Talk:Bird/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Bird. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

female cardinal

the female keeps trying to come in our dining room window. This has been going on for several days. Don't want them(2) to get hurt. what causes this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.143.35 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The birds are seeing their reflections in the glass (stand outside and have a look to see what they're seeing), and are trying to drive off their "rivals". It's a time of year thing, and there's not a whole lot you can do to stop them—it's the hormones! Once they've bred and started their family, things should calm down. MeegsC | Talk 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoken article recording in progress

This article is being recorded under aegis of WP:SPOKEN & WP:BIRD. The proposed spoken text is under preparation and can be found User:AshLin/Spoken script Bird. Wikihelp and wikicompanionship welcome. AshLin (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to length of the article as well as the presence of constructs, such as cladograms, which add to the length of spoken articles, I have broken it into four parts. This will render the recording shorter, allow a person to choose to or avoid listening to any part and allow others to participate in this article. The parts are organised in this fashion:

Part 1 - introduction and contents. Done
Part 2 - section one - evolution and taxonomy. Done
Part 3 - sections 2 to 4 which deal with the topics of distribution, anatomy, physiology and behaviour.
Part 4 - last part and contains sections 5 to 8 which deal with ecology, relationship with humans, economic importance and conservation.

AshLin (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The script is ready. Any volunteers to read for this article? AshLin (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

birds are not proper nouns

Just because you refer to a class of things is not a reason for capitalizing. Otherwise we would capitalize hammer when referring to that class of tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.52.106 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bird species names are capitalised by convention, just as scientific binomials are presented in italics with the genus capitalised by convention. A bunch of common gulls are just a gulls what are common, but the species is a Common Gull. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically just because the birdies started doing it. It is not proper grammar. Look in any grammar book. It is a new fangled thing. Some science society should not be allowed to break the language. And just recently break it. An individual animal is a proper noun. But not the species. Heck, otherwise, every class of thing should be capitalized: elements of the periodic table etc. Face it. You guys are trying to change the language. And are Germanifying things. And I don't want you to get away with it. 72.82.52.106 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing language? Funny, because when I say Common Gull and common gull out loud they sound the same. :) The convention I speak of is only used in science and scientific articles like this one, which is about the class Aves (do you object to Aves with a big a? Or Procellariidae being the correct term for shearwaters and petrels? How about Homo sapiens?). We dont go to articles like A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square (song) and change every instance of nightingale to caps (although ungramatical caps are also used in themidle of sentences in film titles, book tiles, song titles, hmmmm.... Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the language? Science has been around longer, so isn't English breaking science?

--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

missing?

Upon browsing the article, though forgive me if I've been blind and just missed it, I noticed that while it has a fair bit of information on attracting a mate there doesn't seem to be a section on how birds actually reproduce. If this is included and I stupidly haven't seen it please forgive me, but if not maybe this could be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.28.9 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By reproduction perhaps you mean how the egg is formed, fertilized and developed ? Those biological details are perhaps missing or just skimmed here, but it would help if you could specify what you did seek ? Shyamal (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I was looking for the same information - how / if birds copulate. I found the following from [1] The male bird climbs onto the back of the female and she moves her tail to the side. The female's genital opening is on the other side, and the male leans onto those openings. The male and female's genitals only are pressed together for a moment or two, then the male dismounts and the process is complete.

78.231.23.115 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with humans

"Since birds are highly visible and common animals, humans have had a relationship with them since the dawn of man" Wouldn't 'humankind' instead of 'man' be more proper? Just a thought, no trolling intended 93.41.198.239 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo

"Fertilisation" is spelled with a Z, not an S.

Fertilisation can be spelt either with an s or an z, depending on if the writer is using British or American English. Since the article is written in British English it is with an s. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks!--Feynix7 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bird origins

The section on bird origins is very strongly worded, as if there is no dispute regarding the orginis of the birds. However, that is incorrect, see for example James, F. C., and J. A. Pourtless, IV. 2009. Cladistics and the origin of birds: a review and two new analyses. Ornithological Monographs 66. Most of the current ideas are based on opinions and rather limited proof. For example, most cladistic analysis start with the assumption that the archopterix is the basis, and they use the other featherd dinasaurs as an outgroup, forcing the analysis to confirm that those are not birds. Anyway, the section needs be be rewritten to reflect that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Birds & Dinosaurs

