Talk:Bird/Archive 7

I removed the following

The contention that birds are not dinosaurs, but evolved from early archosaurs like Longisquama^[1] has b ^[2]

It fails the Wikipedia policy on due weight. I know that I am stepping into a highly charged discussion, but the scientific fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs is uncontested by all knowledgable experts, and only contested by Feduccia. This fits perfectly into the Wikipedia policy, which says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The opinion of Feduccia is uncontestably a tiny minority. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Feduccia, an otherwise well-respected and highly cited expert, is the leading proponent of the theory which is indeed identified as a minority view. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and it would be bizarre to have an alternative theories section without mentioning him. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia weasel words "well-respected and highly cited expert". He is highly cited because he is the leading non-scientist attacking the scientific consensus. But he is not "well-respected" by any scientist. His is not one of a group of "alternative theories". There are no alternative theories. His work is not science nor a theory.^[3] Nick Beeson (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Medeis, a mention of Feduccia is not unreasonable in a section on alternative views. Moreover I recall until quite recently he wasn't the only one, Storrs Olson being at least one other. Has everyone but Feduccia changed? I haven't been keeping up. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Feduccia, Olson, Lingah-Solier and Martin, among others, are in this camp to varying degrees, as is Czerkas (he thinks birds evolved from dinosaurs but differs on the internal relationships). I agree having an alternate theories section is pointless without mentioning the only opponents that ever really registers. Also, calling Feduccia a non-scientist is complete nonsense. Just because you (and I, fwiw) disagree with his ideas doesn't make him a fringe kook unworthy of the title. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not calling him a non-scientist. There is a published paper in a authoritative science journal which calls him a non-scientist. It is a fact that ideas are science only if they meet certain criteria. The ideas of Feduccia, and his accolytes do not in any way make the cut. They are not science. They are also a tiny minority. The above list contains four names! The list of those who think their ideas are utter nonsense runs into the thousands. (I need to go to the library to assemble a list with a dozen or more. I can and will.

As I said above this putting Feduccia into this article clearly fails the Wikipedia policy on due weight. Nick Beeson (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely four names is enough to merit at least one sentence noting that a small minority opinion exists. Don't even have to mention the names themselves, really. And just because one hypothesis has been called non-scientific doesn't make its proponent a non-scientist. Many people accuse String Theory of being an unscientific hypothesis; that doesn't make its proponents non-scientists. Fecuccia et al. publish on topics other than the dinosaur-bird connection. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a severely flawed idea of what a comprehensive encyclopedia is. All notable views are mentioned, not just the "truth". Regardless of your opinions, Feduccia is an otherwise highly respected expert whose opinions are published in peer reviewed journals. The fact that his theory is wrong is no reason to keep mention of it out of the article. You misunderstand wp:npov, read WP:ATTRIBUTE. It is a serious notable scientifically argued viewpoint properly cited and attributed. Consensus is three to one against your actions. If you continue I will file an edit warring complaint, and I am going to warn you formally. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, we've only really just started talking. I don't think you can declare consensus already. Or complain about edit warring (it takes two to edit-war!). Perhaps the best way to handle this is to revise the entire section, emphasising the widespread consensus of the non-dinosaurian theory prior to Olstrom and the waning of that view in recent years. I think that the viewpoint is marginal now but important historically. As such you can argue these four or five scientists represent a rump. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The way this has been written now, with Feduccia the only person listed (and in a visually separated paragraph) certainly seems to give undue weight to both the man and his theories. It's already mentioned in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. If you need to name names, why not do it there? MeegsC | Talk 01:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Feduccia is still being published and rebutted in peer-reviewed journals. He is named as being among others, who can be specified if it matters, but keep in mind there is a separate article for bird origins, so the biggest one by name seems enough here. His status is independent of his crazy early archosaur ideas, and he does have his supporters in the field. That makes him a significant scientific majority, not a pseudo-scientific fringe theorist. And yes, when you have someone repeatedly deleting his ideas by describing them as religious dogma with no one crediting that notion that does amount to edit warring.

As for the current wording, I am highly unhappy with it. But separate main ideas do belong in separate paragraphs--a matter of good writing, not weight--that is why Feduccia's notions don't belong in a paragraph that talks about the bird hipped condition and convergent evolution. I am not claiming ownership. I will be greatful if someone will tackle it before I do. I simply see attribution, not deletion, as the proper move, and separation of different ideas into different paragraphs as an incremental improvement. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MAINTENANCE: Just moved the references into the section rather than affect all sections. Shyamal (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The infobox image should be a montage rather than showing just one bird? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless the image editor is really good, montages tend to look somewhat (or in some cases, very) tacky, particularly since the area is so small. There is no particularly good way to cram in representatives of 10,000 species. By way of compromise we rotate through the featured images of the different types of birds. It is probably time to select a new image as this one has been there for a while. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No one's asking for 10000 but we could probably select out the best featured ones as in Plant. Or we can have a random automatically changing pics. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell at which pattern do you rotate- each day, week... Or with no pattern? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As and when we remember. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Better turn it weekly. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Me, I really have better things to do. It's not that important. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are birds a subset of reptiles, rather than their own class? 209.86.226.32 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They definitely should be. I have no idea why scientists still put them in their own class even though they are a group of dinosaurs, which are reptiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.240 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's two different systems of systematics about these days. Phylogenetically, birds are reptiles with feathers and wings. Systematically, birds are a class of vertebrates and reptiles are another class, though "birds evolved from reptiles" (more specifically dinosaurs) as normal parlance goes. The two systems (each with their very vocal fans) makes for a very confusing situation, but there's where we are unfortunately. The best we can do is to express it as clearly as we can. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems inherently nonsensical to categorize birds as separate from reptiles when in fact they are a subgroup of reptiles, and so are mammals. In fact, do away with the 'reptile' label altogether and stick with Amniota, then subdivide it into Synapsida, Anapsida, and Diapsida. 72.192.219.19 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see Sauropsida mentioned somewhere on the page. Preferably in the scientific classification section of the infobox, but I won't add it there myself because I assume that there is a good reason why it's not there already. 75.159.230.243 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think sometimes the debate is confused by the inherently different perspectives..whether one is looking at the place of birds in the evolutionary tree of life in terms of origin, or whether they are describing a distinct extant group as opposed to other distinct extant groups. I'm one of those of the mindset that in evolutionary terms they are reptiles, or reptile-derived, or surviving clade of dinosaurs, or however one wants to put it. However, in terms of looking comparatively at extant groups, I think it's very defensible to say birds area distinct group, regardless of their origins. They may be related to reptiles, but there are clear distinctions between the two as they exist now, sufficient enough to be able to compare and contrast between them. While I'm often with the "lumpers" when it comes to subspecies, etc, I think it makes sense to delineate between large groups when you are talking about existing forms of life. So I think the answer to the question is really, "it depends in what perspective you're looking at them". I mean, if original derivation is the only way we can view existing things, then anything short of "biotic" and "abiotic" environmental elements is an arbitrary point on the evolutionary tree. (i.e. all life is related if you go back far enough). So birds are birds, they're sometimes considered reptiles, all of which are vertebrates, etc and so on back to the primordial soup. But, given that this talk forum is for the article, not the general topic, I guess I should say..I think we handle it fairly well in the article already, although there does seem to be a bit of leaning toward the clade based view...but that probably reflects due weight. Jbower47 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

