Talk:Sperm Whale/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Contents 1 map 2 brain size 3 photo 4 a typo 5 image 6 Whale -vs- whale 7 Peer review 8 whale -vs- Whale 9 Function of Spermaceti ? 10 Moby Dick 11 Footnoting 12 Common names 13 In the news 14 K-selection 15 human consumption of marine mammals 16 Population and Hunting 17 Funny name 18 Factual error after another 19 Sauropod dinosaur size comparisons 20 Sperm Whale range 21 Need Photos 22 James Bartley story probably a hoax 23 Featured article? 24 Size? 25 Record-Sizes 26 Thickest skin? 27 Predators 28 "largest predator, apart from the blue whale" 29 Reproduction and mating behaviours 30 Update for Information on the Colossal Squid 31 Exploding whales segment 32 Exploding Whale 33 Feeding, behaviour and diving - needs work 34 Very interesting reference source 35 Chris Harman illustrations 36 Diving capabilities of the Sperm Whale and other mammals 37 Whale size ranking 38 90 minute dives. Holds breath 2 hours. 39 Image:Physeter macrocephalus jumping.jpg 40 Good article

[edit] map

Your map is all screwed up. How did sperm whales get in the Caspian Sea? This is why Wikipedia is a joke, kindergartners are posting articles.

I'll take this occasion to point out that reading captions might aid in clarifying the situation for you. If I'm not mistaken the caption reads "Sperm whale range (in blue)". Also, if I'm not mistaken the Caspian sea is pale red in colour. I hope this addresses your concern. Besides had a kindergartner drawn said map, the colour wouldn't be in the lines. (Cabin Tom 02:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] brain size

A 7 kg brain is very little for an animal of 25,000 kg or more. - Patrick 18:21, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Applying a little thought, rather than just blindly trusting the books, makes it obvious to me you are right. I'll move back towards your version.

Done. Pete 18:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] photo

I've cropped and brightened the photo a bit, but it looks like we could use a pic that shows the whole whale, rather than one that could just as well be a Loch Ness monster sighting :-) -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that Wapcaplet. It looks a lot better. The original was the best of a not particularly good bunch at http://www.noaa.gov... for other species to come: does anyone else know of any free image resources in this area? Pete 19:50, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Awesome addition of the size-scale thing! Very helpful for appreciating the creature's enormity. Is it possible to get an actual photo at the top though? The painting is nice, and looks cool down below, but it'd be more 'encyclopedic' to get a good, National Geographic-esque photo. Jackmont Dec 18, 2006.

[edit] a typo

"The total number of Sperm Whales throughout the world is unknown. Crude estimates, obtained by surveying small areas and extrapolating the result to all the world's oceans, range from 200,000 to 2,000,000 species." Surely you mean individuals, not species. JDG 03:03, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Indeed! Funny how you can't have been the first to have read that line but slipped by all before you. Thanks. Pete 13:15, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] image

Hey, what do people think of the below image? If you think it's an improvement on current pic, I will email artist and ask permission for use. JDG 03:47, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Image:Sperm whale1.jpg

I like it. Is it a computer-generated pic? Many cetacean books are illustrated by drawings rather than pictures as thats the only way to get the whole animal at once. This article is reasonably long so maybe we could have both images to act as illustration. Feel very to ask permission from the creator. Pete 13:15, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I've received permission from the artist. Here is his return email:

Jim, You have my consent to use this image as long as the credentials can be listed with the words "Scarred Giant" by artist Chris Harman if this is OK with your curriculum just let me know and a link to http://www.velvetgreencreations.com/Marinelife/marinlife.html You might want to use the smaller image already compressed in a smaller size at: http://www.velvetgreencreations.com/Marinelife/marine2.html it is much clearer and sharp. Thank you and good luck with your project, Chris Harman

As of this moment, uploads have been disabled on the Wikipedia server. Hopefully later tonight I can upload the image the artist recommends, as well as another of his you may prefer instead. BTW, I think it's a scanned painting. Mr. Harmon is in the tradition of Audubon. I think it's just right for Wikipedia. JDG 21:57, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

-can anyone get the rights to and post a real photo and not just a drawing?

