Talk:Sea otter/Archive 1

No mention of Canada at all?

America wasn't the only country to hunt Sea Otters, and all info regarding the Canadian extent of their range is conveniently left out for info on Alaska and California. Get the facts straight and keep the American self-obssession to a minimum. Thanks. -Jackmont Nov1

The interrelationship of sea otters, sea urchins and kelp forest regrowth should be briefly discussed, as it's the major ecological effect of sea-otter populations. --Wetman 07:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

---

"the largest living members of the Mustelids, the weasel family": this information (less elegantly stated perhaps) was too swiftly reverted. The largest terrestrial mustelid in the wolverine, with males about half as heavy as male sea otters. --Wetman 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

i am doing a report and are these animals born on land or in water?

₪68.193.107.220 12:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)§68.193.107.220 12:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)₪

Naming

Is there any reason this page title is capitalised? Sea Otter. -- Ec5618 13:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is also capitalized throughout the article. 66.214.64.122 04:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But why? This is not Wikipedia convention, is it? -- Ec5618 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Breaking shells on stones

I've read that sea otters gather rocks from the sea bottom, then float on their back on the surface, with the stone on their belly, and they break shells on the stone with their paws. Can someone confirm? David.Monniaux 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm it, personally. Also, the article makes note of it here, though perhaps not clearly, in not in so many words: "Floating on their backs, the otters wash and (if necessary) pry open their prey with a favoured rock they keep in their pouch". -- Ec5618 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Protect the Page from South Park based vandalism?

Think someone should put a protection template on this page? People have been putting stuff on the sea otters in the Go God Go episodes of South Park onto the article... --FigmentJedi 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The south park episode should at least be mentioned. Maybe in a pop culture references section. --TheTruth 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main vandalism I was thinking of was having the whole 500+ years of evolution sea otters actually being placed in the opening statement of the article without being put into the context of South Park. Besides, the South Park otters need a section on that South Park races article and put into the fictional otters category.--FigmentJedi 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

for some reason it is disappointing to come back to this page after a while away and see there have been many many edits yet have almost all been minor vandalism and then reverts by attentive wikipedians...why is it that the animal pages seem to get so much silly vandalism?...yet perhaps i can also be happy...as perhaps it also means a bunch of people actually look at the animal pages even though many are minor vandals!...85.1.223.203 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Orca Link

I don't know how to fix it, but under the "Habitat and diet" section the link to orcas brings up an article about software, not the mammal species. Can somebody fix that and delete this post? 139.147.141.172 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Link fixed, thanks for the heads-up. --Lonotter 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody edited the behaviour part into this: (Y) Males sometimes concen(O)trate in "bachel(U)or groups" near t(W)he female areas. Confl(I)icting data r(L)egardi(L)ng home rang(D)e and migration of se(I)a otters sugge(E)sts their movements are depend(I)ent on availabi(N)lity of resources. Home ranges may b(7)e as large as 5.4 squ(D)are kilometers, with mo(A)st animals travel(Y)ing found within 1-2 kilometers of the pr(S)evious day's location. I removed the cryptic message in this para. Gangeticus 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions and suggestions for improvement

What is the evolutionary history of sea otters? What do their hind feet look like? Having a section that deals with the evolutionary adaption of the animals to sea life would be very useful. I myself am not familiar with it. --CGM1980 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a sea otter?

I added this and it was removed with the summary "Wrong". Now, I am pretty sure this is a sea otter. It is definitely not a seal as was suggested on the image page. White it appears smooth, it was in fact furry like the other pictures, the fur is just smoothed out while is swims. When is was on land it was just as fuzzy, it has the same face and feet that the other images have. What is more the was a mural on the wall there showing the same animals entitled "Sea Otters". If it is not a sea otter then what is it? Wordless symbol 05:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't a sea otter. It's a pinniped. --Kjoonlee 11:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm Well that does look much more accurate. I think we just must call them incorrectly around here then. Thanks for the info. Wordless symbol 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what actual animal it is... Wordless symbol 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a Harbor Seal to me. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a harbour seal! Pay special attention the front flippers in the pictures, sea otters have paws not flippers! While you are correct that seals have fur, they look totally different from that of a sea otter. Sea otters also don't have the "dots" on their body as in this harbour seal picture. Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.142.49 (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone specifically know how the sea otter places air bubbles under the fur to stay warm? Ebethsimp 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• They blow into it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They also spend a lot of time rubbing themselves. The main purpose of this is to squeeze water out of the interstices between the hairs and make room for air. The effect is of "rubbing air into the fur". Their fur hangs incredibly loosely around their bodies ... they can literally pull their back fur up and onto their bellies and give it a rub. Or they'll take the scruffs of their neck and pull it over their face to rub it. Believe me - a scrunched-up otter face makes it even more painfully adorable. Best, Eliezg (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, what a beautiful description :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All together now: Awwwwww'... --Bobak (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding info about population status