By putting birds in their own class, we are directly contradicting the article on dinosaurs, Coelurosauria and Maniraptora. More pertinently, the article on birds classifies them as 'Avialae' and posits that this is a branch of the Phylum 'Chordata'. The actual article on 'Avialae' clearly indicates that it is a sub branch of the Suborder 'Therapoda' Order Saurischia, Superorder Dinosauria, Class Reptilia). Surely Aves cannot be attributed to a 'branch' of the Phylum Chordata without elaboration as to what that branch actually is, or you will mislead people. Purely from a consistency perspective, I think we either need to change the article Avialae or the article on Birds, irrespective of which side of the debate we were to come down on. I think the strongest argument is for placing Avialae as a branch of the Suborder Therapoda as to do otherwise would ignore their phyletic origins. We wouldn't do this for anything else. JohnJNwiki (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A 'branch' is simply a type of group which is independent of ranks like Kingdom, Phylum, etc. There can be numerous branches within one suborder, even if sub-branches are elevated to higher ranks. See "Branch-based clade" on this site: There are differences in the way that biologists in different fields classify organisms. Some stick with traditional ranks (Kingdom, Order), while others abandon those terms in favor of relative relationships (nodes and branches on a single tree). The two systems aren't inherently incompatible, it's just a difference in terminology. Aves is usually considered a "class" despite the fact that it is actually a sub-branch of what is considered a lower-ranked group in a different field of study. as long as no one infobox lists the "class" within the "suborder", there isn't really an internal contradiction (on an article-by-article level at least). The 'branches' and other clade terminology essentially serve as useful navigational aids. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) This article says, "Like the reptiles, birds are primarily uricotelic." This kind of sounds like we're saying birds are not reptiles. Does anyone think that a pterodactyl was not a reptilian bird? If everyone agrees that a pterodactyl was a reptilian bird, then I don't think we should have a sentence implying that birds are not reptiles. This is kind of a fun issue, so I would encourage someone more knowledgeable than myself to write a subsection about it for this article. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Birds are a subset of reptiles in the phylogenetic sense, but pterodactyls are most certainly not reptilian birds, merely a different kind of flying reptiles. Birds derive from theropod dinosaurs, not pterodactyls. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! This article doesn't mention "theropods" except in the footnotes, but maybe it should. Incidentally, the reptile article says in the lead: "They are characterized by breathing air, laying shelled eggs, and having skin covered in scales and/or scutes." I haven't seen many birds with scales.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at their feet? Makron1n (talk)

We definitely can and should say that the birds belong within the clade that contains all the extant reptiles. The tree here is found for example in Wen-hsiung, Dan Graur; Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution; 1991; p 119 AND Stephen C Stearns, Rolf F. Hoekstra; Evolution: an Introduction; 2000; p 242. I think a tree like this would provide a needed and valuable orientation for many of the readers. --Ettrig (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This tree shows the phylogenetic relationships between the birds and the nearest extant groups and the extinct dinosaurs. It shows that the birds belong among the reptiles at least as closely as any other reptile taxon.

--Ettrig (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The reptile article has good information on what the definitions of "reptile" can mean. Shyamal (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not. Systematically speaking they form a monophyletic clade with reptiles (though I think the position of anapsids (turtles) is still debated). However, 'reptiles' are not an evolutionary group, they are a colloquial group (like fish) comprising the lizards, tuataras, snakes, turtles and crocodilians. This is an extremely useful distinction, and should not be confused. If you want a word which covers both birds and reptiles use something like Sauropsids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.46.48 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't Wikipedia avoid using folk taxonomy? How is this an exception? And the cladogram is wrong since birds are dinosaurs. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

The video caption in the "Territories, nesting and incubation" section reads, "Male Common Blackbird (Turdus merula) feeding it's chicks." Obviously the "it's" should be replaced by "its."

Thanks. Do consider registering an account. You would be able to correct such errors on semi-protected articles once you spend time editing. Shyamal (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An extra class 'Amphibia' is put here. I don't know how to get it out; that stupid automatic taxobox is so weird. --TangoFett (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Have reported the glitch to the template talk. Shyamal (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should it not be pointed out that "bird" is a word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.128.225 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, just about all articles on WP (or rather, the terms used to refer to them) are words, so saying that is unnecessary. Sorry. Hop on Bananas (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But, unlike the vast majority of Wikipedia articles that can merely claim to be 'a' word, Bird is THE word. Trilobright (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Birds are now classified as Reptilia, not class Aves.

74.76.206.87 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they're both. Aves is placed within Reptilia in modern phylogenetic classification. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This would make Aves not a class then. 72.192.219.19 (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this got turned back on, since it was answered last year. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the Evolution and taxonomy section suggests that all flightless and weakly-flying birds are in the division Palaeognathae. However, there are many birds in Neognathae that are flightless (such as the Flightless Cormorant.) I don't think I can edit this page yet so could someone make the change? Cwinstanley (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Have attempted a modification. Shyamal (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That clarified it. I just changed your "wildly" to "extremely" for clarity. Cwinstanley (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good choice. Hardly "mine" ! Shyamal (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I found a journal article about parasitic birds that lay eggs in other birds' nests.

• Gadagkar, Raghavendra and Milind Kolathar. "Evidence for Bird Mafia! Threat Pays" Resonance. May 1996. 82-84.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion at WT:BIRD and Cas' suggestion please indicate which type of image should be in the taxobox for this article. The old consensus was to rotate through featured images of different birds. User:Medeis has created an alternative composite image.

This sentence: "The consensus view in contemporary paleontology is that the birds, or avialans, ..." implies that "birds" = Avialae. However, the article Avialae and the taxobox in this article put Aves as a taxon within Avialae. This is not my area, so I won't make changes, but it needs sorting.

There could also be reference to the broader concept of Aves, which includes Avialae and Deinonychosauria, e.g. as implied by Xu, Xing; You, Hailu; Du, Kai; Han, Fenglu (2011). "An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae". Nature. 475 (7357): 465–470. doi:10.1038/nature10288. [see in particular p.2 of the appendix] and the article Xiaotingia zhengi. The discussion of possible alternative circumscriptions of Aves is a bit thin in my view and could be seen failing WP:NPOV; see Avialae#Avialae_vs._Aves. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that most paleornithologists currently use Aves in the broad sense to mean the clade Archaeopteryx + modern birds. Most dinosaur paleontologists nowadays are restricting Aves to the crown group, and in new papers like Xu's this usually translates to "bird" = Avialae. These articles have usually used the 'Archaeopteryx node' version of Aves, but in light of new research this would place all of Deinonychosauria in Aves as well which is not verifiable, because the studies in question does not use Aves in that sense. So we may be stuck using two or more mutually exclusive meanings of 'bird' on an article by article basis for now. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite correct. The appendix to the Xu et al. paper cited above specifically uses Aves = the clade defined by Archaeopteryx + modern birds. So if (and it's a big if) Xu et al. are right, this definition of Aves means that Deinonychosauria is included, as the article Xiaotingia zhengi says.