Pete- we can use one of these two:

--

Which do you prefer, and where in the article? I think it should go up top, myself (the existing pic really could be anything thrashing around in the water) JDG 03:06, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As it happens there may even be copyright problems with the existing pic (it came from NOAA but may not have been taken by an American government employee, and so may not be public domain). I suggest removing that pic, using the close up for the taxobox and using the other further down the article? Pete 10:04, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Scarred Giant is shown twice in the article, once with the head, and one with the entire painting. This is fine for now, but we should try to get a quality picture of a real sperm whale (or its head) for the taxobox. --Gray Porpoise 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whale -vs- whale

Sperm Whale or sperm whale? Dysprosia 10:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

After the Great Bird Name Capitalization Wars of Early 2003, the decision was made (on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans) to go with capital letters. However that decision (i.e. the decision to copy whatever the birders decided) was made more-or-less unilaterally by me. So if you want to make an argument that we change the policy, please do at that project page so that the sPeRm WhAlE page doesn't get out of sync with the other cetacean pages. Pete 13:13, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

WP:MoS#Article titles is pretty clear that only the first word should be capitalized except in the case of proper nouns (which "sperm whale" is not). --WhiteDragon (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Moved from Wikipedia:Peer Review:

I recently wrote Sperm Whale and in my not really humble opinion think it's not bad. However it's the first article in the area since Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans began and I'd really like to push the standard up and have it is a standard-bearer for articles in that area. An eye from someone who is good with genetics and evolution would be especially good as I know sperm whales are important example of somethings evolutionarily but haven't got the know-how to express that. Thanks Pete 16:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You are right, it is not bad. I can see a few spots where a copy editor could make some changes, but overall well written and well researched. And very complete. Definitely a standard to meet elsewhere - Marshman 17:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Excellent article. I have a few minor gripes (most importantly, I don't think that capitalization of species names is grammatically correct), but I do hope to see you write more articles like this in the future. -Smack 19:45, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Some discussion (well not so much discussion, more just me writing) on how that capitalization came about in cetacean articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans Pete 21:12, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

End text moved from Peer Review

[edit] whale -vs- Whale

Someone today (16/2/04) moved this page to Sperm whale with a small w. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life for reasons why the current (i.e Sperm Whale) capitalisation was chosen. If you want to change this capitalisation policy, the best place is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans as it will affect all articles that are part of that project. Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Function of Spermaceti ?

Its intriguing that we dont know the full functions of this whales most singular feature. Propose that as the spermaceti crystalises from the sperm oil at reduced temperatures, it acts as a temperature buffer. . . . (ie the change of phase involved stores / releases latent heat energy). Nice to see some discussion here. (not so good to see juvenile intellectual snobs flaming other people's work 'though)Jerrykenny 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry Third Edition (by Nelson & Cox, Worth Publishers, NY 2000) says (p 367) that the spermaceti oil, a mixture of triacylglycerols and waxes containing an abundance of unsaturated fatty acids, is liquid at the normal resting body temperature of te whale, 37C, but begins to crystallise at around 31C and becomes solid at several degrees lower than that. It goes on to say that the whales feed almost exclusively on squid at 1,000 m or more where there are no competitors. To remain at a given depth without a constant swimming effort, a marine animal has to be the same density as the surrounding water. The crystallisation of the spermaceti oil makes it become denser, altering the buoyancy of the whale. 'Various physiological mechanisms promote rapid cooling of the oil during a dive.' As the whale returns to the surface, the oil warms and melts, decreasing the whale's density to match that of the water. JV 10:01, 13 November 2006

[edit] Moby Dick

Just wanted to add that the "white whale" in Moby Dick may not have been an albino; old sperm whales tend to get white patches on their skin, and as they age these white patches grow bigger. Hence, Moby Dick might have been an albino, but he might just as well have been an extraordinarily old whale. thefamouseccles 12:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, since it's a fictional work the author holds a somewhat godlike authority on what's what. Melville says it's an albino: "...so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?" JDG 18:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Albino has (particularly in the past} been used to refer to white animals that weren't necessarily genetical albinos. While I haven't read the book, I can imagine the author using the word "albino" (which comes from latin for white) as a synonym for white, depending on context. Mikkel 00:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnoting

I reverted back to having numbered references because the article text references those references using those numbers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But, it doesn't, really... try to match up [2] or even [3] and you'll see! Bevo 20:12, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm I see your point... we have references to papers, inline references to other webpages and links to other website (under External links). Maybe it would be best to move all references (paper and electronic) to one section (called references), number those, and then refer to the number in the article body. What do you think? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a lot of work! (And something that's easily messed up by some innocent contributor who doesn't see the plan.) Maybe if you didn't rely on the "autonumbering" feature of the Wikipedia, and forced your own footnotes numbering that would at least give you some control. You've definitely "pushed the envelope" beyond what the typical Wikipedia article has attempted! I'll stay tuned and see what develops. Good luck! Bevo 21:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've implemented the idea. Thoughts welcome. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see that User:Frecklefoot has tried to reestablish the standard Wikipedia style without changing the attempted in-article referents. You may have to add both the standard bulleting and your own numbering in order to be given the freedom to do some experimentation. Nothing like an article showing up on the Main page to get everyone "helping"! Bevo 21:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't realized that, explains a lot ;-). I've just edited over the top of Frecklefoot, hope he doesn't mind too much - but he must've missed the talk going on here anyhow, I guess. p.s. I have now put an HTML comment in just below ==References== explaining why they are numbered. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's still something so "different" about how the references are done on this page, that I'm sure there must be a better way. Now there's a #16, but no mention of [16] in the article. Bevo 06:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fixed, the person who added the Oregon stuff kindly provided a reference but didn't label the paragaph. The "different" thing is that specific facts are linked to specific sources, as is completely normal for scientific works but not for article types. I am personally loathe to get rid of that linkage, as it would decrease the informational content in the article, but of course better ways should be used if we can think of one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Cite your sources and also Power outage for the variations that have been attempted in Wikipedia articles. Looks like this is still a "work in progress" to establish a pleasing, easy to maintain citation style with or without footnotes. Bevo 17:02, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Irish Houses of Parliament has a style of footnoting that seems to work well and is consistent with the numbered footnotes use of this article. Maybe this article could try that style. Bevo 20:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is old, so I hope I haven't damaged too much by changing it to do this:

1. All references that are cited in-line have been moved into a Notes section separate from the other references
2. They've all been templated so that there is a direct link between the footnote and the referent.

This still suffers from confusion due to the software just numbering things sequentially and not attempting to match the numbers up to the numbered list. It happens to match now, but I did that manually. Thayvian 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The numbering of the footnotes does not match the in-text numbering. For example, the story about the exploding while in Tainan City, Taiwan features the number [15] for the footnote, but the link brings us down to footnote #13. Although it is the correct link, the numerbering doesn't match.

Please help fix this: if you check out references 10-16 they are out of wak - clicking them does not take you to the right one in all cases. Any idea how to fix? Thanks --Fitzhugh 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All footnotes updated to new Wikipedia:Footnotes syntax. Fixed. —Bitt 23:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common names

I have set up redirects to this page from various common names such a "Cachelot". They don't crop up any more in scientific work, but they do in historical and literary sources. seglea 22:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes redirects are a good idea, thanks for doing it. Some users might be tempted to attach equal significance to all common names because the Red List (for example) lists all names. Normally however these names are not used much except in lists of common names, usage of other terms dying as a result of global communication and better scientific understanding. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

agreed, and I like the way you've now done the "historically..." para. seglea 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In the news

As I stated in my exploding whale entry, the whale was a grey whale, and not a sperm whale. I'm taking it out and putting it into the grey whale entry. - Ta bu shi da yu

[edit] K-selection

Quote from the Physical description section of the article:

Geneticists describe Sperm Whales as the epitome of a species that has been K-selected, which is to say that the species is believed to have developed primarily under evolutionary pressure from individuals of the same species.

The K-selection article contradicts the above quote, stating that

Some animals ... produce few offspring. Others reproduce quickly, but ... most offspring do not survive to adults.

These two strategies are known as K-selection (few offspring) and r-selection (many offspring).

That is, K-selection doesn't appear to have anything to do with whether an animal's main evolutionary competitors are other members of the same species. Someone who knows more than me about the subject should correct this inconsistency.

Dbenbenn 07:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sperm whales are an example of a k-selected species, but not the epitome, elephants for example have a 22 month gestation period to the sperm whale's 16. As far as I know, sperm whales do not experience a great degree of either interspecific or intraspecific competition for anything except for mates. The role that this competition has had in their evolution is suspect. I am striking this comment on K-selection from the article completely for these reasons.

[edit] human consumption of marine mammals

I would like to know the origin of, or reference for, this line from the Prey and Feeding section of this article:

"The total consumption of prey by Sperm Whales worldwide is estimated to be about 100 million tons — a figure comparable with the total consumption of marine animals by humans each year."

Since Japan and a few indigenous peoples are the only ones killing marine mammals purposely these days, this seems like an extremely high figure for the current "consumption of marine animals by humans." Perhaps this estimate comes from a time before whaling was generally outlawed worldwide. If so, the article could use some updating.