Hi Clayoquot (et al). Incredible work you've been putting into this page! I wanted to add some more detailed information about the status of the Russian population, but it doesn't seem like there is a good place for it in the structure of the article. It sort of fits and sort of doesn't in Ecology or History or Conservation. I think a "population status" section would be an important addition, summarizing all regions. If you are interested, there is a nice English language review of the status on Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands on a downloadable pdf here: Kornev S.I., Korneva S.M. (2004) Population dynamics and present status of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) of the Kuril Islands and southern Kamchatka. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic, Proceedings of 2004 conference. p. 273-278. [1].
The essential summary is: before the 19th century there were around 20,000-25,000 sea otters in the Kuril Islands - with more on Kamchatka and the Commander Islands. By the beginning of the 20th century there were maybe 750 - a crash due mostly to the predatory hunting for fur in the 19th century. Until the 1940's, there was little growth observed - the authors believe primarily doe to an active "scientific" harvest by the Japanese (who still owned the Kurils). After WWII, controls became stricter in the Soviet Union and the population has grown at a steady clip of 4-10% a year, with a real spike in growth in the 1980's. Currently they have repopulated all of their former habitat, with an estimated total population of about 27,000 of which about 20,000 in the Kurils, 1-2,000 on Kamchatka and another 5-6000 on the Commander Islands. Growth has slowed slightly, suggesting that the numbers are reaching "carrying capacity". The authors conclude: The causes of increase in the abundance of the sea otter are undoubtedly associated with large-scale and longterm protection, sea otters settling down in new areas due to natural distribution and populating the Sea of Okhotsk coast of the North Kurils, and also human emigration from the islands.
So that's pretty much the story from the Northwest Pacific. If and when someone gets around to expanding the population and status sections, this info might come in handy. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks! I'm looking forward to reading this. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've struggled with the organization too, and with contradictory population figures. I've started a process of consolidating current population figures into the "Recovery" section, using scientific sources rather than tertiary sources like this one. I think that will work better. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Eyesight

I have removed the following: "Sea otters have a highly unique eye development for mammals, leading to an accommodation at least 3 times greater than any other mammal. This enables them to see clearly and focus on objects above and below water. They are roughly emmetropic in both conditions." Does anyone have sourcing for these claims? I have read in multiple sources that sea otters have fairly poor eyesight. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, now I've pictured an otter with spectacles. Too cute. --Bobak (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gulls and sand crabs

I've removed this: " Some lineages are noted for their preference for gulls or sand crabs as food sources." I can only find that sand crabs are not a major part of normal sea otter diets, [2]. As for gulls, Sea Otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Kenyon, 1969) says that otters may eat birds if they are starving, but are unable to digest them. Now we all have a picture of a floating otter trying to swat at a passing seagull... Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

More details removed

I've removed the uncited sentence, "It has 38 chromosomes." I couldn't figure out why this is important enough for a general audience. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "It has sebaceous gland secretions of squalene, which are normally found only in minor concentrations in other mammals." The sources I can find either do not mention this or find it to be of little functional siginficance.[3][4]. If we are to go to the next level of detail, I think the structure of the fur itself is more worthy of mention. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed: "Sea otters store two thirds of their oxygen in their lungs, so the large lungs are well suited for their brief shallow dives." I can find a reliable source for the first half of sentence, however I can't connect the dots to how this translates to suitability for brief shallow dives. The physiology of mammalian diving is complex; for example seals exhale before diving whereas sea otters apparently inhale. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed kalan as an alternative name for the species. This is the Russian word for sea otter but does not appear to have be used widely in English. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "It also has the lowest assimilation efficiency of carnivores (82%)." - I can source the 80-85% figure but not the rest. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some details on milk composition, as I have not been able to find sourcing and it may be too much detail anyway: "with 23% fat, 13% protein, and only 1% lactose" Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the "Great Hunt" section

