Dusky dolphin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Dusky dolphin/archive1

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I brought this article to GA status over ten years ago. In past couple weeks, I've made some changes to it, including adding more information and sources. I now leave it to you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray – how can this possibly under debate, when there are nomenclatural rules? And nothing is mentioned later on that he might not have described it.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot from a specimen collected off the coast of Tasmania two years before his own classification – the key question (regarding priority of names) here is when this dolphin was described, right? Why is this not mentioned?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, – its the current name, not just "another", right?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• from stuffed skin – "from a stuffed skin"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons – this meaning of "though" is new to me, but I'm not a native speaker.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray in 1828 from stuffed skin and a single skull shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum. Gray first described the species as Delphinus obscurus and reported that the animal was captured around the Cape of Good Hope by a Captain Haviside (often misspelt "Heaviside") and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons in 1827. – This whole paragraph is a bit low quality. It doesn't really go in-depth about the first description (I would definitely look-up and cite the first description itself, too). Also, it says shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum and in the next sentence, repeats that very same information.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• before his own classification – "classification" should be "description"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• link "described" to species description

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The dusky dolphin was reclassified as Prodelphinus obscurus in 1885 by British naturalist William Henry Flower, before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889. – I feel this lacks context, and you did not even link to those genera mentioned, and do not explain what this means for its relationships.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 1999 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene indicates that the genus Lagenorhynchus, as traditionally conceived, is not a natural (monophyletic) group. – Related to my point above, clearly lacks context; you never explained how that genus was traditionally conceived, and you do not even mention which species it now contains, apart from the dusky dolphin.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 2006 finds that the dusky and the Pacific white-sided dolphin form the sister group to the (expanded) genus Cephalorhynchus. – Again, context: You have to explain what "expanded" means here, it is completely meaningless for me, even though I think that I know something about phylogenetics.

removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – But the two species are already united in the genus Lagenorhynchus? Why is a new genus name required to "accomodate" them?

Changed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• are moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias – should explain what Sagmatias was, and why it fell in disuse.

The source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested – "suggested" means that these identifications are uncertain? Why is that?

Based on photography LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – The study is from 2006. Is this up-to-date?

Changed wording LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The following cladogram is based on Banguera-Hinestroza and colleges (2014) – "colleges"? Colleagues? Link "cladogram"? Is this a genetic or morphological analysis?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose – I only went through the first four paragraphs, and just too many issues show up. Has this been at peer review? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been peer reviewed. That draws hardly anybody. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you now removed a lot of content instead of adding context. Thanks for adding the year of description for D. supercilious, but what I don't get: How can it be a "junior synonym" when it was named a year earlier? That would make it a senior synonym, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. I removed content that was clearly causing confusion and simplified it. The point is, genetic evidence does not support the traditional Lagenorhynchus species being one unique grouping. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still not clear to me. According to Synonym (taxonomy), the earliest published name is called the senior synonym, while the later name is the junior synonym. The earlier name cannot be the junior synonym. You give two sources for this; I could only access the first, which did not mention junior synonym here, but it does say that, apparently, the first description was based on several skins (so you took my suggestion without checking what the sources actually say), and it also speaks of several skulls, not just one skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified further. The second source mentions the junior synonym. Please don't accuse me of not checking the sources. I checked the second source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the inaccuracy with the skin/skins, and only wanted to say "don't trust what I say, always double-check with the source". Now you say "skin" again but shouldn't it be plural? Maybe "from stuffed skins with skulls", since the skulls were apparently inside the skins, and from the same individuals? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, could you look at it again? I make changes to the rest of the article and two other users have concluded their reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you address my concern about the taxonomy section not being up-to-date? For example, why show a 2014 cladogram when a much newer one [1] is available? You say that A 2019 study has proposed that the dusky dolphin, together with the Pacific white-sided dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin be moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias, but without information if that proposal was accepted or rejected by subsequent studies. The paper I just cited says "Lagenorhynchus, now included within the genus Sagmatias"; this seems to be uncontroversial by now, so why do you still keep it in the genus Lagenorhynchus? For example, the Inaturalist link in the taxon identifiers [2] links to the inactive taxon since they already moved to Sagmatias obscurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because many post-2019 papers still use the traditional name, including cites 45 and 54. as well as this, this, this and this. I requested a new cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will take a look at the rest once time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi! im doing yet another FA review (i have no experience with animal-related articles, so extra points for that)

• However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826 based on a specimen near Tasmania. → However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826, based on a specimen near Tasmania.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested based on observations and on photographic evidence, including with a common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The teeth number between 108 and 144. Missing an is.