This article reads: "Fossil evidence and intensive biological analyses have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that birds are theropod dinosaurs." Really? Birds are dinosaurs... period? The sentence in the article seems very strongly worded and may be confusing to casual readers. Is it more accurate to say that "birds and theropod dinosaurs are descendants of a common biological ancestor" or "modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs" or "theropod dinosaurs evolved into the modern bird"? Can a specialist in this area please shed some light on this?. Codymr (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be most correct to say that they're a specialised sub-group of theropods, and I've added this to the text. It would be incorrect to say they evolved from a common ancestor (compare: "bats and mammals are descendants of a common biological ancestor") and slightly misleading to say one evolved form the other (compare: "mammals evolved into the modern bat"). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dinoguy2, I can't vouch for the technical accuracy of your changes (I am not an expert) but your edit seems clearer and certainly reads better IMO. Well done. Codymr (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

birds not descendants of dinosaurs

Apparently some new studies from OSU have found that birds most likely did NOT evolve from dinosaurs-- but in parallel. Why is this wiki locked, btw?66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Link, please. The article is protected due to excessive vandalism from IPs, registered users older than 5 days can still edit it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The paper looks interesting. It should be remembered that there are two schools of thought on the origin of birds, one dinsaurian and one not. Both sides publish papers, and at present the dinosaur origin theory has consensus behind it. But supporters of the other theory still publish papers, so a single paper like this is not of itself a complete refutation, it is merely another volley in a long running war. We need to wait and see how other scientists react, and possibly mention the paper at origin of birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is covered under the Alternative theories and controversies section. It's the same group of a few scientists dead set against the birds re dinosaurs consensus still plugging away. Specifically, the most obvious problem with this study is that it claims air sacs couldn't have evolved from animals with mobile femurs. However, many early birds do have mobile femurs. So, by this logic, things like Archaeopteryx can't be related to birds either. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Those crazy scientists. Whenever will they learn how much more important groupthink is than open debate. I'm not sure where you got the idea they have no air sac, however, as that has been proven established since the early 90's, which debunked research(was more like specualtion than research) done way back in the 30's.66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you check out the contribution history of this IP editor, fractious and argumentative. Justin talk 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds kinda like you Justin, but without the British POV pushing, eh?66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the online scientific literature on the topic over the last few months, it's increasingly likely that birds did not, in fact, descend from theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is not an early bird, the first birds appear in the geological record long before theropods. Try typing 'thigh' 'bone' 'lungs' 'dinosaurs' and 'birds' into your search engine - no scientist is trying to refute the Oregon State University paper which conclusively proves that theropods did not give rise to birds. The Oregon State University paper has been very well received in the literature, with no major scientific backlash in the months since they published it. At the very least, you need to edit your page so that the origin of birds is cast in more appropriately uncertain terms. As it stands, you are currently justifying the popular accusation that Wikipedia is prone to innaccuracy and error.

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09061048-discovery-raises-new-doubts-about-dinosaur-bird-links

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/discovery-raises-new-doubts-about-dinosaur-bird-links-21959.html

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/6/11/4218726.html

http://www.birds.com/blog/new-discovery-sheds-light-on-bird-evolution/

http://www.livescience.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2045&start=0

As you can see, these are not creationist or ID articles - they are, for the most part, very much mainstream. There are very, very few online articles arguing against the Oregon State University paper on birds and dinosaurs, and it's disingenuous to suggest that it is just one more shot in a battle that's been raging over the origin of birds for decades when the shot is clearly fatal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.221.237 (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If birds are technically dinosaurs....

Why aren't they under that category. May I have permission to add this page to it? Also, aren't birds then reptiles?Fusion7 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They are descended from dinosaurs, which is different to being someting. We are descended from fish, but we are not fish. As for being reptiles, they are and aren't. All us mammals are descended from mammals too. In fact any vertebrate on land that isn't a lost fish or an amphibian is descended from or is a reptile. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewording?

The article reads: "Based on fossil evidence and intensive biological, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs."

This seems awkward at best and incorrect at worst. Perhaps something like: "Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs." Codymr (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction made per suggestion. You should be able to edit it yourself soon, the article is only semi-protected. Shyamal (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Endothermic?

See 1st line all birds are exothermic ie they make heat energy inside there bodies, then it is radiated to the surroundings.

Siripswich (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In biological terms they are endothermic, they control their body temperatures through internal means such as muscle shivering or fat burning (Greek: endon = "within", thermē = "heat"). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Classification

The section "Modern bird orders: Classification" can do with some reworking. The current list of Linnean orders and the phylogenetic classifications that are displayed in illustrations alongside can be confusing. Additionally the Sibley-Monroe with Sibley-Ahlquist in brackets does not seem to be helpful. "Molecular data" can also be a little misleading and "found widespread adoption in a few aspects" can give the idea that molecular data are downright dubious. It would be fair to clarify that DNA-DNA hybridization was just the start and that it only resolved some of the basal groups and that sequence based work is helping resolve at least some of the extant groups. Shyamal (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Struthioniformes

Text bird orders says this order includes emus, rheas etc, but Struthioniformes is a redirect to Struthio, just Ostrich Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

edits to ecology

I have removed the floowing for discussion and cleanup. When it is up to standard it can get put back.