I am trying to thoroughly reference the "Great Hunt" section and make it flow better. There are quite a few details here for which I have not been able to find sourcing, so I am copying the current version of the section here and plan to rewrite it based on the sources that I have. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've rewritten it based on one source so far to give it something of a coherent and balanced structure, but will try to flesh it out from other sources. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"In the 1600s to the 1700s, Russia was heavily involved in the sable fur trade. Peter the Great declared that Russia should have the monopoly in sable furs, and that they should find new populations of sable to hunt. The Russians conquered Kamchatka, in the eastern edge of Russia, where they could harvest sable and sea otter fur. The Russians continued to explore the north Pacific, looking for sea routes to Japan and America. Vitus Bering and Alexi I. Chirikov, two Navy officers, were given the task of mapping the Arctic coast and finding a way to America. Chirikov managed to return to Kamchatka in 1741, after much difficulty. Bering's sailors suffered from scurvy, and were marooned on Bering Island, in the Commander Islands, where Bering died. There, the surviving crew spent the winter hunting sea otters and gambling with otter pelts. They finally returned home in 1742 with 900 sea otter pelts, enough to pay for the entire expedition. It was Bering's expedition that set off what's called The Great Hunt which would continue for another hundred years.

The Russians sent many ships to harvest otter furs, and soon depleted all of the otter populations in the Commander Islands. In 1745, they began to move on to the Aleutian Islands, which were inhabited by the Aleuts. The Russians initially traded with the Aleuts for otter pelts, but later enslaved the Aleuts, taking women and children hostage and forcing the men to hunt. Many Aleuts were either murdered by the Russians or died from diseases that the hunters had introduced. The Aleut population was reduced, by the Russian's own estimate, from 20,000 to 2,000. It wasn't only otters that were hunted; the Russians wiped out the local fox population, along with the Aleuts. It wasn't until 1776, when Captain James Cook reached the north Pacific that other nations joined in the hunt. Captain Cook was killed in Hawaii by natives, but his crew sailed on to the lively trading port of Guangzhou in China, where they found merchants offering outrageous amounts of money for even the smallest scrap of otter fur. The sailors almost mutinied in their desire to return for more otters. It was then that the English discovered the value of these skins. A pelt could be worth as much as $1,125.

The Great Hunt continued, with Russians, Americans, and other Europeans competing amongst each other for that prized commodity. Alaska was almost completely depleted of sea otters, causing the Russians to sell it to the United States in 1867. Now, the sea otters were being slaughtered by the Americans.

In 1911, the International Fur Seal Treaty was signed, bringing an end to the large-scale hunting of sea otters. So few remained, perhaps only 1,000–2,000 individuals in the wild, that many predicted the species would become extinct.""

Some sources:

1) I really, really recommend looking for books by Captain H. J. Snow - an English sea otter hunter in Russian and Japanese waters in the 19th and a significant contributor to their endangerment, but also a really excellent observer/writer of the natural/political/anthropoligical environment of the Kurils, and a character really overdue for a wikipedia article of his own! There is a review of his life and work Here.

2) Any account about, or by, Georg Steller is worth checking out for the origins of the early sea otter mania. Have you read his original description of the Sea otter (probably the first scientific description of the sea otter over) in De Bestiis Marinis? Check it out. Among the wonderful biological observations and engaging writing, he is very specific about how the otter is hunted, how the indigenous people use it, how the Russians process it, how much the Chinese pay for a fur, etc.

3) This book has a lot of detailed information about the British fur trade in the Pacific in the 18th and 19th century (down to numbers of pelts per year). Looks a lot of the relevant bits are browsable on the web.

4) This article, while slightly off topic, discusses the measurable loss of genetic diversity attributable to the "Great Hunt".

I have a bunch of these materials in pdf format, if you like I'd be happy to somehow send them to you. - Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I threw on some more images from the Russian page which seemed fairly useful. I am not sure what the units are, particularly on the London fur market plot (I'm pretty sure the harvest plot is inidividuals) and left a note to the person who made them ([5]). There are also fairly informative images in the Russian article comparing pelage coloration and close-up of flippers, but I'm not sure how burdened the Physical Description section should be with images. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have noted this earlier, but I got a response from User:Kalan regarding the units on the fur market plot:

As requested, responding there: horizontal axis of both images represent years. Vertical axis of first graph is measured in individuals, and axis of second graph is measured in thousands of fells. By the way, thank you for your efforts in promoting Sea Otter to FA. :) — Kalan ? 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know whether the units should be worked into the caption or the image description. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Sea Otter swimming scheme.gif

Schematic animation of sea otter swimming propulsion.

