Talk:Bryde's whale

Failed Good Article candidate

I don't think the article is up to Good Article standards. I think it would need to be significantly longer and broader to meet the Good Article criteria - see Blue Whale for an example of what sorts of things can be added. Other specific points to bear in mind:

• There is an irrelevant detail in the lead section
• Several sections lower down the article are unwikified
• While there are some references, more need to be added. Some of the assertions (e.g. that there are two species) look like they are disputable and, therefore, need inline citations.

This species might be relatively difficult to research, but a good bit needs to be done before it reaches Good Article status. Regards, The Land 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think I might be able to pick up enough information about both species to make the article a Good Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.159.32 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Split not neccessary...

A proposal has been made to split this article into two: Balaenoptera brydei and Balaenoptera edeni, accessible from a disambiguation page. [Not my proposal, by the way] Richard New Forest (talk)

I don't think the split is neccessary for this article. It is not long and if it is split, it would be a stub. --ZooFari 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be in support of the split, because it isn't that short. Since when have we had the same article for three separate species just because they are similar? Should we merge Blue whale and Sei whale too, since they are in the same genus? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• As there is no consensus for a split at this time I have removed the tag. If there is a new proposal for a split, please put forward a rationale and use a new tag with a new date. SilkTork *^YES! 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bowhead Whale which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pointless sightings section

Sightings

Perhaps someone could incorporate this information into the Range section, because I'm sure as hell not wasting my time summarizing what countless authors have added to a worthless section:

• On 23 August 2007, a large whale with wounds in several body parts was found dead in waters off the town of Tagdon, Barcelona in Sorsogon province in the Philippines. The 14 metres (46 ft) long, 7 long tons (7.1 t) corpse was later identified as a Bryde's whale. This species frequents the coastal waters of the central Philippines, specifically the waters off Siquijor, Bohol, Palawan and Camiguin.

• On 13 October 2008, a 10 metres (33 ft) long, 3 long tons (3.0 t) live Bryde's whale beached itself in the estuary of the Nenasi River, Pekan, Malaysia. Despite villagers' attempts to save it, the whale died.

• On 4 October 2009, a 41.5 feet (12.6 m)-long Bryde's whale died in Tampa Bay (Tampa, Florida, USA), and had to be removed from a busy shipping channel. Rescuers pulled the whale from the water onto the shore of Fort De Soto Park, where a necropsy revealed fractured ribs and shredded muscle consistent with a boat strike. The whale was buried off shore by the park.

• On 16 January 2010, a 12 metres (39 ft) long Bryde's whale was found dead, washed up on a Puget Sound beach near Olympia, Washington. After a necropsy by local biologists, it was ceremonially processed by members of the Squaxin Island Tribe, who will reassemble it for display in their tribal museum.

• On 8 April 2010, a Bryde's whale (as identified by the local environmental and oceanography organizations) was beached on El Mogote beach in front of the Paraiso del Mar resort on the Sea of Cortez, just outside La Paz, Mexico. After several hours of rescue attempts, the whale was freed and swam out to sea. It appeared healthy and there were no reports of the whale returning to shore. The whale was found beached early in the morning. It was successfully freed around 4 pm, after the tide came in, with the assistance of several boats, the Marines and many local volunteers from shore. Although a minor cut to the whale's skin near its fluke occurred when volunteers tried to free the whale using an inadequately sized rope, it was otherwise in excellent shape with no evidence of scars or other injuries. It looked to be a very heathy whale. Many pictures of this whale and the rescue attempts have been posted online.

• A pod of 20 Bryde's whales were spotted in the upper Gulf of Thailand off the province of Phetchaburi in September 2010, causing a stir in the media and concern from conservation groups about an influx of watchers.

• On 4 December 2010, a Bryde's whale washed up dead on a beach in the Totten Inlet of South Puget Sound near Olympia, Washington. The injured whale was first spotted in November, missing large chunks of flesh and blubber that may have been caused by a boat propeller.

