Talk:Steller's sea cow

Maximum size?
Wikipedia's figures are fairly well reproduced, but I have occasionally seen figures of 10.7 meters or 35 feet for this animal. This site mentions that the environment may have prevented the animals from growing to their maximum size, so could the 35 foot figure come from the fossil specimens? Cameron 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

--Steller mentions that the species grew up to 25 ft. But maybe there were some that grew past 30ft in ancient times when food was more abundant and a larger population meant more giants? --70.59.155.91 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal? cryptozoology? on what basis
On what basis is this animal considered to be within the scope of project paranormal, which deals with animals whose existence if proven would not be compatible with current views of normal science. This animal is merely extinct., or perhaps probably extinct. But there's fossil record and nothing that doesn't fit into normal biology.
 * Furthermore, how does it fit into cryptozoology? It would only fit if some people thought it was not extinct, and that there were current sightings. No evidence is presented in the article to show this--merely that Kipling chose to use such a possibility in a fictional framework. DGG 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that there is nothing paranormal about this animal. If some think that there may be surviving specimens though, it may be relevant to the "cryptozoology" project. --84.72.181.164 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "cryptozoology" listing is very questionable. Is there a definition concerning how many people have to believe in a cryptid's existence for it to be relevant to the field? Additionally, should we maybe list every dinosaur species as a "cryptid" because I'm sure an occasional looney belives in their continued existence? --130.92.9.58 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

82.131.111.23 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) but they have been seen in the red sea.. just about a year ago.. 82.131.111.23 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's nice, since they didn't live there, ever. FunkMonk (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the Wikiproject Cryptozoology listing. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture?
Are the works of Kipling really considered popular culture? --buck 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the heading from "In popular culture" to "In literature". Peace.  --buck 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Jungle Book"? Magmagoblin2 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

unreliable source in "Last hope?" section?
Much as I'd like to believe that they're not extinct... The "Last hope?" section references this source: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/stellers-seacow/. Is http://www.cryptomundo.com/ a WP:Reliable Source? Peter Ballard 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (p.s. for future reference: the link was added by an anon user on 24-May-2007).


 * I've given it a tag. http://www.cryptomundo.com/ is huge and it's a little hard to tell whether it's full on quackery, or reliable. It is maintained by Loren Coleman but that's little help because his WP article has very few WP:Reliable Sources too. Peter Ballard 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh
in 1887, zoologist Leonhard Hess Stejneger estimated that at discovery there had been less than 1500 remaining .... By 1768, less than 30 years after it had been discovered, Steller's sea cow was extinct.

If it went extinct in 1768, how was there 1500 of them in 1887? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.226.101 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stejneger, writing in 1887, was estimating what the situation was back in 1741. I've reworded the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Other species
At the moment, Hydroamalis redirects here, but the article only covers H. gigas, not H. cuestae. So should we have separate articles for each, or have a unified Hydroamalis page? In any case, what we have now is not optimal. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that H. gigas was the largest sirenian ever, but then I came across a site that states H. cuestae was larger than H. gigas. Perhaps this should be stated in the article, if a more authoritative source can be found, since I could imagione many readers would believe the same I did. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have cleaned up and wikified the article to be consistent throughout (sentence case notably for mammal names) and removed the claim that Verne's writings had an influence on marine conservationists (which had been tagged since 2009 with a cite needed tag and sounds like WP:OR).

