Talk:Spermaceti

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Cetaceans (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merits an article

I felt that spermaceti merited an article in its own right, particularly since there was a 1911 EB article. Perhaps there is some text from the Sperm Whale article that would better belong in this article now? --BillC 00:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why do sperm whales have spermaceti in their head cavities? What purpose does it serve there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.77.233 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I know it functions in diving and the different states have different densities which help to aid buoyancy but a section should be added for that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.70.254 (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section for it's purpose. Autumn Veil (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid an edit

Note: I undid an edit by 207.177.239.126 (talk) because the edit removed cited material from a verifiable source while the removal of the edit was based on un-cited information the editor says is from an email sent by a PR person at NASA. While the editor may, or may not, be correct, the edit does not follow the English Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. The content removed is not only verifiable, it is published in a book that is the 2009 winner of BBC's Samual Johson Prize, one of the UK's most prestigious literary awards that includes a $32,000 prize to the winner. (While the size of the prize is irrelevant, my point is, the cited reference more than fulfills the Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and, thus, should not be removed until someone can link to a similarly reputable published source.) --RexHammock 02:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhammock (talk • contribs)

I'm guessing that what RexHammock did was re-add the "whale oil is used in space" bit... Which IS indeed quoted in a book, but is nevertheless not reliable (and is, in fact, erroneous). I'm not a frequent editor, but I took the time to review the policy on using Twitter as an unreliable source. (Wikipolicy here seems to lag reality, as some organizations now self-publish using this medium, and there is no intrinsic reason it should be treated with less respect than an edit they make to a company web page, for example). Twitter IS acceptable as a source, albeit with a grain (or shaker) of salt. The NASA_Hubble feed is the official Hubble twitter feed, and presented as such on the NASA website (http://www.nasa.gov/connect/index.html) This feed has specifically refuted the whale oil fraud several times, including July 6 2010 and May 3 2010. http://twitter.com/#!/NASA_Hubble/status/13322397664 and http://twitter.com/#!/NASA_Hubble/status/17897797618 are a couple of examples. My quoting this isn't 'research'... It's verifying a source, and since the official Hubble feed explicitly refutes the whale oil claim, I believe that is sufficient grounds to exclude it, and is acceptable under verifiability. 216.58.117.45 (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inconcistency in biological function

Hi, It looks like the beginning of this article goes into depth while talking about the biological function and buoyancy, but in the section on biological function it is much less detailed and describes a completely different function as being the primary purpose (sonar)...this might be worth editing. I realize, though, that this is more of an opinion than a factual error. thanks.--75.18.185.180 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense

"Originally mistaken for the whale's sperm (due to the name), spermaceti is created in the spermaceti organ inside the whale's head."

That doesn't make sense. Wasn't it named spermaceti because people thought it was sperm? If not, why did they name it spermaceti in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for posting the movie. I've been reading, "Log Book for Grace" by Robert Cushman Murphy and now have an idea of what the rendering process was like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.181 (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent and unreferenced biological functions

The assumptive or putative purpose is outlined but then another order of poorly described complexity is also attributed; that the spermaceti, so far a static substance, jumps to the complex articulations of acoustic interferometry, ie "creating internal clicks etc" to distance locate the prey in concert with respiratory sounds. I'm obviously unclear how a puddle of waxy suspension can cause, transmit and analyse sounds dimensionally as the wording is unclear and there are no references for this unclear statement. How does spermaceti make sounds loud enough to carry if it is a closed system with no moving parts? How does it interact with respiratory created sounds? Why is there no reference to explain this odd shift? It's clear either the descriptions are flawed or information is missing. 24.69.180.83 (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The most likely primary function of the spermaceti organ is to add internal echo or resonator clicks to the sonar echo location clicks emitted by the respiratory organs. (SAYS WHO?//BY WHAT MECHANISM?//REFERENCE?) This makes it possible for the whale to sense the motion of its prey as well as its position.(MECHANISM?//REFERENCE?)" 24.69.180.83 (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear unreferenced underexplained

"The most likely [to who?] primary function of the spermaceti organ is to add [add? by what mechanisms?] internal echo or resonator clicks to the sonar echo location clicks emitted by the respiratory organs" so the unmoving organ is CREATING clicks by some magic? Or is this to say that it is a resonant cavity whose resonations' timing is compared to the timing of the reception of the reflected click? that would make some sense, still requiring more explanation but at least physically possible. 24.69.180.83 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

A quick search didn't reveal what I was looking for other than a mention that sperm whales wax reserve evolved to be lower over time. But it'd be interesting to see if biologists noticed links between the spermaceti organ and other functions in animals cetaceans evolved from like ungulates. For instance, the keratin horns are held by connective tissue and also have a kind of wax. —Paleo Neonate – 15:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]