The point I'm making is slightly different though. It's not acceptable for different articles to choose from the literature different definitions of Aves, since this means that they individually are not conforming to WP:NPOV. If there are different definitions of Aves, as there clearly are, each article must ensure that it does not present only one POV. Avialae does this (or attempts to) via Avialae#Avialae_vs._Aves. This article does not properly explain that there are different definitions of Aves and briefly summarize them. It must, or it can be challenged as failing WP:NPOV. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Where in the Xu et al. supplement do they define Aves as the Archaeopteryx node? They discuss the various definitions but are equivocal, saying "Given that a stem-based definition for the Avialae is consistent with the original definition, and is not redundant with the node-based Aves even if the latter is understood in its broad traditional sense, we adopt a stem-based definition for the Avialae in the present paper." They don't include Aves among the list of phylogenetic definitions employed in the paper and it is absent from the cladograms. In the character descriptions Archaeopteryx is explicitly excluded from Aves (page 21 for example). But anyway, I agree a 'Definition' section may be useful in this article. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

On re-reading, I agree that the second paragraph on p2 of the supplementary material is not entirely clear. I think I came to one interpretation after first reading what has been put into the Xiaotingia article, namely "However, Xu et al. explicitly allowed for a traditional Aves with Archaeopteryx as a specifier, which clade would in their analysis include the Deinonychosauria."

• Xu et al. say "The node-based Avialae is redundant with the node-based definition of the Aves, which is now widely used in the scientific literature to refer to a group including the common ancestor of Archaeopteryx and modern birds and all of its descendants." Given that the "which" refers to "Aves", they refer to a node-based definition of Aves based on Archaeopteryx + modern birds. So they do present one definition of Aves which is based on the Archaeopteryx node.
• Since they place Archaeopteryx in Deinonychosauria, the logical deduction is that this node-based definition of Aves includes Deinonychosauria.
• But they don't actually say this, which I (and User:MWAK who added the sentence to the Xiaotingia article) hadn't properly taken on board. So perhaps the sentence should be removed from the Xiaotingia article, as possibly being WP:SYNTH.

Anyway, we can agree that this article should at least briefly mention/explain some alternative definitions of Aves and their consequences. I'm certainly not competent to do this; I came to the article just out of interest after reading about Xiaotingia in the New Scientist. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to nitpick, but they cite the fact that the Archie node is widely used. this is not an endorsement, just an acknowledgment that it exists. They do not employ this definition anywhere in the paper, and explicitly exclude Archie from Aves. Whoever added that bit to the Xiaotingia article seems to have misinterpreted the intent of the authors, and it seems to be OR or at least original synthesis. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with nitpicking, so long as it's over substance (as it is here) not just words (sadly all too common where anything to do with cladistics is concerned). I suggest you go ahead and remove the sentence from the Xiaotingia article. It seems to be SYNTH, although possibly not intended, and it did mis-prime (if there's such a word) me when I read the paper. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting this topic after 2 years because the idea that "bird" = Avialae rather than Aves seems to have gained very widespread currency if not consensus, both in the published literature on early avialans (which are near universally referred to as birds even if they are more basal than Archaeopteryx) and in the popular press. See the many news stories associated with Aurornis, e.g. , . I suggest two possible solutions to the fact that the arrangement on wikipedia currently seems out of date:

• Merge Bird with Avialae AND Aves.
• Merge Bird with Avialae. Merge Aves with Modern birds

The second option is more in line with current use of Aves in the technical literature on fossil birds--however, I'm not sure how or if this would conflict with the neontological literature, if and where it seriously deals with fossil taxa. Thoughts? MMartyniuk (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This annoying ambiguity is bothering me too, see below. I'd almost favour making Aves a kind of disambiguation page and separate it from the clade articles. In any case, the ambiguity of the term must be made clearer already in the intro. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dinoguy2: See now #Scope of this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Birds are not in the class Aves, they are in the class Reptilia, superorder Dinosauria, order Saurischia, infraorder Theropoda, clade Avialae. And this is exactly the information the taxo-box should display. Look people, we've known that birds are dinosaurs for well over a decade now, it's time to let Aves go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And dinosaurs in general (not just modern birds) were warm-blooded. So much for them being true reptiles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the article. It lists a lot of properties that Birds have however it does not make clear whether birds exhibit homoeostasis? i.e. they are warm-blooded or are they just warm from their feathers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.255.82 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Birds are most definitely "warm-blooded". They are able to maintain their body temperature, though some chicks initially can't and have to be brooded by a parent for their first few days. Feathers help birds maintain their body temperature, like hair helps mammals to do the same. MeegsC | Talk 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Birds are pretty hardcore. Shouldn't their be a short paragraph discussing how hardcore birds are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KestrelMerlin (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A composite image reflecting biord diversity has stood as the consensus image for some time. User Sabine's Sunbird has posted specific personal complaints about the image. Previous discussions have indicated that a majority support a composite image, with all parties happy to accept any imporvement upon it. Sabine's Sunbird has announced that since the image has not been improved upon in some unspecific way, that an image of a single species should be substituted for it. Medeis argues that consensus is still for a composite, and that no one has prevented any user from providing a better composite. Is there consensus for posting the image of a single species rather than a composite?

Once again Medeis is misrepresenting my position.