• Thanks. Here's my thinking on a few image issues (in addition to the above):
  • I think the "Physical description" section for an article on an animal species should include a full-body color picture of the animal if one is available. This supports the text and helps to orient the reader.
  • I'm not crazy about the close-ups in the Russian wiki article; the user can see that kind of detail simply by zooming in on the images we have.
  • I've removed this graphic at right because, while it is a cool idea, by the time I scroll to it the otter has always stopped swimming :( Also it gives the impression that sea otters cross their legs awkwardly.
  • Regarding the stacking of right-aligned images: Although alternating image placement is generally preferred, I think an exception should be made in cases where stacking facilitates comparison of similar images, as is the case with the otter body/otter skeleton pair Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Former names

ru: Калан also has this nifty table of former names. It's sort of interesting to see how these things sort of settle down, and they reflect the debates about it's classification (is it a weasel? is it a seal? is it it's own thing?), most of which were limited by Steller's description, some skins and a skeleton. Not sure it's worth inserting, but I translated it anyway. Eliezg (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin names	Meaning	Binomial authority
Lutra marina	Marine otter	Georg Steller, 1751; Erxleben, 1777
Mustela lutris	Otter-like weasel	Linnaeus, 1758
Lutra gracilis	Graceful otter	Bechstein, 1800
Phoca lutris	Otter-like seal	Pallas, 1811—1831
Pusa orientalis	Oriental common seal	Oken, 1816
Enhydra Stelleri		Fleming, 1822
Latax lutris		Gloger, 1827; Stejneger, 1898
Lutra Stelleri	Steller's otter	Lesson, 1827
Enhydris lutris		Lichtenstein, 1827
Enhydris marina		Brandt, 1880
Enhydra lutris		Currently accepted nomenclature

Article

Don't know if this will help anyone, but I thought I'd post it.

Sea Otter Show Striking Variability In Diets And Feeding Strategies

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114173901.htm

pschemp | talk 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a good one. Thanks for pointing it out. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hi everyone, it's been a wonderful week for this article! The lead has improved and I like the new Culture section. Very glad that it isn't called "Sea otters in popular culture" ;) I'm going to be offline and playing in the snow for the next three days. Next week I'm hoping to work on writing to fill in content gaps, and I think after that it will be more obvious what structural changes should be made. Thanks everyone for the great comments and edits. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

Why is the article not at Sea otter? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be. Feel free to make a request at WP:RM. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Its uncontroversial, so I went ahead and made the move. Now "Sea Otter" redirects to "Sea otter". --Bobak (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure

I've fleshed out all sections now (with some tidying and details left to do), and would like to start looking at structural issues raised in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea Otter/archive1. It is not clear to me yet how to go about it, so I'd like to hear from others about what they're looking for in a new structure. Here are some thoughts:

• A summary of current population estimates for various parts of the range should be included somewhere, e.g. in the Habitat section.
• I think it's important to keep the descriptions of recovery and conservation issues organized by region. This makes it clear why, for example, populations are being newly listed in threatened in one area, and removed from the list in another.
• The Alaska section should probably be summarized in a few paragraphs, with the details spun out into an Alaskan sea otter sub-article.
• I am not convinced it would be right to put "Recovery and conservation" under a parent heading of "Relationship with humans". In the two areas with the most pressing conservation issues, southwest Alaska and California, the problems are not understood, and it is not known whether or how humans are responsible. Of course, chances are that in some way we (or our ancestors) are responsible for whatever is ailing the otters, but it can't be assumed to be the case given our current level of knowledge.

Thoughts? Ideas? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try to write out some suggestions here, but got bogged down and decided it would be easier just to implement some ideas in my Sandbox. Basically, there are two major things that are important in my view:

• The article needs a "Habitat, range and status" section near the top, region by region, distilling much of the "Recovery and conservation" section, which should possibly be spun out into it's own article Sea otter conservation.
• Diet needs to be expanded and incorporated in Ecology, the "Behavior" subsection under "Biology and behavior" needs to be exploded into appropriate subheadings.

Check it out, see what you think. It's almost all copy-paste action, so transitions and logic would need to be adjusted here and there. Hope the ideas are useful! Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Some excellent and fresh ideas there - I'm tapping myself on the forehead wondering why I didn't think of Sea otter conservation before. Where do you think the Taxonomy and evolution section should go? I'm going to sit back for a bit and wait for more input from others too. Thanks! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A decent general outline for animal articles is:

• 1 Etymology
• 2 Taxonomy and evolution
• 3 Physical description
• 4 Behavior
• 5 Range and population
• 6 Interactions with Humans

But (surprisingly!) there doesn't seem to be a guideline on wikipedia or too much consistency. Lion, Walrus, Grey Wolf, Orca, Common Raven (to pick a random smattering of good articles) all seem to practice some variations on this basic scheme. #5 in particular seems to move around quite a bit, sometimes appearing before #3. It appears that there's lots of leeway, but Evolution and Taxonomy is almost always near the very top. Eliezg (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have been responsible for shepherding bird and whale FAs in the above format. Marskell followed a different structure for big cats, so I think we modified Lion to follow his way, and the rest of the carnivores. Given this is a carnivore it would make sense to make it like Giant Otter but it is no biggie. Marskell likes his way and I like mine :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Commander Islands

Regarding this statement:

In the Commander Islands, carved sea otter bones were used as ornaments and in games, and in powdered form were used in medicine (Love, pp 34–35).