Not needed. You can use "number" that way in the present tense like "they numbered over 50 people" in the past tense

Clarified. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In Kaikōura Canyon, New Zealand, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins, while in Admiralty Bay, they peak around only 50 animals. Seems a bit inconsistent (dolphins and animals)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whistling are is more common when dusky dolphins mingle with other dolphin species such as common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The dusky dolphin is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international co-operation organised by tailored agreements. → The dusky dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international cooperation organised by tailored agreements.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extra period at the end of the sentence brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all properly licensed/free work. Missing ALT text tho

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly a good read, will leave the source review to someone else. for now, you have my support.

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Dusky_dolphin_size.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this diagram? Ditto File:Cetacea_range_map_Dusky_Dolphin.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed both. I already requested a new range map at Map workshop. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gray classified D. superciliosus as a junior synonym of his D. obscurus. Gray doesn't mention a "junior synonym" - but when citing Lesson & Garnot he marks the reference with question marks. See:

• Gray, J.E. (1844). "On the Cetaceous Mammals". In Richardson, John; Gray, John Edward (eds.). The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Erebus and Terror, Under the Command of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, During the Years 1839-43. Vol. 1: Mammals and Birds. London: E. W. Janson. pp. 13-53 [37].
• Gray, J.E. (1850). Catalogue of Specimens of Mammals in the Collection of the British Museum. Part 1: Cetacea. London: Trustees of the Britsh Museum. pp. 107–108.

I take this to mean that without a physical type specimen Gray cannot be certain of its identity. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these in Kaikoura, one of my favourite places on earth, in 2011, along with a couple of sperm whales. Also seven albatross species among the many seabirds. I fixed a couple of obvious typos as I read. I can't see many major issues, but some nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure in lead if "genetically" would be better preceding "very closely", leave it to you

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• with the most fit being able to catch her and reproduce.—not sure "with" is needed

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• link taxonomy, sister species, blowhole

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Its size can vary between populations—varies

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• high amounts of immigration and emigration.—amounts looks odd, perhaps occurrence?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They are generally coordinated hunters.—last subject mentioned was common fish species, so they isn't correct here

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful to readers to have Persistent organic pollutant in full rather than just the acronym

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 3 Spicilegia Zoologica is correctly italicised on the book title page, so should be Roman in the otherwise italicised book title

I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the first page of Grey's text, he has "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals." with the Latin correctly italicised, and for good measure in the preamble that follows he mentions two other texts with Latin names, both italicised. The convention is that when text is italicised because it's a book or journal title, anything that's already in italics should be printed plain, so it should be "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals.". Similarly, if the species occurred in a publication title, it would be reversed to "dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) " Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5 livraison, perhaps gloss at first use as (part)?

I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 12, ref 34, genus should be in italics in both

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No other queries, will support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The dusky dolphin has a discontinuous range" what exactly does the source say? I only have access to the first edition (from 1998) but I feel like it'd be more appropriate to juxtapose this with the subspecies unless something major changed in 17 years Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "They occur in apparently disjunct populations in the waters off..." LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was more getting at maybe, "the [dusky] dolphin has 3 recognized subspecies: [A] found in [1], [B] found in [2], and [C] found in [3]" and it's implied that, since they're different subspecies and the locations are pretty far apart, the range of the species is discontinuous. Since subspeciation is probably the focal point of any discussion of the fragmentation in global distribution Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, (there may not be but) are there any ideas how the species got to all of these places if they don't travel across open ocean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did cross the open ocean in the distant past or they lived in the open ocean and became more and more adapted to coastal regions as this implies. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current classification. dusky dolphins from Argentina are considered to be the same subspecies as ones from NZ but not Peru. So no, I cannot described the range based on subspecies. It would be disjoined. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "but is not currently accepted" by whom? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By scientists. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get another source on posidonia, it's not on WoRMS (which you list as a source) and unless I'm mistaken this subspecies lives in exactly the same place as fitzroyi? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its listed on Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies and has an IUCN article. That's good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove WoRMS as a source since it doesn't support the sentence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But it was meant to be supplementary as it supports the other two. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "phylogenetically" really adds anything Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more than genetics is at play here, at least from what I'm gleaming from the article, since the dusky dolphin and Pacific white were placed into the same genus decades before population genetics became a mainstream idea. Is it that specifically these 2 species in the genus became understood as most closely allied because of genetics? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The genus Lagenorhynchus traditionally contains" what's meant by traditionally? It seems when it was first defined by Gray 1846, the dusky dolphin wouldn't be included for over 40 years? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spelling convention is getting confused, I see "colouration" and "behavior" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]