Talk:Bird/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Avian dinosaur" as a synonym for bird

Is "avian dinosaurs" really a term in common enough use to justify its inclusion in the first sentence? "Non-avian dinosaur" is certainly in common use, but I am having trouble finding any sources that use "avian dinosaur" except in direct conjunction with "non-avian dinosaur". Even in sources using "non-avian dinosaur", most still seem to use "bird" even within the same sentence. The current sentence feels to me like if the first sentence of the Canada article started "Canada, also known as the Great White North". Dunno, that term just threw me off immediately, and seems unnecessary when the full next paragraph is already about the evolutionary history. Somatochlora (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If "non-avian dinosaur" is a term in common use, then obviously "avian dinosaur" seems an apt descriptor for birds. As you say, the term is used in conjunction with "non-avian dinosaur", which isn't needed in this lede sentence because it is both not applicable to birds and is implied by the use of "avian dinosaur". Since both 'birds' and 'avian dinosaurs' are mentioned in the sentence, just as you found to be a common usage, it seems fine and encyclopedic. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the first sentence as a synonym for bird, even if it's technically accurate. Eric ^talk 21:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Why? It has redirected here as an alternate name since 2007. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess for the same reason I wouldn't add land-dwelling simian as a synonym for Homo sapiens in the first sentence of that article. It would be correct, but misplaced. Eric ^talk 22:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with that; I never liked it in the lede. Technically correct, used in the scientific literature, but by no means a synonym that is used commonly enough outside of specialized publications that it should be served up in the first sentence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Also agree. The opening sentence should enlighten, not confuse. Adding Avian dinosaur in the opening sentence will confuse anyone who doesn't already know about the birds being related to dinosaurs and adds nothing for someone who already knows. If it must go in the lede it should go in the second paragraph after the link between birds and dinosaurs has been stated. Perhaps something like "which is why they are sometimes known as avian dinosaurs" after the first sentence in para 2.   Jts1882 | talk  13:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing a major fact because it may 'confuse' readers of an encyclopedic article shouldn't be a recognized reason for removal. If a reader doesn't know birds are dinosaurs then they should be informed somewhere in the first paragraph, and even if they do know then the descriptor 'avian dinosaur' may be new to them. In either case, the encyclopedic purpose of informing and educating should come before a WP:CRYSTAL reason of "confusion". Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an important fact about the evolution and taxonomy of birds. It's not one of the first things someone would want to know about birds. Some readers will be interested in evolution, and the second paragraph caters for them. But many, probably most, readers will be interested in the general natural history and biology of birds.

The importance of the dinosaurs in this article has been deliberately reduced. There has been concensus not to include Dinosauria or any Reptilian clade in the taxobox, wrongly in my opinion, because it is clearly an important element of the taxonomy, but that has been the decision. Mentioning dinosaurs in the opening sentence goes against this consensus.   Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A dinosaur descriptor probably should be in the first couple of sentences in some form, either using "avian dinosaur" or a simple 'birds are dinosaurs', and not wait to present this major fact further down in the large lede. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the dinosaur aspect being mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph is sufficiently prominent. I would not necessarily see a problem with it being introduced somewhere in the first paragraph. But not in the form of an un-common name presented as a bolded synonym in the lead sentence. Eric ^talk 17:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

How about moving a portion of the last sentence ("the sole surviving dinosaurs") in the long second-paragraph into the first, as: "Birds, the sole surviving dinosaurs, live worldwide and range in size from the 5 cm (2 in) bee hummingbird to the 2.75 m (9 ft) ostrich." This would briefly provide that knowledge to those who only read a portion of the lede (this page has a very long fact-filled lede) who are unaware that birds are dinosaurs, and would preshadow the second paragraph. It would also provide context to the opening of the second paragraph, which doesn't seems to present the affirmative dinosaur label quickly or clearly enough (which could itself be remedied by substituting "proves" instead of the unclear "demonstrates"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede is to summarise the whole article. The evolutionary relationship with dinosaurs is described quite prominently the second paragraph. The first paragraph is not expected to summarise the whole led for those with low attention spans. There is no point adding something to the first paragraph when the second already handles the issue.

The second paragraph starts with "The fossil record demonstrates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs ...". How much quicker do you want to mention the dinosaur affliation? If it's not clear enough, it can be rewritten. Besides, its debateable whether birds are accurately described as dinosaurs when using the common name. They are members of the clade Dinosauria, which has a scientific definition. Some people consider birds avian dinosaurs, others consider the dinosaurs as exclusive of birds, just as reptiles often excludes birds.   Jts1882 | talk  14:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree - I'm a little uncomfortable with calling birds "dinosaurs" (as opposed to Dinosauria) although I don't think that's a battle I'll win. But at the very least, we should qualify that statement the first time we make it with a link to cladistics. How does this reorganisation of the second paragraph sound:

The fossil record demonstrates that birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs within the theropod group, which makes them the sole surviving dinosaurs, according to cladistics. The closest living relatives of birds are the crocodilians. Primitive bird-like dinosaurs that lie outside class Aves proper, in the broader group Avialae, have been found dating back to the mid-Jurassic period, around 170 million years ago. Many of these early "stem-birds", such as Archaeopteryx, retained primitive characteristics such as teeth and long bony tails. DNA-based evidence finds that birds diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago, which killed off the pterosaurs and all the non-avian dinosaur lineages. But birds, especially those in the southern continents, survived this event and then migrated to other parts of the world while diversifying during periods of global cooling.

[not sure if this is the best way to format a block of text on a talk page like this, I'm pretty new here]Somatochlora (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on discussion here I've changed the lead sentence - it is now very similar to the lead sentence of mammal. Somatochlora (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks, @Somatochlora:. Looks good to me. Just for kicks, I made a page to compare the versions: User:Eric/sandbox_Bird. Eric ^talk 16:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, have made the changes. Somatochlora (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Have edited the opening sentence of the second paragraph for clarity. Not saying that birds are dinosaurs in the first long paragraph seems to be hiding the fact, and even when it was mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph the language wasn't totally clear upon a quick reading. I would ask again that the dinosaur descriptor be included in the first sentence of two of the first paragraph. I'd point out that there has been a limited number of editors involved in this discussion for such a major decision, and that "confusion" to readers has been used as a reason not to include vital encyclopedic language in the first long lede paragraph. In a direct example, should the Human page also be edited to hide the information that humans are great apes to make readers who this may surprise more comfortable? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs look much better now. One qibble is that there are now more species of reptile (Reptile Database 2019) so we can't say they are numerically most successful. I can't think of a good rephrasing at the moment; one of the most successful seems lame when there are only four classes.   Jts1882 | talk  16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that change is definitely an improvement. Otherwise, I don't really understand your point of view. Why is the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs so important compared to various other things? I would argue that several other topics (migration, birdsong, diet, ecology) are MORE important than the evolutionary history and are currently mentioned later. The diet and ecology of birds aren't even mentioned in the lead at all! The current lead seems very well organised to me - a paragraph on definition/diversity/characteristics, a paragraph on evolution, a paragraph on behaviour, a paragraph on human relations. I don't see having the second paragraph of the article enitrely devoted to a particular subject is somehow hiding that subject? We don't call birds theropods, archosaurs, reptiles, tetrapods, fish, chordates, animals or eukaryotes in the first few sentences either. (I do think the infobox at right should obviously include Reptilia, Dinosauria or Theropoda, and probably all three, but that seems to have been discussed to death here already and rejected).Somatochlora (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The taxobox information is something I'd be happy to see reopened. It should certainly have something more than the obscure Ornithurae. My thinking is that the important one is that they are on the reptilian, non-mammalian branch of Amniota. So Reptilia or Sauropsida. I'd leave Dinosauria for the text.   Jts1882 | talk  17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Somathochlora, I see the good faith disagreement. You say that "Why is the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs...", but no, they did not evolve from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs. That may be the first time I've ever used emphasizing italics on a talk page. Birds are not just "evolved" from dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs. As monkeys are primates, as unicorns, well, you get the idea. Like most young boys I loved dinosaurs. The toys, the books, I abused my kid brother once because he had gotten dinosaur models that were better than any I had. And during my life I had put attention on birds from time to time, and enjoyed their nature. It was extreme fun to later see the evidence come in, and then more evidence as the years went by, that birds were dinosaurs. It wasn't confusing at all, it was very nice, and has been since, to experience these dinosaurs daily. My personal experience and WP:ILIKEIT aside, from an encyclopedic standpoint here is what I think the first sentence should look like. There is little or no reason I can think of why it shouldn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Birds "are" a lot of things, dinosaurs included. The question is what makes being dinosaurs more important or informative than any other clade they are included in. Why not put "avian reptiles" (arguably far more important as a broad concept), or "avian archosaurs" or "avian ornithodirans" in the lede? Nobody is trying to get the first paragraph on humans to include the fact that they are synapsids or euarchontoglires, just mammals. Could it only be because dinosaurs are popular in Western culture and it seems awesome to emphasize this one aspect? Birds being dinosaurs is of important interest to the dinosaur article because it re-frames and expands the topic to acknowledge that they are not extinct and have lots of extant diversity. How does emphasizing this one particular parent clade help understanding of extant birds in a way more than just emphasizing their descent from reptiles as a whole? This seems more like marketing than information. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Because they are the last dinosaurs, but not the last reptiles. The Human article has great apes in the second sentence, because it is an important distinction. Dinosaurs in the first or second sentence of this page would not be unusual or selective, but because of that "last of" status, notable. Maybe "only living dinosaurs" as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

They are the last living Avemetatarsalians (a broader group also including pterosaurs). They are the last living Theropods. They are the last living saurischians. They're also a massive and diverse group with thousands of species, so describing them as "last living" like some kind of relic of a former glory is totally silly. There are more dinosaurs alive today than there ever were in the Mesozoic. Saying "birds are the last living dinosaurs" is a bit like saying "mammals are the last living synapsids". They're kind of the QUINTESSENTIAL synapsids... the rest of the group is an afterthought by comparison. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Birds are Dinosauria, yes. Whether birds are dinosaurs is a matter of semantics, there is no single correct answer. The word dinosaur doesn't have to mean "members of Dinosauria" any more than fish has to mean "members of Vertebrata", because English words don't follow the rules of cladistics. Now, I'll concede that a majority of relevant sources probably DO use dinosaur as a synonym of Dinosauria, even if I would wish it were otherwise. And as such, we can call birds dinosaurs where appropriate. But we have to acknowledge that many people have a definition of "dinosaur" in their head that doesn't include birds, and *they aren't wrong*, any more than it is wrong to call an American Goldfinch a "Wild Canary". Indeed, the distinction between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is far more salient in general life than the distinction between Dinosauria and everything else. "Birds" are the things you put seed out for on your porch. "Dinosaurs" are the things you go to the museum to see bones of. And that's why the common non-cladistic usage of the words persists.