I'm not sure what the Love reference actually says, but the Commander islands were uninhabited by people until Russians brought Aleuts, Ainu, Koryaks (and themselves) from elsewhere beginning in the 18th century. Any traditions would therefore not have originated on the Commanders themselves but presumably on the Aleutian or Kuril islands of origin. I feel the statement is therefore misleading. Eliezg (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The passage on the Commander Islands was in a discussion about Aleuts, so I think it's safe to say that it refers to Aleut traditions. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To do

I'd do this myslef but I have to run off and make dinner and a few chores etc. Need to have imperial measurements as well - Template:convert is fun to implement but doesn't do ranges. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done now, I think. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Renovation in progress

Hi everyone, I'm doing some work in my userspace to restructure the article. It will take a few days – keeping all the references intact is intricate stuff. In the meantime, I don't want to discourage anyone from fixing anything that is broken, but you might want to wait to make minor edits so that there is less to merge later. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, most of restructuring is now done. I'm no longer working on a fork of the article in my userspace, so minor edits are all good again :) A new Sea otter conservation article is in the DYK queue and could use some more detail if anyone has time to add it. There's a bit more work to do here still too. I can find sources for sea otter diets in various parts of North America... but does anyone know what the sea otters are eating in Russia? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In this reference: [6] on page 269 there is a very short article by Korneva and Kornev: Feeding characteristic of Kamchatka-Kuril and Commander sea otter (Enhydra lutris) populations. The basic story is that they eat what is most locally available with wide plasticity and fine-scale variations, indicating very short foraging "migrations". Thus, on a typical north Kuril island animals on the Pacific side eat almost exclusively bivalve mollusks, while animals on the Sea of Okhotsk side if the same islands eat primarily urchins and crustaceans. They make the interesting observation that the greater the intensity of the sea urchin foraging, the smaller, in general, the size of the sea urchins. See the paper for details. Best, Eliezg (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's perfect. Thank you! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's left to do?

I think this article is just about done. There are a few new things that need sourcing. I'm currently out of town with variable Internet access and don't have books with me, so I will do this when I get home next weekend. I can also compress references at that time. A few questions:

• "The sea otter was one of the many species originally described by Linnaeus in his 18th century work, Systema Naturae." Why is this significant? Is the idea to note the first scientific description? If that is what we want, Steller is usually credited as being the first.

twas me what put that in 'bout Linnaeus - this is interesting as Linnaeus marks the beginning of binomial taxonomy, I would presume Steller didn't give it a binomial name (?). I have cut-and-pasted the Linnaeus text around a bit. I like it as the original text is online for viewing as well. Actually it is funny, as WRT Amanita phalloides (my beloved one and only FA on a fungus), Vaillant is credited as the describer and this was pre-linnaeus (?!)

PS: read the story. fascinating. what is the consensus on the name's authority? Can ask UtherSRG what MSW says... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 is silent on this. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand - Are you asking me/others to read the story or saying that you read the story? If the former, can you clarify what story you're referring to? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• From the FAC: Do we really need a dentition formula? I could find this out but I don't understand why it's needed.

Your call. I'd leave it in if sourced.

• Does anything else still need to be done? Please be bold if you see fit.

Looks really good. Could feasibly swtich a few initial clauses to reduce commas like I just did. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I did some copyedits through Physical Description. I'm not sure whether to put comments here, the Lazarus-like FAC, or in peer review, so I'll just start here:

• In the lead: "It inhabits nearshore environments where it can quickly dive to the sea floor to forage. Although sea otters can walk on land, they are capable of spending their entire lives in the ocean." There is some inconsistency throughout the article on the use of the collective "it" (the sea otter) and "they" (sea otters). Not sure which way to go, though I tend to prefer the former when talking about evolution or morphology and latter when talking about behavior, distribution, etc.

 DoneKla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• "the world population falling to 1,000–2,000 individuals" - should mention where it fell from. There are some species for which 2,000 individuals is a windfall.

 Done Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Physical Characteristics" leads with the repeated fact that it is among the smallest marine mammals. Perhaps, instead, emphasis should be placed on the fact that the sea otter conforms in general with the evolutionary trend of ALL marine mammals to be LARGE (for a mustelid) - due to the lack of scaling constraints of terrestrial existence, even higher buoyancy in salt water than fresh water, and abundance of prey.