• It has stood as the image on this page for so long because every time I replaced it he reverted me, and I did not wish to edit war. I tried discussing it multiple times as an alternative to engaging in edit wars. Medeis simply attacked me, then eventually made an undertaking to improve the image. I left it at that, but no improvements where made.
• They are not personal complaints. The images used are poorly cropped, chosen and lighted. They lack quality.
• There was a longstanding de facto consensus to have a single image in the taxobox. There have been discussions that perhaps having a composite image Talk:Bird#Image, which Medeis took as consensus to add his image without discussion and then declare it was consensus.
• Medeis has not demonstrated that there is consensus for his image, which most editors have observed has quality problems. There is an openness to having a good quality composite image, but that is not the same as leaving a poor one up.
• Is there consensus for posting the image of a single species rather than a composite? - There was for years, Can Medeis show that changed? No, he can't, because he would have done so before if he could have. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who said that a well-designed composite image was certainly appropriate. I also said that I didn't think the image in question (listed as the "consensus image" in the paragraph above, though it was certainly nothing of the kind) met the "well-designed" criteria yet. Medeis has been given a fair bit of feedback on the image s/he created, and has replied with some level of hostility to suggestions that it could be improved (basically saying that people who don't like it can change it themselves, because s/he won't. Sadly, much of that hostility has been directed at Sabine's Sunbird, who did much of the work to bring Bird to FA status and is pretty keen on all aspects of the article matching that high caliber. Both of these editors obviously want a good photo there. I think with some efforts on all sides, we can find common ground. MeegsC | Talk 22:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there was a long-standing request for a composite image, and I provided one. Sabine's Sunbird reflects this in his comments on the image at wikimedia. I have no opposition whatsoever to improving the image. But note that when I indicated in the spring that I might have time to improve the image and asked for suggestions, the only response was one from Sabine's Sunbird advising that I would need his approval before making any changes, not an suggestion as to which images to consider for upgrading the current one. I am still quite open to such suggestions and will gladly work on a new image if I am given them. But a suggestion of ownership by Sabine's Sunbird is not the sort of suggestion I was looking for. I strongly suggest that users who have in mind better images for the composite provide them, rather than stating in the abstract that a better composite is imaginable. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, how can you blatantly lie about material on the very page where that material exists as refutation of your lies. Are you a Fox News Anchor? You said the only response was one from Sabine's Sunbird advising that I would need his approval before making any changes, not an suggestion as to which images to consider for upgrading the current one. You said that statement about my reply to you, which I will copy verbatim... Perhaps fewer images would allow for a better selection? Several people have observed that representing 10,000 birds is nigh on impossible. But, say, a fossil, a seabird, a landbird, a waterbird, a songbird and a flightless bird could give a represntation without trying to cram too much in. In what way was my statement an order that you would need my approval?

Moreover, please stop framing the solution as being "your image or another composite image" when no consensus exists for that. Or demonstrate that is the consensus. Again, if you can. And yes, there was a long standing wuestion about composite images. From a single user, who didn't demand one, just asked why we didn't use one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You have constantly repeated that certain images are unacceptable to you but never once suggested an actual image you think should be included. You make repeated demands on me here and on various talk pages. You want the work done but will not contribute actual candidates, just reserving to yourself the right to comment afterwards any work done is imperfect. Now you resort to outright insult. Neither ownership and incivility is called for. No one edits at your command. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never suggested an image because I have no inclination to do so. If a good composite image is created I am happy for it to be included. If there isn't I am happy for a good single image to be there. If you desperately want a composite image the onus is on you to make a good one, not me. If you can't be bothered, that is fine too.Just don't hoist a sub-par image on the rest of us.

"not contribute actual candidates, just reserving to yourself the right to comment afterwards any work done is imperfect. " Or, in other words, I'm an editor. I'm actually pretty tame. Try putting an article through FAC one day for a real display of people trashing subpar work without contributing themselves :P

And as for insults, I'm sorry if describing blatant misrepresentations of what I say as lies offends you. Personally I am offended by being blatantly misrepresented. You have done it again and again. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have created a section below for editors who want to suggest images. Please keep in mind resources are limited, that the selected images need to fit together, so, for instance, a very long upright image is difficult to incorporate when the others are of the "landscape" orientation. But if you find a species you like I will look for other images or croppings that will work. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the endless debate for which bird to show as a single image and the "larger number" of debates for which birds to show in an artificial composite - I would choose the one that has less debate - which would be for a single bird species. But there is no reason to be stuck to the whole idea that these are the only choices. Another option to consider is to go the way of the fish article and choose a *natural* composite. Shyamal (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I saw the RfC notice. I'm very interested in this subject, but I do not edit in the subject area, so I'll try to give an outside view. It seems to me, given how there is no such thing as a single most-typical species, that it's a good idea to use some sort of composite. I also think that the composite used on the page at this time is too busy to be optimal, because it has so many individual images within it, and they are so small. My advice would be to use a composite of about six species. (I also don't think it's an issue worth getting upset about.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Any good photo of a bird will show a typical bird - it has plumage, a head with a beak, modified forelimbs as wings (except kiwi), legs with scales and toes and claws. Bird are actually quite conservative in their overall appearance, it is just the proportions that vary. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but birds generally do not read Wikipedia! Our human audience sees birds as being very diverse in outward appearance, if not in the underlying biology. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Clearly we need more articles about worms and seed! Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
        • And I'm just a "fish"! Anyway, my advice is to use around six. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick facts Scientific classification, Subclasses & orders ...

Birds Temporal range: Late Jurassic–Recent, 150–0 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N
Magpie Goose (top) Yellow Warbler (bottom)
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Ornithurae
Class:	Aves Linnaeus, 1758[1]
Subclasses & orders
About two dozen modern orders and several extinct orders and subclasses

Close

• • • • • • Perhaps three images, one above the other? We do that to show sexual dimorphism (see sunbird) , but three landscape images, say File:Magpie Goose taking off.jpg of a Galloanserae in flight, File:Microcarbo melanoleucos Austins Ferry 3.jpg of a seabird and file:Dendroica-aestiva-001.jpg of a landbird/songbird, all featured quality images, would give some idea of diversity while retaining quality. There is space for them, and they wouldn't need to be cropped or unduly minimised. A quick and dirty demonstration to the right. While there is a temptation to try and include lots of images, it quickly becomes difficult to see them, and there is little gained because you can't realistically show a wide breadth of diversity in something as constrained as a taxobox. The current image has gotten even worse since Shyamal (correctly) made the image smaller yesterday. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: I'm coming to this as a general/occasional Wikipedia editor/user, not a power editor… Personally, I think the current composite is a bit busy, especially for its size. At the current size, there is not a lot of difference visible between the Cassowary and Peacock, and the Swan and Pelican. I think having 2 or 3 arranged vertically (like Sabine's Sunbird demonstration currently to the right of this comment), maybe MAX of 4 in 2x2 grid, would work better. After all, there are plenty of pictures throughout the article. (Though, i would argue against having a picture of a fossil in the composite. Fossil pictures tend to not show much detail at a small size, leading to being dark blobs on lighter background.) This may not feasible with the WikiMedia software, but would it be possible to set up a pool of pictures, and have them AUTOMATICALLY rotate in/out of the taxobox? Not a live rotate while someone is on the page, but rotate on refresh. Or maybe just have them change periodically, say daily or weekly. --VikÞor | Talk 07:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment My first visit to the page. If first impressions mean anything, I believe the present collage is a bit chaotic, and would prefer to see one beautiful image of one bird, displaying some of the iconic features of the class. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• RFC Comment (via WP:FRS): a taxobox is supposed to present information at a glance; a quick overview. A complex composite defeats the purpose, by forcing the user to pore over the image to understand it. One good image that conveys the concept bird is enough - especially as the article is chock full of images and related articles usually have images too. The attempt to somehow be representative in the taxobox (18 of 30 orders) is fundamentally misguided. Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: every single wikipedia reader knows what the word bird mean. Most readers have been to the zoo or countryside before they have actually heard of Wikipedia. So we can take for axiom, that the image in the box will not inform the reader in any way. This effectively means that this image serves as a mere placeholder, and as such is subdued to a single task: it must be beautiful. So, I believe that:

1. there must be only one image;
2. this image should show only one bird, preferably not only a part of it;
3. the choice should be made only for aesthetical reasons.