On a general interest topic like this page, we need to assume that many of the readers will not have the slightest idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, or why that means that we would say that they *are* dinosaurs. That obviously doesn't mean that we don't include that information prominently. But it does mean that the first time we call birds "dinosaurs" we should explain why by explicitly saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and with a link to cladistics. Currently we do exactly that in the first sentence of the second paragraph. That's why I'm not really onboard with the kind of change you're suggesting. It is going to throw people off (if you scroll up the talk page you can find various examples where it has done so in the past). Especially as your proposed change seems to imply that there is such a thing as a invertebrate dinosaur! And it is unnecessary - the evolutionary relations of birds is just one of many things discussed in this article, and are already given a prominent place in the lead.Somatochlora (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There you go again. Readers may be confused, "throw people off", and some may need to hold a rubber chicken as a safety toy. Birds aren't evolved from dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs. This is an encyclopedia. But I'm glad to put my attention back on this when I saw a new edit with "traditionally" used as a descriptor. I came up with a sentence awhile back which might satisfy everyone, those who want the reptile lineage pointed out, the dinosaur descriptor, and changing that word I don't even remember to the understandable "warm-blooded" [EDIT: Endotherm. Please read the lede of that one and somebody edit it to common and most understandable language, which is what we're supposed to do here. It even uses "parlance" as a descriptor.! But I just saw that Warm-blooded has it's own page, so that's a much better link] I'll toss it up and let someone revert if they'd like. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

To be completely, totally, 100% clear: my objection to the kind of lead you suggest is NOT because it might make people uncomfortable, or offend their sensibilities, or anything along those lines. And I don’t think anybody else’s is either. It also isn’t that people might be confused by the fact that birds are one lineage within Dinosauria. It is that people may be confused when we call birds “dinosaurs” without any explanation WHY. All of this is dealt with perfectly well in the first sentence of the second paragraph, with a link to cladistics for people who want further clarification. I don’t understand why you feel that this one fact (that birds evolved from dinosaurs) is so important that having the second paragraph of the article is insufficient, and it also needs to be stuck into one of the first couple sentences.

I’ve explained above why using the word “dinosaur” (or “reptile”) to describe birds is not uncontroversial. You haven’t addressed what I wrote at all – all you’ve done is repeat your assertion “Birds aren't evolved from dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs.” As I said above, the English language does not necessarily obey the rules of cladistics (you may want to also take a look at linguistic prescription. We cannot assume that people reading this article will understand that “dinosaur” has multiple different definitions, which is why we should be very clear as to how we are using the word, and why, the first time we use it. Nobody here is arguing that birds are not members of the clade Dinosauria. I don’t think anybody is even arguing that it is inappropriate to use the word “dinosaur” to describe birds in many contexts. All I’m arguing is that the article needs to be understandable to people who have never previously seen the word “dinosaur” used to describe birds.

All of this applies more or less equally well to “reptile”.

[Also, I don’t understand why the word “traditionally” was inserted into the lead. Does anybody really disagree that “birds” and “Aves” are synonyms?] Somatochlora (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed another editor's addition of "traditionally". And if the page isn't explaining that birds are the last living dinosaurs then the start of the second paragraph should at least be clear, and have edited it accordingly. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edit makes that sentence less clear. It now reads to me as "Birds evolved from dinosaurs according to cladistics", which is incorrect. The part about cladistics is meant to go with the "birds are the last living dinosaurs". I really don't see the issue with the sentence as it was previously. I get that you really strongly feel that birds ARE dinosaurs, and don't like to see that statement qualified or weakened in any way. I used to feel that way too. But I eventually decided that this kind of thing was a pointless debate about semantics. It doesn't bother me that the word "dinosaur" (or "fish", "reptile" etc.) is used in multiple ways that sometimes conflict. We have scientific terms to use when precision is important ("Dinosauria" and "non-avian dinosaur"), or we can just clarify in advance what definition is being used (as is done in this article).Somatochlora (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, I reverted most of your change to the lead sentence, as I did not see it as an improvement. Yes, birds can be classified as reptiles by some, but that is not how most people talk about them. Here are a couple articles that discuss the question: If birds evolved from dinosaurs, would that make them reptiles too? and Are birds reptiles?. Eric ^talk 14:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eric. I added reptiles because some editors in this discussion who oppose using the term dinosaur (please read this discussion, much of the objection is that some readers become uncomfortable when told that birds are dinosaurs!) point out that we could as easily call them reptiles. So I did, in order to add the accurate and important descriptor "last living dinosaurs" which I've been saying should be in the first sentence. The sentence I added seems the most accurate, and I've yet to read a valid encyclopedic orientated objection to doing so, so have come back to the discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that you keen to explain to readers up front that birds can be called dinosaurs. For reasons laid out quite well above, most of us feel we don't want to simply define them as such in the first sentence. Eric ^talk 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Eric, then you should change the DYK item on today's first page too, which tells readers that birds are dinosaurs in a "surprise" hook. Please count the number of editors in this discussion, it's very small, and since I'm the only one on the pro-dinosaur mention this section seems to present a limited point-of-view. So I'd like to do an RfC on this, as "last living dinosaurs" seems totally acceptable for the first sentence. Just three accurate words. I still don't understand why the commentators here reject that, but to be fair I'd suggest we work on neutral wording of an RfC if you'd like, with the RfC question pertaining to the addition of those three words. "last living dinosaurs". Seems encyclopedic and extremely notable to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Or a perfect spot for this may be in the second sentence: "Birds live worldwide and..." as "Birds, the last dinosaurs, live worldwide and..." Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I see this discussion has gotten a little heated, and I want to give my two cents. I'm going to make a compromise and create a second sentence in the first paragraph clarifying that birds are the last dinosaurs. It's honestly a more important point than outlining the diversity of living bird species. Waiting until the second paragraph and hedging using phrases such as "according to cladistics" does offer much potential for misinterpretation, especially for laypeople who are generally unfamiliar with the concept of cladistics. I feel that it's akin to waiting until the second paragraph of Moon to clarify that it orbits the earth "according to the theory of gravity". Acknowledging that birds are dinosaurs is not a strictly cladistic argument, it is a well known truth to anyone with even a passing knowledge of birds or other dinosaurs. And I personally disagree with the philosophy that we should be writing Wikipedia articles based on "how most people talk about them". A lot of people talk about Dimetrodon or plesiosaurs as if they were dinosaurs, while also being unaware of the actual definition of dinosaurs, which clearly does include birds. Basically all modern biologists and paleontologists use cladistics over traditional Llinnean taxonomy, so I see no reason to prioritize the latter over the former. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your change is a compromise. You have made a change against the consensus in this discussion that avian dinosaur shouldn't be so up front and is best dealt with in the second paragraph. Even with you adding your opinion, the majority is still against extra prominence for dinosaurs.

It is not an established fact that birds are dinosaurs as it depends on definitions. The common name use of dinosaurs (and reptiles) traditionally excludes birds. We can say the clade Dinosauria includes birds, as that is well established, but there is still a difference of opinion on whether the common name should include birds and even on whether a taxon Dinosauria is viable as, unfortunately, some people still allow paraphyletic groups. Given the semantics of such arguments this means discussion of whether birds are dinosaurs can't be reduced to a simple sentence without giving only one non-universal opinion.   Jts1882 | talk  08:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, the discussion is getting away from the main point. Why is it so important to mention dinosaurs? Why is that more important that saying they are tetrapods or amniotes or jawed vertebrates. These are more important steps in the evolution of birds than being dinosaurs. Dinosaur is just one step along the path within diapsids and why pick out Dinosauria over more the inclusive Archosauromorpha, Archosauriformes, Archosauria, Dinosauromorpha, or Dinosauriformes? The choice is arbitrary. There needs to be a good reason to include this information prominently in the opening paragraph.   Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It is an established fact (or at the very least a theory on the level of gravity or evolution) that birds are dinosaurs, because the scientific consensus on the definition of dinosaur is equivalent to the clade Dinosauria. The article for Dinosaurs clearly establishes that Wikipedia uses the monophyletic cladistic definition along with 99.9% of paleontologists and biologists working today. Bird also uses cladistic definitions, because if it did not then its cladograms would draw no distinction between Avialae and Aves. My rationale for specifically tying birds to dinosaurs in the second sentence is that these two concepts are interlinked, familiar, and approximately equally valued within the public imagination. Tying them together ASAP is important, because birds are a major reason why dinosaurs are important and vice versa. The Dinosauria Wikiproject acknowledges this and devotes half of the first paragraph on Dinosauria to birds. A more inclusive but obscure clade name like Dinosauriformes or Archosauromorpha would not meet that criterion, it would serve to confuse the reader rather than clarify a concept. I left this information outside the first sentence because I understand the importance on establishing a hook to summarize what a "bird" is. But I put this information in the second sentence (rather than second paragraph) because I feel that the connection between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is more important than summarizing modern bird diversity, and thus should take priority in the order of sentences. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would be okay with that second sentence version. It avoids both the "well duh, didn't you know that?" flavour of dropping 'avian dinosaurs' first thing, and the "ooh, this is cool" flavour of promoting it in front of the broad physical characteristics; which were the things that rubbed me the wrong way with a first sentence mention. At the end of the day, this is a mere stylistic debate over how exactly to nuance something that we all agree should be in the lede, and somewhat prominently. Works for me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't ultimately have a huge problem with a sentence something like that being put where it is right now, although I still think its pretty ridiculous to suggest that this evolutionary connection is somehow more important than the diversity and distribution of actual living birds. The suggestion above that birds and dinosaurs are "approximately equally valued within the public imagination" is absurd.

However, two big issues currently. First is that the sentence will still look just like a mistake/vandalism to someone who has never heard of the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is something we really need to say explicitly. Maybe have a sentence something like "They evolved from feathered dinosaurs in the theropod group, making them the sole surviving dinosaurs, according to cladistics". If people really really don't like that cladistics bit it can be taken off but I think that makes it really misleading and perpetuates the strange idea that English names in common use are somehow "owned" by taxonomists. Worth noting that most of the arguments here could equally be used to argue that this page should refer to birds as "bony fish".