• I am reluctant to list the factors promoting large marine mammal size, in the absence of sources tying these factors specifically to sea otters. Although the general trend is to be large (for the reasons you listed, plus heat conservation and resilience to severe ocean waves), many oceanic species are smaller than their ancestors and their nearest terrestrial relatives, and porpoises are smaller than freshwater dolphins. So the evolutionary pressures influencing body size are complex. A discussion of the enormous range of marine mammal body size would be a great addition to the marine mammal article! Although I generally like to put descriptions of an organism's features in the context of purpose and evolutionary history, I don't think it can be done succinctly and clearly with existing sources in this case. You're welcome to try! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I killed this: "As only the tips get wet, fur can take on a spiky appearance.", since it was disrupting the flow and seems very marginally important.
• Regarding marine adaptations: The shortening of limbs must be (is!) very important for all marine mammals. I don't know how significant it is in the sea otter compared to other otters, but the basic description of the organism should include that it is long, slender, hydrodynamic, with relatively short limbs, webbed feet, small tail, extremely small ears (as in seals), rounded face, etc.

• I got most of that in. I'm not sure how important the rest is. A quick look through the books I have don't reveal much comment about limb length. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the comment in the Peer Review on the capitalization of sea otter, I disagree pretty strongly. That is not the standard in any of the literature that I am aware of and was recently changed the other way in any case.

• I think Uther was making an in-joke about past capitalization debates. Not entirely sure, but I hope I'm right :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding dentition: I feel that it is important enough to be included. Sea otters are indeed unique in their incisor count, and tooth structure in general is a very telling evolutionary/morphological trait, as they are the most visible and easy to interpret reflection of diet. Consider the difference between the dugong's mega-molars and the porpoise's shark-like homodonty! Somehow, the otter's tooth structure must be adapted for prying shells open or chewing/slicing mollusk meat or something. There is a standard template somewhere ({{dent}} maybe?) and the full formula is given (in weird matrix/math notation) from the Russian page as $i\ {\frac {3}{2}}\ c\ {\frac {1}{1}}\ pm\ {\frac {3}{3}}\ m\ {\frac {1}{2}}=32$ with Barabash 1968 as a source, but there's obviously an English language source somewhere.

 Done Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope these comments are useful. Best, Eliezg (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are :) Thanks! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Phylogeny

I haven't read through all of it, but one analysis in this recent paper suggests the speckle-throated otter and sea otter diverged only 5 million years ago. Narayanese (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent indeed! This looks valuable and I'll take a closer look. Thanks for the pointer. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA

I'm passing this article for GA. Overall, this article is well written and very well cited. The images are very well-tied into the article with informative captions. The biology, ecology, and human impact were all covered comprehensively. I cleaned up all the little grammar stuff. Here are a few suggestions to better the article.

• In the population and distribution sections, the regions should comprise a section. Third or fourth level sections should do the trick.
  • _{Done. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}
• The part about the Exxon Valdez could be cited in the population and distribution section. Perhaps put citation #110 there?
  • _{Done. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}
• The sentences tend to be somewhat short and a little choppy. You would do better to combine sentences to make a more flowing prose.
  • _{I merged some. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}
• "An widespread Aleut legend tells variously of lovers or despairing women that plunge into the sea and become otters." This sentence is a little confusing and awkward. Maybe "Aleut legends tell of various lovers or despairing women that plunge into the sea and become otters."
  • Changed to "Versions of a widespread Aleut legend tell of lovers or despairing women..." which I think is closer to the original meaning(?) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sure that the sea otter has a greater impact on popular culture than the article mentions. Maybe something on otters in popular culture could be added?
  • _{See below. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)}
• The Aleut Kalan pictures have no author information. Although this is more of a Commons issue and that the author might not be able to be found, try to look for the author.
  • _{Done. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)}

Overall, a marvelous article. Research a little more and you'll have yourself an FA! bibliomaniac15 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bibliomaniac, Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review. Thanks for the great suggestions too. Regarding popular culture, I have added a bit, however other than South Park trivia I can find surprisingly little. Amazon has only these, really not much in terms of fiction. In the few decades in which the pop-culture world has gotten to know the otters, "aww, cute" seems to be basically our commentary so far. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I was somewhat sure that the sea otter would have some more culture around it, since it's a pretty popular animal, but it doesn't matter too much. You didn't leave many mistakes, so I had to scrutinize very carefully for things to fix. bibliomaniac15 22:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fur density

