This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (color,defense,traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is a part ofWikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource onextinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit theproject page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life
Does anyone know any museums that have specimens- skeletal or mounted? Also, ANY illustration at all- I've never seen even a drawing.CFLeon04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the Extinction Website, linked from the main page -Skeletal and skin specimens were not collected by zoologists (Sealfon 2007). Sea Mink remains, primarily cranial, have been excavated from Native American shell middens, although no collector is known to have preserved a complete specimen (Dunstone 1993). Specimens can be found in the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (AMNH); the Frick Collection of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (F:AM); and the Maine State Museum, Augusta (MSM). (Sealfon 2007) --Petemella (talk)12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've seen references to the Sea Mink eating sea birds, I haven't seen any indication in any sources I've read that the extinction of the Labrador Duck is in any way a factor in the extinction of the sea mink. Can anyone supply a reference?—Precedingunsigned comment added byPetemella (talk •contribs)12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of two terrestrial mammalian carnivores to go extinct in modern times?
There is also the extinction of theGiant Fossa (Cryptoprocta spelea). And besides the Sea Mink, the Falkland Wolf and Giant Fossa there are more recent or historic extinctions in the order of Carnivora, like theCaribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis) and theJapanese Sea Lion (Zalophus japonicus). Only I guess they are not considered terrestrial.Peter Maas\talk19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At first glance, this article has the same problem as the sea cow had, a description section which has text that should be split into a behaviour/ecology section
It isn't an issue of overall article-size, but about making it easy for the reader to find the info they are looking for. If 99% of articles have separate description and behaviour sections, there is no good reason to merge them here.FunkMonk (talk)18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is mainly true for extinct species whose life appearance is not entirely known, and in the case of the sea cow, the old drawing was pretty crude. Also, we had good photos of entire skeletons that would look nice in the taxobox. But in this case, I'd say a modern drawing, which is based on a close relative, is better than a drawing of a jaw-fragment.FunkMonk (talk)21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comment there. But I think you would get more opinions if you posted that at the paleo/extinction project talk pages.FunkMonk (talk)23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll be leaving shortly after you come back, hehe. But by the time you come back I will have reviewed the entire article, and we can hopefully wrap it up the couple of days we're both "here".FunkMonk (talk)21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5]" This is a bit strange way of opening the taxonomy section, since you immediately jump the the original description in the following sentence. Since the debate obviously occurred later, it would be better to deal with this chronologically.
"said that the size difference was insufficient evidence to classify the sea mink as its own species, and should be considered a subspecies" You should add "and that it should be considered", to make clear what you're referring to.
"furthermore, it had said that the 2000 study" This is awkwardly worded. Just say "furthermore, the study said" or some such.
"and said that they were distinct enough" Saying "concluded" would be better than the very vague "said".
"The taxonomy of minks was recently revised in 2000" Avoid ever writing "recent" in any article, you never know how long the article will exist. And is 2000 really "recent"?
"The study concluded that the size difference was caused by environmental factors" Like what?
I just used this map because the other map of the area confuses me so much because it has so many labels and isn't zoomed out enough to easily make out Canada and Maine. Nothing seems wrong to me factually with this map, but I can change it if you want. Maps are public domain if you're worried about copyright infringement, by the way. This didn't seem to be much of a problem for the Steller's sea cow map, it just needed to have the source missing tagUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let it slide, but may become a problem at FAC, if you want to go there. Would be easy to just make a new map by cropping a simpler map of North America.FunkMonk (talk)23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you do with the restoration, it should be offset from the image of the teeth: images should never be on the same line opposite each other (thereby "sandwiching" the text). And subjects of images should preferably face towards the text.
"around 4,300±300 years old,around 19 kilometres" Repetitive wording.
"or brought there by Native Americans" By being brought there.
"and it is said that they formerly existed" Said by who?
"most of its external measurements are speculation" Speculative would sound better.
"he dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades.[7]"
"the most aquatic member of the taxon" I would say group here.