Second issue is that we now repeat a bunch of stuff in the first and second paragraphs. The second paragraph really needs to be reworked and probably shortened if this is going to go in the first paragraph.Somatochlora (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead based on the above, please take a look Somatochlora (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point my most prominent objection is the phrase "according to cladistics". We should definitely not be accommodating to outdated schools of thought or pseudoscientific hypotheses (like the unsupported claims that birds are not descended from dinosaurs). All of modern biology is based on cladistics so why specify that something is true "according to cladistics". Dinosaur is a taxonomic term and we deal with it accordingly, whether you like it or not. As for the referral of birds to bony fish, I've already provided a reason not to elaborate on more inclusive (but more obscure) clades. Euteleostomi is an obscure clade name, so calling birds euteleostoms, while true, is also uninformative. Directly and irrefutably calling them dinosaurs, on the other hand, is both true and informative, reinforcing the link between these familiar concepts. "Birds are dinosaurs" is so much more informative than "Birds are euteleostoms", and therefore is a much more valuable point to make. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "They evolved from feathered dinosaurs within the theropod group, making them the sole surviving dinosaurs, according to cladistics," we could simply put "Birds are dinosaurs." Saying birds evolved from feathered theropods is like saying humans evolved from apes instead of humans are apes; saying they're the "sole surviving dinosaurs" makes it sound like there aren't very many birds around (and that'd be like saying mammals are the sole surviving therapsids, which isn't much of an accomplishment); and why is cladistics even mentioned here?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That birds are descended from dinosaurs is a fact of reality, it is not dependent on cladistics. That birds are dinosaurs is a subjective, semantic issue based on an interpretation of cladistics as applying to English words, not just to scientific clade names. There is no correct answer here, just different people using words in different ways. All I'm arguing is that "dinosaur" is frequently used in ways other than as a perfect synonym of the "Dinosauria", and that this page needs to make sense to people who are only familiar with those other definitions. Maybe there's a better way of phrasing it, but the point of the reference to cladistics is to explain why "birds evolved from dinosaurs" means that we are saying "birds are dinosaurs". This connection is not obvious to a significant proportion of people.

The point of an article like this is to impart information like "birds evolved from mesozoic theropod dinosaurs" and "the only living lineage from the clade Dinosauria is birds". None of the facts about the actual evolutionary history of birds require us to actually say "birds are dinosaurs". I kinda feel like the arguments for a specific phrasing like this don't originate from a desire to communicate a piece of information more accurately or correctly, but from a desire to present information in a way that sounds surprising and cool. The ultimate information that we actually want the reader to come away with is "modern birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs". Whether they come away with an understanding of how usage of the word "dinosaur" differs between academic sources and popular sources seems really unimportant to me in an article about birds (unlike in the article on dinosaurs where it is discussed at some length).Somatochlora (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Well stated, Somatochlora. Eric ^talk 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I fail to understand why some of you think that "birds are dinosaurs" is a purely taxonomical interpretation. It's a succinct and accurate statement, and I think you're overestimating the amount of people who would be confused by it. Most well-written popular science texts acknowledge that birds are dinosaurs, it's not a concept confined to academia. Wikipedia, one of the most prominent popular sources, also acknowledges this directly on many other pages. The difference between academic and popular definitions of the word "dinosaur" is shrinking all the time through the sustained efforts of scientific communicators, and it should be our job (as part of scicomm) to further reduce this disconnect rather than sustain it. This is an encyclopedia, and it should deal with things as they are, not how some people think they are. "The only living lineage from the clade Dinosauria is birds" is a more confusing phrase to the general public than "birds are dinosaurs"; I have yet to see a good argument for the opposite argument. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that the distinction between the overloaded meanings of "dinosaur" is one of the scientific definition vs. the popular consciousness. There really is no controversy in scientific circles, asides from BANDits of course. My proposal:

According to modern scientific consensus, birds are dinosaurs because they are the last living lineage of the clade Dinosauria.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, at a quick check both dictionary.com and merriam-webster define “dinosaur” in a way that excludes modern birds, so I’m not sure we are anywhere close to being free from confusion here. Wiktionary makes the same distinction I am between popular and scientific usages.

I don’t doubt that the usage of dinosaur as a synonym of Dinosauria is essentially universal in scientific circles. That’s not the point. This article is not written for people in those circles, its written for general audiences. Not only do such audiences often use a different definition, but they are not wrong to do so! Whether it would be desirable if there were not such ambiguities in word usage is a different question, but that’s a subjective question, not one for which there can possibly be a correct or incorrect answer.

This proposed edit still misses the point of what I’m saying. The question I would be asking upon reading it, if I were someone unfamiliar with cladistics, is why “birds are dinosaurs” follows from the rest of the statement. The answer is that biologists usually use the English word dinosaur to mean the same as the technical word Dinosauria. That’s what we need to communicate if we are going to call birds dinosaurs, which is what the link to cladistics is intended to do. This is ultimately a question of definitions, and you can’t get around that just by trying over and over against to phrase it as if it’s a question of fact.Somatochlora (talk)

You're saying that as if there's still debate (as if, according to something else, birds are not dinosaurs) which is false. Dinosaur and Dinosauria are the same thing, like Animal and Animalia, or Reptile and Reptilia. There is no distinction. If we're pandering to a general audience like you say we are, then we should not bring in cladistics, that would be confusing. I don't know what else other than cladistics you'd be using (like does Iguanodon DNA speak to the contrary?) Any general reader will not be going through the hoops you're going through. That's like saying because people don't generally think of whales as even-toed ungulates, we shouldn't talk about whales in that article (which is not okay). This vaguely reminds me of a discussion at Bat.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Somatochlora, First of all, the primary definition for "Dinosaur" on all of those dictionaries does indeed encompass birds. "of the extinct orders Saurischia..." (Dictionary.com), "any of a group (Dinosauria)..." (Merriam Webster) and "In scientific usage, any of the animals belonging to the clade Dinosauria" (Wikitionary). The problem here is that I see the term dinosaur and immediately think of Dinosauria (as does these dictionaries and anyone else with even a passing knowledge of the topic), while you see the term dinosaur and link it to whatever prehistoric animal pop culture labels with that word. Same with an uneducated person mistaking a bat for a bird or being unaware that whales are mammals. But regardless, Lythro has offered a good compromise which clearly states that the scientific interpretation of the word "dinosaur" includes birds. If your main objection is that birds don't qualify for the "popular" definition of dinosaurs, then this compromise solves that problem. We can't avoid mentioning cladistics anyways, since your alternative namedrops the word clade regardless. For someone unaware of cladistics, they'll ask "what does the word clade mean" before they ask "why does this mean birds are dinosaurs". Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, if I take you and Somatochlora's most recent statements correctly, I would say that yes, your parenthetical "something else" above could be defined as the way most anglophones think of most dinosaurs and most birds most of the time. In that context, for most of us, our general, everyday concept is this: A bird is a flying, feathered creature, usually much smaller than we, and a dinosaur is an extinct, terrestrial, lizard-skinned creature that was bigger than a house. Eric ^talk 20:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

And Fanboyphilosopher, I don't think that someone picturing a brontosaurus upon hearing the word dinosaur is equivalent to people thinking that bats are birds or that whales are fish. Eric ^talk 20:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

We can't misinform people and let them continue thinking along those lines   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm certain no one here is promoting any policy of misinforming people. Some of us just think that the simple declaration Birds are dinosaurs is not the right approach for the lede. Eric ^talk 21:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any deliberate malicious misinformation. You all just think that some ill-defined "English" or "popular" definition of dinosaur makes the phrase "Birds are dinosaurs" misleading. But those who are aware of the actual definition of dinosaur understand that not being explicit is much more misleading. We have a chance to educate people and transform the "popular" definition of dinosaur into the scientific definition. A lot of progress has been made, but there is still work to be done. I see that this is not the first time this type of discussion has taken place. Apparently a similar situation happened so much on Talk:Pluto that a warning had to be placed on that page. Let's just stick with Lythro's proposal, which explicitly states that birds are dinosaurs according to modern scientific consensus, which is true, infomative, and succinct by any standard. It's not confusing or misleading, unless your definition of dinosaur is wrong and you don't want to change it. For those willing to be educated, Wikipedia will elaborate on the phrase through wikilinks or the following Evolution and Classification section. For those unwilling to be educated, Wikipedia is not the place for them. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The current second sentence " Birds are the only living dinosaurs, having evolved from feathered dinosaurs within the theropod group." seems clear, understandable, contains concise and accurate encyclopedic information, and would be a good replacement for the topic of this section (keeping or not keeping 'avian dinosaurs' in the lede sentence). Let's keep it at this. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'm not opposed to this wording. The only thing is that, if Somatochlora insists on the semantic differentiation of "dinosaur" from "Dinosauria", then I think the qualifiers "According to modern scientific consensus" and "the group/clade Dinosauria" are necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not really an issue of Somatochlora insisting on a semantic differentiation as recognising the fact that the two are not always equivalent. A scientific term such as Dinosauria is well-defined, while a common name such as dinosaur is not and is used both inclusive and exclusive of birds. So the statement that birds are the only living dinosaurs is inaccurate for a widespread use of the common name dinosaur. The statement birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs was a step in the right direction as this is unambiguously correct and informative about bird evolution. This at the beginning of the second paragraph (not dropped into the middle of a description of bird characteristics in the first paragraph) would make things clear before further discussion of bird evolution and timing. The semantics of dinosaur is not really relevant for the lede of the bird article which should have accurate unambiguous information about birds.   Jts1882 | talk  07:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm still unconvinced that the reason for proposing these changes is because you all feel it will convey the desired information better, rather than from a campaign to try to standardise the definition of dinosaur. Some of the comments above are basically admitting that it's the latter, but this is certainly not Wikipedia's job. For example @Dunkleosteus77: "We can't [...] let them continue thinking along those lines" and @Fanboyphilosopher: "We have a chance to [...] transform the "popular" definition of dinosaur into the scientific definition." (quotes edited for brevity). The example of Pluto mentioned above is actually a good one - the lead explicitly outlines why Pluto is being called a dwarf planet and not a planet, and acknowledges that this is a matter of definition, not of fact. This is all I'd want to see here, except that it's a relatively much less important topic on this page than on the Pluto page and I'm not sure that it can be concisely and clearly incorporated into the lead without losing other important information.Somatochlora (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly my problem. Birds are in fact dinosaurs. The only people who say to the contrary are dictionary.com and merriam-webster (who also gives "any of various large extinct reptiles (such as ichthyosaurs) other than the true dinosaurs" which is 100% false) which are hardly authoritative sources on the matter. Should we talk about pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs at Dinosaur because people think those are dinosaurs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Somatochlora, All the well-researched encyclopedias use a cladistic definition of dinosaur first and foremost. We use a cladistic definition of dinosaur. The entirety of academia uses a cladistic definition of dinosaur. Some even specify Passer domesticus as the internal qualifier for Theropoda. It's not up for debate for people who are willing to be scientifically minded. I see Wikipedia as scientific communication and the job of scientific communication is to distribute scientific concepts to non-academics in a digestible manner. "Birds are dinosaurs" is a scientific concept conforming to a widespread definition which is based in reality, just like "humans are mammals" or "the earth orbits the sun". You could have a different definition of "orbit", half of the world population might also have that different definition, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to say "the earth orbits the sun". It would be misleading to say "the earth orbits the sun, according to the astronomical definition of orbit". I know that bringing up that last point is an exaggeration, but I'm just trying to say that I really do not understand the idea that "standardizing the definition of dinosaur" is unhelpful. I see such a process in a positive light, fulfilling the job of disseminating scientific information, which is the entire reason I edit here. I see so many people say things along the lines of "well if they're just descendants of dinosaurs, that means they're not dinosaurs", which is a misconception that needs to go away. That's why I consider anything less than "birds are dinosaurs" to be misleading, because just saying "birds are descendants of dinosaurs" may lead someone to the conclusion in my previous sentence. That is a problem which needs to be solved. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If half the world used a different definition of orbit, then obviously it could be misleading to say the "earth orbits the sun". It wouldn't be wrong, but nobody here has claimed that "bird are dinosaurs" is wrong. And "birds are dinosaurs" can be misleading, because many people who might be coming to this page use a definition of "dinosaur" where that is simply false. You don't seem to be happy with any clarification of that statement that leaves the slightest possibility that any other definitions aren't wrong. However, that is not how language works, other definitions are not wrong. See linguistic prescription (especially the criticism section). They may be less useful, or less common, or less precise, or whatever, but that doesn't make them wrong. Those are all potentially good reasons to advocate against such definitions, but that advocacy is not appropriate in a neutral encyclopedia. The goal of a statement like the one we are discussing is to communicate factual information about the world. It should not be to convince people to change the way they use language independently of any real factual content.Somatochlora (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See my comment below and Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. Basically, since Bird is a science article, it should solely use the scientific definition of dinosaur. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But that is the problem of a number of people responding on this page. It is not a fact. Birds are included in the clade Dinosauria can be present as a fact. Whether birds can be described by the common name dinosaur depends on the definition of dinosaur. You give two reliable sources for the more restrictive common name. Including ichthyosaurs is again a matter of definition. The taxon and clade Dinosauria has been refined over time, but scientific reports don't determine common usage of names. Dictionaries are a better guide. This is unfortuntate, and I'd much prefer wider use of cladistic names, but this is the world we live in and the articles have to reflect this reality.   Jts1882 | talk  15:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the deal with your obsession with ill-defined "common" definitions. What is your source for the idea that non-academics cannot accept that birds are dinosaurs? You act as though there is a clear line between the "academic" definition of dinosaur and the "common" definition of dinosaur. But most decent dinosaur-focused media (and quite a lot of non-dinosaur focused media) nowadays uses the "academic" definition, therefore transforming it into the "common" definition. If the "common" definition of Barrel roll is equivalent to Aileron roll, should we conform to that definition? No. The scientific definition should always be prioritized over the "common" definition wherever there is a difference in semantics. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not my obsession to enforce any particular usage. I just recognise that most dictionaries define dinosaur in several ways and consider dictionaries to be reliable sources for common names. I don't think Wikipedia articles should take the position that dictionaries (including Wiktionary) are wrong.   Jts1882 | talk  16:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is not an authoritative source for this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Who uses dictionary.com? It's easy to check the major dictionaries, which I'm sure you know. Implying that this information is only from dictionary.com is a cheap-shot and not a particularly good one.   Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882, I feel like you are under the impression that this is a debate over semantics. We are trying to clarify that "dinosaur" is a word that should fall outside of a semantical debate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has one definition of dinosaur: member of the clade Dinosauria. We should use this definition, and only this definition, on Wikipedia articles. "Birds are dinosaurs" is true in the context of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. "Readers of scientific articles and articles mentioning scientific topics expect to find information that describes the topic in a way that is consistent with the existing scientific knowledge". Ornithology is a science, and Bird is a level-3 Vital article in science under Biology. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already covered this today. It's not a question of semantics for semantics sake. It's a question of writing clearly, accurately and unambiguously. Why write something unambiguous, by making assumptions about what people expect, when there are ways of writing the information more clearly, precisely and accurately?

Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, which should be written for the general reader. It is not a specialist scientific text. The quideline you quote doesn't support the argument you are making. It says that the topic should be described consistent with existing scientific knowledge, not that it should use strictly scientific terminology that the reader may not be aware of. It is possible to choose the phrasing to be clear for the general reader and accurately convey existing scientific knowledge.

This debate is going round in circles, but I will ask a question as this should determine how the point is made. Why is it so important to say birds are dinosaurs? Is it that there is a unique characteristic of all dinosaurs that is an important characteristic of birds, a characteristic that will be immediately obvious when you say birds are dinosaurs. I can't think of one and if there is it should be stated. Or is it that birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs, in which case why not say that at the relevant place?   Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Understand this: Bird is a scientific article. It should communicate important scientific concepts. "Birds are dinosaurs" is a very important scientific concept. Therefore, it should be stated early in the article. It also corresponds to the reading level present in the rest of the introduction, which uses words like "class", "vertebrate" and "ratite". If the scientific definition of dinosaur confuses people, these words would as well. As I've said, leaving it as "birds evolved from dinosaurs" may mislead people into drawing a conclusion different from "birds are dinosaurs". It would "describe the topic in a way that is not consistent with the existing scientific knowledge". The concept of bird and the concept of dinosaur are both very familiar to the general public. Dinosaurs are well-known as a "gateway science", and the link between birds and dinosaurs is a classic showpiece of evolution, and modern taxonomy. "Birds are dinosaurs" is a short and accurate summary of one of the most important scientific discoveries in the history of biology, so it makes perfect sense that it would be placed first and foremost on the page for bird, as it does on the page for dinosaur. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. Jts says that we should write "clearly, accurately and unambiguously". I agree. Now, on the grounds of these three criteria, what is the problem with saying that:

• "According to modern scientific consensus" - stating the point of view from which the statement is true, and providing a framework for the definition of "dinosaur"
• "birds are [by definition/considered to be] dinosaurs" - stating clearly that birds are dinosaurs, which prevents the possible misinterpretation of "birds came from dinosaurs but are not dinosaurs"
• "because they are the last living lineage of the group Dinosauria" - stating the sense in which birds are dinosaurs, which is, cladistically speaking, contingent on descent from the most recent common ancestor of the Dinosauria

If there are any well-formed objections to this wording, I'm all ears. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections. This is a direct and succinct statement with a much lower potential for misinterpretation or confusion compared to alternatives. It also corresponds with the level of vocabulary and scientific literacy expected for a general scientific article such as Bird. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But why is this better than something like "Birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs within the theropod group, and are the only living members of the Dinosauria". This is perfectly correct and understandable no matter what definition of dinosaur the reader has, and gives out the exact same information about the ancestry of birds. We can entirely sidestep the ambiguity, and talk about it in more detail in the actual article text. I'm not sure the "only living members" part is actually important enough to be included in the lead, and I would probably just put "Birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs within the theropod group" but either works. I feel like you are just proposing increasingly awkward wording just to try and make sure the lead says somewhere "birds are dinosaurs" even though that is literally the same thing as "birds evolved from dinosaurs". The only additional piece of information your proposal communicates is that the scientific usage of the word dinosaur includes birds. The definition of dinosaur is not an important topic in the first few sentences of an article about birds!Somatochlora (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The two options are similar but yours is more extensive and awkwardly worded than Lythro's. It's not terrible, but I don't see any valid reasons for why it would be better than Lythro's proposal. It seems like your main objection is surrounding the definition of dinosaur. We're simply using the word dinosaur within a three-word statement under Wikipedia's scientific definition. It's just a single word. The way we use it is not confusing and not a problem. You're so caught up in the slim possibility that someone somewhere might disagree with the scientific definition. They are not our problem, just like creationists and other pseudoscientists aren't our problem. Your concerns are unfounded. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me put this another way. Lythro's full proposal is "According to modern scientific consensus, birds are dinosaurs because they are the last living lineage of the group Dinosauria" My question for you is this: What, if any, additional information about the ancestry of birds does this sentence provide, over the shortened sentence "Birds are the last living lineage of the group Dinosauria."? What value is the phrase "birds are dinosaurs" adding to the sentence? Somatochlora (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly add new information, it just has less potential to be misinterpreted. It discretely sides with a monophyletic (i.e. scientific) definition of dinosaurs, while the alternative can be construed as being neutral on that (false balance), without adding any clarity. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely the crux of our disagreement. We obviously have to make a decision as to what definition to USE on Wikipedia, and I certainly agree that the monophyletic definition is best here. But that doesn't mean should be pretending other definitions don't exist, advocating for a particular definition, of implying that other definitions are wrong. The neutrality you are recognizing is intentional.Somatochlora (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the question "is there a unique characteristic of all dinosaurs that is an important characteristic of birds?" is ill-posed because dinosaurs are not defined in terms of characteristics under modern taxonomy. Nevertheless, the perforate acetabulum has important implications for the gait of birds, and the reduction of the fourth and fifth digits on the hand contradicts the long-standing labelling of avian digits as II, III, and IV (which is an important open question in developmental biology). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Plus, the acquisition of most of the features which characterize birds specifically can be tracked through non-avian Dinosauria. Feathers, bipedal stance, etc. Non-avian dinosaurs are of crucial importance for understanding how avian dinosaurs came to be. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion would benefit, I think, from a wider perspective. Many English language words are used in ways that do not correspond to current taxa, not just "bird" and "dinosaur". "Fish", "monkey", "ape", "reptile", "animal", etc. are all regularly used in ways that do not correspond to currently accepted taxa, including by scientists. (The way that Richard Dawkins uses "ape" is of relevance; see User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Dawkins' use of "ape".) Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's not for us to try to impose usages on English words.