The article currently says that fur density can reach 400,000 hairs per cm². I no longer have the book that this is sourced to (it's gone back to the library), however most sources that I know of cap the denisty at 150,000 per cm². I have a suspicion that the number of 400,000 was arrived at by converting inches² to cm² using the linear conversion ratio of 0.39 instead of the area conversion ratio of 0.155. I'm going to switch the article to the 150,000 figure to be safe. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost positive now that the 400,000 figure is incorrect and caused by bad imperial-to-metric conversion. Back in November the article used to say in the lead that fur density was up to 394,000 hairs/sq cm. I changed it to 400,000 and sourced it to marinebio.org, which gives the self-contradictory figures of "100,000-400,000 hairs/sq cm (that's up to one million hairs per square inch!)". Then somewhere along the way the marinebio ref was shuffled out and the whole sentence ref'd to the Silverstein book, which supports some nearby claims but actually gives the density as "more than 100,000 per sq cm". Then I converted 400,000 hairs/sq cm to 2.5 million hairs/sq in. Way to keep a meme going... Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanctuaries and wildlife refuges

I've removed this: "There are also sea otters in some of the over 500 National Wildlife Refuge managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service." You could change the species name and put this sentence in the article for practically any species in Category:Fauna of the United States. It is probably correct, but to be interesting there has to be an indication of its significance to sea otters. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

London market prices

Prices rose as the species became rare: During the 1880s, a pelt brought $105 to $165 in the London market, however by 1903 a pelt could be worth as much as $1,125.

Why are these figures in dollars when this is meant to be about the London market? Jɪmp 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source reported prices in dollars. Which only shifts responsibility for the strange convention to the sources... sorry. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought that might have been the case. Jɪmp 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Congratulations to Clayoquot and all the other editors who've put so much time and effort into this article. I'd just spent time protecting this article from vandalism and giving it the occasional semi-protect, but the group that brought this article to the mainpage today deserve huge kudos. And they still are unbelievably adorable. --Bobak (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They who are unbelievably adorable are the group of editors or the otters?  ;-) (And it appears to be against the guideliens for the FA to be semiprotected, so we just have to watch it carefully for another 6 hours. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did someone mention otters? I know mine are happy that this got to FA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't semi-protect featured FAs? I was going off of what I think was the rule (well over a year go, might have changed, things tend to here) and (2) the rampant anon abuse during its 24 time on the mainpage. I just figure people will see what our best work is and see a pokemon character or "sexy" otters. :-) --Bobak (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection#Semi-protection suggests that even semi-protection should used only in extreme circumstances. I don't want to wheel war, so I'm staying out of this. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'm stepping out of bounds given the criteria; for space consideration I'll link to my response here. --Bobak (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This one is superb! I love it! Beit Or 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, I've spent literal hours browsing this page! And it got FA?! Amazing! My WikiOtters are happy too, TenPoundHammer. -- Barkjon  21:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Endangered or Threatened?

I've seen several sites saying that sea otters are threatened, not endangered. What's the source for saying they are endangered? --Phoenix Hacker (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Same difference, or close to. According to the IUCN they are endangered, which is one of three categories that are considered "threatened" (the other two being Vulnerable and Critically Endangered). Otherwise they are Near-Threatened or Least Concern. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably you heard of the "threatened" designation in reference to the status of some U.S. populations under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The "endangered" designation is the IUCN's classification for the species worldwide. The terminology is confusing because in the U.S. system, "threatened" is a notch below "endangered", whereas in the IUCN system, "threatened" encompasses "endangered". Currently the sea otter is at less risk in parts of its range than others, and different governments have different ways of assessing risk, and there's the inconsistent terminology. All of these things combined make things confusing indeed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Distantly RELATED TO BEAVERS?

This sentence is totally misleading. Its relation to beavers is as close as it is to humans, elephants and armadillos!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nose bites

Why? Imagine Reason (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes Section

What do the citations in the notes section mean that read "9. VanBlaricom, p. 11" or similar? I am unsure what these mean, is is a book, or an author, does it refer to a previously fully-cited book? 65.12.163.209 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It refers to a page in a previously full-cited book. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I'd like to start a discussion on pictures. We are lucky in having many pictures available for this article. Over the past few months, a few pictures have been added or replaced.

Current article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_otter&oldid=256175671

Version on March 23 when it was Today's Featured Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_otter&oldid=200385009

My own thoughts are:

• The article currently has too many pictures, and is becoming cluttered
• Images should show a variety of aspects of the topic and be visually varied as well to add aesthetic interest
• I prefer this image: Image:Sea otter with sea urchin.jpg to this one Image:Sea otter eating crab.jpg because the former is better-lit and I think it is more aesthetically pleasing.
• The section on "Role in human cultures" is very image-heavy and I think either the surfer picture or the Lisbon Aquarium picture should be removed. I would prefer to keep the Lisbon Aquarium picture as it is more informative, showing the animals grooming.

