Talk:Pinniped

Untitled

According to the this article Odobenidae is a subfamily of Pinnipedia while Walrus claims that Odobenidae is a family. Which is true? --EnSamulili 16:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both are true, depending on what classification scheme one follows. Newer systems (cladistics) tend to deemphasize the old heirarchy of divisions in favor of clades, which are composed of all descendants of a common ancestor. Tom Radulovich 03:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Which classification is cladistic and which is older style? --EnSamulili 10:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

There was new classification of the Pinnipides. I think that for such a change, a source would be necessary. -EnSamulili 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary origin

Is there any information on what seals evolved from?

The German Wikipedia has info on that: w:de:Robben#Stammesgeschichte. Unfortunately I can't read German quite well enough to answer your question. -EnSamulili 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The pinnipeds are related to bears, according to my source (which is added to the article) DaMatriX 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased. You evolutionists print it like its a fact. What ever happened to " in the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Evolution is not a science, its a belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.88.239 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to your view that god created the heavens and the earth, which is, what? A scientific theory? Backed up by scientific evidence and testable by the empirical method? That's not a belief, that's science? Stick to your Bible and leave science to scientists, please. 88.109.31.235 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is a theory. It isn't scientific fact. Religious Text such as the Bible is a "Belief". Either way, until it is proven, I also find that the information on every animal that includes it's evolutionary "theory" should be deleted until proven. However, do not replace it with religious text. Because then you'd still look like you were siding with someone here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.109.143 (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, the idea that, somehow, evolution is a belief and hasn't been proven is ridiculous. There is far more evidence to side with evolution than there is against it, and we're talking an immense amount of study, since Darwin and on. So I find it, not only appropriate, to speak of the evolutionary origin seals, but to insist upon it. If you can give me a proven alternative to evolutionary theory, with all the evidence for it included, I would change my opinion. As of now, evolution is and will always be very real. Julianrocksit (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Julianrocksit

Of course, nothing in history can be scientifically proven in the sense that it's "testable" and "repeatable" and I speak as an engineer and scientist. The scientific bit is studying fossils, analysing their chemical content, comparing them to what we see today, etc. The rest is theory. The fact that "evolution" has been studied a lot doesn't make it true. It may be, but scientists and others may come across other evidence that changes their minds. In the end it's a theory and it requires "belief" to "believe" it. Sorry to rock your worldview, but too many people think that, because scientific methods are used to study a subject and are used in drawing conclusions, that those conclusions are scientifically proven. They are not. They simply help us to develop likely theories and less-likely theories. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Creationism vs Evolutionism debate is illogical, because for an All Powerful Creator to build into His creation the capability to evolve would be easy, Creationism is not against evolution in that respects, it is against the evolution theory in regards to how the universe came into being. Creationism suggests that an All Powerful Eternal Being is the source of the Universe. While evolutionists believe that the materials needed for the big bang were just always there... I guess? Then suddenly a chemical reaction occured from nowhere and bam life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LostCaller (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hybrids

This information would be more appropriate in the relevant species pages, doesnt seem particularly significant for the order as a whole. Should be removed if there are no objections --Parslad 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)]

I agree DaMatriX 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution section

The current evolution section is a total disaster. Which is it - "Latest Oligocene", "early in the Oligocene", or "earliest Miocene"? The language is quite unprofessional, and what on Earth do wolves have to do with anything? Can somebody please clean up this mess? I could try, but I would rather that somebody who knows more about early pinnipeds do it, and who could add references for the information.

Actually, I can't stand it as it is, so I will do a little cleanup right now. But somebody knowledgeable in the area please go over it again. --mglg_(talk) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a seperate page dealing with their evolution, as in the Evolution of sirenians, horses and humans? Enlil Ninlil 05:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Implications of Enaliarctos for the origins of pinnipeds

Add the below reference to this page:

Berta, A., C.E. Ray and A.R. Wyss. 1989. Skeleton of the oldest known pinniped, Enaliarctos mealsi. Science, 244:60-62.

Berta, Ray, and Wyss (1989) describe the skeleton of Enaliarctos, and list the characters of Enaliarctos that support a monophyletic Pinnipedia. The authors view this fossil as supporting a North Pacific origin for pinnipeds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, we were messing around and...

There's some pointless edits, it's late, it's the seal page. Tried to undo but I don't know wtf I'm doing so I just undid it by deleting the crap we added.

