Talk:Beaked whale

Conservation status

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)

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)

Molecular Phylogenetics info by Oxford Univercity

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)

What does "shaping the evolution" mean?

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)

I second that question. --LiamE (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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 () 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)

References

Most extreme divers

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)

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)

A whale can´t get decompression sickness

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)

you can get decompression sickness from freediving.

there has been debate about decompression sickness in cetaceans and in response to sonar see: . more recently this paper might be of interest on DCS in a Risso's-- the paper also cites evidence from other species.

I think the conservation section needs some cleaning up in general, see above.

--Xarzin (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Film section

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)

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)

Conservation: Plastic bags?

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. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Hyperoodontidae vs. Ziphiidae

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)

I'm going to edit my comments into one to try to be clearer and more succinct. the short answer is technically yes Hyperoodontidae has priority, but almost everyone uses Ziphiidae including Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World which is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals basis for taxonomy. Many other authorities such as the Society for Marine Mammals, IUCN, and MDD use Ziphiidae as well as almost the entire scientific literature. There is an explanation for this floating around that Ziphiidae should be given an exception due to Article 23.12 of the ICZN. I think the argument is likely incorrect, but don't take a position on it other than noting the disagreement as there has not been an ICZN ruling.

there is an another problem where someone has changed the dates on the family name citations to Gray, 1850 for both Ziphiidae and Hyperoodontidae. I've reverted them to the correct dates (1865 and 1846).

what do:

I think this is interesting enough to warrant a couple of paragraphs under taxonomy and I've suggested something on my sandbox. let me know what you think

--xarzin (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding polygyny

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)

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. 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: 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)

References

Caviziphius

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)

Bianucci and coauthors (2013) call it a possible ziphiinae. the similarities are noted in Bianucci and Post (2005). but Bianucci and coauthors (2024) don't list it in their latest phylogeny. 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)

References

captivity

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. 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)

References

taxonomy

McGowen and coauthors (2020) 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) used a morphological character matrix which also moved Tasmacetus and Nazcacetus out of Ziphiinae.

suggestions for section

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

--xarzin (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References