Any of the two images in the box of the left is good for this job. There are plenty other good contestants. But the one in the article definitely doesn't belong there.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment Per rd232, I think that the lead image should represent the class bird, rather than try to shotgun a bit over half of the living bird orders. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• RFC Comment Two or three beautiful images of some birds with usual anatomy should do. Having 18 images where each of the images is too small to convey meaningful information does not seem to gel with my way of thinking.MW ^ℳ 11:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• RfC Comment As Dmitrij D. Czarkoff points out, we all know what a bird is and you can't capture "birdiness" in one picture. So the image either has to be:
  1. Decorative - in which case, check the list of featured images for birds and !vote to pick the most gorgeous one...OR...
  2. Informative for people who know roughly what a bird is - in which case, pick a composite of perhaps four of the more extreme birds - an ostrich, a hummingbird, a vulture and a penguin perhaps. This will shake people out of the mindset of a sparrow as the archetypal bird.

  Personally, I think I'd go with a small number of images in a composite - four to at most six. The 18 we have now is really too many. Since the image is going to be thumbnailed, I really don't think you can pack in more than four to six images at a reasonable resolution. SteveBaker (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can suggest free images which (1) represent the outlying (morphological/behavioral) diversity of various bird orders and clades, and (2) will be clear when reduced in size, please add them here. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you search list of birds in wikipedia, you will find lots of different articels with lots of pictures of birds that are already in wikicommons, and are there for usable.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware, that is how I created the current composite image. What we need are candidates. I hardly have time to inspect all of wikimedia. If you have a candidate please place it below

Added some suggestions (sorry I don't know how to make them line up).--Brambleshire (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add a small thumbnail of your candidate(s) and the species and clade/order here.

• Hooded Merganser Anseriformes

  

• Northern Gannet Pelecaniformes

  

• White-headed Lapwing Charadriiformes

  

• Superb Fruit-dove Columbiformes

  

• Oriental Dwarf Kingfisher Coraciformes

  

• Yellow-billed Oxpecker Passeriformes

  

• New Holland Honeyeater Passeriformes

  

• Collared Sunbird Passeriformes

  

There are claims that there is an old consensus here - but looking back through the archives, I only see brief discussion in Feb 2005 and in Jan 2008 - and then the discussion that started in July this year and at WikiProject_Birds. But no actual !vote to make it clear. So I think it's worth having a !vote to decide whether it is still the consensus view. That's especially important since the recent RfC resulted in more experienced editors having their eyes on the problem. So:

PROPOSAL: The taxbox for this article should have a thumbnail composite of four or more separate bird images and not one or two larger images. Please note that this is not a !vote on whether the current composite is appropriate - merely on whether the idea of a composite image is appropriate at all. When we know where the rough consensus lies, we can move on to deciding how many pictures to use - and which ones to select.

Please read the discussions above carefully before making your decision - then indicate below whether you Support, Oppose or are Neutral to this proposal and (most importantly) briefly explain why. If you can point to policy/guideline reasons for your decision, then that would be just peachy! SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral - Wikipedia policy on Images for the lead doesn't appear to offer any specific guidance in this matter. It does say that the lead image "should also be the type of image that we would expect readers to envision when they think of the term" - but that only informs us of the choice of image(s) to use, not whether it should be a composite or a single photo. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any composite without first seeing what it looks like. I think they are hard to make in practice even if they sound good in theory. If someone presents a good composite of four images then I will support it but I will not create a situation where any shitty composite beats a great single image just because a theoretical vote like this was made. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• No gridded composites. Shyamal (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link with a collection of sounds of many species of birds. Worth checking it and using it as proper resource for the article.

xeno-canto.org

Thanks. --TudorTulok (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is in response to Sabine's Sunbird's recent revert. The article needs to consistently make clear that birds are a type of dinosaur, they did not just evolve from dinosaurs. This conclusion is based on large amounts of up-to-date, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence based on modern phylogenetic and cladistic analysis and is the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community in the relevant fields. "Birds evolved from dinosaurs" is an inaccurate, outdated statement. "Birds are dinosaurs and evolved from a specific group of dinosaurs" is the accurate statement based on modern classification. If we are to be a professional encyclopedia we need to keep up-to-date with the latest information and scientific consensus. Cadiomals (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why continuously? The article Ceratopsia states that they are dinosaurs one time, then moves on... MMartyniuk (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant wherever it is mentioned that birds have a connection to dinosaurs. I changed it to "consistently" since thats the better word. Cadiomals (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you a bacteria, Cadiomals? Because you evolved from one, we all did. But we don't say on the page human, Humans are a kind of bacteria. For the purposes of explaining their origns it is sufficient to say "birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and the very clear line "Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma ago." (BTW, when did KT get renamed?) Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost a decade ago, made formal by the ICS. As with "Brontosaurus", old habits die hard. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from and I've heard this before, Sunbird. But in this situation it is safe and appropriate to say that birds are dinosaurs, the same way we say humans are primates, we didn't just evolve from primates. We need to consider how closely related two groups are. Modern bacteria and humans are very distantly related and anatomically distinct, so we never say that. But consider "birds are dinosaurs" is the same as saying "humans are primates" instead. Then maybe you can see where I'm coming from.

PS - "Tertiary" was split into the "Paleogene" and "Neogene" periods. Therefore the KT extinction is now formally known as the K-Pg extinction. Cadiomals (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem arises because we're trying to apply a two dimensional classification system to a three dimensional system, as it were. Because the rest of the dinosaurs have been extinct for so long saying "birds are dinosaurs" is less like saying "humans are primates" so much as "humans are prosimians". We were prosimians a lot more recently than birds were dinosaurs after all! For that reason it makes more sense to treat the article on birds as about birds, the class, which is a group that evolved from another class. Yes saying birds are dinosaurs is cooler, but less precise in a certain way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but the latest peer-reviewed scientific research (which, no offense intended, does hold more authority than your opinion) is that birds are dinosaurs. I go with what the scientific research says instead of my own perception (which in all honesty, would not lead me to believe birds are dinosaurs). That aside, I continue to insist that the sentence "The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs" is misleading and inaccurate and that it should somehow be modified to reflect broad scientific consensus that birds are a subgroup of theropod dinosaurs instead of having just evolved from them. How should we modify that sentence to come to a reasonable compromise? Cadiomals (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

All taxonomy/cladistics is more art than science insofar as defining where boundaries lie. No one is disputing that the bird origins lie deeply embedded in the theropods (well, unless your name is Alan Feduccia I guess!), arguing whether that makes them dinosaurs in their own right or merely the descendants of them or not is more semantics than science. This isn't, by the way, something I personally have a great stake in, I'm just reflecting the longstanding consensus we've had regarding this. I suggest you provide the peer review paper you refer to so we can read it, and bear in mind that taxonomy is fluid and the brand new conclusions of one paper often don't last past the next paper that comes out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not generally accepted amongst ornithologists, even if it is amongst palaeontologists, who get 10,000 extant species to study instead of the usual bones. Most ornithological books and papers I come across refer to Aves. To me, the current "descended from" is a fair representation. You ask us to take on trust a paper we haven't seen, which in any case is a primary source. I think Sabine's prosimian analogy is a good example. There are possibly borderline fossil examples, but living birds form a consistent class that even a layman can recognise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, journal articles aren't primary sources... but I agree with the rest of that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The following is copied from an earlier thread:

This tree shows the phylogenetic relationships between the birds and the nearest extant groups and the extinct dinosaurs. It shows that the birds belong among the reptiles at least as closely as any other reptile taxon.