Somebody smart can mess with the undo log? Please and thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.84.103 (talk) 05:04, September 20, 2008 (UTC).

I fixed your edits... Azoreg (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pinnipeds in popular culture

I added a Pinnipeds in popular culture to try to help remove some of the cruft from this article. Azoreg (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seals in Borneo

I recently read (in English translation) a Dutch book that mentioned eating seal meat in Sarawak, Borneo. This strikes me as unlikely. Are there any seals in that area? There doesn't seem to be much on their worldwide distribution in this article 86.137.138.225 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about true seals, but maybe the author/translator was referring to Dugongs which may have been in the neighbourhood. You might also try listing this question at the reference desk, since talk pages are often slow to respond and (strictly speaking) are for discussion about how to improve the article rather than discussion about the topic. Hope this helps! --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference link broken

Hi, just thought I'd point out that the encarta page (reference 2) is gone and the link broken as a result. Fa6ade (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual cohersion

 Game of Thrones....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.6.72 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 

This should read coercion.Georg Seifert (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pinnipedia: the free encyclopedia about seals that anyone can edit

Why does the name of the superfamily sound like it'd be the name of a Wikia about seals? --Damian Yerrick (t | c) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the Greek paideia - meaning something like "education" - shares a "p" and a "d" with most Latin declensions of the word for "foot" (pēs: pedēs pedis pedī pedem pede). I trust this answer is at once sufficiently pedantic and disappointingly pedestrian. Eliezg (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy - should it include fossil genera and species or not?

Currently some extinct genera are listed, but many are not. If the section here is intended to list all (extant+extinct) species, than much more should be added (there are about a dozen genera of extinct walruses). If it is intended to list only living species (like for example at Cetacea page) then currently listed fossil genera should be deleted. Ruxax (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pinnipedia" does not conform to typical ICZN rules

Out of curiosity, how is it that Pinnipedia is allowed as a Superfamily name since every other Superfamily name I've seen ends with the suffix -oidea. Shouldn't Pinnipedia actually be Pinnipedoidea or something similar? I'm not trying to upset what's already in place, I'm just curious. -- Myrddin_Wyllt 5/9/11

Oops, nevermind; I totally missed the same question asked above. However, still the question remains about why the Superfamily wasn't named after one of its member species? (as is typical in taxonomy) For example, shouldn't it be named Phocoidea, Odobenoidea or Otarioidea? Why Pinnipedia? Is there a species called Pinnipedus that somehow slipped past me? And does that mean other Superfamilies (related or non-related) could have a name that's not derived from member species or genera? It'd be helpful if someone from the ICZN (or someone with ICZN knowledge) could weigh in on this. Thanks again -- Myrddin_Wyllt 5-/911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.188.9 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of sending an email to the ICZN, and I received a reply from Steven Tracey, ICZN Secretariat. Considering his reply, someone here at Wikipedia may want to make a change to the Pinnipedia page to reflect his response, which I copied and pasted here: Dear Mike, Pinnipedia Illiger, 1811 was proposed for the Order that includes the seals. When Pinnipedia is used at ranks at or below superfamily it is regulated by the ICZN Code, and Pinnipedia is not an available name. This is because it was not based on a genus group name considered valid when Pinnipedia was described. Hence it cannot be used at or below the level of superfamily and the Wikipedia entry is incorrect at present. Wilson & Reeder, 2005. Mammal species of the world does not give the relevant superfamily name, however Pinnipedia is listed as a synonym of the family Phocidae Gray, 1821, based on the seal genus Phoca Linnaeus, 1758. If a superfamily name were to be based on this family it would be Phocoidea Gray, 1821. -- Myrddin_Wyllt 6/9/11

the most carnivorous

cant be true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.207.227 (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article not called Seal? Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:FNAME. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all pinnipeds are commonly called "seals" might be one reason. Sea lions and walruses, for example. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A thin excuse. It should be retitled to "Seal" or "Seal (mammal)". Walrus has its own article as does sea lion. However I agree there should be a (shorter) pinniped article which explains the scientific term and has links to all 3. But to have this as the main seal article is obtuse. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pinniped/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Right - let's get down to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• All four paragraphs in the lead begin with "Pinnipeds..." - try and tweak so there is a maximum of three or better two doing this.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I meant trying to use some other words - this is tricky and I wll have a go myself a bit later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Assisted by a friendly copyeditor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• First impression of the lead is that it is succinct, but that the sentences may be a little on the short side, making for some slighlty stilted prose. Am looking for sentences to combine.