It would make more chronological sense to mention hunting by native Americans before that of later settlers.
"the largest family in the order Carnivora." Why is this info relevant to this article?
"Distinctions made between the two minks is that the sea minkwas larger and had redder fur. In fact, the justification for it being its own species isthe size difference between it and the American mink." This is awkwardly written. Also, you state twice that it was distinct because it was larger. Could e a single sentence. Also, it seems it is distinguished by its teeth, which are not even mentioned here.
You should mention something about its behaviour in the intro.
The intro could be split into two paragraphs.
That is all, I am going on a trip from Friday night and some weeks after, not sure how my Internet will be, but I will try to close this when you have replied.FunkMonk (talk)11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two comments above, but generally looks better. "Humans and extinction" seems very generic as a title, though, I would called it "interaction with humans and extinction" or some such.FunkMonk (talk)23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I put "Humans and extinction" instead of just "Extinction" because one paragraph talks about extinction and the other paragraph just talks about its interactions with native americansUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, I would expand it with anything if possible, since it is a bit short. I think the restoration could be moved to the description section, doesn't seem to have much to do under extinction. Also, I think you could be more specific about its behaviour in the intro, simply saying it was similar to another species doesn't really explain anything to the reader (who may not know the behaviour of the American mink).FunkMonk (talk)15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing, I think it should be mentioned in the intro that it is only known from skeletal fragments today, and if you can find the info, list which elements are known of the skeleton, and perhaps how many specimens exist. But I will pass now, the first point I mentioned should be done afterwards in any case.FunkMonk (talk)21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"It was found on theNew England coast and theMaritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during thelast glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically theGulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?
"Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense
The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".
I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.
Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.
I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehandUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm isfalse precision.
"It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?
" The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." This sentence is all over the place.
"and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!
"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer?Josh Milburn (talk)09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.
Lede
¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.
Taxonomy and etymology
¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."
Range
Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a newniche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a newecological niche."
Description
¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?
Exploitation and extinction
¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?
Just realized this is still an issue. See[3]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent.Vanamonde (talk)05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:
"Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If itis a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.
That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than toother subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink wasnot its own species, and wasalso a subspecies ofN.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence.Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later.Vanamonde (talk)16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.
"Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.
Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects toBrown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.
If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.
Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards,Vanamonde (talk)05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this segment:The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).
The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"
I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get thereUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this looked good when I GA reviewed it, and it has obviously been improved, so here's my support to get things going.FunkMonk (talk)10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such asWikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests).Please do not modify this page.
Thesea mink (Neovison macrodon) is arecently extinct species ofmink which was most closely related to theAmerican mink (Neovison vison); though there is debate about whether or not the sea mink should be considered a subspecies of the American mink (making itNeovison vison macrodon) or a species of its own. The main justification for this is the size difference between the two minks. Its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains. The sea mink was firstdescribed in 1903, after itsextinction; its appearance and habits stem from speculation and from accounts made byfur traders and Native Americans. Its behavior may have been similar to the American mink, in that it probably maintainedhome ranges, waspolygynandrous, and had a similar diet. It was probably found on theNew England coast and theMaritime Provinces. Largest of the minks, it was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s or the early 1900s. (Full article...)
Reasons for nomination: I know people might think sea minks are pretty boring, but I think they're pretty cool and underrated as far as extinct things go
I just noticed, quite late, that under synonyms, you have "Lutreola macrodon Wagner, 1841". This has some implications for the article, first, it wasn't named in 1903, it was only moved to a new genus then, and if we assume this is correct, it was actually named before it went extinct. So both the text and the taxobox seems to be wrong, what do you think,Dunkleosteus77?FunkMonk (talk)09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in that case, how come it is listed as a synonym here? Doesn't make sense, even if we assume the two were considered one back then, that name can not be a synonym of both.FunkMonk (talk)14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it means from head to tail (as in, the combined measurements of the head and of the tail) it was 36 inches, and the entire tail itself (as in, only the tail and nothing but the tail) was 10 inchesUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