• On the 26th of December 2010, a Bryde's whale washed up on the south coast of New South Wales, Australia. The animal was alive and attempts were made to refloat it on the incoming tide. These attempts were unsuccessful however, and it died before it was able to be taken back out to sea.

• On 1 October 2011, the badly decomposing carcass of a whale was found washed up on Chenang Beach, Langkawi, Malaysia. It was later identified by it's bone structure to be those of a Bryde's whale, which is commonly found off the western part of the island, sharing the same area as another one of the island's famous & common residents, the whale sharks.

• On 1 February 2012, a dead Bryde's whale was found floating near Waiheke Island, New Zealand. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Merged Balaenoptera brydei

I am moving content which will be painful and slow. Otr500 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bryde's whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611112003/http://www.cms.int/documents/appendix/Appendices_COP9_E.pdf to http://www.cms.int/documents/appendix/Appendices_COP9_E.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/12/16/nation/16342365&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927212353/http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/SeiBrydesWhales.htm to http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/SeiBrydesWhales.htm

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).

• 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) 00:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bryde's whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104205059/http://www.twoeggz.com/news/817354.html to http://www.twoeggz.com/news/817354.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F12%2F16%2Fnation%2F16342365&sec=nation

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryde's whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pmbc.go.th/web/webpmbc/public%20files/swpphuket/swpphuket43.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ido.3mt.com.cn/Article/200610/show523846c27p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170306033114/http://www.09dd.cn/doc/4219745 to http://www.09dd.cn/doc/4219745

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Name

Perhaps worth mentioning that the pronunciation indicated (with 'BREW' in the first syllable - today I heard naturalist David Attenborough making the name rhyme with 'brooder') is an English mangling of the original Norwegian (in which the first syllable sounds more like 'BREE'). I'm also surprised to see that a man who made money out of whale-killing was 'rewarded' for his pains by having a whale named after him!89.212.50.177 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Jay ^(Talk) 21:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it a grade or a clade?

Is Bryde's whale a species complex, or some other clade? If so, the manual {{Taxobox}} should be upgraded to an {{Automatic taxobox}}. If it is only an evolutionary grade, then an automated {{paraphyletic group}} box should be used. I think either change could be applied without rocking the boat on the rest of the article. The question could also be posed for the only other article in WikiProject Cetaceans using a manual taxobox, Minke whale. --Nessie (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the species be split again?

The paper that recently described Rice's whale found that the current grouping of Bryde's whale is likely paraphyletic, with Eden's whale being related to Rice's whale and Bryde's whale being related to the sei whale. Due to this finding, should the Bryde's and Eden's whales get their own articles again?Geekgecko (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this show await a secondary source: IUCN, ASM or Society for Marine Mammology. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Version 1.4 of the ASM's Mammal Diversity Database (April 11, 2021) recognise Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera brydei), Edeni's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), and Rice's whale (Balaenoptera ricei) as distinct species. Rosel et al (2021) is given as the supporting citation. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Bryde's whale image at top right

Hello. The image at top right appears to be the same that appears on page 2 of Rosel & Wilcox (2014) that shows a Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale (i.e. Rice's whale, B. ricei). It just looks like it's been cropped. Should we change the image? Any pictures from SEFC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center) are likely to be of Rice's whale. BulbousCow (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The file history at File:Balaenoptera_brydei.jpg says it is a cropped version of a photograph by Wayne Hoggard at the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and the description says it is in the public domain because he was a federal employee at NOAA. Does the image in Rosel & Wilcox (2014) have the same credit?

The image is OK at the moment as Rice's whale is still treated as part of Balaenoptera brydei in the article. It would need to be changed if the species is recognised, so a change of image might be a good idea in preparation. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It just says it was taken by NMFS under permit 738 (P77#51). It doesn't give the name of the photographer. There's a white circle behind the flukes in each photo but the other white dot above the whale doesn't match up. It might be from the same series of photos or could be due to the quality of the photo on WikiCommons. BulbousCow (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link BulbousCow (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It could also be an image processing difference. But I think you are right about the identity, whether a different photo in series or differently processed. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)