Talk:Berardius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Formypockets.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

Mead, James G. 2007. Stomach Anatomy and Use in Defining Systemic Relationships of the Cetacean Family Ziphiidae (Beaked Whales). The Anatomical Record 290:581–595

This paper notes that the morphology and osteology of the two "species" are extremely similar and it is highly questionable if they actually should be considered separate.

Dalebout, Merel L. et al. 1998. Molecular genetic identification of southern hemisphere beaked whales (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). Molecular Ecology (7) 687-694

This paper notes that genetic differences between the species are less than some variance within other species.

This isn't a resolved issue, but since there is some considerable evidence that the two species are actually sub-species they should not be given separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.238.28 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not redirect species to genera. All species deserve an article and the only reason to redirect is if the genus is monotypic. Since Berardius had two species already, Berardius minimus needed its own article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(quote copied from User talk:HLHJ)

Agreed, Abductive, and I'd favour writing a separate minimus article; I thought of the redirects (I redirected the Japanese common name too, since English-language sources are using it) as a quick stopgap. Now I have more time I've done a bit more on updating this article, and I've templated for a split and a more through update. I don't think I'll be writing a minimus article myself; any volunteers are welcome. I'd be OK with leaving the other two species together in this article (as discussed above) or with splitting them out; on the whole, though, it seems to me that we have little non-overlapping information, and splitting the article might lead to very sparse articles. Hopefully there will be more publications, especially on minimus, which will let us write fuller species-specific articles. HLHJ (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources seem to call B. minimis "black Baird's beaked whale", which seems inappropriate as it is no more closely related to Baird's than to Arnoux's whale; it just happens to be co-located. Also, as the species description points out, some Baird's whales are black, but still B. bairdii, not B. minimis. Maybe "kurotsuchi" or another common name would be preferable? Presumably Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean would have called Arnoux's whale "tsuchi-kujira", too... HLHJ (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the academic paper never uses the term "black Baird's beaked whale" except as a clumsy transliteration of "kurotsuchi" (kuro=black). "Black four-toothed whale" might be an alternate translation, going with my presumption above. I suspect that any use of "black Baird's beaked whale" as a common name is an error, due to misreading this as I did. HLHJ (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got the Japanese terms from the Japanese Wikipedia, and it looks clear:
ツチクジラ属: tsuchi(ツチ) kujira(クジラ) [genus](属) = Berardius cetacean genus
ミナミツチクジラ: minami(ミナミ) tsuchi(ツチ) kujira(クジラ) = Southern [Arnoux's] Berardius cetacean
ツチクジラ: tsuchi(ツチ) kujira(クジラ) = [Baird's] Berardius cetacean
黒ツチクジラ: kuro(黒) tsuchi(ツチ) kujira(クジラ) = B.-minimus Berardius cetacean
So tsuchi(ツチ) is used for all Berardius, kujira(クジラ) is used for all cetaceans, and minami(ミナミ) and kuro(黒) are specifying adjectives. Presumably "北ツチ" (kita-tsuchi=Northern Berardius) would also be a clear designation of B. bairdii, if the distinction were needed, though I have not seen it in use. HLHJ (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - It seems that we have three notable species. Though some may be deemed subspecies at some point, that does not necessarily diminish their notability. I say a 3× split would serve readers best for now. --Nessie (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the chance that they will be declared subspecies is low, since I think there's genetic evidence. If anyone wants to split this article, please go ahead. HLHJ (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be maintained as a genus article but separate articles for the species should be created as well, possibly using information from this article. Rlendog (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do they eat?[edit]

There's no mention at all of diet. What do they eat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.214.18 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are generalist feeders, like humans, so they eat what they can. Some sources say more benthic stuff, others say they've been caught in shallow coastal waters; apparently most of what's known about diet is is from stomach content analysis. HLHJ (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant beaked 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant beaked 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited physical description[edit]

I was reading through the physical description and noticed that some of the information wasn't cited. I also checked out the reference source used for the Arnoux's beaked whale, but I didn't see any mention of a size difference between dead and alive individuals. I decided to get rid of that information, and I added info about the Baird's that I found from the same site as the Arnoux's. I also got rid of the lengths mentioned in the lead so that it wouldn't contradict the whale lengths in the source that I added.––Leodiaz97 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I like that you've writteen so much information on such a rare and little studied species. I really appreciated the section on behavior and calving. I do have a few suggestions. I think it would be best if the section titled "species" was closer to the top of the article. I just think a description of the species is better fit near the general overview. I also think your article could benefit from a section describing the evolutionary history and ancestors of the giant beaked whale if you can find enough sources on it. --Daneeb129 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad that you enjoyed the article. I did try to find sources on the evolution of beaked whales, but most of them were copyright restricted. As for the species section being at the bottom of the page, I would agree with your comment. Ill move it to the top of the article when I have the chance.--Leodiaz97 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Leodiaz97; if you have contradictory sources supporting contradictory information, rather than sources contradicting unsourced content, it's often best to leave them in and add a {{contradiction-inline}} tag. It's totally OK to use copyright sources; information can't be copyrighted. You can't copy text from copyright sources, or images, but you can rewrite the information in your own words. I've re-written the article a bit to include a new species, including a little bit of taxonomic info; please let me know if you have any criticisms of my edits, and fix anything that can be improved.
Daneeb129, I moved the "species" section nearer the top, which is parallel to the placement of taxonomic info in ~parallel articles like baleen whales. Thank you for the suggestion, and please be bold and make any other changes you think will improve the article. HLHJ (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common name of genus[edit]

"Giant beaked whales" seems appropriate as they are beaked whales, but inappropriate as the newly-recognized species is <7m long and not really giant. "Four-toothed whales" seems somewhat inappropriate as they are not toothed whales. "Four-toothed beaked whales" tends to the confusing. "Tsuchi-kujira" (=Berardius cetaceans) is specific and accurate, but still fairly rare in English; the term also gets used for B. bairdii as well as for the whole genus. Maybe plain "Berardius whales" would be best. At any rate, the name of this article is unsatisfactory. Suggestions welcome. HLHJ (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a genus article there is no need for a common name if there isn't actually a common name. Simply calling the article Berardius would be perfectly appropriate and consistent with other genus articles where there is no real common name. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just put in a technical request to move the page to Berardius   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berardius&oldid=1206250932"