There was also a cite tage needed at the end which I assume was referring to the claim that Steller discovered the sea cow during the expedition with Bering. I have removed this and reffed the information concerned in the lede.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thought that I better add that the page title is going to change to Stellar's sea cow, I tried moving it myself but it didn't work, I have requested assistance, then this title will become a redirect.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You just have to add a move request here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I posted over at WikiProject_Cetaceans but no-one answered yet, I have to request a delete for the page Steller's sea cow first don't I? It's a redirect but there seems to be some sort of history issue going on and that's why I couldn't move. I successfully moved Steller's sea ape using Twinkle. Can you help or do I just stick the move template on this page?  Captain Screebo Parley! 22:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look here, it's pretty easy, no need for a separate deletionn request, it'll be taken care of during the move: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RM FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll take a look in the morning. I am a serendipitous editor and do not obsess about one thing so when I read articles I'm like omg the caps or the punc or the numbers and then I have to go check WP:MOS or FSM knows what. For example, I wikified this article to death yesterday and when I came back today I noticed it said "from 8 meters to 9 metres" and the conversion was in ft and then written out longhand foot, so back to the MOS and find the template and so on. So it's always helpful to have a "point in the right direction". Many mercis.  Captain Screebo Parley! 22:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, most of the time when I have to find those pages, I have to Google them or look at other talk pages, not the easiest to find... FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
I propose the Steller's sea cow article be renamed Hydrodamalis (which is currently a redirect) because there are two hydrodamalines, Steller's sea cow (H. gigas) and Cuesta sea cow (H. cuestae). So, rather than creating a separate stub-class article on H. cuestae which would be barely ten sentences long, I recommend that the two species should be discussed in one article.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that redirecting the page to the genus to talk about both species would confuse people looking for information just on Steller's sea cow.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, what's so terrible about making another stub?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote it so that there are specific paragraphs just about Steller's sea cow and just about the Cuesta sea cow, so there shouldn't be confusion about anything  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why there should not be an article on each species, plus one for the genus, as is the standard for organisms of all kinds, so I'm against this particular move. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think the better solution is to simply create a separate article for the other species, as is the case for most other "recent" species. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the proposed move, as well as the recent edits that have moved this article away from its species-focus. The Steller's sea cow has great individual notability, and an article focused on it is useful to readers who may look it up. CMD (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the move. Hydrodamalis is the genus name and not the replacement name for the Steller's sea cow and common names (in particular when they are well established) should be used in favour of Latin names --Melly42 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * New articles it is then  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 13:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I brought the issue up six years (!) ago, happy something will finally be done, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was actually about to nominate for GAN and then I saw your comment from six years ago (which started all of this)   User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice! I guess it's this article that you'll nominate? FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I also echo the call for separate articles for the two species and genus. The present state where the two species are discussed in the Steller's sea cow article is confusing. There is nothing wrong with stub or short articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cuesta sea cow, Hydrodamalis, and Steller's sea cow are now different articles  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * good work; an excellent example of a cooperative approach to editing, sadly not universal on Wikipedia. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

quote parameter
I see this article is undergoing a FA review. Definitely an article worth having as featured. One thing I notice is completely unused in this article is any usage of the quote parameter in the cite templates. In an article with 50 references that seems pretty shabby. Quote is useful when the article's text is directly supported by a small amount of text in the source. It is extremely valuable to have this. Some of the benefits are: A) helps confirm the article's text is actually supported by the source, B) every editor can quickly and easily verify there is no plagiarism of the source, C) aids re-finding the source using search engines when url's break, D) helps editors detect when references become detached and reattached to unrelated sentences during the course of time. So while everybody is reviewing this article, please take some time to consider adding such quotes. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the quote parameter to some non-repeating refs  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an actual FA requirement, but I see it's done already, so it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a FA requirement but your comment reads as if you would discourage it. Why? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't discourage it, but I wouldn't call articles that lack them "shabby". That would make the vast majority of featured articles "shabby". FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When it comes to referencing, I think articles, even featured ones, are often shabby. I state this is probably one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors that focuses on improving referencing. Among numerous problems, references are often too vague to easily verify and are very often taken to mean more than they say. As for featured article review, as if to underscore my point, the FA folk don't even bother to fix CS1 errors, probably because they don't even have the preference turned on to see them, which I think is a sin. These errors often indicate easily fixed problems with the references. (The very existence of a preference setting to see these errors is a sin, they should be visible by default.) We shouldn't be calling the FAs our "best" if they are littered with errors. How can we improve? Well, fix CS1 errors. And, in this day and age, we should be putting strong emphasis on page numbers and quotes. As I explained above, they are enormously valuable. And it's just too easy for the statements in articles to evolve to the point that it is no longer supported by the source. Without quotes, nobody notices. I'm really impressed with User:Dunkleosteus77's edit that added quotes. So few editors expend this extra effort. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is one major problem with quoting every single ref: WP:fair use. I think it is debatable whether hosting such an amount of mostly copyrighted text on WIkipedia is advisable. But that is a discussion for a broader forum, not an individual article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So long as we give credit to the original source and treat it as a direct quote instead of original text, then it'd be okay  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain more how you think this would violate fair use? Are you referring to the line "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" in Non-free content? That line is saying that a single source should not be over-quoted. That is something we shouldn't be doing anyway within a single article. A work has no limit on the number of sources that can be used yet still be fair use. If you are referring to the total number of quotes from a single source across all of Wikipedia (rather than just a single article), I still don't think that would violate fair use. The vast majority of sources except for encyclopedias and reference books wouldn't have such wide scope for this to even need to be considered. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the amount of copyrigthed text used. When it comes to images and audio, we are told to keep it at a minimum. I can't see why this wouldn't apply to text as well. See this related discussion: If we quote every single ref, it will be a considerable percentage of the arricle, surpassing what we are allowed to use form any other media. Anyhow, this seems to boil down to personal opinion; I have yet to see a guideline/policy that states every ref should feature a quote, and that is really all that matters on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am highly confident this is not a copyright concern and your interpretation of US copyright is flawed here. It appears that from the fact that we cannot use a high percent of a single work (like an image or audio recording) you have falsely extrapolated that an article cannot include too much copyrighted text even if that text comes from desperate sources. It is possible to build a work completely out of verbatim sentences from other works that still falls under Fair Use in the US so long as none of the sentences were a substantial part of any of the quoted works. Now that you have me thinking about this, however, I'm not sure the quote parameter is compatible with our text licenses like CC BY-SA. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "falsely extrapolated", we just have different interpretations, because the guidelines are too vague. But the bottomline is, yes, fine if you put the quotes in, but it is not an FA criterion, so it can't be demanded. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steller's sea cow. 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/20161020122625/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-165-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-165-01-0001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Sources: Eberhart and Ley
I've just removed two instances of material cited to George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. As its name implies, this is a work promoting the fringe subculture of cryptozoology, which is closely associated Young Earth creationism and ufology.