Better? LittleJerry (talk)

Let me read it again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Update - damn - that is really really hard! (not to have each sentence start with seal/pinniped). I will ask someone. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Throughout the prose, there are probably a few too many "pinnipeds" -any that can be removed without introducing ambiguity would help the prose

Better? LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Otariids are also known as eared seals due to the presence of external ear flaps or pinna. - "flaps" is plural while "pinna" is singular - choose one or the other....

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• The majority of pinnipeds have fur coats... - if walrus only exception, then "Almost all pinnipeds have fur coats..." more accurate

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ensure things like northern elephant seal are linked at first instance. There might be others.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• indigenous people exploited them for their meat, blubber and fur coats - "exploited" carries a negative connotation - I think "used" might be slightly better word here. Also put in passive tense maybe - to have the same subject for both verbs.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unlike other marine mammals, pinnipeds have two pairs of flippers on both the front and back, the fore-flippers and hind-flippers. - makes it sound like it has eight flippers momentarily - I'd reword this.

• Removed both, so is now "two pairs of flippers on the front and back". Sasata (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yea-eah - hmm, slightly better. I think it could be tweaked still but is by no means a deal-breaker, so can leave it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• etymology not in body of text.

• Moved to taxonomy and source added. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Pinnipeds spend many months at a time at sea and so they must sleep in the water. - sounds weird - either have "Pinnipeds spend many months at a time at sea, so they must sleep in the water. " or maybe "Pinnipeds spend many months at a time at sea and must sleep in the water. "

• Added a comma. Sasata (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• They are entirely absent from Indo-Malayan waters. (in body), doesn't totally agree with Although Pinnipeds occur in all oceans (in lead) to me

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The pinniped ear is well adapted for hearing underwater - can leave the "well" out....

• Done. Sasata (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the Intelligence section, you have one pinniped's name in quote marks, the other not - conform them

• Quotes removed. Sasata (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, this article is looking in good shape - I am reduced to real nit-picks prose-wise and I can't see any glaring omissions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• File:Otariidae Phocidae Comparative Anatomy.svg should have some more information on sourcing - reference material used etc.

• The museum photos from Japan (for File:Skeleton of Allodesmus.jpg) and Germany (File:Alaska Robbenfiguren 1876 Linden-Museum.jpg) should be checked to see how their countries regard the copyright of photos in museums (have run into trouble here before - a bunch of images in Belgium of mine got deleted like this years ago!)

Replaced photos just to be safe. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a bit of a shame - the diagram was pretty good. Something to maybe look for sourcing for or ask the drawer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - will do a spotcheck a bit later today looks in order.

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - I wll do some spot checking a bit later today - but looking good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC) looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Vibrissae

That "vibrissae" is used in other places in the article does not say it is a good choice of word. It is a bad choice of word because it is less known than "whiskers". By redirecting "vibrissae" to whiskers Wikipedia shows that it thinks they mean the same. "whiskers" has 10 M hits on Google while "vibrissae" has 200 k hits. Either make the wanted distinction explicit or replace all the occurrences of "vibrissae". --Ettrig (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources used to compile this article use predominantly the term "vibrissae". Sasata (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that the above is intended to say that because the sources use the word "vibrissae", Wikipedia should too. But there is no such principle. On the contrary, Wikipedia has a much higher ambition in terms of accessibility than the sources, and therefore other word must be used. Also, independent choice of words is part of not plagiarizing. The content should be the same and the formulations should be new. And, to repeat, the current article links vibrissae to a redirect to whisker, so the article currently says that the meaning is the same. --Ettrig (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the article uses vibrissae. The article whiskers also predominantly uses vibrissae and even begins with it. And no, we do not have a plagiarism issue, thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My main argument is that "vibrissae" is a much less well known term than "whiskers". The Google hit statistics is given above. I see no relevant counter argument to this. With one year of university biology education using English language literature, I can be assumed to know much more about this subject than the least knowledgeable reader that Wikipedia aims to reach. But I did not know the word "vibrissae". --Ettrig (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if vibrissae means nothing more than whiskers, whiskers is the term to use in both articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