More generally, the meaning of English words is context dependent. "Animal" can sometimes include humans, and sometimes be used constrastively; "animal rights" means the rights of (non-human) animals contrasted to the rights of humans. Our article correctly says that "Veterinary surgery is surgery performed on animals". In exactly the same way "dinosaur" can sometimes include birds, and sometimes not, depending on the context. Readers should not be assumed to be stupid and incapable of understanding how English works and so need simplistic instruction by "experts". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the input and I want to clarify that I'm not in disagreement about many of your points. Calling a bird a reptile is true on a cladistic sense, but would confuse readers if simply mentioned without elaboration. However, I think that in the present day, the monophyletic nature of dinosaurs is established well enough among the readerbase of Bird and Dinosaur that we would not need to elaborate that we were using that definition. It just feels like the argument that "If we call birds dinosaurs, why not call them fish?" is unaware of the nuances surrounding those statements. Public perception has not progressed to the point that it is well known birds are part of Euteleostomi. 30 years ago, saying "birds are dinosaurs" would have elicited a similar response. But things have changed and it seems like some concerns are overestimated based on old data. I understand that some people use "dinosaur" as an english word referring to prehistoric animals, much like how they can use it to refer to people with outdated customs. I simply think that it is a very bad idea for us to use it that way. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that we use dinosaur in any other way, or even that this article should not be using the scientific definition of dinosaur. All I'm suggesting is that the way it is being used should be clarified explicitly, and that in a tangentially related topic like this, it is maybe better to just sidestep the issue and discuss in the text, instead of cluttering up the lead. Your picture of public perception is rosy, but when major dictionaries still define dinosaurs as extinct, I'm not sure I can agree. Heck, if you scroll up this page and look under the headings "a layman's opinion" and "Is the link between birds and dinosaurs a recent discovery?" you'll see people being confused by earlier versions of the lead with this very issue.Somatochlora (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I fully sympathize with your desire for clarity in the lead. I just think that the extra context and more direct delivery provided by Lythro's proposal is the best option we have for obtaining that. And most of the major dictionaries are in lieu with the scientific definition, with many mentioning Dinosauria or its components (Saurischia/Ornithischia) explicitly. I am aware of the confusion some people experienced further up in the thread, but I feel that keeping the statement out of the first sentence has helped, and that Lythro's phrasing specifies that they are dinosaurs because they are in Dinosauria. As I see it, it checks all the boxes without losing its scientific value. I can agree that bluntly saying "Birds are dinosaurs." with no context is unwise. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To add, the connection between birds and dinosaurs is by no means a tangential topic within the context of the article. The extensive "evolution and classification" subsection is fully devoted to the connection, as is the second paragraph of the intro. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that the exact definition of "dinosaur" is tangential to this topic (at least to the lead, should certainly be mentioned in the text). Obviously the evolutionary connection itself is important.Somatochlora (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lythro added the definition because you were concerned that it would be confusing otherwise. It's a fairly simple qualifier, no less tangential than mentioning moas or elephant birds when talking about wings further down. If the definition is left out, it would read as "According to modern scientific consensus, birds are dinosaurs." You decide whether this is preferrable to leaving in the definition, I have no strong opinion on this specifically. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you're still misinterpreting me here. The phrases "birds are dinosaurs", "birds are a lineage in the group Dinosauria", and "birds evolved from dinosaurs" contain the SAME information about bird evolution. Lythro's proposed sentence contains this information twice, which is silly. So yes, one of the two instances should be taken out. As noted above, "dinosaurs are birds" may be confusing, so I don't think we can leave it at that. We would have to explicitly say "dinosaurs evolved from birds" or something similar in direct conjunction with this. And at that point, "birds are dinosaurs" serves no additional purpose, except to provide the definition of dinosaur used by scientists. THAT is what I am saying is tangential to this page, and I stand by that. It doesn't need to be in the lead.

Nobody here is suggesting that birds aren't dinosaurs. I don't understand why it is so important that the lead needs to use the exact phrasing "birds are dinosaurs."Somatochlora (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, my suggestion was intended as common ground between those who want the wording "birds are dinosaurs" and those who consider it too ambiguous. I am OK with having only one of the following:

"According to modern scientific consensus,"

• "birds are dinosaurs"
• "birds are the last living lineage of the dinosaurs"
• "birds are the last living lineage of the Dinosauria", with Dinosauria pipe-linked to dinosaur

I am not OK with the following:

• "birds evolved from dinosaurs"

which is rife with the potential for misinterpretation and does not contain the same information as the first three alternatives. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. At this point I'm willing to shift Lythro's suggestion into the first sentence of the second paragraph. That'll hopefully resolve the concerns surrounding putting such a sprawling sentence so early in the lead, and I don't have a major problem with devoting the first paragraph to the anatomy and diversity of modern birds. As long as we're direct about birds being dinosaurs, I'll be happy. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And, going back to the start of this discussion, the contention seems to be that the notion of "birds are dinosaurs" needs to be qualified by the fact that they are part of the evolutionary lineage of dinosaurs, and therefore having only "birds are dinosaurs" is insufficient. However, "birds are the last living lineage of the dinosaurs/Dinosauria" encapsulates both the statement and the rationale nicely in one succinct sentence, so I think it is more than sufficient to solve the problem at hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So we remove mention of dinosaurs from the 1st paragraph, and for the 2nd paragraph, how about:

Birds are [[dinosaur]]s/Birds are the only living [[dinosaur]]s, a specialized group of [[feathered dinosaur|feathered]] [[theropod]]s which are [[sister taxon|sister]] to [[deinonychosaur]]s, and descendants of the primitive [[aviala]]ns (whose members include ''[[Archaeopteryx]]'' and ''[[Microraptor]]'') which first appeared about 160 million years ago (mya) in China. Likewise, the closest living relatives of birds are the [[crocodilia]]ns. According to DNA evidence, modern birds (Neornithes) evolved in the [[Middle Cretaceous|Middle]] to [[Late Cretaceous]], and diversified dramatically around the time of the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]] 66 mya, which killed off the [[pterosaur]]s and all non-avian dinosaurs.

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This grammar is awkward and potentially misinterpretable. I would suggest the following:

Birds, the only living dinosaurs [according to modern scientific consensus], are a specialized group of feathered theropods. They are the sister taxon of deinonychosaurs and descendants of the primitive avialans [...]

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many of those details are not accurate. "Deinonychosauria" is often considered paraphyletic since troodontids may be closer to avialans. Likewise, Microraptor isn't an avialan. I also feel that shifting the sentence into the second paragraph can make us more direct, so we should remove "according to the modern scientific consensus". It's not necessary in a paragraph focused around scientific ideas such as evolution. I could let it fly if it's the second sentence in the article, but that is no longer the case. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, this article's evolution section is in need of some updating. How about

Birds are the only living [[dinosaur]]s, a specialized group of [[feathered dinosaur|feathered]] [[theropod]]s. They are descendants of the primitive [[aviala]]ns (whose members include ''[[Archaeopteryx]]'') which first appeared...

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the same problem with this version as with the previous version. It seems to imply that dinosaurs are a group of feathered theropods, which is a syntactically correct interpretation as implausible as the notion may be. Suggested to merge the comment about feathered theropods into the second sentence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How about something along the lines "Birds evolved from [feathered] theropods, a group of carnivorous bipedal dinosaurs characterised by [feathers and] hollowed bones, which makes them the only surviving dinosaurs". The square brackets show alternatives depending on whether feathers are characteristic of all theropods. I think the hollowed bones worth mentioning because of the importance for later development of flight. The sentence could be prefixed by something like "Morphological evidence [from living birds and fossil dinosaurs] shows that" to further indicate that this is a scientific conclusion about birds and their relationship with dinosaurs.   Jts1882 | talk  08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I find that much preferable to how the second sentence currently reads. I also think it would be much better placed as the first sentence of the second paragraph. Eric ^talk 15:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with the "evolved from" wording, but in this context it is probably not too difficult to reword it. I would, however, remove the qualifier "carnivorous" - there are many examples of non-carnivorous theropods. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the carnivorous can go as it needs qualifying (e.g. primarily carnivorous, which might not even have been the case). Maybe bipedal is better (changed above). I'm not sure why you don't like evolved from. Birds did evolve from therapods, as did other advanced therapods. It's not in dispute that they had a therapod ancestor. And as the sentence refers to them as surviving dinosaurs, your early objection about it being ambiguous about birds being dinosaurs no longer holds.   Jts1882 | talk  17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Bipedalism, hollow bones, and feathers are not unique to theropods among dinosaurs, so those should probably not be specified. In addition, the sentence structure reads as if the theropod ancestry of the birds is the reason they survived past other dinosaurs, which isn't really true. Maybe a better option would be dividing it into two simple sentences, like "Birds evolved from feathered theropods, a group of dinosaurs. Birds are the only dinosaurs which have survived to the present day." Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Birds are a group of [[feathered dinosaur|feathered]] [[theropod]] [[dinosaur]]s, the only dinosaurs which have survived to modern day. Like other dinosaurs, birds have [whatever it is, it's not mentioned in the article]. Birds are descendants of the...

The problem I have with combining them into one sentence is that it may sound like the entirety of Theropoda is the group which survives. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the same problem. Suggestion:

Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs, and constitute the only living dinosaurs.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

January, 2020: Classification of bird orders: cladogram (Afroaves)

In comparing the cladogram of the Afroaves to the lead paragraph of the article Afroaves, I find that the article lists the clade Accipitrimorphae as being in Afroaves, where the cladogram shows Acciptitrimorphae as separate from the Afroaves. The Accipitrimorphae article places that clade in the Afroaves. Does anyone agree that the cladogram should be altered?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: There are two major large studies producing bird phylogenies, which have a few differences. The Jarvis et al (2014) study recovers Afroaves, which includes the Accipitrimorphae. The Prum et al (2015) study found a different topology, with Accipitrimorphae as sister to Eutelluraves, which contains Austaloaves and a clade consisting of "Afroaves" minus the accipitrimorphs. It looks like Afroaves was defined by Erikson (2012) as the clade of African birds including the accipitrimorphs, as used by Jarvis et al (2014). I don't know if anyone has redefined Afroaves in the narrower sense, but the Prum et al (2015) paper doesn't use the term. Two more recent studies also differ on the validity of Afroaves. Suh et al 2016 recovers Afroave (inclusive of accipitrimorphs, albeit with a different internal topology) while Houde et al (2019) find it polyphyletic and have some support for a clade of owls+accipitrimorphs as sister to Eutelluraves.

I think that if the bird article is going to show the Prum et al cladogram, which is a prefectly reasonable decision (as would be showing the Jarvis tree), then it should not use Afroaves as a label, unless a source for a redefined clade can be found.

The Afroaves article needs editing. The cladogram shown is based on Jarvis et al, not Prum et al as it states.   Jts1882 | talk  08:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Do birds have knees?

Please excuse these comments from a complete layman; they are prompted by multiple references in Neal Asher's science fiction books to one of his alien species being "reverse-kneed, like birds". My understanding is that birds are not reverse-kneed, and what Mr Asher thinks are their knees are what, in humans, would be ankles. This seems to be confirmed by the labelling on the "external anatomy" diagram of such body-parts as tibia and tarsus.

Is this correct? What is labelled "16 Foot" seems to me to be just its toes.

So, bearing in mind this confusion, perhaps it would be good to put in something relating the birds' skeletal structure to that of the Hominidae and/or other animals?

Do they, in fact, have knees?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The reversed knee in birds, cats, dogs, horses etc. is the heel They have a knee like ours as well.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Asteriornis

The newly discovered Asteriornis fossil deserves mention in the section "Diversification of modern birds", I think. (Evolution of birds could be expanded using the material here, too.) I don't feel competent enough in paleontology to do it myself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

To-do list

The to-do list hasn't been edited since 2016 and has only three edits since 2012. The bit about bone density should be in the talk page, as should the "young chick" edit request (which should be rejected as the source does use young chick for that behaviour). The suggestion for material on the four physiological system was added in 2010 and they are covered in the article or in Bird anatomy. The only bit that belongs in a to do list for the article as it stands is the biogeography, which is something that perhaps could be expanded in Evolution of birds.