Jeff

Could there be some confusion between "marine animals" (i.e. inc. fish) and "marine mammals"? Pcb21| Pete 07:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population and Hunting

I've removed the following paragraph from the "Population and Hunting" section. It bears no relation to the section in question, has significant grammatical issues, and the information given is unsubstantiated (or, at least, unlinked to other Wikipedia articles).

A significant thing to mention about sperm whale hunting is that sperm whales sometimes resisted, not without bad results for ships and humans, even into the 20th century. Due to its battering-ram (head), the sperm whale is still a dangerous animal, even for ships with a metal hull. There are several examples of such incidents. In 1947, near Komandor islands, the Russian whaler "Enthusiast" was attacked by a sperm whale. The whale tore off the ship's propeller and deformed the hull of the ship. While the propeller shaft was also bent, the whale had only a few "scratches" on its "forehead". In the 1960's, an American nuclear submarine was attacked by a sperm whale. Its propeller was torn off and the left side of the submarine was found to be deformed (a nuclear submarine's hull is made of a titanium alloy to resist pressure). A Norwegian whaler, the "Durei", was attacked by an enraged sperm whale and was sunk. Scientists think that sperm whales have the ability to tear through ships' hulls because of a special structure of his head, spermaceti organ gives sperm whale's head amortisation, thus making a collision last much longer and distributing the pressure over a longer period of time, therefore, whale's head does not suffer as much damage as the thing he collapses with, this mechanism works when whale clushes with a ship. However these attacks were not common, and whaling continued. Due to whaling sperm whale's size reduced dramatically, mostly because whalers needed spermaceti, and the larger the male, the more spermaceti in his head. Largest whales were hunted out, thus leaving smaller ones, and reducing population's size dramatically, sperm whale was considered the second largest animal by whalers, and it was, before whalers killed all big bulls, now it holds third place after blue whale and fin whale.

The paragraph isn't bad informationally (assuming it's factual), but isn't nearly at the standard of a featured article. It was added in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sperm_Whale&oldid=18997060 and heavily updated to fix spelling and minor grammatical issues in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sperm_Whale&oldid=19173718 . Unfortunately, I don't think that's enough to raise it to the standard of this article, nor does it change the fact that the information is still in the wrong section of the article.

[edit] Funny name

I just wanted to say.. haha at name

Glad you did that here and not in the article ;). Pcb21| Pete 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of odd that moby dick... is a sperm whale. Wallaroo 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Can anybody find out the origin of the name and then put it in the article? --193.198.16.211 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual error after another

The standards for a featured article can't be very high, if an article with this much factual errors qualifies!

Size
The measurements given here as average are approaching the known maximum for this species. True average size is around 14–15 m (46–50 ft.) and 30–40 t (33–44 sh. t.) for males, and 11–12 m (36–40 ft.) and 10–15 t (11–17 sh. t.) for females. Guinness World Records put the male average at 14.3 m (47 ft.) and 33.5 t (37 sh. t.), and Lyall Watson's Whales of the World: A Field Guide to the Cetaceans (1981) 15.2 m (50 ft.) and 36 t (40 sh. t.) respectively.

As for the maximum, Guinness recognized a 20.7 m (67 ft. 11 in.) specimen caught in the Kuril Islands in 1950. Though I have some doubts on this one: the weight for a Sperm Whale this long should be in 90–100 t (99–110 sh. t.) territory, but I've never seen a weight greater than 72 t (79 sh. t.) for this species in scientific literature – and indeed, many modern sources put the maximum at 17.5–18 m (57–59 ft.) and 50–57 t (55–63 sh. t.). Watson put the maximum size of females at 17.1 m (56 ft.) and 38 t (42 sh. t.), which seems too high compared to the more conservative estimates for the largest males.

Skin thickness
By far the most absurd claim on this article is the one stating that Sperm Whale's skin is 36 cm (14 in.) thick – in other words thicker than its 10–30 cm (4–12 in.) blubber! Of all animals, Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) has the thickest skin at 10–23 cm (4–10 in.). Of mammals the Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) may have a 6 cm (2½ in.) thick skin, rivaled by the Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) at 5 cm (2 in.).

Depths
And though there are only minor inaccuracies concerning the depths a diving Sperm Whale can reach, there are some interesting facts on the subject. The greatest depth where a Sperm Whale's jaw was found tangled in a cable was a mere 1,134 m (3,720 ft.), on October 14, 1955, between Ecuador and Peru. According to Guinness, the deepest verified dive was 2,000 m (6,562 ft.) near the coasts of the Dominican Republic in 1991, measured by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The whales' calls have been traced down to 2,250 m (7,380 ft.) by sonar.