Vibrissae are specialised hairs; they are thicker than normal hairs, they have a larger amount of blood around the bulb and they are often highly motile under voluntary control. While I agree the terms "vibrissae" and "whiskers" are often used interchangeably, this is not always accurate. For example, we often talk about whiskers on a man's face - these, however, are NOT vibrissae. Individual hairs seen on the snout of a pinniped can be whiskers or vibrissae, but not both.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Then the article should define vibrissae, and their should be an article on vibrissae, rather than an article on whiskers that discusses vibrissae. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

And thank you for clearing that up. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

I think the problem here is that in common useage, the two terms are used so interchangeably that trying to draw a distinction will be a losing battle. I think "vibrissae" is more of a technical term. If I was writing or talking to a friend about my cat I would say that my cat has long, black "whiskers", but if I was writing a scientific paper, I would certainly write "vibrissae". I would not be surprised if some of the sources cited in Pinniped use the terms interchangeably which will make it difficult to be accurate in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It can be tricky, but. Properly sourced, it is worth doing. And, if pinnipeds have both, I want to know about it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

Ah! I think I have found the source of confusion! When most of us (including myself) talk about "whiskers" on non-human animals, we are almost always referring to vibrissae near the mouth. But, vibrissae can be found all over the body. Cats have vibrissae on their carpals and manatees all over their bodies, but these would rarely be called "whiskers". This idea that whiskers are locality-specific vibrissae is supported by several on-line dictionaries.

Websters [4]

One of the long, projecting hairs growing at the sides of the mouth of a cat, or other animal.[Websters]

merriam-webster[5]

a hair that grows on a man's face

any one of the long, stiff hairs that grow near the mouth of some animals

a very small distance or amount

Babylon English Dictionary [6]

beard, facial hair one hair of the mustache or beard; one facial hair;

long facial bristles near the mouth of an animal (i.e. cat, mouse, etc.)

So, because pinnipeds have vibrissae near the mouth, these could be called "whiskers". They may have other vibrissae in other locations which would not be whiskers, but I am not an expert on this. Part of the problem we encountered here is caused by Wikipedia equating Whiskers and vibrissae. This is incorrect, or at best misleading. Whiskers are a sub-set of vibrissae. I will raise this on the Whiskers talk page and propose it be re-named as Vibrissae with a mention that when these are found around the mouth, they are sometimes known as "whiskers".__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism evolution

I split up the recently added paragraph on the evolution of sexual dimorphism. I moved talk of Enaliarctos emlongi to the paragraph that talks about the genus Enaliarctos. I moved much of the rest to the reproductive section. With the way it was before, it broke the flow of the section which talks about ancient relatives and their characteristics and the origins of the modern species. A block of text talking about sexual dimorphism in modern species and that it developed sexual selection really didn't fit. 155.138.244.246 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And again, competition for mates and the advantages for being a large male where already talked about. The new text just expanded on it. 155.138.244.246 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And now people are reverting my edits, claiming "vandalism". Please discuss and justify why this chunk of text belongs here and don't mindlessly revert simply because I'm an IP. 155.138.249.214 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fur

The article says that 'other than the walrus, all species are covered in fur'. Only the young, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.74.61 (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pinniped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pinniped. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130921064345/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/canada-seal-hunt-begins-a_n_178135.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/canada-seal-hunt-begins-a_n_178135.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130510204327/http://www.katu.com/outdoors/featured/87172472.html to http://www.katu.com/outdoors/featured/87172472.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140719051250/http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/ to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"They are commonly known as seals", isn't that incorrect?

To describe all pinnipeds as seals is more colloquial than scientific.

The walrus is not a seal, it is a pinniped.

A proper scientific term would be pinniped to describe otaries, true seals and walruses (in the same way we don't call felids cats because the term cat evokes the mental image of the domestic cat).

Shouldn't there be a separate article called Seal (mammal) that lists otariidae and phocidae as seals, but without walruses.

Common use is meant to include colloquial use. You will notice that Felidae, while starting off by saying that the family "includes cats", then refers to "cats" for the entire remainder of the article. This is because, in common use, felids are cats - just as the walrus, in common use, is a seal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pinniped. 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/20130619231851/http://www.public.navy.mil/SPAWAR/PACIFIC/71500/Pages/faqs.aspx to http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/71500/Pages/faqs.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924075420/http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/laidre_et_al._arctic_marmam_and_climate_2008.pdf to http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/laidre_et_al._arctic_marmam_and_climate_2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054643/http://thedailyworld.com/sections/news/local/shocking-new-idea-sea-lion-control.html to http://thedailyworld.com/sections/news/local/shocking-new-idea-sea-lion-control.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054415/http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120203/NEWS01/702029790 to http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120203/NEWS01/702029790

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) 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pinniped. 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/20160303193054/http://www.mun.ca/biology/tmiller/pdffiles/SANVITO_3541.pdf to https://www.mun.ca/biology/tmiller/pdffiles/SANVITO_3541.pdf

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) 09:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pinniped. 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/20140318032809/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-449-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-449-01-0001.pdf

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) 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Title.