In short, is there any point in keeping the to-do list? It doesn't seem to be used. If it is to be keep I suggest removing all but the biogeography. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful at all if there isn't an active team of editors revising or expanding this article, which there isn't. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As there are no objections to its removal I have removed it. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Which wording should be used for a sentence in the lead?

There have been two proposed ways of writing a certain new sentence added to the lead:

• Likewise, birds are the closest living relatives of crocodilians, and are considered "reptiles" in the modern cladistic sense of the term.
• Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term reptile, and the closest living relatives of birds are the crocodilians.

A couple of editors have made reversions to the changes I have tried to make. Their reasoning has not been fully explained to me however, so I have brought the matter here to avoid descent into an edit war.

I prefer the first version, because it is slightly briefer and avoids using the words "reptile" and "bird" twice each within a single sentence. The repetitions of the second sound slightly awkward.

In addition, I think it is most sensible to make the point about birds being considered "reptiles" according to cladistics after having referred to their kinship with crocodilians, rather than before. This is because birds are considered reptiles because of their close relationships with particular groups of reptiles, like crocodilians. Also, the point about the crocodilian relationship connects closer to the previous sentence about birds' wider relation to the Dinosauria. That is why the word "likewise" was introduced, because this sentence originally only made the point of birds' close kinship with crocodilians. Birds' potential classification under Reptilia comes as a logical conclusion as we understand the truth about their relationships with dinosaurs, crocodilians etc, so I feel this should be mentioned last here.

The first arrangement also allows us to say "birds are the closest living relatives of crocodilians", rather than (paraphrased) "crocodilians are the closet living relatives of birds". While anyone familiar with cladistics knows that these two are effectively synonyms, the first version makes it clearer to a layman that birds are very much nestled among the reptile family tree, by stating outright that a particular group of reptiles is closer to birds than to any other traditional "reptile". It also phrases the point more in terms of birds (the subject of the article) than the other, which phrases the connection more in terms of crocodilians.

I placed quotation marks around the term "reptile" in order to accentuate the fact that we are talking about a term with multiple potential meanings here. These were specifically removed by another editor, with explanation that as we are talking about "reptile" as a clade, it should have no quotation marks. However, as you can see later on in this article, when Gauthier's four definitions of "Aves" are discussed, quotation marks are used to highlight the term, as it is talking about "Aves" as a term with multiple potential meanings (indeed, Aves is always considered a clade, and all four of the proposed definitions are clades). However, if others think they are unnecessary, I'm not especially bothered about their removal.

I hope my explanations make some sense. What do others think?

Many thanks, Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the phrasing of the second version as birds being "reptiles" is the primary point, with their being the living sister group to crocodiles the secondary point. Using quotes is appropriate because reptiles can be used in an inclusive (cladistic) and exclusive (common language) sense. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I still find the sentence flows better with the "reptiles" point made after the "crocodilian" one, and provides the advantages I mentioned above, I acknowledge this reasoning. If we are to phrase it in such a way though, I propose a change to this:

• Likewise, birds are considered "reptiles" in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians.

This way, the repetition of "bird" and "reptile" is avoided. I'm also not certain that "likewise" should be there. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

A little beyond the scope of the above discussion, but I think part of the reason this paragraph is proving so hard to phrase acceptably is that it mixes together evolution and classification in an unclear way. I've tried to reorganise it a bit as below, so that we talk about evolution, then classification:

"Birds are descendants of the primitive avialans, a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs which first appeared about 160 million years ago (mya). Birds diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 mya, which killed off the pterosaurs and all dinosaurs except the modern birds (Neornithes). As such, birds are the only living dinosaurs. Birds are members of the reptile clade, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians. Historically, Archaeopteryx has often been recognised as the first bird."

Things removed include a reference to China (I don't think it's accurate to say that birds appeared in China, that's just where we've found them), the timing of the origin of Neornithes (which is too bad but I can't see how to include it), and a reference to DNA evidence (which seemed unnecessary and awkward to me). Things added include explicitly making the connection that birds are the only living dinos because of the extinction event, and a bit more info about Archaeopteryx. Thoughts? I'm sure there's ways this could be improved, but I do think this general structure works better. Somatochlora (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with the phrasing of Zigongosaurus, although it is completely unnecessary to add quotation marks to reptile if it is clarified that the cladistic definition is used. The rest of the paragraph is fine and I don't agree with Somatochlora's proposed rephrasing. The oldest known avialans are from China, and the age of Neornithes is constrained by DNA, rather than fossil evidence. There's no real point saying that Archaeopteryx has been historically recognized as the first bird, since that falsely equates Aves with Avialae and does not provide an alternative for the "historical recognition". Archaeopteryx is worth mentioning as a well-known avialan, but its historical significance does not need to be mentioned that early.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes Fanboyphilosopher, I agree. The quotation marks are probably unnecessary since the definition that we are using is clarified in the sentence. I like the way it reads now. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Avialae

The section Evolution and classification repeatedly refers to Archaeopteryx, Anchiornis, Xiaotingia and Aurornis as "avialans". Clade Avialae is usually considered a branch-based group composed of Aves/Neornithes and all taxa closer to it than to Deinonychus (with Troodon sometimes added as a second external specifier).[1] According to many phylogenetic analyses, those genera are not part of branch-based Avialae.[2][3][4][5] If Gauthier's apomorphy-based definition is used, probably none of those belong in Avialae either according to Hartman et al. (2019) (the last source). I suggest a revision of this section.Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a consensus on the structure of Paraves, there's a lot of variation on whether Archaeopteryx and anchiornithids are deinonychosaurians or avialans, or even whether "Deinonychosauria" is a monophyletic group. So it would be wise to acknowledge that there are alternative interpretations about the classification in this part of the dinosaur family tree, though we should not be definitive about what is or is not an avialan. I should also note that Hartman et al. (2019) is not necessarily the last word on the matter. Even Mickey Mortimer (who crafted the classification in the study) has this to say:

• "Your initial reaction might be 'hey, Xu et al. 2011 were right, and Archaeopteryx is a basal deinonychosaur." Maybe. But placing archaeopterygids (including 'anchiornithines') as avialans or sister to troodontids is only a step longer each. Add to this scansoriopterygids, which are avialans in the most parsimonious trees but move to basal paravians in a single step, and troodontids, which are deinonychosaurs but move to Avialae in a single step, and the basic topology of Paraves is uncertain" (Mortimer, 2019).[6] Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want to give the impression that any of these studies confirm some particular hypothesis. My point is that there is too much uncertainty regarding the position of all paravian groups (I remeber one paper considered dromaeosaurs closer to birds than troodontids were, with unenlagiines being a separate clade). We shouldn't call those taxa avialans because it is not certain that they were in fact part of Avialae (again assuming you use the most common branch-based definition instead of a node based one, which would be kind of redundant since Martinyuk (2012) created Ornithes to name the Archaeopteryx-Neornithes clade).Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Deinonychosauria is also defined as a branch-based group including Deinonychus but not Vultur/Passer, which means it is necessarily monophyletic. Sereno (1998) did define it as the Velociraptor+Troodon node, but this definition doesn't seem to be widely used.Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't be in two classes

I have an issue with this, from the second paragraph;

'Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs, and constitute the only living dinosaurs and flying reptiles.'

If birds are the class Aves and reptiles are class Reptilia how can birds be flying reptiles? They can't be in two classes.--Dean1954 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody uses the class system anymore. It's wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the class, order, etc. system is part of a pre-evolution (and mostly pre-paleontology) concept known as Linnaean taxonomy. Modern taxonomy uses relations-based groupings called clades, though many clade names are derived from Linnean equivalents. The clade Reptilia contains the clade Dinosauria, which includes Theropoda, which includes Aves. So since Aves are inside Reptilia, birds are reptiles. Not in the Linnaean sense most people are familiar with, but in the cladistic sense used by modern biologists and paleontologists. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that the real reason there is a separate classes for Aves and Reptilia, despite Aves being a evolutionary subgroup of Reptilia, is mainly a historical misunderstanding. At the time it wasn't known that birds were a subgroup of reptiles since they differ considerably. Had the relationship been more obvious from morphology and physiology, Linnaeus probably wouldn't have made the mistake, and made birds a subclass of reptiles or a larger grouping. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Classes are still widely used, even it gets confusing when the Linnaean hierarchy is not followed. For instance, Benton in his Vertebrate Palaeontology uses the class Aves deeply nested within class Reptilia. He regular repeats ranks at different levels in hierarchy, e.g. he has Infraclass Lepidosauromorpha in Infraclass Neodiapsida in Infraclass Diapsida. This won't please cladists any more than the use of paraphyletic groups in current taxonomic schemes, but it does happen. We need to reflect how things are, not how we think they should be. In the end if you reject Linnaean ranks because they are no longer relevant and have no meaning, then they are harmless additions if used as a historical reference. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning Ruggiero et al. (2015), who propose a Linnean classification that (despite being conservative) treats Aves as a subclass inside class Reptilia.[7][8] Unfortunately, they didn't define Aves, which means it is unclear whether their 'subclass' is Avialae, Ornithes, Neornithes or something else. Livezey and Suzi treated Avialae as a subclass[9], though the inclusion of Alvarezsauria makes it more appropriate to call this group Maniraptora. And there are obviously Bob Bakker, who considered Aves (=Ornithes, the Archaeopteryx-Neornithes clade) a superorder in his Dinosaur Heresies, and Greg Paul, who attributed the same rank in Predatory Dinosaurs of The World (though his Aves = Avebrevicauda?). A few authors consider Theropoda a class.[10] Maybe Wikipedia/Wikispecies could change its own classification to make it more consistent with post-evolutionary/post-cladistics proposals... Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The reptile page acknowledges that the word "reptile" is ambiguous, but mostly treats it as a synonym of "non-bird reptile". It's confusing to gloss over this ambiguity in the bird article, which is why posts like this appear on this talk page regularly (in regards to both the terms "dinosaur" and "reptile"). For an alternate proposal:

"Birds are the only living dinosaurs, having evolved within the feathered theropods. Under a phylogenetic definition, they are a group within the reptiles"

Or just:

"Birds are the only living dinosaurs, having evolved within the feathered theropods." and leave the definition of reptile to the main text. The sentence about crocodiles gives a good indication of their relationship with reptiles anyways. Somatochlora (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You're the only knowledgeable person who still has a problem with the sentence "Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs, and constitute the only living dinosaurs." The rest of us are fine with it (and not fine with your rephrasing), and the matter was resolved back in January after a lengthy and tiring argument. Please consider that before getting back on your soapbox. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened here. I see zero indication that anyone was convinced the current version was better. The only people that explicitly agreed with the current version were the same people who were arguing the entire time against any qualification or explanation of the statement "birds are dinosaurs". I gave up commenting because I didn't feel that people were seriously trying to engage with my arguments in good faith. @jts1882 final post in the thread was advocating use of the phrase "evolved from" (something along this line is all I'd want). @eric final post was agreeing with such a sentence. @elmidae final post in thread was agreeing with one of my statements. I am baffled by the insistence on emphasis on semantics over actual content, leading to text that doesn't explicitly mention evolution or ancestry(!). But whatever, I've wasted enough time on this particular point.