But the really interesting report was that of a 3,193 m (10,475 ft.) dive, by a 14.3 m (47 ft.) male caught by whalers 160 km (100 mi.) south of Durban, South Africa, on August 25, 1969. This assumption was made upon the discovery of the remains of two sharks of the bottom-dwelling Scymnodon genus in its stomach. The depth was the lowest point of the ocean within 48–64 km (30–40 mi.) radius. The sharks must have actually been Portugese Dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis), previously assigned to the Scymnodon genus, as it's known to reach depths of 3,675 m (12,057 ft.) – the deepest for any species of shark. According to FishBase tthe only other member of the genus found within South African waters is Velvet Dogfish (Scymnodon squamulosus), not known to reach depths beyond 2,000 m (6,562 ft.).

Brain
Not really a correction, just giving more detailed information. The largest known Sperm Whale brain weighed 9.2 kg (20 lb. 5 oz.), belonging to a 14.9 m (49 ft.) male processed on Japanese ship Nissin Maru No. 1 on December 12, 1949. Anshelm '77

This information is all very useful and likely have a place on the page. Did you make these edits to the real page or just list them here? If possible, make the additions and add any veriable sources that you can. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.141.135 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 December 2005

Nah, I think I'll stick to my "discussion pages only" policy. After all, English is not my native language, encyclopedic English even less. Plus I'm too lazy for proper referencing. I'm not even a registered user, that's why I've left my comments unsigned. Wha...??? Is that skin thickness thing still there??? Some featured article... Anshelm '77 (just registered)

[edit] Sauropod dinosaur size comparisons

"The Sperm Whale ... is believed to be the largest toothed animal to ever inhabit the planet."

Well, although --

1) The greatest size ever attained by a Sperm Whale cannot be absolutely verified

2) The live weights of dinosaurs remain a matter of debate

and 3) Some very large dinosaurs are known only from fragmentary remains

-- the largest known sauropod dinosaurs pretty definitely exceed the largest estimated length of a sperm whale, and the estimated weights of the largest known sauropods are in the same ballpark as estimates for the largest sperm whales. Additionally, fragmentary remains of even larger sauropods have been reported. (And sauropods were "toothed animals".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.105.210 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 January 2006

[edit] Sperm Whale range

Is the range map correct? Right now it shows Sperm Whales swim around every sea there is on earth. --Abdull 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that they're basically everywhere except for a small area near the north pole and an even smaller area near the south pole. They're loners, so they're free to just go where the eatin's good. Then when they do have to be a little social (say, to mate), they can easily pick up the locations of others because they can detect the "click" of other sperms from halfway across the globe, literally. Your image caption is funny, but really it's that they "live" nowhere. JDG 07:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the image, made the blue softer and changed the areas where they dont live into stripes seee image —This user has left wikipedia 07:59 2006-01-26

Definite improvement. You should put it in immediately... Abdull's question remains, as they're still shown to "live" in every open sea on earth. I'm pretty sure this is correct... Any experts out there? JDG 08:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually the stripes aren't showing up very well when downsampled for the article. Can you address that? JDG 08:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one more try, I made the non-whale areas redish-grey and added a hint of blue gradient on the ocean. Here's original first modification second modification —This user has left wikipedia 08:13 2006-01-26

Nice. JDG 08:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sperm Whale range (in blue) - added antarctica -- Expert needed to verify accuracy

Expert needed! - After more research I found this [1] thus I tried my best to redraw it... I added antarctica to the map, the proposed version is on the right. I'm interested to know if they frequent the warm waters of the mediterrenian, do they ever enter/go through the strait of Gibraltar ?—This user has left wikipedia 09:09 2006-01-26

Gotta question that map you link to-- according to it these guys frequent even the Red Sea. Double doubtful with a cherry on top. JDG 15:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I just re-tagged the image as it's on the article page: Sperm Whale range (in blue). Eg, grey parts & red parts are NOT a habitat. —This user has left wikipedia 16:40 2006-01-26

[edit] Need Photos

This article needs some photos really? Don't you think?

[edit] James Bartley story probably a hoax

Many people have written about James Bartley, a whaler sailing on the "Star of the East" in 1891, who was swallowed by a sperm whale, (off the coast of the Faulkland Islands), and after the whale was caught and killed, he was found alive in it's stomach, his exposed skin dyed white. Most of those who have researched this story have found it to be a complete hoax. The "Star of the East" was a real ship, however, James Bartley probably never existed. Bennett Turk

It would be great if you could give us some links or books talking about the hoax. Pcb21 Pete 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

www reference: [[2]] Edward B. Davis, professor and Christian, disproves James Bartley story. 24.92.55.166 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Thanks again. I added a section. Pcb21 Pete 08:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

I understand this passed a Featured article candidacy at a point but can you please redirect the red link to the FAC? --Cat out 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size?