Other opinions, please! Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO Image:Sea otter eating crab.jpg is much better suits for the article than Image:Sea otter with sea urchin.jpg. IMO we should rather care about encyclopedic value of the image than about an image being "aesthetically pleasing", and the image Image:Sea otter eating crab.jpg is/was the best image in the article, to show sea otter teeth and the only image in the article, which shows how sea otter using paws to eat. I hoped that at least in the articles encyclopedic value of the images is more important than their so called "aesthetically pleasing" appearance. I see I was wrong. Articles are like FPC care only about the qulity of the images. On the other hand I really do not care so much about my images being displayed in the articles, so I'm removing all of them like I've never touched the article at all to make an article less "cluttered". Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

endagered???

Maybe I am reading something wrong here. If I am please set it straight. According to this article, before significant human intervention there were 150,000-300,000 sea otters. According to this article, today there are around 105,000 sea otters. so if we are operating at over 1/2 the original population, how is the animal endangered? When I think endangered, I think an animal that will go extinct within the next 20 years or so without aid, am I wrong in this? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IUCN copies Wikipedia

Oh my... The 2008 IUCN Red List report on the sea otter copies some passages from this article on Wikipedia. It was all here on Wikipedia first, I'm not kidding.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out which passages in particular were lifted. Unless there is concern that their material is copyrighted, which I suppose might be some sort of violation of Wikipedia policy (can you copyright text lifted directly from Wikipedia?), I would take it as a compliment. The IUCN page serves a similar role as Wikipedia in summarizing the biology/ecology/population status of the species, and the summary provided here is as comprehensive, accurate and concise as any other out there. The actual listings are performed based on reviews of the scientific literature, meetings and recommendations of real specialists and are unlikely to be affected by anything written on this page. Do you think this is something worth pursuing further? Best, Eliezg (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oregon

It's Depoe Bay, Oregon, not as stated, Depot. Great article! Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.76.224 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, now fixed. Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution?

The part of this article about evolution is offensive to members such as me. The article says it like the otter came to be through evolution, as if it were definite. I'm not saying you should take the part about Evolution out, but just word it different and use a different tone. For example you could say," it may have happened through evolution", instead of it did without any question. Not all of us believe in evolution and this should be taken into consideration when writing an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyryanharrod (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not saying we should take out the section on evolution, but you felt comfortable blanking that section yourself. I'm glad you have chosen to discuss this rather than unilaterally imposing your POV. At any rate, if you wish to have an alternative viewpoint mentioned, please provide reliable sources that provide evidence that the Sea Otter did not evolve from other otters. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, we could suggest sea otters evolved from crabs. --Bobak (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok well i'll provide you with a source. go and read the Bible starting with Genesis Chapter one Verse 1 okay? There's Proof and these are my beliefs. Oh and sorry for blanking it out I do think people should know about evolution but I think that other views should be presented also not just evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyryanharrod (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I searched the Bible but found no mentions of otters, sea living or otherwise ;). With regards to creationism in animal articles generally, no deal. These articles deal with science, at least insofar as they deal with the creature's biology (obviously these animals have cultural and historical significance as well in some cases). That people choose not to believe evolution as a whole is mentioned in teh article on evolution, but doesn't warrant a mention in ever animal article. An comparison might be atheism, it is worth mentioning in the article on religion that some people don't believe anything, but that doesn't mean you have to include a statement to the effect of "some people believe this is twaddle" in every theological and religious article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you should. I'm just saying that some people believe in evolution and some in creationism. once again I'm not saying you make it say "some people believe this is twaddle and some don't I'm just saying that the way you present the biology is offensive as if evolution is the only way. I'm saying that you should present another section about the animals biology based on creationism, which, is what most people in the world believe in, not evolution and atheism. Oh and one more thing about the Bible. I wasn't saying that the Bible gave the biology of the otter i was just saying it says in Genesis " 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day  

This is what i meant for you to read. And I'm asking that other views of the animals biology and creation or how it came about be put in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyryanharrod (talk • contribs) 06:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 

No inline citation in lead section

How is this a featured article when the lead/lede contains no inline citations? 193.122.22.247 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

At the time the article became featured, guidelines didn't require any citations in the lead, as long as facts were reff'd in the body of article. Current guidelines in Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations say, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." If you think the article could be improved by more citations in the lead, please either add them, or let us know more specifically what you're looking for. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)