Talk:Livyatan

Conflicting information

This is leaving me very confused. Any thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I had the same problem. I think unless we have sight of a map of the find-spot, we ought to leave out any linking: after all, we are guessing that this is the 'right' Cerro Colorado. It seems likely that the Pisco-Ica desert is in the Pisco Province of the Ica Regions (which would cover the Paracas Peninsula), but until we have confirmation, best not to put the link in, I reckon. Stronach (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This ref [1] says Cerro Colorado was 35km SSW of the city of Ica, so it was not on the Paracas Peninsula. Someone has separately linked Pisco Province and Ica Region which I guess gives some idea of location in the absence of an article specifically on the Pisco-Ica desert. Stronach (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Genus name appears to be preoccupied

The scientific name "Leviathan" was published back in the 1840's, for a mammoth fossil from Missouri. The authors of "Leviathan melvillei" are apparently aware of this, and presumably will publish a new name; this article will then need to be renamed and moved. Dyanega (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Leviathan Koch, 1841 (Koch 1841: Description of missourium, or Missouri leviathan [first edition]), type species by monotypy Leviathan missourii Koch, 1841, Mammalia. The name seems to have been used in the spelling Leviathan occasionally in a few historical publications after 1900, and more frequently before 1900. Zoologists consider it today as a synonym of Mammuthus. The entry in Sherborn's Index Animalium (1922-1931) suggests that it had been spelled Levathan in the original source, probably an inadvertent error for Leviathan. The name Leviathan Koch, 1841 was listed both in Sherborn's Index Animalium (there as an emendation for Levathan, an emendation is an available name) and in Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus. It is unclear to me why these important sources were not consulted before the new generic name was proposed, neither by the authors nor by Nature's reviewers. Painful for Nature. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Names of genera may be changed over time, though that seems to happen through deliberation between zoologists and (as here) paleonthologists who are familiar with the relevant taxa. The fact that a genus name has once been stated doesn't, by itself, mean that it's invariably seen as "taken" for all time. It's not quite like registering an all-time patent. In this case, it's effectively been replaced by Mammothus, and that seems to have happened a hundred years ago, so the risk of confusion is probably seen as nil. Strausszek (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be an example of a nomen oblitum?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is, it's still been taken. Once a genus name has been validly coined, it's unavailable for all time. This is practical for subjective synonyms, as there's always the (however slim) possibility that the genus could turn out to be valid at some point in the future. The only way to overturn priority is with an official ruling from the ICZN, but this is only done when an obscure older name threatens the validity of a well-known newer name (see Tyrannosaurus]] vs. Manospondylus). This is only done when the newer name is in widespread usage. Leviathan the whale hasn't even been described for a week yet, so it's obviously not in widespread use. This is simply a case where the authors should have done more research. As many commenters noted, it seemed too good to be true that the name Leviathan had never been used before in the history of taxonomy, and it was. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have put a 'citation needed' tag by this in the article. It appears so far to be original research (see WP:OR) and so should not be in the article unless a ref can be provided in a reliable third party source with other commentators making this point. Stronach (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify for User:Stho002: please familiarise yourself with WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. The sources you provide do not specifically say that "the name Leviathan applied to this whale is an invalid junior homonym of Leviathan Koch, 1841 (see Leviathan), and so the whale will require a new replacement name (ICZN 1999 Article 60, unless the Commission intervenes)" - my italics on your synthesis. If you can find a reliable, third party source that states this explicitly, referring to Leviathan melvillei in particular, then please add it. That is why I have added a citation needed tag. If no citation can be provided then the sentence must be removed (or at least refactored to remove the unsourced speculation). I hope this clarifies matters. Stronach (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish! I have provided links to sources which demonstrate that the name has been used before, plus a link to the very published rule of the ICZN which says that names that have been used before need to be replaced, what more do you want for God's sake? We have to be able to take two bits of sourced information and put them together to draw consequences without the likes of you yelling "OR!". Otherwise, if we sourced info A and sourced info B, we would not be able to say 'A and B' without having another source which explicitly stated 'A and B'! And since listing a sequence of statements A, B, C, ... is equivalent to the logical conjunction A and B and C ..., we wouldn't be able to make more than one statement per article! Grow up! Stho002 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) At any rate, I have reworded it in such a way that it says the same thing, but avoids your objection, by making two statements, one saying that the name has been used before, and the other making the general point that names which have been used before need to be replaced. Stho002 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. We get there at last. What I wrote was not twaddle, nor rubbish, nor do I need to grow up. Here it is for you again, the first paragraph of WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Which is exactly what you were doing and what I was objecting to. But I am glad the situation is now resolved. Thank you. Stronach (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Your view on OR is nuts! So, lets see how it applies in another hypothetical case: I can cite a good dictionary to state that all kings are male. I can cite another source to establish the existence of the King of Thailand. But I cannot state in a Wikipedia article that the King of Thailand is male, unless I can find an explicit further source to cite!!! No wonder so few scientists take Wikipedia seriously! What a joke ... Stho002 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow... the authors are aware of the issue and certainly will be publishing a note with a new name in the next month or so. Is it really that important to jump on this immediately and not wait for the paper? Simply noting that the name was also used by Koch should be a good enough placeholder. In the mean time I wonder if it would be appropriate to simply not italicize "Leviathan" and place it in quotes, as is done for "Ingenia" yanshini, a dinosaur genus which has been recognized as preoccupied for over a decade with no replacement name in sight. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that your "interim solution" is necessary, and such notation isn't completely standard, so it could cause more confusion. My intention here was only to flag the problem, which I have done. No other action is necessary until the name is formally replaced. Stho002 (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cladogram