Why is it mentioned that the Sperm Whale is the largest ever toothed mammal, and then compared to the blue whale and some jellyfish, which are not toothed? IanUK 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there was no toothed animals in history of planet (at least confirmed) that would be larger than sperm whale males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.59.7 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record-Sizes

There are several "record" sizes mentioned in the article, which base on the length of the mandible. The text says the mandibula is about 20-25% of the whole body length. In fact the mandibula is (especially in bulls which have larger heads) about 25%, not 20% of the complete body length. This leads to the result that the sperm whale which had a 5,5m mandibula was not 28, but "only" 22m, and this is a huge difference, furthermore the specimen with the 5,2 mandibula was only about 21m, what´s still huge. I have taken much research in this topic and have made many calculations and comparisons with other sperm whales of known size and lenght of the mandibula, and came to the result that the 28m estimation is much too high. I don´t want to edit this page, but I hope someone else will do it.

I agree, too much credit is given to these estimates. I'll go even further to determine the minimum total lengths: the lower end suggests that the mandibula is some 80 % of the length of the head, and since the head is 25–33 % of total length, a long mandibula could be up to 26.4 % of total length – so this means (much more plausable) minimum lengths of 19.6 m (64.3 ft) and 20.8 m (68.2 ft) for these two individuals. For reportedly measured individuals, the largest size I find absolutely certain is 18.5 m (60.7 ft) length and 53 t (58 sh t) weight, and the largest with a relatively reliable source 20.7 m (67 ft 11 in) and 72 t (79 sh t). And so I find it safe to say, that it's unlikely for a sperm whale to ever exceed 21 metres (68.9 ft) and 22 m (72.2 ft) is certainly off limits. Note that males average 14.3 m (47 ft) and 33.5 t (37 sh t) – the averages given in the article are BS – so a 21 m individual would be 47 % longer, and with the same proportions (calculated weight 106 t/117 sh t) 217 % heavier than average (though long individuals usually seem to be proportionally slimmer than average). So claims of 28 m (96 % above average) and 150 t (348 % – average proportions would suggest a weight of 251 t/278 sh t, or 650 % above average) are just absurd and very much so. For comparison: blue whale females average 26.2 m (86 ft) and 120 t (132 sh t). Or project the same on humans: a man 96 % taller than average would be some 3.4–3.5 m (11–11½ ft) tall – and humans vary much more in size than wild animals in general. The given mandibula lengths also seem a bit impercise (i.e. no inches; rough estimates?), also Guinness aknowledges only the shorter one (with a length of "5 metres" [16 ft 5 in] in the Finnish edition). In conclusion the method of determing total lengths based on mandibula length seems to have a much too big margin of error to be reliable, even whitout considering the possibility of malformations of the mandibula.

There seems to be some discrepancy on the length/weight ratio: for average-sized individuals (based on various sources) this appears to be cirka 10–11.5 kg/m³, but only 8–8.5 kg/m³ for very large ones. Perhaps this is just an indication of long individuals being generally slimmer in proportion.

--Anshelm '77 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. This is really a problem. It is very probable that some sperm whales were really much larger than average (especially because the old big bulls were favorite objects of the hunters and because they need many decades to reach their full size), but in the case of the mandibles, it really seems that there are gros inaccuracies. I have dealt with this topic for a long time, searching for many skeletons with known proportions and came always to the same result, mandibles are about a quarter, and not a fiths of the complete length, and therefore the calculations are false. But I was also suprized when I found out that some sperm whale bulls really managed to grow to monstrous sizes. There are some few teeth in the New Bedfornd Whaling Museum which are more than 30cm in length, and I found also some teeth of this size which come from a fossil sperm whale (which seemed to be identical with the modern sperm whales in this case, one of this teeth has a weight of 2353g!). Such teeth could really come from a sperm whale which was a good bit over 20m and probably really more than 100tons in weight. But such cases were really extraordinairy exceptions of only one individual in ten thousands or more. What is a bit strange with the sizes and masses of sperm whales, is that I read comparably often about washed on sperm whales in the last years, which were measured to be 18m long and 50tons in weight, so I have my doubts that this datas are really near maximum.