Tyrant Flycatches and Swallows control the number of flying insects^{[citation needed]} which can become pests to human health and agricultural production.^{[citation needed]} Most Passerines glean for insects from trees^{[citation needed]} protecting them from mass infestation. Woodpeckers are especially good at removing bigger boring insects out from below the tree bark before these insects threaten the health of the tree. The trees provide for birds; the birds care for trees.^{[citation needed]}

To deal with this line by line...

Tyrant Flycatches and Swallows control the number of flying insects -

Why only these two families? Many families of passerines (and other families) eat flying insects.

which can become pests to human health and agricultural production -

They also eat beneficial insects you know

Most Passerines glean for insects from trees

Most? Some, for sure. Most? Unlikely. They also hunt insects in bushes, in grasses, in vines, underwater. They also eat berries, frogs, rats, fruit, nectar, fish larvae and God knows what else

protecting them from mass infestation.

Not all insects on a tree are damaging to the tree. Do birds even have important effects? Birds don't always target the damaging ones, they may even protect the in exchange for sugarwater.

The trees provide for birds; the birds care for trees.

The trees don't provide for birds, the insects (or other things do) Birds also destroy trees, steal nectar, drill holes, eat seeds and other things that hurt trees (and everything else). The tone of this is rather folksy, not particularly encyclopaedic.

The gist of this section is that birds can provide important ecosystem services. That is fine, but needs to be balanced and portrayed neutrally. The facts need to be accurate and from well respected sources. There is no place for the above paragraph in the article as it stands, but I am happy to try and work to make it more balanced, neutral and cited. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for those tags. Yes, good paraphrasing. Maybe this reference is useful (not seen) Whelan, Christopher J.1; Wenny, Daniel G.2; Marquis, Robert J. (2008) Ecosystem Services Provided by Birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 1134, Number 1:25-60 - also perhaps Pimentel D (2001) Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. BioScience 51(4):270-271 Shyamal (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

... and to Economic importance

I've removed this section Even more profitable for business is the number of amateur bird watches who buy expensive binoculars, digital scopes and/or expensive camera equipment including very long lenses. Bird photography beginning equipment for serious hobbiest ranges, in 2009 dollars, from $3000 to $30,000. There may be little correlation between the amount spent and the image results. for the same reasons as the above section. It's a bit too folksy for an encyclopedia, and hasn't been cited or referenced. MeegsC | Talk 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Birds with clawed wings

This article doesn't state modern birds that have claws on their wings. It use to under Anatomy. Which there are quite a few species with clawed wings such as the Ratites, and a few others. More towards the Ostrich article as it gives a picture with caption of claws on its wings but it is not stated or makes any reference to the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Avian Olfaction

Strangely, this article (and every Wikipedia page dealing with the subject) is completely unaware of decades of research on avian olfaction. The notion that only a few clades of avians have a well-developed sense of smell is now regarded as "definitely erroneous". More information can be found from these sources: The underestimated role of olfaction in avian reproduction?; Avian olfaction: then and now; Avian Chemoreception: An Electrophysiological Approach; there was even a symposium on the subject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.237.240 (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So aside from vultures, who else can smell? If you don't feel like creating an account, please put the text you would like to see in the article here, so other editors can consider it. We're all volunteers, so it is unlikely that somebody is going to take your links, read them, figure out how much weight to assign them, and write new text into the article (of course, I only speak for myself), but some possible text from you will go a long way. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Abductive, don't be quite so quick to jump on the IP user; s/he has linked to some interesting articles, which could definitely be used by those of us at WP:BIRD to expand this article — or indeed to create a new one! According to those articles, in addition to vultures, there are numerous other species, including kiwis, ducks, quail, pigeons, auklets and shearwaters that use smell for one or more important aspects of breeding or feeding. Yes, in a perfect world, the anonymous user would have added the information. But at least s/he has provided references for others to access! MeegsC | Talk 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what the IP has to say. Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to think about the senses of smell and taste. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If anybody just puts links to papers on a talk page I for one might just read them and add info to the relevant pages. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Something I saw

I read, well saw on the news, something quite interesting a few years ago. While i'm not sure what bird it is or was, a type of bird had left his partner (maybe to migrate?) When he returned his partner had copulated with another bird and laid eggs in its nest. The first bird kicked the eggs out onto the ground below angrily, showing an odd sense of actual love to the other bird. Sorry if this has already been mentioned i couldn't find it in the article but i thought it was something quite interesting. 77.102.57.127 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)