So far all parties in this discussion seem to agree on these relations. So does the article text. When I made it, I took the data from Campbell's Biology from 1996, p 644. The issue seems to be how to best explain the facts to the readers. Genealogically the birds belong as clearly with the dinosaurs and the reptiles as any other dinosaur and reptile. What does it mean when we say they are a different class? Historically it meant first that they were felt to be sufficiently different in a very subjective way. Later it meant that they were so different that they were most surely a separate branch on the tree of life. Now we know they are in the same twig. What then do we mean when we still say they are a different class? The best answer I have found is a discussion of grades in Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, 1998, pp 156. He says a grade is a group of species that has attained a certain level of structural organization. But this still sounds rather subjective to me. The Wikipedia articles on systematics give no help in explaining what other criteria then the genealogical ones should be used to separate taxons. I searched on Amazon to find books that explain this. The three recent textbooks on systematics that I found seem to assume that systematics is about genealogy. But they did not seem to explain why the standard taxonomy in many cases (as Aves/Reptilia) is a tree that is in conflict with the phylogenetic tree. I think that when there is such a conflict, the Wikipedia article should at least point this out clearly and if possible explain why. --Ettrig (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The cladogram is simplified, birds actually arrive from within the dinosaurs. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cladogram is incorrect. It should be:

MMartyniuk (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this correction. --Ettrig (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The key issue here is one of Jargon. Do we use traditional Linnean taxonomy, in which birds are a separate taxon at the same rank as dinosaurs based on synapomorphies, or are we using phylocode language to describe the evolutionary path. Birds are dinosaurs in the latter, not in the first. I think the best way to do it is to describe it so that both are clear. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Still problems - birds arise from within theropods, so we need a fan-saped theropod clade with birds arising from within (why have sauropods and no theropods??). Ditto snakes which arise out of a clade of all lizards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, we should not be cobbling together a phylogeny by committee and adding it to the article: that's the very definition of original research. I'll look around and see if there's something verifiable we could use that would illustrate the same idea. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, shouldn't birds branch off from theropod dinosaurs? The above cladogram makes it look like there are only two groups of saurischians: sauropods and birds. We need a source for this anyway. Cadiomals (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and crocodiles should be deeply nested within other pseudosuchians. This makes it look like there are only two kinds of archosaur, dinosaurs and crocodilians. And snakes should be nested in lizards, and where are the tuatara? The problem is unless you strip it down to crown groups only, this type of cladogram simply will not work unless it's about 2 pages long, including every single side branch of the major lineages. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How about using a simplified version of the cladogram here or here to illustrate bird's place among their closest relatives? MMartyniuk (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article we don't really need a complicated phylogeny showing all the major groups - the focus of the article is birds, not all amniotes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be best to have two phylogenies in the origins section: one very simple to show bird's place among reptiles as a whole, and another focused on bird's place among theropods. Like this:

.^[2]

• Then space becomes an issue. These phylogenies take up a lot, are difficult to place and we already have three for the internal evolution of the class. These are fine in the separate article like the origin of birds one, but lets try not to add too much more to this article, which is already immense. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says an alternate definition ... defined Aves to include only the modern bird groups, the crown group. To me this formulation means that Aves was defined to include only the extant species and that such a set of species is called a crown group. This is not consistent with the definition in the article crown group which says that a crown group includes all the descendants (extant or not) of the last common ancestor. I would like to change to an alternate definition ... defined Aves to include only the descendants of the last common ancestor of the modern birds, the crown group of the living bird species. --83.250.21.226 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC) That was me. --Ettrig (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I talked to a veterinarian that specializes in birds and they told me that bird hearts are arranged the same way as mammalian hearts (left aortic arch giving rise to systemic circulation, right aortic arch giving rise to pulmonary circulation), but under the Anatomy and Physiology section it states that "the right aortic arch gives rise to systemic circulation (unlike in the mammals where the left arch is involved)." Because it cites a textbook that I don't have access to, I can't check the source, but some searching around found this and this, which indicate that the left ventricle gives rise to systemic circulation, and the right to pulmonary circulation. The Avian anatomy page doesn't discuss any differences. ~rezecib ^(talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved this back to the bottom. No one looks at the top of a talk page for new discussions. I tend to agree that the statement looks suspicious, and needs corroboration.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find anything related in Gill 4th edition (pages 143-150 or nearabouts). Pettingill 4e (1970) has this "The vessels leaving and entering the heart are essentially the same in their form, distribution, and function as the mammalian vessels. ... The aorta, on emerging from the left ventricle, turns to the right, instead of to the left as in mammals..." (p. 87). Another paper on comparative anatomy has this - "Evolution of the aortic arch system ... Subsequently, evolution of the system has resulted in atrophy of one of the radices aortae (left in birds and right in mammals), loss of the left systemic arch in birds, and loss or functional modification of the right systemic arch in mammals." Deletion of the Systemic Arches and Evolution of the Aortic Arch System in Birds by Glenny, Fred H. p. 240. Ohio Journal of Science: Volume 54, Issue 4 (July, 1954). This seems to be rather old text which will indeed need to be rewritten more carefully by someone who knows better. Shyamal (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is basic anatomy. The text of the article is correct. The article briefly mentions aortic arches (or pharyngeal arch arteries), which are arteries that carry oxygenated blood towards the peripheral circulation. The pulmonary artery is a completely different structure arising from the right ventricle. I have made amendments and changed the link for aortic arch to redirect to aortic arches, which is slightly more suitable here, because some embryology and comparative anatomy can be inferred. Do not confuse an earlier stage of embryology, the origins of the pulmonary artery and aorta. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me from this article how birds reproduce. Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps it was removed for some reason, but it seems like the kind of thing that should be included and relatively prominent, no? - 206.126.93.77 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There might some anatomy and physiology missing from the "Breeding" section. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Both from the evolution and taxonomy section... "All modern birds lie within the crown group Aves (alternately Neornithes)" & "Containing all modern birds, the subclass Neornithes". Obviously there is disagreement about whether to use Aves or Neornithes for the crown group, but we should at least make this clear and be consistent at the same time. Honestly, the vast majority of the article deals with the crown group alone, so it would make a bit more sense to restrict it to that. Much of the behavior sections could not possibly apply to Archaeopteryx, for example. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From Maniraptora: "Maniraptora ("hand snatchers") is a clade of coelurosaurian dinosaurs which includes the birds..."