I've modified the Physeteroidea cladogram from the German article on L. melvillei (see below). I was going to include it here but noticed that it differed somewhat from the one in the supplementary info from Nature, where many of the nodes are unresolved. Is the German version incorrect or is there another cladogram it's based on? mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Physeteroidea	Eudelphis †  Acrophyseter †  Zygophyseter †  Brygmophyseter †  Leviathan †  Placoziphius †  Orycterocetus †  Physeteridae   Physeterula †  Aulophyseter †  Physeter  Kogiidae   Aprixokogia †  Thalassocetus †  Scaphokogia †  Praekogia †  Kogia

• Better to make a new one. I've also copied stuff from German Wikipedia that turned out to be OR. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Article content

The main article badly needed a re-write and I did it. The early writing felt more like a press release material rather than a description of an animal.-LeGenD (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a realistic picture, why it has a cartoon picture. A fossil skeleton or skull would look better.Also its blowhole is in the wrong position

The picture is fine as it is: I drew it as according to other established reconstructions, which have the blowhole where it is. If you don't like it, please feel free to construct a better one.

As for a picture of the skull, as soon as we get ahold of a free-use picture of the skull, we will use it.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

News and articles section

Im wondering if this is a necessary section? If the links lead to RS information that is not in this page then shouldn't the info be incorporated in with the linked page as a reference. If they do not add new information should they be linked at all? That the genus has gotten a fair amount of press is notable but wouldn't it be best to write in a sentence or two noting that and not having the external links?. just some thoughts --Kevmin § 07:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Move?