The case for "reptile" is even clearer though. The first line of the reptile article is "Reptiles are tetrapod animals in the class Reptilia, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, amphisbaenians, lizards, tuatara, and their extinct relatives" The ambiguous nature of the term is discussed a few sentences later. Why would we treat the word differently here? Either explain that "reptile" may or may not be defined as to include birds, or just leave it out of the lead if that can't be done cleanly. Somatochlora (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm personally not too opinionated about leaving "and flying reptiles" out of the sentence. But it seems like you wanted to revise the rest of the sentence as well, when we spent days trying to tell you that that is a bad idea. If you want to get rid of "and flying reptiles", okay, but leave the rest of the sentence intact. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A little birdy told me. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Suchithra sundaran (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the opportunity !!

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

update?

While it's mentioned in the front matter that birds are the only extant dinosaurs, is there a way to put it right up front? Something along the lines of:

"Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrates that are members of clade dinosauria and constitute the class Aves."

It's succinct enough to flow well, scientifically accurate, and is a little more specific. I feel it would also make for a more natural transition to the second paragraph in which it expounds on the fact that they are theropod dinosaurs.

You may see from the talk page archives that this would be a controversial suggestion. At least part of the argument is that the lay reader would be confused by this information being introduced upfront without the requisite context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of which source to use for main bird cladogram

@Ornithodiez, Lythronaxargestes, and Elmidae: We need to decide which source to use for the main cladogram. This depends in part on what is the point of the cladogram here, to show all the orders and allow navigation or to show the overall topology. The approach used in Neoaves might be worth considering, although is probably excessive for this article.

I'll add that I don't think Ornithodiez is edit warring. The first addition of the new cladogram was reverted because it kept the Prum reference. The second addition added the new reference and was reverted as unexplained change. The third addition explained the change. The subsequent additions were responding to the reasons give for the reversion.—  Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in this other than the second addition being unexplained. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, I don't mind this being updated to a more recent version as long as it is correctly referenced. Although I suspect that it might be a little too hasty to swap in something from an as yet entirely uncited paper. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't help think too many cladograms on Wikipedia get changed to the most recent without much explanation. I think this is reasonable at low levels (below family) following more specialist works, but the higher level taxa (such as class Aves) shouldn't get changed until there is consensus. In general it seems the Jarvis and Prum topologies get discussed as established alternatives in later papers (secondary sources), with the Jarvis TENT topology preferred, but the Prum cladogram has the advantage that it covers most of the orders currently recognised by the IOC and used in the bird classification on English Wikipedia. That makes it it more suitable for this article. An issue with the Kuhl cladogram is that it treats Palaegnathae as a single order, which is inconsistent with other articles, although the same could be said about Prum and Caprimulgiformes. What we really need is a consensus topology from a secondary source that matches the IOC orders (e.g. the Aves tree on the IOC order page). I note a recent addition to the IOC Orders of Birds page says "Updates following Kuhl et al. 2020 pending". —  Jts1882 | talk  14:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

change "warm-blooded" to "cold-blooded" 197.96.113.146 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 11:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

More succinctly: that's nonsense, forget about it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

you can clearly see that birds are warm-blooded, even by a quick google.Firestar9990 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Classification should be updated

I think as birds belong to the Dinosaur clade there classification should be as follow Dinosauria Theropoda Aves ChandlerBing29 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs. Nobody is disputing that. But they do have crocodilians as their closest living relatives. Furthermore in the taxobox Aves is placed under the clade Avemetatarsalia, which includes dinosaurs and thus birds. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I do think the taxa displayed in the box are pretty odd. Three clades are listed that likely 99% of visitors to this page will have never heard of. Meanwhile well-known clades aren't listed - Reptilia, Archosauria, Dinosauria and Theropoda, and the taxobox is a perfect place to clearly and concisely indicate these relationships. Why not something more like:

• Chordata
• Reptilia
• Dinosauria
• Theropoda
• Ornithurae [we should still have the next important clade up]
• Aves

I'm not sure how this would be accomplished technically. Somatochlora (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that this is easily accomplished technically by changing the taxonomy templates.

The long answer is that this has a long history with people arguing on how much emphasis to place on the dinosaur categorisation of birds. There have been recent discussions on exactly what to place in the lede section of the article. I understand the taxa shown in the taxobox were decided some time back, presumably following a discussion to get a consensus. I agree the selection is a bit strange and perhaps it is time to have a discussion and see if there is consensus for the status quo or a new sequence for the taxobox. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I was one of the most critical of the (previous) emphasis placed on dinosaurs, and critical of the need to state that birds are dinosaurs in the lead, and that I think the current version is still pretty bad. But I still think "Dinosauria" clearly belongs in the taxobox, it is a great way to describe these relationships without worrying about semantic issues. Somatochlora (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is a useful way of showing the information for those interested in the classification without overburdening the text with such detail. If Dinosauria is included I don't think Therapoda is also needed. I prefer Sauropsida over Reptilia because reptiles is nearly always used to exclusion of birds and it might confuse in the taxobox without further information. Archosauria might be more information than Avemetatarsalia. Anyway, lets give it time and let others opine. —  Jts1882 | talk 

I agree that Chordata > Sauropsida > Archosauria > Dinosauria > Ornithurae > Aves makes the most sense. Indifferent to the inclusion of Theropoda, I could see it either way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Could use some expertise

A need for a reference has come up at Talk:Dinosaur#Birds at 10.000 species​. Are there 10,000 species of birds? Thanks. And if not, is there an accurate count? Please reply there if possible, an ongoing discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There are four main bird checklists and I think all are over 10,000. The IOC has 10,806 species and Clements/BOW have 10,721 species. I can dig up the numbers for H&M and IUCN/Birdlife tomorrow if it helps. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems the edits have been solved at the dinosaur page but if you have additional cites that would just add to the data. Another question that discussion has opened up is at the big year page, where the world record is given as two different numbers (one in the lead, on in the text) and have also addressed this question at its talk page although this may be a better place to mention it. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You might also want to check Reptile Database who have extant "reptiles" at 11,440 species. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

birds and not dinosaurs

These are English words, which have meanings government by common usage, not claudistic analysis. In common English usage dinosaur refers to a class of animals that all went extint millions of years before the first humans came to be. THis is how my Physical anthopology professor used the term in arguing that dionsaurs and humans never coexisted. Here [11] states dinosaurs died out 65 million years before the first humans existed. Here [12] is another firm no to dinosaurs and humans ever coexisting. I could cite lots and lots and lots and lots more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not an English article. This is a science article.

The sources you cite are not scientific literature. They are popular sources and therefore irrelevant to the stance taken by this article. For every source you cite there is another source from the literature which refers to birds as dinosaurs.

There is no point contending with this topic, which is the subject of consensus established over many discussions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. This is an encyclopaedia article and has to cover both common English language usage and scientific usage. The fact we use the common name for the article title (by Wikipedia naming convention) makes it difficult and the reason we have so many of these discussions. If the article was Aves it would be easy. I take the view that bird and reptile (or dinosaur) are exclusive (English usage) but that Aves is a subset of Dinosauria and Reptilia. As the article naming convention requires us to synonymise Aves and bird we are led to a problem that is hard to resolve. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree there. I think relegating discussion of birds as dinosaurs to the second paragraph of the lede - as we settled on - is a good compromise. Whether or not this discussion is sufficiently qualified in terms of the different usages of the word is also a valid subject of debate. John seems to be advocating for complete removal, which would certainly be lying by omission. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Temporal range

According to a recently published analysis, crown birds originated in the Upper Cretaceous, 94 million years ago [13]. Probably we should add this information to the article and correct the temporal range. HFoxii (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@HFoxii: I would not trust molecular clocks when it comes to massive adaptive radiations, as is clearly the case for birds. Molecular clocks for flowering plants project the radiation as beginning at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, some 65 million years before it actually began happening. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Good example of false precision. "94" implies "from 93.5 to 94.5", but actually molecular clock does not give such precision at all, and in this particular case scatter of published data reaches ~30 Ma: paleognaths and neognaths diverged about 100 Ma ago in Jarvis et al., 2014; about 73±6 in Prum et al., 2015; about 87 in Kimball et al., 2019; 94 in Kuhl et al., 2021. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Heart type and features & Organisation: I suggest spending less time on the technical details and more time on the actual point, which would likely be a comparison to other animals, because much of what is said (heart, arteries, arterioles, veins...) doesn't look to be very specific to birds, and overall seems to be out of place.

The "greater surface area to gas exchange" and "more blood in their capillaries per unit of volume of lung" are weirdly connected with "As a result", even though the former doesn't imply the latter (it seems it's actually a greater surface area per unit of volume). Also, birds' lungs were already mentioned earlier (at the beginning of "Respiratory and circulatory systems"), so any other lungs point should probably go there too.

Lungs are a really exiting point about birds, one that deserve a better treatment. The point is that our lungs suck while birds' don't. I know that some birds can fly at high altitude because they can make use of oxygen at low pressure thanks to a reverse flow exchange system (like fish do: the blood's O2 and CO2 pressure ends up close to the external fluid's, instead of settling for an intermediate value inside a bag of mixed fresh and stale air) but the reader of the current article has no chance to get the point. I didn't know that all birds had some kind of "always fresh air" lungs, and I still don't know if they all have the whole reverse flow exchange package or not. Does this imply respiration consumes less energy? Does that make e.g. ostriches better for long distance running? Did we just fail at lungs' evolution, or do the birds' lungs have some king of drawback? That's the kind of things I would have liked to read about, in this article or in some linked article.

Nervous system: Another interesting point: some birds with high vision requirement have correctly wired eyes, with the wiring behind the retina, rather than getting in the way like ours. But the most striking thing about birds is that some of them have a better brain than we do! We went all brains in our evolution till we spent 40% of our energy feeding it, yet the mysteriously high intelligence of crows and parrots was finally explained with an evolutionary innovation that we don't have: smaller better-packed brain cells. Unfortunately even the wikipedia "Bird_intelligence" article seems to have missed the relevant publication, so here it is:

PNAS "Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain" https://www.pnas.org/content/113/26/7255

"the nuclear architecture of the avian brain appears to exhibit more efficient packing of neurons and their interconnections than the layered architecture of the mammalian neocortex."

