Talk:Giglioli's Whale

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2019. The result of the discussion was merge.

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This redirect falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cetaceans (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Taxobox?

I'm a little divided as to the existence of the taxobox on this site. The sighting was pretty convincing, but is it appropriate to classify something that has no known physical remains? Should the status be set as "cryptid" (which would start probably start a trend), or should this whole idea be scrapped? Cameron 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person who added this has been adding some bogus taxoboxes on other cryptids so I think it would be best just to delete this. Cameron 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky case though. I'd have to look it up, but the description is technically valid (if Porphyrio coerulescens is valid, this is too). However, it can be best explained by an aberration or deformity: maybe an ingrown old harpoon with part of the shaft or something like that. Giglioli is usually fairly reliable, so that it can't be just misobservation of a mother hiding her calf behind her back whihc at a distance would give the impression of 2 fins (See also Magenta Petrel). If taxobox, status = Hypothetical. Not a recognized category, but since the field will take plaintext and hypothetical it is... The image, BTW, seems to be from the original description. Dysmorodrepanis 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberration?

It seems possible that it was a rare case of a whale with a congenital deformity. Are there any notable sources that support this?--Marhawkman 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two-finned cetaceans

The authorships for each of the two-finned cetaceans are provided:

Amphiptera pacifica Giglioli, 1870

Delphinus rhinoceros Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 (now Cetodipterus)

Oxypterus mongitori Rafinesque, 1814

Technical data on each of these enigmatic cetaceans can be found at:

[1] http://www.ubio.org/apps/Hershkovitz/index.php?func=s&ID=137&t=s&page=200

[2] http://www.ubio.org/apps/Hershkovitz/index.php?func=s&ID=159&t=s

[3] http://www.ubio.org/apps/Hershkovitz/index.php?func=s&ID=165&t=s

Will you add these species to the species list in the Cetacea page once their existence is confirmed?

Genetic mutation

Could it be a genetic mutation? Like a double-tusked Narwhal? --Mitternacht90 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the most logical explanation. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Species

As a student of whaling history, I can tell you, given the size of this species, modern commerical whalers would have taken it. Seeing as how no reports or photographs from whalers exist of such a species, it is extremely doubtful it exists. I will be adding such a statement to the page. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if it is simply a deepwater species? 76.102.94.69 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is the sperm whale and many other species that have been targeted by open-boat and modern commercial whalers. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sickle-shaped flippers may denote speed and its resemblance to a big Basking shark when seen from a certain distance may explain why this potentially new species of whale hasn't been targeted by whalers. --Longfinmako (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speed wouldn't matter. Modern whale catchers can reach speeds of 20 knots and could catch blue, fin, and sei whales, all species built for speed. And given its size, it would have had a visible blow. I really doubt an experienced whaler would confuse any whale (two dorsal fins or not) with a basking shark. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern commercial whaling?

Whaling has now been banned in most countries, just not Norway, which only allows one type of whale (the mink whale to be exact) to be hunted. If by "modern" you mean now and not the 19th Century, then whaling of anything other than the mink (and those only from Norwegian ships) is illegal. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" whaling has been going on for over 140 years. Jonas must have been referring to the century or so it was legal to hunt similar-sized rorquals (blue, fin, sei, etc.). Also, it's spelled minke whale, not mink. And there are two species, both of which are still hunted today. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giglioli'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/20070816005234/http://www.cryptozoology.com/glossary/glossary_topic.php?id=224 to http://www.cryptozoology.com/glossary/glossary_topic.php?id=224

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) 09:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good source

Ran across the merger (belatedly).
The claim that there were no sources (except for 'Cryptid fandom') missed this scholarly article. Raynal, Michel; Rubis, Tour (1991). "Cetaceans with two dorsal fins" (PDF). Aquatic Mammals (17.1): 31–36. Retrieved December 15, 2019. Indeed, a routine search here at Google books shows lots of sources. Doesn't anybody bother to click on the links at the top of an AFD before they !vote? Or WP:Before they nominate for deletion? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

google "Michel Raynal" "The Virtual Insitute of Cryptozoology". I didn't miss that source it's used as a ref in Cryptid whale, and no one disputes that Giglioli made an observation, it was even classified see here. But that does not mean we need to connect it with cryptozoology.—eric 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, 7&6! I must have missed that when I checked GBooks, but it must have been there all along right between Uncle John's Bathroom Reader and How To Keep A Werewolf. I agree with Eric that the reported sighting doesn't warrant a standalone species article. Not sure if this would have changed the outcome at AfD but at least the merged content won't be left unsourced (and thanks for your work on the merge,by the way.) –dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually scratch that, as another editor pointed out, this is yet another fringe source that shouldn't be used. Don't assume that other editors failed to conduct WP:BEFORE; we often find and discard sources like this in our searches. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]