Per the general guidelines and practices for the naming of articles on monotypic genera and extinct genera, shouldn't this page be located at the genus name Livyatan rather then the binomial Livyatan malvillei? --Kevmin § 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Livyatan currently redirects to Leviathan. Whether that should remain so depends on whether the monster or this whale is considered the primary topic for the term "Livyatan". Ucucha 11:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should probably be Livyatan (genus) or something, I agree. Just to quote the relevant guideline here: "for monotypic genera (i.e., where the genus has only one known species), use the genus name for the article title." from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna). ErikHaugen (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I recently raised this at WT:TOL#Disambiguator for monotypic genera; most seemed to agree that the binomial is preferable. Ucucha 19:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, good point about "(genus)" in the article title being unfortunate. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be moved. And since the redirect Livyatan isn't a primary spelling of the legendary animal, people who search for that won't spell it like that. Anyone who searches for Livyatan will most likely be looking for this genus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I was about to make a formal move request, but then it occurred to me that I'm not sure what it should be moved to. Livyatan (genus) is too generic (hehe) compared to what we have done elsewhere, so perhaps Livyatan (cetacean) or Livyatan (whale)? FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking again, it seems disambig isn't needed, since Livyatan redirects here... FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So just swap?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Has to be done by an admin (can't move it for some reason), requesting now... FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel that perhaps a bit of disambig between "Leviathan" and Livyatan at the top of the article would be helpful. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

At least the etymology should be mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Raptor vs Raptorial

So apparently this article uses the term "raptor" when briefly describing raptorial physeteroids, but I feel like this may come with some issues. First, there are no sources anywhere that use the term "raptor" and that the article revamp is the first time it was used (as far as I know), and the term itself may cause confusion with other animals nicknamed the same term. I don't really think that wikipedia should be starting a new term, but I would like to know why I shouldn't change "raptor" to "raptorial" or "macroraptorial" in more detail. Macrophyseter (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Should be "raptorial," i.e., "a predilection for seizing," and not "raptor," i.e., a dromeosaur or eagle or owl-like bird of prey.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But the problem is that the guy who completely revamped the article seems firm that they should be called "raptors" rather than "raptorials", as he reverted one of my changes regarding that. Hopefully if I change it back, I won't be starting edit war?

Macrophyseter (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw it on this source and ran with it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Technically speaking, using "raptor" as a synonym for "raptorial" is incorrect.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I just followed what that source said, but if the consensus it to use “raptorial,” go ahead and change it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

If the sources do use the term, it should be no problem to use it here. So what do the sources actually say? Any quotes? FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

everyone uses “macroraptorial sperm whales”, some just use “raptorial sperm whale,” and the source I listed above treats “raptorial sperm whale” and “raptor” as synonyms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the source you cite does NOT use them as synonyms. The term "raptor" appears once, in the conclusions, and all other instances in the paper are "raptorial". It is fallacious to suggest that all wiki articles on raptorial whales be changed to the incorrect term raptor based on a single time use in one paper, (one that I suspect quite possibly to be a typo of "raptorial")--Kevmin § 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We should use the most prevalent term then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a carefully-crafted article and I have few comments to make upon it.

Do you have any notes for FA?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond my pay grade, but they always go over refs with a fine-toothed nit comb. Fossilworks may or may not pass muster; LiveScience will likely get a kicking; The Conversation will probably be challenged; IMDb will be judged an unreliable source, I'll wager; even BBC News might be found a bit light for this kind of topic.

• "the raptorials" is comprehensible but comes across as a little bit chatty. Perhaps "the raptorial whales" would be more encyclopedic in tone (whatever that is).

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The first Livyatan fossils discovered in Peru were originally dated to around 13-12 million years ago (mya) in the Serravallian Age of the Miocene, but this dating was later proven to be incorrect and revised to 9.9-8.9 mya " is perhaps overegging the blow by blow account. Could simplify to something like "The first Livyatan fossils from Peru were dated to around 13-12 million years ago (mya) in the Serravallian Age of the Miocene, but this was revised to 9.9-8.9 mya ".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Caption "Reconstruction of Livyatan next to Cetotherium" - better say which is which.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The large size was probably an anti-predator adaptation, and also to allow it to feed on larger prey." might be better as "The large size was probably an anti-predator adaptation, and allowed it to feed on larger prey."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Some measurements are "cm" and some "centimetres", but all the imperial measurements are "in". Why not use "cm" for all the metric ones.

done

• "To a lesser degree, eagle rays, sawfish, and angelsharks were other cartilaginous fish found." isn't clear. Perhaps "Eagle rays, sawfish, and angelsharks were among the other cartilaginous fish found."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "which caused baleen whales increased in size and decreased in diversity," -> ".. to increase .. to decrease".

