19800 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble understanding this. Do you mean adding the "whale" part to, say, "gray whale" is redundant? I've heard people do say "Grays" when referring to the whale, but that seems a bit too colloquial.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxonomy  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baleen whale. 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/20160119193246/http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov:80/pr/species/mammals/whales/north-atlantic-right-whale.html to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/north-atlantic-right-whale.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I didn't realize baleen whales had such brittle shells? OM2003 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean acidification 

message: The classification section states the following about gray whales: "The two populations, one in the Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan and the other in the Mediterranean Sea[10] and East Atlantic,[11] are thought to be genetically and physiologically dissimilar." The two citations talk about two gray whales from the Pacific that wandered into the Atlantic, making them vagrants. How do two vagrants make a "population"? Did you mean the Eastern Pacific population off Alaska, the west coast of Canada, the lower 48 states of the U.S., and Baja? OM2003 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray whale populations 

message: In the Differences between families section, the last sentence describes the differences between the above species and minkes (including "a light eye patch" I've never heard of), but none of it is in the cited source (Bannister 2008, p. 80). Please provide a source that states that info or I'm removing it. OM2003 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pygmy right whale 

message: This entire section needs to be rewritten. Someone with little to no knowledge of whaling history wrote it. For example, it states the following: "Commercial whaling was historically important as an industry well throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Whaling was at that time a sizable European industry with ships from Britain, France, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany, sometimes collaborating to hunt whales in the Arctic". The cited source was vague about centuries, but the preceding sentence was referring only to open-boat whaling off Spitsbergen in the first half of the 17th century. The second sentence quoted above has nothing to do with the 19th and 20th centuries. The sentences immediately following the above two go back and forth between open-boat and modern whaling. Why is that exactly? OM2003 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of whaling 

message: "Commonly exploited species included arctic whales such as the gray whale, right whale, and bowhead whale because they were close to the main whaling ports, like New Bedford. After those stocks were depleted, rorquals in the South Pacific were targeted by nearly all whaling organizations; however, they often out-swam whaling vessels." I didn't realize bowhead whales and gray whales, both primarily hunted in the Pacific by New England whalers (though they did send vessels to the Davis Strait in the 18th century and to Hudson Bay in the late 19th century, but the latter was fairly small scale), were hunted off New Bedford? What? Are you serious? Is that based on Dudley's "scrag whale" or something? That's jumping to quite a conclusion there. Then you talk about hunting rorquals, which involved different technology and personnel from other nations? Really? What haphazard Google search led you to that nonsense? OM2003 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to know what you're talking about. Why don't you rewrite it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm serious, you really do seem to know what you're talking about and you should probably be the one to make the changes. Best of luck   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of whaling again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baleen whale. 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/20160305070553/http://darwin.wcupa.edu/~biology/fish/pubs/pdf/2006jmorph.pdf to http://darwin.wcupa.edu/~biology/fish/pubs/pdf/2006jmorph.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The phylogenetic tree shown here is outdated and/or cited incorrectly. 
The tree is referenced with Gatesy, J.; McGowen, M. R. (2021) 
(10.1016/B978-0-12-818969-6.00001-7), but this paper does not show the 
tree depicted in the wikipedia article. Instead, the paper reviews 
different molecular studies that all agree more or less with a pairing 
of the (fin and humpback whale) and the (blue whale and the Bryde whale 
complex). I would therefore argue to update the tree to one of the actual 
studies reviwed in Gatesy, J.; McGowen, M. R. (2021). Namly either McGown 
et al. 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz068) or Arnason et al. 
2018 (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aap9873). 
Beorxmw (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've switched the blue and fin whales following the source and modified the caption. I've left the source as Gatesy & McGowen as that is a secondary source referring to the work, although the primary source could also be added (McGowen et al, 2019). I've also stated that the Bryde's whale complex is expanded following Rosel et al (2021), which shows the same topology for the blue-sei-brydes whales. This is not synthesis in the Wikipedia sense as it is not drawing any conclusions not contained in the sources and is no different from a paragraph using sentences from different sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Phylogenetic Tree