Why do we have this article entitled with a word with which no one outside of those scientifically interested is even familiar, when everyone knows about seals? The word seal as a noun refers first and foremost to this animal and everyone knows it. The title of this article ought to be "Seal" and every other "seal" ought to be the ones that require disambiguation. Right now if you search "seal wiki" in a search engine you get the musician first. Nonsense. Who did this. Perhaps "Seal (animal)" or whatever, but not Pinniped, how silly. Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What with the two prominent technical meanings (mechanical containment, and proof of authenticity), which quite likely are foremost in the mind of part of our readership, the current disambiguation page at seal seems like a good solution? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, so the disambiguation is fine but every other animal with a well-known common name is titled with its common name. The fact that we can't just title it "Seal" doesn't mean we have to rewrite the whole article with "pinniped" popping up all over the place, or title it as such. In fact this has here led to the article being very inconsistent, one sentence starts with "Seals", the next they're "Pinnipeds", back and forth. Because some people are going by the article name yet really people just want to call them seals. The article should be titled "Seal (mammal)" Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's come up a couple times before. I might refer to my answer from last time, just above. More consistency in usage throughout the article would probably be good, but there's little precedent for changing the title. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sealions and walruses are not called seals (not even in common use, as implied above), so no, we can't move this article to seal, because that's simply not the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Our lede currently implies differently, and I agree with that current formulation. If the "common use" statement is wrong, then the lede needs to change and the catch-all term "seals" should not be used throughout the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry should probably take a look. But it is my impression that seal is not the common name for the entire group. Maybe it depends on authority. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A sea lion is often called a seal (Eared seal), but either way, if they and/or walruses are not seals then now we're talking about a situation where we don't even have an article on the concept of a "seal" ?? Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Shouldn't there be a separate article called Seal (mammal) that lists otariidae and phocidae as seals, but without walruses." -- Elmidae

I agree. Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Or just have the disambiguation page for Seal list not pinnipeds at the top but either earless seal or earless seal as well as eared seal Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just changed Seal (disambiguation) to still name pinniped, but added sub-bullets to Earless seal and Fur seal. If no one has an issue with that I will leave it at that. Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The term "seal" is commonly given to the group. However it has multiple meanings, as the disambiguation page shows. The term "pinniped" is unique to the animals and hence is much better as an article title. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem with also linking to those subgroups that are more specifically thought of as seals on the disambiguation page, for the benefit of people who are trying to look up a seal and aren't aware of all these nuances? As it stands now (since you have reverted my disambiguation page edit), I can easily picture someone searching for seals, seeing that it only links to pinniped, and then reading about pinnipeds and not realizing that walruses and such are not generally considered to be part of the "seal" concept on which they were looking for information. --Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And for people who *are* aware that not all pinnipeds are seals in the strictest sense, why not just make it a bit more straightforward for them if they happen to search "seal", so they can easily one-click to "earless seal" or "fur seal" if one or both of those is what they meant. --Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way Jerry, if your opinion is that they are all seals, then there is no reason why pinniped needs to be the article name as opposed to Seal or Seal (mammal) -- almost any other animal name that is very well-known has other meanings as well. But I've moved on from that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Marionnette (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to have an up or down vote on the change I had made to seal disambiguation (which is a very lite and harmless compromise of my original position, and serves only to provide some clarity which is reflective of the most typical usages of the word "seal"):

• Pinniped, a diverse group of semi-aquatic marine mammals, many of which are commonly called seals, including:
  • Earless seals or "true seals"
  • Fur seals
• ...

Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, "pinniped" is a name that is unique to the animals and as such has priority over "Seal" or "Seal (mammal)". Titles with parenthesis beside them should only be used when needed. As for just "Seal", there are at least two meanings listed in the disambiguation page (Seal (emblem) and Seal (mechanical)) that are just as prominent uses of the name as the animals. You have no basis for the claim that the animals should be the default. As for the "confusion" of the readers, pretty much all species have some connection with the name "seal". Both sea lions and fur seals are known as "eared seals". With the walrus, the article already notes that the animal is not often thought of as a seal in the popular consciousness. However, this has insignificant bearing on whether pinnipeds as a whole can be called "seals". After all, are you really going to suggest that we make a new article called "Seal (mammal)" which discusses every pinniped species except the walrus? Seals is a perfectly fine common name for the group and to be concerned that one species may not be as well connected with the name is just hair-splitting. LittleJerry (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You've just talked a lot about the things we're not even talking about anymore, and apparently what's actually happening now has gone well over your head, but whatever, have it your way, Seal God. --Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Try to learn civility. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I always wonder if you folks that do that whole linking "civility" thing and whatnot are aware of how sad it makes you seem. --Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Besides the obvious outcome of people being pleasant with each other and creating a nice place to volunteer, civility (have you read the "linking" thing?) also makes it possible to have a technical discussion. Your "Seal God" comment was more off topic than LittleJerry's reply to you which you deemed off the topic and proceeded to be uncivil about. Rhinopias (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia has a large and growing pretentiousness and passive-aggressiveness problem because of all this. This is not a nice place, this is a fake place. --Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Underwater times

No indication here of how long pinnipeds can remain underwater between breaths. Can anyone supply this information - a range for the clade as a whole, and perhaps for selected species as well? Is there a divide between the main groups? Koro Neil (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency in number of extant species vs. IUCN recognition?

Hello,

The article states:

"There are 33 extant species of pinnipeds, and more than 50 extinct species have been described from fossils."

However, under the conservation section, the article also states that "As of 2013, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognizes 35 pinniped species."

Which of these is correct? Did two species of pinniped go extinct since 2013? I will request citation for the IUCN statement.

David Shaw (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Updated with ref - currently it's 36. Don't ask me where exactly they are adding the extra splits though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no contradiction there that I can see. In 2013, when the statement was added to the article, the IUCN recognised 35 species of pinniped, 33 of which were extant, and two of which were not (this is stated in the following sentence). There are now 36, but the statement was true when it was added. Anaxial (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Diving weddell seals.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

why isn't this article just called seals

It creates confusion using an esoteric term instead of the word in common usage and comes across as pretentious and prescriptive language rather than inclusivity in language.

You might as well latinise every animal article name if you are going to take the logic that there is something wrong with the vernacular. 81.106.58.180 (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's explained in a note to the very first sentence of the article: "This term typically excludes the walrus in everyday English. In science, it is also sometimes restricted to the "true" seals of the family Phocidae. This article uses it for all pinnipeds." Can't say what's the best solution. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The best solution is to have an article on seals titled "Seal". It's really not that hard. 61.69.236.63 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed. "Pinniped" is unique to the animal. "Seal" can refer to Seal (emblem) and Seal (mechanical). LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Effect of climate change on seal populations

The article so far mentions climate change and its effects on seals only in passing. My proposal is to move a text block that is currently at effects of climate change on oceans to this article and then to leave only a short sentence at the other location, then link across. Here is the paragraph that I am proposing to move:

Seals are another marine mammal that are susceptible to climate change. Much like polar bears, seals have evolved to rely on sea ice. They use the ice platforms for breeding and raising young seal pups. In 2010 and 2011, sea ice in the Northwest Atlantic was at or near an all-time low and harp seals that bred on thin ice saw increased death rates. If ice becomes non-existent in their normal range, harp seals will have to shift more north to find suitable ice. In the Hudson Bay, Canada, the body conditions of ringed seals were observed from 2003-2013. Aerial surveys showed a decline in ringed seal density, with the lowest occurrence of seals in 2013. The lower ice coverage means more open water swimming for the ringed seals, which caused higher stress (cortisol) rates. Low ovulation rate, low pregnancy rate, fewer pups in the Inuit harvest, and observations of sick seals was also seen over the course of the study. Antarctic fur seals in South Georgia saw extreme reductions over a 20-year study, during which scientists measured increased sea surface temperature anomalies. This cause was mostly due to reductions in Antarctic krill that forms the base of the trophic web, which eventually affected the fur seal breeding cycle.