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• The "In fiction" account is more detailed than is appropriate here.

seems fine to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mmm. Sorry but I simply can't see the relevance of the rather trivial-sounding plot details: whether the whale was whoever's pet, and stuff about pirates has no bearing on the article. All that is required (if the section is indeed helpful at all) is a brief mention that the species featured in the movie.

removed the plot summary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You asked also about notes for FA: the reviewers there would very likely jump on this section, either asking for other cultural mentions or objecting to trivia. But who knows.

• The Megalodon image should be labelled as a painting and attributed to Karen Carr.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Summary

Dunkleosteus77: This article is well up to the required standard for GA, and with a bit of polishing should have a good chance at FAC. While there is no official quid pro quo here at GA, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage you to review one or two articles in the Biology and medicine GAN queue in the spirit of collegiality. Meanwhile, congratulations on another excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: it's been three days and the page still hasn't been updated yet   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean the icon? The bot seems to have pushed off early for Christmas. I fixed it manually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Expected new study may bring some interesting new things

During research I stumbled upon a forum post showing a screenshot of an abstract for a likely upcoming paper on the dental physiology of L. melvillei, which would provide a lot of new interesting things and hopefully additional comments on distributions outside Peru and Chile. I haven't found the source of the abstract, and so I'm not sure if it would be reliable to incorporate into the article, but fingers crossed that an article would come out of this study soon.

Link to Wayback Machine archive: [2]

Macrophyseter | talk 07:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's from a conference book pdf. Should be possible to find? FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking your suggestion of it being a conference book pdf, I found the exact same document from the SVP 2019 Meeting Abstract list. Now that we know where it came from, it seems that we could probably incorporate the information into the article.

Page 143: [3]

Dunkleosteus77 What do you think?

Macrophyseter | talk 15:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be ok to cite conference abstracts, as long as it is made clear in the text they're only that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've cited conference abstracts before, and it should be fine so long as they aren't saying anything truly earth-shattering if only to allow other researchers to respond. The important piece here seems to be "We observed a very low d¹³C value in enamel, which suggests feeding at southern latitudes greater than 40° S. Based on isotopic analysis of fossil mysticetes from the same rock unit, it seems unlikely the Livyatan specimen analyzed here was exclusively macrophagous; however it could have fed on mysticetes from higher latitudes." The rest is just background on the whale which is already talked about in the article. In a future published fully-fleshed out article I imagine they'll take a more aggressive stance like "Livyatan did not predominantly eat whales" or something like that. So how about:

Isotopic analysis of the Chilean specimen's enamel revealed that it likely operated at latitudes south of 40°S. Isotopic analyses of contemporary baleen whales in the same formation show that Livyatan was not commonly feeding on them, indicating it probably did not exclusively eat large prey, though it may have targeted baleen whales from higher latitudes.

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you should refer to the Chilean specimen as simply a tooth from Chile since there might be more than one of them (completely unverifed statement), and the article has not specified what specific type of fossils were found in Chile. Other than that, that looks good. But do you have an idea on why authors might be softer on their stance in pre-publishment abstracts than in their future papers? Macrophyseter | talk 22:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't want to make huge claims before completely explaining your rationale, and in the abstract that seems to be what they're trying to say (but they're kinda dancing around it). They may flat out say it at some point in their discussion/conclusion while working out possible explanations for the data   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Are there non-hypercarnivore sperm whales?

It was a member of a group of hypercarnivore macroraptorial sperm whales

I'm not 100% sure that all cetaceans are hypercarnivore (baleen whales might gulp a lot of phytoplankton) but all odontocetes surely are. Эйхер (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Wow, it was amazing to see this on the front page today - a VERY different beast from the crappy little stub I created in June 2010. Massive congratulations to all the editors who have made it such an excellent featured article! Stronach (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)