Additionally, this article currently contains several instances of material cited to Willy Ley, another cryptozoologist. The item cited to Ley is an article from a science fiction magazine. Is this appropriate for the article? It looks to be another example of WP:FRINGE to me. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, just because some creationists exploit cryptozoological ideas doesn't mean that cryptozoology inherently has anything to do with creationism, and the founders of the field (such as Bernard Heuvelmans) have nothing to do with creationism. So that suggestion should be completely disregarded. As for how reliable the authors are, no idea, but there is no precedent for excluding books about cryptozoology as sources; how do you suggest we should write an article about the Loch Ness monster? FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is well documented that the modern subculture is closely associated with Young Earth creationism. See our own article on the topic: Cryptozoology. Add to that ufology and ghost hunting, as discussed in our cryptozoology article.


 * Additionally, while beside the point, it's also well documented that Heuvelmans, while himself not a clear advocate of Young Earth creationism, often exhibited strongly anti-academic streaks, thus yielding the pseudoscience in the first place. Throughout its history, the subculture has been in unquestionably in deep WP:FRINGE territory, as is well documented in books like Donald Prothero and Daniel Loxton's Abominable Science, and noted by numerous other academics over the years (Cryptozoology).


 * The Loch Ness Monster is a creature from folklore, and we turn to folklorists for this topic. It's the same with geology and Flat Earth proponents. Flate earthers aren't reliable sources, but geologists are. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Creationists misuse palaeontological concepts and fossils as well, by your logic, we should dismiss the field of palaeontology, which is of course nonsense. As for the rest, you'd have to start a much wider discussion on some centralised page to get consensus for your personal view that books about cryptozoology (who says the book in question condones all the cases it lists?) can't be used as sources on Wikipedia before you can start removing info left and right. A random talk page doesn't cut it, and you need support for this before, not after, removing info. As for the Loch Ness monster, it is as much "folklore" as bigfoot (it has recently been established it has little to no history prior to 1933, and was heavily influenced by a scene in the film King Kong, and has since been retroactively connected with some myths of creatures that didn't even live in Loch Ness), and is mainly discussed in cryptozoological sources. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Paleontology is an academic field. Cryptozoology is not—no accredited schools offer courses on the topic nor do they grant degrees. It is a small subculture and a pseudoscience, as our article on the topic makes quite clear. This comparison does not hold water. Cryptozoology's status as fringe subculture is not controversial.


 * While it's beside the point, it's worth clearing up: Bigfoot is also an example of modern folklore, specifically American folklore. Considering that numerous folklore genres like jokes, recipes, or legends still occur in everyday life, folklore does not imply 'old'. There's a lot of discussion from folklorists on the topic of Bigfoot (you might start with respective Bigfoot entries in Encyclopedia of American Folklore or American Folklore: An Encyclopedia), and no need to turn to fringe sources. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, Bloodofox, I think this is a narrow view that ties investigation of cryptic animals with fairy stories and unverifiable conjecture, akin to current trends for flat earth LARPers or the reports of people suffering a type of temporal lobe epilepsy. I am more concerned with animals being made cryptic by language, disguising diversity, but am allergic to pseudo-sceptical positions obliterating verifiable conjecture, in this case, our efforts to obliterate the species may have been unsuccessful. cygnis insignis 04:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't make exceptions to our WP:RS and WP:FRINGE guidelines for the sake of including sightings that haven't been reported in mainstream sources. I'm not sure what "verifiable conjecture" means, but it doesn't sound like something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. –dlthewave ☎ 05:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that Eberhart is not a reliable source, and Ley should be removed as well. We've discussed before why reliable secondary sources about cryptozoology (such as Loxton & Prothero) may be used, but works by cryptozoologists and their promoters are unacceptable fringe sources.
 * Where have "we" discussed anything? Again, unless you demonstrate there is some sort of consensus for ignoring such books, you cna't go around removing text left and right. We need a wider discussion on the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

