Talk:Preening

Structure

Note sure how this article should be structured. Perhaps something like definition, etymology, functions, variations... Shyamal (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• It seemed to be falling into sections so I broke it up along those lines, feel free to revert if you don't think it works. Once the article is larger a lead can be made that summarises it. Also, feel free to change the section titles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Additions

Might be useful to add the etymology of the word "preen" - I suppose the original version was the one applied to birds. Shyamal (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• There's quite a bit we could say about allopreening: its functions (hygiene, pair bonding, social communication, etc.), how and where it's done, etc. At least 43 families of birds allopreen. I'll get started on that bit. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Does the term preening only apply to when this is done to feathers? Or does it also apply to when they clean their feet and other areas with their beaks? Currently, the article would seem to suggest it only applies to feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  Everything I've read suggests "preening" refers only to the action done with the feathers. We could certainly expand the article beyond that, but the true definition of the word is just feather maintenance. MeegsC (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

What else?

I guess we should explain a bit about feather structure, to explain why preening is necessary (essentially dead structures, structure of barbs and barbules, etc.). And maybe figure out where to put "secondary functions" so that the distraction display sentence isn't all by itself in a section at the end. Anything else people might want to know about? MeegsC (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A minor point, but it is a bit "annoying" now that only some of the image captions state which species are shown. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Good idea! I've identified each species in the captions now. MeegsC (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Do all birds preen? Even the paleognaths? Might be obvious but saying it specifically might be good....(unless I missed it!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Also - information on the chemical composition of preen oil. I also note we have a separate article on uropygial gland - would it be worthwhile merging these or reviewing what information goes on each page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

cool

what an interesting and worthy choice for the front-page! thank you! 174.17.167.208 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, birds are so adorable man. They should have more lighthearted stuff on Wikipedia imo. - 172.119.235.132

"Generally"

The section "Preen Oil" contains the following sentence:

"The gland is generally larger (in relation to body size) in waterbirds, including terns, grebes and petrels, but studies have found no clear correlation between the size of a bird's gland and the exposure to water that its lifestyle dictates."

It seems to me that if we can say the gland is "generally larger", that constitutes a correlation. I lack domain expertise, and cannot with any confidence adjust this sentence so as to dispel the contradiction. Should it perhaps read "The gland is generally larger ... in some waterbirds", or "certain waterbirds"? The sense would then be that while there are species in which exposure to water is linked with a large uropygial gland, this does not appear to be a general rule across all waterbirds. If this accords with the facts, it is a good way to correct the sentence. If not, I'm not sure what to propose, because I don't know exactly what besides a "clear correlation" between "size" and "exposure to water" is intended by "the gland is generally larger ... in waterbirds". Attention needed from somebody who knows the terrain. Regulov (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Regulov, although the gland is larger in waterbirds than in non-waterbirds, it is not largest (in relative size) in those waterbirds that spend the most time in the water. Does that help? MeegsC (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful. I propose:

"... and petrels, but there is no strict correlation between the size of a bird's gland and the time it spends in the water."

I think "strict" is simply the correct word, here. The claim can safely be strengthened, from "studies have not found" to "there is no": the current phrasing leads naïve readers to think there is some likelihood future studies will find a strict correlation, but it sounds like that is not the case. Finally, I think "the time it spends in the water" is a forgivable simplification, and certainly reads a lot better than "the exposure to water that its lifestyle dictates." I invite comment. Regulov (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that the studies don't say "there is no correlation" so we can't either. Unless every single waterbird species in the world has been examined, that claim cannot be made. So far, studies have shown no clear correlation. Scientists are pretty precise in saying what they mean. ;) As to the rest of the sentence, the problem is somewhat semantic. If we say "there is no strict correlation between the size of a bird's gland and the time it spends in the water" that could imply that if you keep a duck away from the water (in a barn, say) that its gland would be smaller than one allowed to swim. Clearly that's not true. So I'm not exactly sure how to reword it to be correct. MeegsC (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not what "correlation" means. It is not necessary to survey the gland of every bird on Earth. We are already making the claim that the gland is generally larger in waterfowl. That is a clear correlation. It just isn't a strict one; that is, the points don't all fall absolutely rigidly on the same line. I think you'll agree that isn't exactly a surprise. You don't like my proposal; very well. How about this:

"Although the gland is larger in waterbirds than in non-waterbirds, it is not largest in those waterbirds that spend the most time in the water."

I think that would serve better than what's on the page now.Regulov (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I had to re-read through that source paper and their measure of "degree of aquaticity" is sadly poorly defined. Some exceptions they note are that terns feed aerially picking fishes off the surface or only slightly dipping in have the (relatively) largest glands among the waterbirds, and herons wade and do not get their plumage too wet and therefore predictably have small preen glands but note that they also have powder down adaptations. More importantly they note that there are significant contrasts within families. It clearly needs to be more carefully examined using mixed linear models rather than straightforward correlation but overall it would seem to me that the existing statement is not badly off as a summary as it is not really just about "time in water" but a more complex measure of plumage area wetted, mode of foraging, and perhaps time spent too. Shyamal (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel you are really missing the forest for the trees, here. It is interesting and noteworthy, if a bit incidental, that "The gland is generally larger (in relation to body size) in waterbirds, including terns, grebes and petrels". This information belongs in the article. If the sentence ended here, would it be untrue? No; but you are worried (I take it) that it would be misleading, in spite of the qualifier "generally". I am inclined to think the qualifier "generally" suffices, and we should just move on after "petrels". If you insist on a more detailed qualification, I will insist in turn that it needs to be clearer than "but studies have found no clear correlation between the size of a bird's gland and the exposure to water that its lifestyle dictates." I think this is confusing, awkward, and imprecise. My main objection is to the word "clear". There is a clear correlation. In general, birds that live or feed in or near the water have larger uropygial glands than those that do not. No? If that isn't true, we have bigger problems. Assuming it is true, a correlation does (clearly) obtain between gland size and ... living, feeding, or breeding, in, under, or proximate to, water. I think what the sentence intends to say is that the precise nature of the relationship between "aquaticity" and gland size is not yet clear; but that isn't what it says. It doesn't say that the nature of the correlation isn't clear. Rather, it says it isn't clear that there is a correlation.

How about this: "There is some tendency towards larger uropygial glands, relative to body size, in waterbirds, in particular terns, grebes, and petrels, than in non-waterbirds." Or perhaps: "Larger uropygial glands relative to body size are weakly correlated with aquatic lifestyles, but how the two are linked is not clear. Terns, for instance, have especially large glands, in spite of feeding in flight on fish at or very near the surface of the water." Regulov (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Regulov, I've now changed the wording. It says "The gland is generally larger (in relation to body size) in waterbirds, including terns, grebes and petrels. However, studies have found no clear correlation between the size of the gland and the amount of time a species spends in the water; it is not consistently largest in those species that spend the most time in the water." Does that suffice? MeegsC (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. Regulov (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)