In other words, dinosaurs almost got to rule the planet again...

Thank you all for writing wikipedia, best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.143.165 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to see a source for "some birds with high vision requirement have correctly wired eyes, with the wiring behind the retina". Birds do have some improvements of vision (absence of retinal vessels, partial absence of axon myelinization), but not so great as absence of retinal inversion. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Split avian dinosaurs into separate article

This article should be about current birds, not reptiles. All reptilian content should be split into a separate article, proposed as Avian dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It might also be split into Origin of birds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Birds. There have been many reverts by multiple editors parenting Bird categories under Dinosaurs and Reptiles.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson, why—other than to placate the "I don't believe in science or evolution" brigade—would we want to do so? MeegsC (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your ideas expressed at the category discussion are incorrect and completely contrary to scientific thinking and practice. I see no reason to split. What, exactly, are these "avian dinosaurs" you speak of? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This subject has already been discussed a ton of times on different page and project discussions, the scientific info in Wikipedia is, and should be, based on scientific research, not the opinion of the general public. So yeah, I don't see any reason to split. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly how different pages on Wikipedia should use the term "dinosaur" is a reasonable question (as in your second link above). Whether the page about birds should discuss the evolutionary history of birds is not a reasonable question, similar to a suggestion that the page India should not include any content prior to 1950. Somatochlora (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't see why. Taxonomically there's no argument to be had; from a housekeeping/article organization perspective, that material makes up just a small portion of the page and mostly consists of summaries for other (main) articles anyway. No change needed here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Split makes no sense. Oppose unless some convincing rationale proposed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per above. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm against. Avian dinosaurs and birds are one and the same. HFoxii (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per all above. Birds are part of Dinosauria and avian and non-avian dinosaurs are terms introduced to distinguish birds from other traditional dinosaurs that aren't birds. By definition birds and avian dinosaurs are the same thing, so splitting the article makes no sense. People have to accept that words can get used in different senses that depend on context. Terms like dinosaurs and reptiles usually exclude birds in general discussion, but when discussing evolution they have to be included as that's what the scientific evidence tells us. The idea that we should avoid mentioning this so as not to confuse the general reader also makes no sense. This is an encyclopaedia and the aim is to educate and inform. Most people find it interesting that birds evolved within dinosaurs so hiding this information doesn't serve the reader well. I'll add that I suspect most people coming to this article already know what a bird is and that they come here to learn more about them. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This article should be about current birds, not reptiles - that usage of "reptiles" rather confirms the need to put birds in evolutionary context in a single article even if it is slightly large. Strongly oppose splitting. Shyamal (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The only reasoning of the splitting is a disbelief in the validity of science. Dimadick (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Dan the Animator 22:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per everyone else. I am also not sure what you mean by "all reptilian content should be split" considering that birds are reptiles per current biological knowledge. Current textbooks (including that used at the community college where I work) often include birds in the reptile chapter. --Khajidha (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Birds is birds... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

I would like to add information about each different country’s birds as-well as adding birth and death factors of Birds and their natural predators Shahi1234 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide the exact edits you'd like to have done, with the exact text you would like to add, remove or change as well as sourcing. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Can we state that they are fake? 169.239.176.7 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 15 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Category talk:Birds#Living dinosaurs

...where a discussion is taking place if category:Birds should include a link to Category:Living dinosaurs. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

IPA

What is /ˈeɪviːz/ supposed to be? It is certainly not the Latin pronunciation. Why would the scientific name be rendered in US English? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Telluraves template

How can we change this template? Template:Taxonomy/Telluraves I think that we need to change Inopinavis for Passerea according to the phylogeny of Braun & Kimball (2021). Prum et al. (2015) is a litte bit obsolete at this point. I already did it for other articles but this one was "protected".--Ornithodiez (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Telluraves template

How can we change this template? Template:Taxonomy/Telluraves I think that we need to change Inopinavis for Passerea according to the phylogeny of Braun & Kimball (2021). Prum et al. (2015) is a litte bit obsolete at this point. I already did it for other articles but this one was "protected".--Ornithodiez (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Where are the crows?

The whole Corvidae family is missing from the cladogram. What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.14.71 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The crow family are just one of about 140 families in the order Passeriformes. The cladogram only shows the relationships between bird orders. To see where crows are follow the link to Passeriformes, where there is a cladogram of passerine families. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I'm reviewing this article against the FA criteria as part of the effort to check all old featured articles (WP:URFA/2020). The core of the article is solid, but I am worried by large body of old research cited and the level of difficulty. Specifically

1. The first two paragraphs of the article don't comply with WP:MTAU: it's too difficult considering the fact that the audience for this article includes teenagers and other people who have not been to university.
   • Can the first long sentence be split into two, to avoid the structure the laying of hard shelled eggs.
   • I don't quite understand what a perching bird is.
   • Ratites is jargon, the other examples suffice.
   • Endemic is jargon
   • in the second paragraph, ptetosaurs should either be glossed, or replaced with a lay description.
   • mya should be written out in full.
2. Gauthier and de Queiroz[8] identified four different definitions for the same biological name "Aves", which is a problem. Editorializing?

   Looks more like an ambiguity - "problem" perhaps being the potential for misunderstanding - would ...identified four interpretations for the biological lineage(s) that could be included under the name of "Aves." be a better statement? Shyamal (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

3. Despite being currently one of the most widely used, the crown-group definition of Aves has been criticised by some researchers. Lee and Spencer (1997) ... Cannot use a 1997 source for the word current.
4. Some basal members -> gloss basal?
5. though it is possibly closely related to the true ancestor. -> 2007 study, do we know more?
6. The integument evolved -> no idea what integument is

   Wikilinked; is that sufficient, or do you want more here?

   I have a strong preference for having these word glossed, hidden behind a wikilink, or made clear from context. There are differences of opinion whether wikilinking is enough, but I'd say no in the context of an article which such wide range. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

7. co-ossification -> Can guess what this means from latin classes only
8. These two subdivisions are often given the rank of superorder,[40] although Livezey and Zusi assigned them "cohort" rank.[5] -> what is common now? Cohort still due?
9. Depending on the taxonomic viewpoint, the number of known living bird species varies anywhere from 9,800[41] to 10,758.[42] Talk page discussion seemed to indicate all estimates are now above 10,000? 2007 study too old here, and FN42 doesn't include year.
10. however recent studies found higher speciation rates in the high latitudes that were offset by greater extinction rates than in the tropics. Study from 2007, still up to date? Definitely not recent.
11. The orbits are large and separated by a bony septum. -> Don't understand even the topic of this sentence

    Have rewritten it a bit for ease of reading. "The orbital cavities that house the eyeballs are large and separated from each other by a bony septum (partition)." Shyamal (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

12. However, one recent study claimed to demonstrate temperature-dependent sex determination among the Australian brushturkey, for which higher temperatures during incubation resulted in a higher female-to-male sex ratio.[86] This, however, was later proven to not be the case. These birds do not exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination, but temperature-dependent sex mortality.[87] Is a disproven older study due?
13. myogenic -> gloss?
14. Oxygenated blood then flows from the lungs through the left atrium to the left ventricle where it is pumped out to the body. citation needed.
15. A lack of field observations limit our knowledge, but intraspecific conflicts are known to sometimes result in injury or death.[110] -> More field observations 10 years later?
16. Geese and dabbling ducks are primarily grazers. citation needed
17. Feather care is now described in two different section, with overlapping information.

I've come as far as communication, and will review further if there is interest making this article shiny again. If the article cannot be improved via talk, it may be taken to WP:featured article review. We're never in a hurry at FAR, and willing to help :). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Femkemilene; we at WP:BIRD will take a look and work to make the improvements you've asked for. However, we've just been hit with a few of these and our numbers are limited, so it may take a week or so! MeegsC (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A week would be very fast :). We've got a lot of patience as we're trying to save as many stars as possible. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! We're certainly willing to do what is necessary. MeegsC (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I - and I'm sure others in WP:PALEO - would be happy to help with the paleontological aspects of the article too. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene are you satisfied here or is there work remaining? I will review once you are satisfied, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. We haven't gotten very far here; I'm still working on elfin woods warbler, Sabine's Sunbird is busy updating seabird and we're currently shepherding various articles through the FA/FL/GA process. Given the project's very small member numbers, we're kinda drowning at the moment! But it's definitely on our radar screen. MeegsC (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood (and sympathize :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Checking back in; is this ready for a new review yet, or should we consider WP:FAR in the new year? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC, Shyamal and Jimfbleak I have found and labelled several citations needed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Temperature and sex ratio

"In nearly all species of birds, an individual's sex is determined at fertilisation. However, one 2007 study claimed to demonstrate temperature-dependent sex determination among the Australian brushturkey, for which higher temperatures during incubation resulted in a higher female-to-male sex ratio.[94] This, however, was later proven to not be the case. These birds do not exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination, but temperature-dependent sex mortality.[95]"

The study in note [95], which is supposed to confute the 2007 study in note [94] (because of the wording of the text), is from 2005 and from the same author. Furthermore, the abstract from the 2007 study states this:

"While the effect of incubation temperatures on sex ratio is a novel discovery for any bird, it was previously suggested that incubation temperatures in megapodes also affect embryo mortality and chick survival. These combined effects of incubation temperature, and the limited ability of males to provide optimal temperatures, seem to provide answers to the question why so few birds have adopted this unusual mode of reproduction – a question asked by many behavioural ecologists and evolutionary biologists."

I do not currently have on hand the full paper, but these words are unlikely to seem that the study claims that sex determination is temperature-dependent. Perhaps the text is badly quoting a sentence in the paper which exposes some previous study that is not cited here?

Alessandro Mattedi (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that information Asocos (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Birds are a diverse group of animals and are commonly accepted as dinosaurs. Birds are some of the most fascinating animals in the Animal Kingdom. From the beautiful Peacock to the graceful Swan and the intelligent Parrot, birds come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and colors with each species having its own set of unique qualities. The Hummingbird is the fastest flyer and the smallest bird we know. The Ostrich is fast and majestic, while also being a fast runner and the largest bird we know. Budgies, Cockatiels, Canaries and Finches are commonly kept as pets. The Budgie is highly colourful, and the colours they come in are, while not very bright, are stunning. The Cockatiel is highly intelligent and can learn to talk and do tricks. The Canary has a beautiful song, especially male Canaries. The Finch, while not having many obvious qualities, also has a lovely song just like the Canary.

In conclusion birds are very diverse and some species are even kept as pets. Birds can be big or small, colourful or plain, but all have wonderful qualities that hide their flaws. Bring back the old roblox logo (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)