![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
End text moved from Peer Review
A 7 kg brain is very little for an animal of 25,000 kg or more. - Patrick 18:21, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
File:Sperm whale1.jpg |
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 |
-can anyone get the rights to and post a real photo and not just a drawing?
Pete- we can use one of these two:
File:Sperm whale1b.jpg -- File:Sperm whale2.jpg
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)
Sperm Whale or sperm whale? Dysprosia 10:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
This discussion is old, so I hope I haven't damaged too much by changing it to do this:
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)
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)
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
Quote from the Physical description section of the article:
The K-selection article contradicts the above quote, stating that
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.
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
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/?title=Sperm_Whale&oldid=18997060 and heavily updated to fix spelling and minor grammatical issues in http://en.wikipedia.org/?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.
I just wanted to say.. haha at name
It's kind of odd that moby dick... is a sperm whale. Wallaroo 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
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
"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
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)
This article needs some photos really? Don't you think?
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
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)
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)
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.
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 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.
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.
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)
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).
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).
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
While watching sperm whales in Dominica the guide suggested that the calf was nursing through its blowhole. I do not recall seeing a published reference to sperm whales nursing through the blowhole, but given the shape of the mouth, with the large overhang of the upper jaw, it seems like it could make sense. Does anyone know if this is correct? Is there any published reference to this effect? Rlendog ( talk) 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed:
A hypothesis pertaining to the echolocation abilities of these animals holds that the combination of the shape of the whale's skull, the highly variable geometry (in three dimensions) of the muscle-sheathed spermaceti container, and the presence of this "internal nostril" may endow the sperm whale with astounding powers of sound production - not only being able to echolocate with high fidelity, but to produce other effects with sound waves/ mechanical energy as well. For example, it is postulated that sperm whales, ungainly and ponderous swimmers, may need "something extra" to capture the agile-swimming squid they eat, and the ability to stun or even kill such prey with a burst of sound would "fit the bill". However, so far, this hypothesis remains only intriguing speculation.
This is uncited speculation. Without a source, this cannot satisfy WP:OR or WP:V, and probably runs afoul of some other guidelines as well. If someone can provide a citaiton to support this hypothesis, by all means restore it to the article.-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the sperm whale is larger than any of the toothed dinosaurs. Anyone object if I amend the opening sentence to reflect this? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not have any authority, but I seriously dought that Megalodon was heavier even if it had the same length with modern sperm whales. Take for example the comparison of any cetacean with a shark of the same length (with the exception maybe of the Whale Shark to the largest beaked whales). Even if some sauropods were larger than sperm whales (though now Argentinosaurus' announced maesurements are seriously dought, the Sperm Whale still keeps the title of the largest predatorial animal EVER with only possible rival the Megalodon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 ( talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
this might be interesting: http://cameronmccormick.blogspot.com/2008/10/sperm-whales-jaw-or-sorry-gerald-wood.html So, no 25m spermwhales;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.54.34 ( talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to list some issues to be dealt with in this FAR that can be addressed? I don't think that the article is unsalvagable, it just needs some updates and restructuring. I'll start off. Strike these out if you've dealt with them.
I'm sure more can be done and this can be saved. I'll give it some time if I can. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the section ("Owing to extensive whaling, sperm whale size has decreased dramatically, mostly because the largest males were killed first and most intensively, for they had more spermaceti (spermaceti oil was of great value in the 18th and 19th century - see below). ") claiming early whaling "first and most intensively" targeted male sperm whales, as this simply isn't true. American ( and later European) whalers from the second quarter of the 18th century to the early 20th century primarily hunted this species in tropcial and warm temperate waters, where they encountered pods of female and immature males. When encountered, adult males were taken, and in higher latitudes they probably encountered "bachelor schools," but for the most part individuals taken by these whalers would have been the above mentioned female and immature pods.