I agree, I did research on that too. In Nantucket museum, there is a sperm whale jaw that is 18 feet in length, that is, 5.5 meters. This could belong to a sperm whale of very large size, around 25 meters, I also doubt that length of manibula is only 20% of body, I am pretty sure it is 20%, not 25%. What I want to disagree about most imortantly is the fact that it was one in a thousand. You see, during periods of exsessive whaling, the largest sperm whales were killed, since they had larger heads, and hence more spermaceti. Nowadays, whole population of sperm whales is simply smaller than it was say 100-200 years ago, due to whaling. Nowadays, you can find ship logs of whaling ships that are full with references to bulls that gave the amount of spermaceti that suggest they were along the size of 25 meters long, and probably well over 100 tons in weight. I will repeat, scientists today saw no such whales, because all the big ones were killed by whalers, and it will take very long time for modern males to reach sizes of those big ones. As for weight, in general, when you add 25% of bodylength to an animal or human, weight doubles. Of course, it is not precise, but in general, it is along that lines. this can let us estimate the weight of big males. I also disagree that larger males are slimmer. Larger males can dive deeper, hence can get more squid, hence can grow heavier. If anything, longer and larger males are thicker. For example, we know that largest seen sperm whale was 20 meters long and weighed 72 tons (http://oceanlink.island.net/records.html) , form that we can conclude that 25 meters male will weigh allready along the lines of 110 tons. This should be the largest(?) weight for a 25 meters sperm whale. If Sperm whale will be longer, it will be heavier. Even a little bit of length adds a fair amount of weight, if it would not, long sperm whale males would look like sausages, not like whales. ALso, comparing Blue whales to Sperm whales is not really a valid comparison, since Blue whales are indeed slimmer than Sperm whales.99.231.59.7 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)PAvel, October 6, 6:26.

[edit] Thickest skin?

I read in many books that the skin if sperm whales is in fact very thin, only about 1cm, even at the head. I have also seen many pictures of cross-section of sperm whale heads, photos of butchered sperm whales heads and a sperm whale with a huge wound on the head, and all pictures showed undoubtly that the skin is also on the head very thin, only the blubber under the skin as comparably thick.

You're correct, the given thickness must include the blubber; apparently the original author got confused somewhere. I've pointed out the same thing a couple of times myself, but the darn thing just doesn't go away. Pretty much all of the numeral and statistical information here are wrong, so I'd suggest for everyone to get their sperm whale information from somewhere else. That featured article star is a really bad joke. --Anshelm '77 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Predators

the article says the only animals which attack sperm whales are orcas...but what about colossal squid or giant squid? they regularly prey on sperm whale

No, Sperm whales regularly prey on colossal and giant squid. The largest Architeuthis are about 300kg and the largest Mesonychoteuthis about 1ton. Sperm whales weigh in general 15-30tons. There is no, really not one indication that any squid (can) prey on sperm whales. Even new born calves (which don´t dive) are already bigger than any squid.

[edit] "largest predator, apart from the blue whale"

Is it really sensible to call the blue whale a predator? --157.161.173.24 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The blue whale is a carnivore, but its feeding habits are better described with planctivor instead of carnivor.

Would this then make the fin whale the largest carnivore?Rlendog (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reproduction and mating behaviours

There's nothing in this article on this at all. This is a biology article and has been a featured article. The least it could do is have a short paragraph explaining how sperm whale mating behaviours are or are not different from other whales, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.9.239.185 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Update for Information on the Colossal Squid

Perhaps a correction should be made where the article reads: "Stories about titanic battles between Sperm Whales and giant squid which are believed to reach up to 13 m (44 ft) are perhaps the stuff of legend, given alone the fact that even the largest giant squid weigh only about 300 kg (660 lb), in contrast to several tons of even the youngest hunting sperm whale, "

given Wikipedia's article on the colossal squid, which states:

"Many Sperm whales carry scars on their backs believed to be caused by the hooks of Colossal Squid. Colossal Squid are a major prey item for Antarctic sperm whales feeding in the Southern Ocean; 14% of the squid beaks found in the stomachs of these sperm whales are those of the Colossal Squid, which indicates that Colossal Squid make up 77% of the biomass consumed by these whales." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.166.175 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Exploding whales segment

While this section is interesting, the writing of it strikes me as excessively colorful for an encylopedia. Is anyone else bothered with the wording of this section? Russeasby 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding Whale

If the incident took place in Oregon, and the demolition team intended the remains to be blown towards the Atlantic, then they suceeded, as the remains did indeed fall inland. 172.134.150.232 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)RKH

[edit] Feeding, behaviour and diving - needs work

The first 2 paragraphs of this section read badly. They also include facts and figures that are confusingly different yet similar (e.g. diving to 1.9 miles in sentence 1 and to 2 miles in sentence 4. I think folding paragraph 3 into 1 and then totaly re-writing paragraph 2 would be sensible. Other than that, a nice article.