Classification in infobox:

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia clade: Dinosauria clade: Theropoda clade: Maniraptoriformes clade: Maniraptora Gauthier, 1986

From Birds, Classification in infobox:

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata clade: Avialae Class: Aves Linnaeus, 1758[1]

Does this not look incomplete, as if their reptilian and dinosaurian heritage has simply been omitted? Is this because, for some, the controversy is ongoing? Or is it only tradition or inertia? Just asking, because it looks seriously incomplete to me. Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean that, even if there is disagreement over some particulars, could we not add at least: Class: Reptilia clade: Dinosauria clade: Theropoda or some such thing? Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that as long as Reptilia is still listed as a "Class", it can't be a parent to "Class" Aves, because a class can't contain another class. This is more a disagreement about labels, not science (everyone except maybe two or three fringe researchers agree birds are nested among other dinosaurs). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

HOLD ON! see above note , to add that due to new scientific data birds are always green. Let's not get carried away blindly trusting sources. Regardless of what any studies say, common sense (and sight) debunks this! Even the bird in the picture is not green, its' blue and orange... Information shouldn't just be verifiable, it should pass a sanity check...

Reptilia is not a legit taxon. That solves the problem. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am appalled that the taxobox still lists birds in the class Aves, which no longer exists by the way. Birds are dinosaurs, which are reptiles, and therefore birds are reptiles as well. I'm sorry if you find it disturbing to think of your cute little pet canary as a creeping lizard, but things don't work that way around here. It is Wikipedia's job to keep their articles accurate and informative, so the least we can do is add Reptilia to the taxobox. Seriously, though, this article desperately needs this information, and I don't want any of that "a class can't contain another class" crap. Reptilia doesn't contain another true class, simply a has-been, imaginary class. Birds are reptiles, that sounds like a pretty simple thing to put in the article if you ask me, and if you can't even accomplish this, then that's just downright lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page for Reptiles says as follows: "Although [Birds] have scutes on their feet and lay eggs, birds have historically been excluded from the reptiles, in part because they are warm-blooded." That automatically excludes them from the class Reptilia. I don't know why people think that just because early birds still looked like dinosaurs and had the same blood type that all modern birds are like that as well. Cynival^{Let's Chat!} 23:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If birds are not Reptilia, then Reptilia is paraphyletic and should be removed from our taxoboxes. It's much more common in the lit to treat 'reptile' as paraphyletic, like 'frog' or 'moth', than to expand it to include birds and mammals. — kwami (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami.147.129.132.2 (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Birds are replies regardless, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Dinosaurs are reptiles. If dinosaurs are class below reptiles, and birds are a class below dinosaurs, birds auto reptiles. --209.188.46.176 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Paleontologists mostly do not consider the term "reptile" applicable to dinosaurs (any more.)HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo for possible inclusion in article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section about unique features of avian genomes?

• Birds characteristically have many chromosomes and microschromosomes (2n ~ 80) but they are very small.
• Bird genomes are much smaller then other vertebrates, they also have much less repetitive DNA elements.
• The avian genome is also very conserved compared with others.

Bastion Monk (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This section is rather weakly referenced and poorly presented (bulleted list) and in fact could be abstracted to something like "feather care" so as to cover preening and perhaps a note on anting as well. Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and made some changes. Shyamal (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have found it quite annoying that the infobox doesn't acknowledge the fact that birds are dinosaurs. Will this ever get changed? This has been frustrating me for years. While I'm on this subject, why do people still even use the Linnaean system? Ferocious Flying Ferrets 14:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't mention the fact that birds are orionideans, avemetatarsalians or neodiapsids. It's not feasible to list the entire taxonomy in the box and Dinosauria shouldn't necessarily be singled out because it's a disproportionately popular clade. (and Avematatarsalia is arguably a more important group to note anyway as it's the entire bird lineage that doesn't include crocodiles or lizards). The fact is discussed enough in the text. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Avemetatarsalia is probably more important. Of course Dinosauria shouldn't be singled out. Yes, birds are archosaurs, diapsids, neodiapsids, avemetatarsalians, dinosauromorphs, dinosauriforms, dinosaurs, saurischians, theropods, neotheropods, tetanurans, orionideans, avetheropods, coelurosaurs, maniraptoriforms, maniraptorans, and paravians. Anyway, I actually think that listing the entire taxonomy would be an excellent idea. I think it's perfectly within reason. I still don't like the Linnaean system of classification. I personally prefer cladistics. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing the entire taxonomy would take up most of the length of the page. For the purposes of the infoboxes, it's much easier simply listing the immediate parent clade (Avialae) followed by the most major organizing groups (Animalia, Chordata). Note that you left out many taxa in your list above (Ornithodira, Eusaurischia, Eumaniraptora, Aviremeigia, Sauria, off the top of my head) and we're not even up to Sauropsida! I agree Linnaean taxonomy isn't good for much, but what it is good for is designating a few keystone reference point taxa to list for simplicities sake in summaries like this. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think it should list the entire taxonomy, but I do understand your reasoning. As a self-proclaimed non-royal male princess, I do have a tendency to overcomplicate things. Perhaps I just like to find things to complain about. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 14:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor argument that I hope carries a little weight in this debate, for consideration as a tie-breaker perhaps. Several times it's been argued; "Dinosauria shouldn't necessarily be singled out because it's a disproportionately popular clade." Not in a journal perhaps, but it does have educational value, and this is above all, an encyclopedia: "The word encyclopaedia comes from the Koine Greek and is transliterated enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education": .... meaning "education, rearing of a child"...." I take that to mean our job includes teaching —as many non-experts as possible...such as the many young people happily afflicted with ornithoscelidaphilia? ...Such a wealthy and easy egg to hatch!
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." — from WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Peter Brown (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily make sense to single out "dinosaur" as the missing clade. Currently the taxonomy box skips from tetrapods to eumaniraptors. That's a big gap, with two or three taxonomically major clades left out. If people don't like the idea of putting "dinosaur" in that gap, how about archosaur or sauropsid? We can't list *every* clade, but we can list enough to help a reader make connections to other pages. WP might not be about teaching, but it is about linking facts together. Maybe we could use one, two, or thee intermediary steps: sauropsid, archosaur, dinosaur. If you look at other clades, such as alligator or squamata, you see more intermediary steps than we have on "bird." Leadwind (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever its etymology might be, this encyclopedia is not for teaching. It's for communicating facts clearly and usefully. Leadwind (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful and interesting to non-experts if the list of the more notable/interesting orders had a few descriptive words (or sentences). For example, something like: "Passeriformes, the so-called perching birds or songbirds, include more than half of all bird species." That would transform a list of Greek words into something educational. (A danger would be smarty-pants cluttering up the list with "expert facts," that experts don't need nor desire.)
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Can't people just click on the link and they find out a lot about those "Greek words" (they are in fact Latin). I see no point in doing this. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a word or two of English explanation is sufficient to meet the guideline on jargon. But I do think "passerines" is itself jargon for songbirds or perching birds, so I added those words.--Brambleshire (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

unprotecting Ramikurd (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

xiatingia and anchiornis are both basel trooidontids or whatever. why are they in here as basel birds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexsaurus (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't "fledging" be "fledgling"?