It was after World War II, in the Anarctic and other areas were adult males are found, that whalers targeted them. Jonas Poole ( talk) 22:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Let us take a look at these lines mentioned in the "Description" section: In a Nantucket museum there is a jawbone of a sperm whale which is 5.5 m (18 ft). The jawbone makes up to 20%-25% of the sperm whale's overall body length. Thus this whale might have been 28 m (90 ft) long, a mass of around 133 metric tons (150 short tons). Another evidence of large bulls of the past resides in New Bedford museum, a 5.2 metres (17 ft) jaw of a bull that could have been about 25.6 metres (84 ft) long, with a mass of about 120 tons.
I highly doubt the accuracy of these estimates and have pointed out a reason below:
The error: These size estimations are based on the assumption that the jawbone of a Sperm Whale is about 1/5th or 20% the length of its entire body. Now can this be verified through any credible source or any anatomical studies?
It has already been determined through anatomical studies and from close inspection of many Sperm Whale individuals, that the jawbone of the Sperm Whale is about 1/4th or 25% the length of its entire body. Here is an illustration of a Sperm Whale's skeleton for more clarification: Sperm Whale Skeleton.
Now! The more realistic estimates would be like this: "The 18 foot long jawbone represents a 72 feet long individual, whose weight would be around 80 tons max. And the 17 foot long jawbone represents a 68 feet long individual."
It should be noted that the size of the Sperm Whale to which that 18 foot long jawbone belongs, has been generously estimated to be nearly 24.4 m (80 feet). Here is a source that confirms my point: Sperm Whale in Nantucket Mueseum.
So the information in that paragraph needs to be corrected. For now! I will wait for more replies before I decide to make a move.
LeGenD ( talk) 09:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be reverted. I'm sorry, but there is no way male sperm whales ever grew to 80-90 feet in length. I'm very skeptical of such estimates. Even 72-feet seems a little too large, but not unreasonable like the other estimates. Jonas Poole ( talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
My opinion? You mean common sense? Really? A 90-foot sperm whale. My ass. Provide me a reliable source that says the average jaw-bone of a mature MALE sperm whale represents 20% of the total length, as well as the most extreme percentage the jawbone represents, which would be the safest figure to use--using the lowest esimate could create a liberal, as opposed to a conservative estimate. Ancient sperm whales? What? I didn't know post-World War II whaling was ancient? That's when mature male sperm whales weroe targeted in higher latitudes and the most damage was done to sperm whale stocks. Yankee whalers from the early 18th to the early 20th century primarily targeted sperm whales in tropical and warm temperate waters, where they tok female and immature groups (later, at least off Japan, there appears to have been a shift from these groups to "bachelor schools in slightlg higher latitudes). When mature bull sperm whales were encountered they would have been taken as well.
You used some random photo of a sperm whale to estimate the size of the jaw? Are you serious? Tell me the sex and age of that whale and maybe we can get something meaningful out of this. Also, as English is apparently a second language to you, could you try extra hard to explain things. Some of your sentences make little to no sense. Jonas Poole ( talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cursing there :) your ass? Post WW2 is in no way ancient. Ancient is pre-17 century. And the largest damage was done before WW2, during 1700's. In MODERN times the most damage was done indeed in 1964, when 29,255 were killed. Pictures are not enough? Also, what does sex or age has to do? OHHHH, sorry, I posted a wrong picture, here is the intended one: http://home.scarlet.be/baleinelibre/dossiers/physiologie/cachalot/dessin_cachalot.jpg. I apologize, I didn't pay attention to what I posted. I have used random photo? You have used random picture. What is better, photo of a real picture or drawing by a human? And I think you are a bit wrong about who Yankees targeted. Do you know why sperm whales were killed? For spermaceti, a type of fat that sperm whales have in their bump on the head. It also allows them to ram and sink wooden ships without harm to themselves (Essex, Ann Alexander are good examples) And sometimes even metal ships (Soviet Enthusiast in 1946 is a good example). I guess you don't know what this thing was used for, do you? Lighting. So, tell me now, what was the more logical, to kill a bunch of females and calves (risking females crushing boats in defence) or kill ONE big bull, who would yield twice as much oil as a female? No, I am sorry, but you are wrong, large bulls were a primary target, since their heads were larger and contained more spermaceti. Now, after WW2, that's where it is probable that females also entered the picture for hunter, not the other way around. Now, estimates are MAXIMUMS, and this is pointed out in the article. It now says "at most". Regarding random photo again, you can take a ruler and measure the length of the jawbone (you can see where it ends approximately). Also, there is a reference (on this article's page) to 20 meter 80 tons whale. Whale that sunk Essex was estimated at 25 meters. 