Jump to content

Talk:Accipitriformes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Little Eagle"?

[edit]

The image caption on this page says "Little Eagle". Using Google, I can't seem to find any indication that a species with that name exists. Does it? — Timwi 18:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Hieraaetus morphnoides. They are quite common - and "little" only by comparison with the Wedge-tailed Eagle. Tannin 10:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diverse size

[edit]

"If the New World vultures are included, the Accipitriformes are among the most diverse orders in size, from the small sparrowhawks to the condors." I don't see why the condors are so critical to size diversity. Most old-world vultures and some eagles are bigger than most Cathartid vultures and some of their biggest species like Steller's Eagle, Harpy Eagle and Phillipines' Eagle are of comperable size with the Condors. Himalayan, Griffon, Lappet-face and Cinereous Vultures are of the same size with the Californian Condor, have a maximum slightly less than the Andean Condor's and fall well within its average size. Only if we were to include the extinct Teratornithids it would make a difference.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I took a shot at it, but of course you can be bold and work on it yourself. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New World Vultures

[edit]

I would argue that it since the 1990's has been clearified that Condors are not at all related to Vultures. And that Falcons are less related to other birds of prey, such as eagles, kites, harriers, buzzards, hawks and the osprey. Wikipedia ought to follow the mainstream of science in these matters. Boeing720 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Gymnogyps and Vultur are not at all related to Coragyps, Cathartes and Sarcorhamphus? If so, then please provide references.
If you are saying that Cathartidae are not related to Aegypiinae or Gypaetinae, then I think most of the relevant articles do make this clear.
As to your point about falcons, forest falcons and caracaras (Falconidae sensu stricto) being unrelated to Accipitriformes, I agree – see below.
Pelagic (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accipitriformes vs. Falconiformes, and taxoboxes

[edit]

It's been 6 years since Haring's research was published. Hunting down references for this article, I was impressed to see that all the major ornithological societies now accept separating the Falconiformes and placing them before Psicattiformes in taxonomic order.

Clements checklist generally follows NACC, now that it's maintained by Cornell (I haven't searched the revisions yet, though). Unfortunately, I don't have access to Howard and Moore 4th ed.: is there someone who can check their treatment of the Orders? Can anybody think of another checklist or major reference that would have been revised since 2008?

It's also been nearly six years since (in Dec 2008) hhhh4444 tried updating the taxoboxes of Accipitridae to say "ordo = Accipitriformes", and this was modified by JerryFriedman to "ordo = [[Falconiformes]] (or [[Accipitriformes]], q.v.)". That was a good compromise, given the newness of the research at the time.

Looking through the various articles, there is a mixture of different orders given:

I suggest that we can now safely direct the reader to this article (Acciptriformes), which provides a good explanation of the split. If interested, the reader can then follow the link from here to Falconiformes.

I have started boldly updating the taxoboxen to make them uniformly say "Order: Accipitriformes".

If you have an opinion on this, please post below.

Pelagic (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Worth posting a note on birds wikiproject discussion page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's fine for Wikip to go along with the ornithological societies, now that a consensus seems to have emerged (or maybe somewhat after the consensus emerged).
Perhaps someone would like to find some way to remove the word "proximodorsal" from the article. Even "basal", too. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas and Jerry!
I hope that I didn't blow up too many watchlists with all the edits (did agonize about whether or not to mark them "minor").
[I had a long paragraph here about options for rewording the "proximodorsal" bit, but lost it when my wireless connection reset before saving. Grrr. Will just make the change without presenting rationale.]
Pelagic (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accipitriformes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accipitriformes&oldid=1197907374"