Note this paragraph was added by a new user (User:Crowley11) in April this year in this edit. From superficial reading it seems quite OK, with suitable refs, but I am not an expert on seals. Do you agree that it can be moved into this article? If not, is there a sub-article in the group of seal articles where it would fit better? EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I've just left a similar comment on the talk page of dolphins as there is also a text block that should be moved to there, in my opinion. - Compare also with polar bear#Climate change which already has good content about climate change (not surprisingly, as polar bears are often "the face" of climate change...) EMsmile (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now moved content to here from effects of climate change on oceans as per my talk page suggestion above. Perhaps it's too detailed for this kind of high level article? Shorten and then move content to articles on specific species of seals? Is it OK if I leave this up to the seal experts / people watching this article? EMsmile (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed it. The effects of climate change are mentioned in the conservation section and it doesn't belong in "Distribution and habitat". Also the sources are not formated correctly. You're free to add a couple more sentences but this article is big enough. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, so far you have exactly one mention of climate change in the article in this sentence under "conservation": Species that live in polar habitats are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, particularly declines in sea ice. I don't think that is enough and I don't think it's a "conservation" issue either because what is there to conserve if the ice is melting? It is indeed a habitat issue (or a "threats" issue) - which you can see already from the title of the publication that was cited: "Can ice breeding seals adapt to habitat loss in a time of climate change?". And yes, the formatting of the references was poor. I had overlooked that but it was easy to fix with the automatic cite generator from the DOI number. I've made that correction now for the refs at effects of climate change on oceans. I am also happy to see that the sub-article on Ringed seal has a detailed section on climate change issues: Ringed seal#Climate change. I have now linked to it from effects of climate change on oceans. The article on Harp seal has nothing on climate change though. So it seems to be very much hit and miss! I think all those seal articles that deal with seal species that live (or breed) on sea ice ought to have something about their disappearing habitat. And the issue should also be addressed in condensed from (2-3 sentences) in this article, under habitat or threats, not under conservation. To say that the article is "big enough" is a lame excuse. But yes, the content needs to be in summary form and any further detail needs to be in the respective seal sub-articles. EMsmile (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I added the subsection back. Threats by climate change are a conservation issue and so belong there. I'll leave it to you to cleanup and format the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, good, I'll do that now quickly. EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made those changes and also shortened it a bit, plus provided a link to the Ringed seal#Climate change section. It would be great if someone could update this section, using more recent information, e.g. from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ . Although it might require a bit of hunting around. I had a look at the technical summary and didn't see seals mentioned, only polar bears as one iconic example of ice dependent species: "The Arctic is showing increased arrival of species from warmer areas on land and in the sea, with a declining extent of tundra and ice-dependent species, such as the polar bear (high confidence)." (technical summary, p. 45). I don't have time at the moment to dive more deeply into it but will keep my eyes open, or if someone else with an interest in seals has time to look into this further and update the data, that would be great. EMsmile (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Range map

Do we have a source for File:Pinniped range.jpg? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Cultural significance - "not necessary"

@LittleJerry, regarding your revert of my edits, I have to ask what exactly is "nesscessary" for this article, what are the standards? I am aware that the primary focus is on the biology, so I tried to keep the edit minimal, but the animals' cultural role is not to be ignored completely, and pointing the reader to the precise passages in highly influential ancient sources who have been quoted for many centuries afterwards seems worthy of inclusion (Pliny's description was used at least up to the 17th century, from what I've found; and the allegorical meaning based on Homer's description is mentioned in Chevalier-Gheerbrant's Dictionary of Symbols). Would you not agree? — Phazd (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure I guess. But I looked up "Odyssey book VI, verse 404", and there is no verse 404 in book 6. Also, Pliny is not mentioned in cite 161, just Homer and Aristotle. Those sentences and the source it cites are about Ancient Greece and Pliny was Roman. The captivity section states "Seals have been kept in captivity since at least Ancient Rome and their trainability was noticed by Pliny the Elder" which makes sense. You could have added the note there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I quoted the wrong book of the Odyssey. Pliny mentioned various other things in the passage I cited (i.e. not just about training them), but considering that it's not mentioned in the citation, as you say, it's probably simpler to add that citation in the article on Mediterranean monk seals (which are the species Pliny was referring to). In this article now I've added the Homer citation, parts where Aristotle describes seals more extensively, and only the part of Pliny that mentions training. — Phazd (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Updating Communication Section

Currently there is not a source for the single leopard seal performing ultrasound, and a single test subject is not terribly reliable. I am planning on citing a newer paper about wedell seals' ultrasound communications.

DOI:10.1121/10.0002867 Wolvenblacksmith (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)