5 additional meters to the length. This whale had to weigh at least 100 tons if it were mature (and if it did not look like a thin weiner, which I doubt), if it were not, who knows to what length and size it would have grown to be, but it was reportedly a leader of the herd, so I think it was a mature whale. Anyway, there is more than enough evidence to the huge sperm whales of the past, have you ever heard of libraries of Nantucket? Unsupported claims of 7.2 meter jaws are made. -- 9K58 ( talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
this might be interesting: http://cameronmccormick.blogspot.com/2008/10/sperm-whales-jaw-or-sorry-gerald-wood.html So, no 25m spermwhales;-)
Do You even read the article? There are alot refernces like papers etc. This is arleast written by an undergraduaded and you call it not reliable? then 50 % of wikipedia is not reliable.
It's not a proper noun (is it) so it should be sperm whale and not Sperm Whale. It even says sperm whale in the first line of the article. Mglovesfun ( talk) 11:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't belive there is even an argument here. Capitlization rules for species only aply to the Linean names---and even there, it is only the genus that is capitalized. The moment it becomes proper to capitalize "cat" and "dog" then we can capitalize "sperm whale." -- Woland ( talk) 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had randomly picked up a book called Hudson's Merchants and Whalers and noticed on page 135 the picture of a sperm whale jaw standing upright. It appeared to be very large. I then noticed that the hinge of the jaw, which you don't really notice in photos, accounted for a third of the length of the jaw. I strangely had forgotten to include this when factoring in the percentage it accounted for in the total length of an adult bull sperm whale. So I thought, I must have a photo of a bull somewhere in one of my books. I open The Hand of God: Whaling in the Azores by Trevor Housby and I find a photo of a 61-ft bull sperm. The body if it is perfectly parallel with the photo and the jaw is clearly visible. I measured the sperm whale in the photo and found it to be six inches long, with the jaw (including the hinge) representing 1 1/2 inches of the whale, or 25%. With this knowledge in mind, I will be reverting the estimated size of the sperm whales mentioned in the article. This debate is OVER. Jonas Poole ( talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just happened to be looking through M.F. Maury's Sailing Directions... (1851) and I noticed that he mentioned that a 62-ft sperm whale had a lower jaw that measured 16-ft. That would be 25.8% of the total length. But to make it easier, I'll keep the figure on the article as 25%. Jonas Poole ( talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just at the museum and I saw that jawbone. I can't accurately tell anyone the size though. The museum is called the Nantucket Whaling Museum. The whale was killed in the 1800s and the jaw was given as a gift to someone. This jawbone is separate from the whale skeleton that is displayed in one of the rooms. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
We should follow MSW3, as it is what is used in nearly all other mammal articles on Wikipedia. UtherSRG (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't use the Encycopedia of Marine Mammals. I used Whitehead's Sperm whales: social evolution in the ocean. And I'll be reverting it back to macrocephalus, again. :) Jonas Poole ( talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to resurrect and old edit war, but the description in the footnote regarding the seniority of the name macrocephalus over catodon is confusing to me, and I have no idea where else I'd go to ask for clarification on something like this... Anyway, my understanding of the ICZN is that when two taxa are erected in the same paper and later found to be synonyms, no "first revisor" is needed--the senior synonym becomes the one that appeared first in the document, or has page priority. This is the case with Tyrannosaurus, named in the same document as but a few paragraphs before its synonym Dynamosaurus, Assuming both names were validly erected under whatever ICZN articles apply, shouldn't this have just been a simple matter of checking Systema Naturae to see which name appears in the text first? MMartyniuk ( talk) 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Synonyms and also any basic text on taxonomy, raw species epithets should never be used, authors can be dropped though (per ICZN). Shyamal ( talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that. You would think bowhead and North Pacific right whales were larger than the largest bull Sperm whales? For example, take the highest yields (at least the ones I know of) of oil for each of the species, as well as a few others for example:
Also, Goode (1880-84) quotes a captain that says he's "heard" of bull sperm whales that yielded 148-bbls, only a few more than the largest I've come across in my own reading of logbooks and journals. The above table/tally (whatever you want to call it) shows that the largest individuals of bowhead and north pacific right whales (not taking into account whatever exageration that may have occurred) were over twice the size of the largest sperm whale. Perhaps oil yield isn't a fair example? How about the largest reported weights? Well, I can't use the estimates of the two sperm whales mentioned in the article (see the debate on jaw size) as I can't quite recall how those estimates were made, and by who for that matter. I'll use those found in the Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals. Phil Clapham wrote each section for the baleen whales, and Randall Reeves the one for the Sperm whale.
With this tally, it appears very obvious that the Sperm whale is not the "second or third largest species of whale." It would appear to be the sixth or seventh largest. Not enough? How about the figures (supplied by several authors) in Davis et al (1997):
Anyone else like to chim in? Jonas Poole ( talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
By weight, the Sperm Whale is clearly no better than 4th, maybe 5th (depending on the correct max for the Right Whale). By length the Sperm Whale also seems to be about 5th (well behind Blue & Fin; slightly below Sei and Bowhead). So I think the comment about 2nd or 3rd largest needs to go. "One of the largest" would be accurate. Rlendog ( talk) 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not particularly fond of the use of the three sources (A Dictionary of Mechanical Science, Arts, Manufactures, and Miscellaneous Knowledge, the AP website, and The Status of Natural Resources on the High Seas (probably the worst offender of the three)) I read on what spermaceti was used for. First off, none of them provide citations, and two of them appear to confuse the uses of sperm oil with that of spermaceti. For American open-boat whaling, sperm oil was used in the illumination and lubrication markets, whereas pure spermaceti was chiefly used in candle-making. The same appears to be the case for the modern era, where the article only refers to the uses of spermaceti, when it in fact appears to be talking about the uses of both sperm oil and spermaceti. With that in mind, I added that these products were obtained from spermaceti and/or sperm oil. Jonas Poole ( talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there's too much duplicated information about the spermaceti in both the dedicated and the etymology sections. (And that is after I removed 2 other references in the introduction.) It looks like someone got a bit obcessed. The two need to be edited better, but I'm quitting for the night. CFLeon ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I inserted a comment that Physeteroidea was a superfamily designation in 2 places (previous text said that this was an unranked clade, which is incorrect), however it has been deleted again by someone who obviously disagrees and just calls it a clade. This may be true (as with many other genera / families / superfamilies etc.), however it is of rank = superfamily as indicated by the termination -oidea (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oidea, and any zoological text on classification). Some classification schemes do not include it but that does not make it any less a superfamily when the term is employed. I would reinstate this however I do not wish to waste my time if it will simply be deleted, so maybe someone with custodianship of the page can do so :) Tony1212 ( talk) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The article states most squid were between 12 and 650 kg in weight. This is an enormous range. Doesn't this really state that all sizes are eaten with a few very small squid (less than 12 kg) and a few truly gigantic? (Do squid actually ever exceed 650 kg?) In any case, the information in this sentence is practictally nil. Cheers 157.157.101.21 ( talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page not moved. @ harej 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a wikipedia wide issue, i think a huge discussion between all the WikiProjects related to animals be initiated and decide once and for all the correct naming standards . Zoo Pro 02:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions scars from the suction cups of squids, and even has a photograph of the scars, but there's not a clue of how large the scars are. Does anybody know? — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 09:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
67.243.1.21 ( talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 99.35.8.254 ( talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC) In the complex discussion issues, I hesitate to ask for a sperm whale's image of head instead of a dolphin which I realize is a toothed whale; recent info says dolphins & bats have same gene which alters hair in inner ear, indicating that the dolphin hears its return echo using its ears which do we know that about sperm whales?