New paper
the full nuclear genome of Steller's Sea Cow has been sequenced. Probably worth incorporating into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 07:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article remains contradictory to the paper. While this article states that there is "no archaeological evidence" for the hunting of Steller's sea cow in the Aleutian Islands, the supplementary information for the paper (supplementary table 8) notes 4 archeological sites in the Aleutian Islands containing Steller's sea cow material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the paper means by archeological since all the red sites are mentioned in the Range section as subfossil remains  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Among the article that the supplementary info cites Dynamics of sea mammal and bird populations of the Bering Sea region over the last several millennia notes finding a worked piece of Steller's sea cow rib, while Steller's sea cow in the Aleutian Islands notes finding a rib fragment that likely originated from a midden that pre-dates Russian contact, with the article concluding based on account of hunting at Attu Island "make it likely that sea cows were still known and hunted in at least the western Aleutian Islands into the 18th century." The evidence is circumstantial, but it seems compelling based on the literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add what you like, you don't need my permission  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Author citation for synonyms
This is a FA so I just wanted to talk about this here before editing, but the author citations for a lot of the synonyms are incorrect per the ICZN Code: 50.3.2. Change in generic combination of a species-group name does not affect its authorship, If it is desired to cite both the author of a species-group nominal taxon and the person who first transferred it to another genus, the name of the person forming the new combination should follow the parentheses that enclose the name of the author of the species-group name (and the date, if cited[...]). It should be something like

List of synonyms (with new combination authorities)


 * Hydrodamalis
 * H. stelleri Retzius, 1794
 * Rytina
 * R. manatus borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Illiger, 1811
 * R. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Illiger, 1815
 * R. cetacea Illiger, 1815
 * R. stelleri (Retzius, 1794) Desmarest, 1819
 * R. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Cuvier, 1836
 * R. stelleri (Retzius, 1794) Burmeister, 1837
 * R. gigas (Zimmermann, 1780) Gray, 1850
 * Manati
 * M. gigas Zimmermann, 1780
 * M. balaenurus Boddaert, 1785
 * M. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Link, 1795
 * Trichechus
 * T. manatus borealis Gmelin, 1788
 * T. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Shaw, 1800
 * Sirene
 * S. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Link, 1794
 * Nepus
 * N. stelleri (Retzius, 1794) Fischer von Waldheim, 1814
 * Stellerus
 * S. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Desmarest, 1822
 * Haligyna
 * H. borealis (Gmelin, 1788) Billberg, 1827
 * Manatus
 * M. gigas (Zimmermann, 1780) Lucas, 1891

or, as is more typically seen in zoology:

List of synonyms (with just author citation)


 * Hydrodamalis
 * H. stelleri Retzius, 1794
 * Rytina
 * R. manatus borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * R. borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * R. cetacea Illiger, 1815
 * R. stelleri (Retzius, 1794)
 * R. borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * R. stelleri (Retzius, 1794)
 * R. gigas (Zimmermann, 1780)
 * Manati
 * M. gigas Zimmermann, 1780
 * M. balaenurus Boddaert, 1785
 * M. borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * Trichechus
 * T. manatus borealis Gmelin, 1788
 * T. borealis Gmelin, 1788
 * Sirene
 * S. borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * Nepus
 * N. stelleri (Retzius, 1794)
 * Stellerus
 * S. borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * Haligyna
 * H. borealis (Gmelin, 1788)
 * Manatus
 * M. gigas (Zimmermann, 1780)

The only one I'm unsure about is how to denote Shaw raising the status of Gmelin's Trichechus manatus boreali to species-rank within the same genus; typically the authority would be Gmelin, 1788 for both, without parentheses. The ICZN only talks about the option of citing whoever transferred a species to another genus as far as I can tell. The authorship of the name of a nominal taxon within the family group, genus group or species group is not affected by the rank at which it is used.

In any event, it's incorrect to say the authority of, say, Manatus gigas is Lucas, 1891.

The author citation for Hydrodamalis gigas in the infobox should be (Zimmermann, 1780); I'll make this change as I can't see that being objected to.

Also, if we're including other synonyms Domning (1996) includes:
 * Manatus balaenurus (Boddaert, 1785) Bechstein, 1800

Also also why is Rytina borealis listed twice? It should just be (Gmelin, 1788) Illiger, 1815, no? Umimmak (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In media and folklore, relevance of literary works
On what basis is the Finnish novel Elolliset not deemed relevant? The language area is small, but the book deals specifically with the animal and translation rights are sold in multiple languages. Based on available information it is not immediately more obscure than the poetry volume Species evanescens by Bronnikov, which remains untranslated. Gösspöket (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)