Pinniped is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 3, 2015, and on March 22, 2024. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
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)
Is there any information on what seals evolved from?
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)
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)
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)
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)]
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)
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).
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
cant be true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.207.227 ( talk) 08:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article not called Seal? Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:FNAME. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pinniped -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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"):
Monsieur Marionnette ( talk) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. [1] If ice becomes non-existent in their normal range, harp seals will have to shift more north to find suitable ice. [1] 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. [2] The lower ice coverage means more open water swimming for the ringed seals, which caused higher stress (cortisol) rates. [2] 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. [2] Antarctic fur seals in South Georgia saw extreme reductions over a 20-year study, during which scientists measured increased sea surface temperature anomalies. [3] 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. [3]
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)
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?". [4] 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)
References
Do we have a source for File:Pinniped range.jpg? A455bcd9 ( talk) 15:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
Pinniped is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 3, 2015, and on March 22, 2024. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
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)
Is there any information on what seals evolved from?
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)
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)
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)
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)]
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)
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).
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
cant be true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.207.227 ( talk) 08:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article not called Seal? Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:FNAME. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pinniped -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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"):
Monsieur Marionnette ( talk) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. [1] If ice becomes non-existent in their normal range, harp seals will have to shift more north to find suitable ice. [1] 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. [2] The lower ice coverage means more open water swimming for the ringed seals, which caused higher stress (cortisol) rates. [2] 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. [2] Antarctic fur seals in South Georgia saw extreme reductions over a 20-year study, during which scientists measured increased sea surface temperature anomalies. [3] 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. [3]
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)
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?". [4] 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)
References
Do we have a source for File:Pinniped range.jpg? A455bcd9 ( talk) 15:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)