The article states:
This sentence is not really correct, and makes no sense. Baleen whales actively pray on krill, other zooplankton and small fish. What is a "self functioning animal" anyway? Are not fish and krill as self-functioning as any other animals? I think this would be better re-worded to something like "... but that it actively predates on animals that are not orders of magnitude smaller in size" or similar. I'd love a better suggestion though. MFdeS ( talk) 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
As to the disputed origin of the terms "cachalot," "cachalote," and "cachola," it is remotely plausible that early European explorers/whalers transliterated indigenous Polynesian names for sperm whales, such as the Samoan "kafola" and Hawaiian "kahola" (Maori and Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, Edward Tregear, 1891, as well as more recent Samoan and Hawaiian dictionaries). Both Samoan and Hawaiian were undergoing consonant shifts from "t" to "k" so that the terms might alternately be rendered "tafola" and "tahola" respectively ("*T to K: An Austronesian Sound Change Revisited," Robert Blust, 2004). 155.97.236.101 ( talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done:'Per above.'
Spitfire19 (
Talk)
14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the explanaion of reason for the sperm oil for diving is suspect. The assumption is that the specific gravity is changed as the oil changes from solid to liguid. Is this even true? Do phase changes really change specific gravity that much. And if so, an internal SG change can't have any meaningful impact on the total bouyancy of a whale. Also, the part about making the impact of a whale greater doesn't seem true either. The highest impact would be from a solid object. It doesn't seem as though the oil would amplify this Longinus876 ( talk) 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
let me get this right: Linnaeus mistakenly raised P. macrocephalus as a distinct species just after P. catodon, and now it turns out not to exist, P. catodon has to be called P. macrocephalus instead? I love taxonomy but the people running it really do have their heads up their arses on this one. 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.65.51 ( talk)
Answer: If Linnaeus (or anyone) published multiple names for the same "thing", then the principle of priority applies - whichever was published first gets priority. In the case of multiple names in the same work, they are deemed to have been published simultaneously so the principle of "first reviser" then applies - the first worker to spot the duplicates and designate one or other as the preferred name is then followed. Simple even if non-obvious. Tony1212 ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
In the Description -> Size section, I've added a couple of weasel words / peacock term tags - the wording is grossly offensive to any reasonable form of neutrality. At present it reads:
However, contrary to this popular belief, expert T. Kasuya concluded through his study that exploitation by overfishing virtually had no effect on the size of the bull sperm whales, and their size may have actually increased in current times on the basis of density dependent effects.
How can you overfish a whale, by the way? ;-) Is it called 'overwhaling'? Anyway, instead of the above I propose something like:
Another view holds that exploitation by overwhaling had virtually no effect on the size of the bull sperm whales, and their size may have actually increased in current times on the basis of density dependent effects.
Any thoughts? I'll edit in a couple of weeks if no one objects.
Trolle3000 [talk] 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Above edit was made, despite the wording had been changed to
"In 1991, T. Kasuya concluded that exploitation by overfishing virtually had no effect on the size of the mature male sperm whales, and that their size may have actually increased through density-dependent effects. "
I think the wording I initially proposed is more balanced by virtue of excluding the word "conclude", and I think the reference to Kasuya in the text is unnecessary.