[edit] Very interesting reference source

I stumbled across the following article: http://discovermagazine.com/2003/dec/blast-from-the-vast while looking for something else, that goes into quite a bit of detail about the function of the Sperm Whale's enormous head. Quite a bit of this content could be added to the article if someone has the time and motivation. At the moment, I'm horribly short of the former, so I'll post the link and come back at a later date if nobody's been able to get to it. Neil916 (Talk) 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Harman illustrations

Are there really no good public domain/freely licensed photographs of sperm whales? Must we rely on artwork that requires us to display the artist's name and a link to his website in our article?SteveSims 06:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diving capabilities of the Sperm Whale and other mammals

The Penguiness Book website provides useful well-referenced information on the diving capabilities of various animals. Based on it I can make these lists of the Sperm Whale and its closest mammal rivals.

Deepest-diving mammals (1,000+ m):
1. Sperm Whale – 2,085 m (6,841 ft) [3]
2. Cuvier's Beaked Whale – 1,888 m (6,194 ft) [4]
3. Southern Elephant Seal – 1,653 m (5,423 ft) [5]
4. Northern Elephant Seal – 1,581 m (5,187 ft) [6]
5. Northern Bottlenose Whale – 1,453 m (4,767 ft) [7]
6. Blainville's Beaked Whale – 1,408 m (4,619 ft) [8]

Longest-diving mammals (1+ h):
1. Arnoux's Beaked Whale – 2 h 33 min [9]
2. Southern Elephant Seal – 2 h
3. Sperm Whale – 1 h 52 min
4. Cuvier's Beaked Whale – 1 h 28 min 6 s
5. Northern Elephant Seal – 1 h 17 min
6. Northern Bottlenose Whale – 1 h 10 min 30 s
7. Weddell Seal – 1 h 7 min [10]
7. Baird's Beaked Whale – 1 h 7 min [11]
9. Bowhead Whale – 1 h 3 min [12]

Elswhere I've seen a 2 h 18 min duration for the Sperm Whale that is quite well-referenced (Watkins et al. 1985; Papastavrou et al. 1989; Sarvas and Fleming 1999). I think it was in Norwegian waters in 1983; I've seen the place and time mentioned somewhere in the web, but couldn't find them right now. Also, many older books give a duration of 1 h 13 min for the Weddell Seal, and quite a deal of sources say 1 h 22 min, such as this.

Estimates in the region of 2,500–3,200 m for the Sperm Whale, based on circumstantial evidence, have apparently been ignored by Penguiness; and perhaps rightfully so. Ironically the 1 h 52 min dive probably refers to the one in 1969 south of Durban, South Africa, speculated to be 3,000+ m deep. Also, Penguiness gives a more precise figure of 2,035 m (6,677 ft) for the dive measured in the waters of the Dominican Republic in 1991 – the official Guinness record. One has to wonder though, is the absolute record of 2,085 m mentioned earlier the very same dive, and either one of the given figures a typo.

No doubt future research will introduce new species to the list, especially from the Ziphiidae family – the long durations for the two Berardius species, for example, might give one reason to make speculations of various kind.

--Anshelm '77 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whale size ranking

Sperm Whale is not the second or third largest whale. Besides the Blue and Fin Whales, all members of the Balaenidae family are larger (heavier) than the Sperm Whale. Also, the Humpback Whale is almost the same size, but apparently the Sperm Whale is marginally larger. So this would make Sperm Whale the 7th largest species – 5th if you recognize only one species of Right Whale. --Anshelm '77 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sperm whales in the past could have been second largest animals ever. Now it is not.99.231.59.7Pavel, October 6.

[edit] 90 minute dives. Holds breath 2 hours.

In the article it is started that a sperm whale can dive up to 90 minutes and elsewhere it says it can hold its breath for 2 hours. This seems inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEBlood (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Physeter macrocephalus jumping.jpg

I removed Image:Physeter macrocephalus jumping.jpg since it seems not fully clear that this really is a sperm whale. /SvNH 21:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I found this a very good article - very informative - and would merely like to express my thanks to whoever wrote it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Rlendog (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)