In what context is this? If it's reffering to flight, then it is "fledging". If reffering to a juvenile bird, it's "fledgling". Nobody can correct these mistakes unless we know what they are in context. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The article reads:

Among most groups of animals, male parental care is rare. In birds, however, it is quite common—more so than in any other vertebrate class.

According to Varricchio et al. (2008), citing T. H. Clutton-Brock, The Evolution of Parental Care (Princeton, NJ, 1991):

Males participate in parental care in more than 90% of extant bird species. By comparison, males contribute to parental care in fewer than 5% of mammalian species, and even more rarely among extant non-avian reptiles.

Is it possible to add these concrete figures? Firstly, they give a vivid sense of the disparity in bird–non-bird care by the father; secondly; the figures also indicate that paternal care for the young in birds is heading towards universal, rather than merely "quite common", as the article currently states. I can't edit the article. AntiqueReader (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What do birds eat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.139.78 (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In many cases, each other! HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Refer to the subsection "Diet and feeding". Should Wikipedia feel too hard to understand, try Simple English Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

‪I know the composite image has been discussed already, and that it is impossible to fully include the diversity of the Aves class, but I do think an adjustment should be made. I believe that a bird of the superorder Palaeognathae‬ should be included, simply because it is only one of two clades of Neornithes and all other images are Neognathae. Discuss?

I suggest the ostrich. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Bird has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

95.39.204.63 (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)_ ò8uygtjuhuy

Not done: Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A new study by Guojie Zhang, Erich D. Jarvis, M. Thomas P. Gilbert and others has proposed a reclassification of how the bird orders are related to one another. Links can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6215/1308.short^[1] http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-genomes-48-bird-species-avian-family-tree-02340.html^[2]

Should the new classification be implemented on this page and other relevant pages? Owlphant (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

After Owlphant changes on Otididae on the enWiki, and discussions resulting in consensus, Otididae was moved to Otidiformes at Wikispecies. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to have overlooked that birds have been a dominant source for the birth of aviation. Otto Lilienthal's Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation is part of such foundational relationship of birds with humans. Birds are still studied to advance knowledge of human flight. Editors might addresses this matter. 68.123.235.180 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Samuel Langley, third Secretary of the Smithsonian, was especially interested in this, and did some work on it with the Smithsonian's first Curator of Birds, Robert Ridgway. Daniel Lewis, Ph.D. 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilokid (talk • contribs)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bird's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hoagstrom":

• From Flamingo: Hoagstrom, C.W. (2002). Respiration in Birds. Magill's Encyclopedia of Science: Animal Life. Vol 3, pp 1407-1411. Pasadena, California, Salem Press.
• From American flamingo: Hoagstrom, C.W., ed. (2002). Vertebrate Circulation. Vol. 1. Pasadena, California: Salem Press. pp. 217–219. ISBN 978-1587650192. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Bird has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I never vandalize

I will keep the promise

75.169.77.132 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I made it "only known species without wings was the moa" since there may have been other species that we don't know because no fossils remained. Hekerui (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Bird has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please do either one of two things to the hatnote {{Hatnote|Aves and Avifauna redirect here. For other uses, see Aves (disambiguation) or Avifauna (disambiguation).}}: 1) Change it to the hatnote {{Redirect4|Aves|Avifauna}} or 2) Put quotation marks on the words "Aves" or "Avifauna" and change the word "or" to "and" because this hatnote is not in correct hatnote format.

(Or is it?)

164.104.185.179 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Bird has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

to |fossil_range =
Late Jurassic–Holocene,^[3]

Rudeboi223 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 12:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The taxobox article gives the time-range of Aves as being 85–0 Ma. It gives the subclasses as Neognathae and Palaeognathae. The taxobox on Neognathae gives a time range of 120–0 Ma. This does not compute.

I realise that the taxonomy is still a disputed matter but this kind of thing is, well, non-encyclopedic. We need to pick a favoured system, stick with it for the introductions and infoboxes, and then discuss any controversies in the body.

Ordinary Person (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is currently unclear what this article is about. Given that Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, an article is about a subject, not a term, hence the issue of the definition of the term "bird"/Aves, while highly important, cannot be allowed to muddle the scope of the article. Either it is about Neornithes, or Avialae, or something else altogether, such as the definition of "bird"/Aves (in which case it should be renamed to Aves for clarity, to avoid confusion with the lay term). But it cannot be about all these things at the same time – especially as long as the introduction plainly gives "a beak with no teeth" as part of the definition, because this is the defining feature of Neornithes, as opposed to the wider group Avialae. In view of the fact that the Avialae have their own article, and Neornithes and Modern birds redirect here, I suggest making this article about the crown group Neornithes first and foremost, limit discussion of non-modern birds and remove parts such as "160–0 Ma" which clearly refer to Avialae. This is likely what lay readers will expect too, who will not generally be aware of fossil toothed birds (except Archaeopteryx). This also means mentioning Neornithes and Modern birds in the introduction in bold and right away, which will help reduce confusion about the article topic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, it looks to me as if your suggestion is already being followed in the article. with the exception of the alternate taxobox time range, everything in the article currently concerns crown group Aves, except the evolution and origin sections, which are there to summarize background information about non-avian avialans. Is there anything in the article other than the temporal range that needs to be changed to reflect this? I think the short section on the definition is handy for readers who may come here looking for info on non-avian avialans. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If the article is NOT to be restricted to crown Aves, than the first two sentences need to be changed or heavily qualified. Taking Archaeopteryx as a classic example of a non-avian avialan, many of the descriptors do not apply to it.

• feathered (yes)
• winged (yes but probably not flighted)
• two-legged (yes)
• warm-blooded (no, likely mesothermic)
• egg-laying (yes)
• beak (no)
• no teeth (no)
• four-chambered heart (unknown)
• lightweight but strong skeleton (yes)

Add to that, the checklist above applies identically to non-avialans like Microraptor. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including "dinosaurs" in the lede, but the phrase " vertebrate, theropod dinosaurs" is nonsensical, since all dinosaurs are vertebrates. If anything, this should read "theropod dinosaur vertebrates" which is extremely awkward. I would change this to either just vertebrates or just dinosaurs, and vertebrate is arguably more important as it reflects an anatomical feature rather than a relationship. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree on this; simply calling them "theropodan dinosaurs" should be good enough; everyone knows theropods were vertebrates. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....I think you are over-estimating the understanding of the average reader in this subject.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)