Reply to the comment by Romero and Kannada on “Genetic analysis of 16th-century whale bones prompts a revision of the impact of Basque whaling on right and bowhead whales in the western North Atlantic”

Abstract

The comment by Romero and Kannada is presented as a critique of our previous work and suggests that our conclusions are in direct conflict with the historic whaling information reviewed in their paper. However, the critique is based on a misinterpretation of the geographical, temporal, and taxonomic focus of our previous work. The source of the putative conflict appears to stem from the misinterpretation that our results, focused solely on the impact of Basque whaling in the 16th and 17th centuries on the western North Atlantic right whale, were intended to be representative of all whaling of both right and bowhead whales throughout the North Atlantic. To demonstrate this, we briefly review our original results and conclusions and show that the information reviewed by Romero and Kannada does not challenge any aspect of our original work. As such, their comment is not a critique of our paper, but rather a brief review of the history of whaling in the North Atlantic.Résumé : Les commentaires de Romero et Kannada se veulent une critique de notre travail antérieur et laissent entendre que nos conclusions sont en contradiction directe avec les données historiques récapitulées dans leur article. Cependant, cette critique se base sur une mauvaise interprétation des échelles géographique, temporelle et taxonomique de notre travail. La source du conflit apparent semble provenir d'une mauvaise impression selon laquelle nos résultats, qui couvrent seulement l'impact de la chasse par les basques sur la baleine franche du Nord de l'ouest de l'Atlantique nord aux 16 e et 17 e siècles, représentent les effets de toute la chasse aux baleines franches du Nord et aux baleines franches boréales dans l'ensemble de l'Atlantique nord. Afin de faire la lumière sur la question, nous passons en revue nos résultats et nos conclusions d'origine et montrons que les données étudiées par Romero et Kannada ne mettent en question aucun aspect de notre travail original. Leurs commentaires ne sont donc pas une critique de notre étude, mais plutôt un bref aperçu de l'histoire de la chasse à la baleine dans l'Atlantique Nord.[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Comment on the second reply by Higdon to the comment by Romero and Kannada on “Genetic analysis of 16th-century whale bones prompts a revision of the impact of Basque whaling on right and bowhead whales in the western North Atlantic”Appears in Can. J. Zool. 86(1): 76–79.

“…In this rebuttal, we show that Higdon (2008) mischaracterizes both the objective and content of our comment on Rastogi et al (2004). We also show that neither he nor a reply by McLeod et al (2006) provide any substantive evidence that contradicts our fundamental conclusions.…”

“…As we clearly stated in our paper (p. 1060), ''the Basques were not the only ones engaged in the North Atlantic whale fishery.'' Notice that Rastogi et al (2004) only mention Basque whaling in their original paper and that in the reply to our comment (Romero and Kannada 2006), by three of the original eight authors (McLeod et al 2006), the latter do not dispute that they failed to mention other sources of commercial whaling in the North Atlantic.…”

“…Neither McLeod et al (2006) nor Higdon (2008) discuss our contention that molecular data must be used with great care when the data are largely inconsistent with historical records (see Conclusions in Romero and Kannada 2006), which was another major objective of our comment. They also do not consider our hypothesis that climate change during the ''Little Ice Age'' may have impacted the status of the populations of at least one species of great whale in the North Atlantic, that of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus (Lilljeborg, 1861)); it would have provided McLeod et al (2006) with some ammunition to support their idea that whale populations in the North Atlantic were affected by factors other than whaling during recent times.…”

Commercial and subsistence harvests of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in eastern Canada and West Greenland

“…The bones were from a minimum of 16 individuals -this suggests a harvest that was ca 94% bowhead whales. McLeod et al (2006) present preliminary results of more extensive analyses than that of Rastogi et al (2004). Analyses of 188 bones from 18 different sites indicate that 183 are from bowhead whales, one is from a right whale, and four are from other species (Frasier et al, 2007).…”

“…Much of the available written documentation may actually have been in reference to past whaling activities and may thus not be completely representative of Basque whaling effort. Nonetheless, the recent genetic analyses (McLeod et al, 2008;McLeod et al, 2006;Rastogi et al, 2004) clearly indicate that large numbers of bowhead whales were taken by the Basque fleet. The relationship (in terms of population structure) between these whales and the current population is also unknown.…”