Trolle3000 [talk] 23:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The generated downforce due to the spermaceti is given as 392 newtons (860 lb). 392 N would be nearly 40 kg (it seems that this was the original value, which was then converted to N and rounded), which in turn are 88.2 lb (although the use of non-SI units doesn't look desirable to me here). It seems that the error was due to reading N as kg. However, looking into the reference given (M.R. Clarke in Nature), I the values quoted seem a bit on the low side, there he quotes a value around 90kg. Seattle Jörg ( talk) 09:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Typical soft mammalian tissues don't lend themselves to high Q (multiple echo) resonators, because they have similar compressibility and density to each other and to sea water. The perpendicular reflection coefficient (used in high frequency approximations) depends on the ratio of the acoustic hardness or surface impedance of the two materials on either side of an interface. This is the ratio of the density to the compressibility, which affects the ratio of the pressure change to the range of motion of the sound waves. Spermaceti has a low density, and its nearness to a phase transition that changes volume implies that it has relatively high compressibility. This increases the sound reflection at the boundaries, at lower frequency by contrast to sea water and at higher frequency by contrast to the dense hard case that Melville described. David R. Ingham ( talk) 05:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The numbers don't seem consistent. First, the population declined by a third in the 19th century and another third in the 20th, then there were several times as many taken in the 20th than in the 19th. David R. Ingham ( talk) 17:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This photo is not in the public domain. Though it was taken from the NOAA website, the photographer, Flip Nicklin, works for National Geographic since the 1970s. Kurzon ( talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to know the original source for the sperm whale creak audio file. Where did User:Kurzon get it? BaronBifford ( talk) 08:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The link in the Etymology area with that name doesnt actually do anything. I don't know how to fix it. 74.132.252.16 ( talk) 22:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: Mother and baby sperm whale.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 23, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Spinach Dip 06:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The claim that a 67.9 ft (20.7 m) male was caught off the Kuril Islands by a Soviet fleet in the summer of 1950 has been repeated by Guinness World Record books since at least 1970. I'm guessing the original reference for it is the International Whaling Statistics or perhaps some Russian paper. Does anyone now the origins of it? I know of longer reported lengths, but none approaching that length that were measured by scientists -- the longest I know of was a 60-ft male brought to the Coal Harbour whaling station on the west coast of Vancouver Island in 1954 which was measured by biologist Gordon Pike or one of his assistants. SHFW70 ( talk) 02:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The sinking of the whaleship Essex was one of the incidents behind Moby-Dick – the other occurred in 1827 when a whale damaged the sloop-of-war Peacock under the command of Commodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones: Melville's "Commodore J—." — Pawyilee ( talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In the BBC here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary, the term epithet, as used in biology, does not apply to the Animal Kingdom. It is appropriate for all other kingdoms but for animals the term 'specific name' should be used instead of 'specific epithet'. I have edited the section accordingly. Probing Mind ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
'At birth both sexes are about the same size,...' I think the exclusion some numbers here make this sentence shallow in content.
Capricio ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The use of the Spermaceti organ or head as a battering ram is not commonly accepted within Scientific circles as accurate. Most Sperm Whales when attacked are very passive and adopt the Margherite formation (or others) as described earlier in the article. While some Sperm Whale counter attacks may have happened, they are an exception rather than a rule. The Spermaceti organ is not designed or regularly used as a battering ram. This is a common misconception from the book Moby Dick. See Hal Whitehead's "Cultural Evolution in the Ocean" for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.205.31 ( talk) 11:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The claim that a sound in water is louder (or quieter) than one in air makes no sense. The sound pressure might be higher (or lower) and the sound intensity might be higher (or lower), and it is also possible to the sound pressure to be higher and the sound intensity to be lower, all at the same time. But louder?!? No. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know of the source for this incident. "An incident was filmed from a long-line trawler: an orca pod was systematically taking fish caught on the trawler's long lines (as the lines were being pulled into the ship) when a male sperm whale appeared to repeatedly charge the orca pod in an attempt to drive them away; it was speculated by the film crew that the sperm whale was attempting to access the same fish."
The Wiki Rabbit 18:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The WikiRabbit ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sperm whale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sperm whale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Different parts of this article say they can live for over 60 years and over 70 years. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)