This article was selected as the article for improvement on 22 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 20 March 2017 for a period of one week. |
The contents of the Falconimorphae page were merged into Bird of prey on 10 November 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Do they attack people? Kids? -- 202.47.49.189 ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Needs to be merged with Raptor Mintguy 16:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm leary of the statement that no falcons build nests. The recent uproar over the eviction of "Pale Male" in New York City seems like a counter-example. Perhaps Pale Male is not a falcon???
Maybe we should change the line:
Hawks are medium-sized birds of prey that belong to the genera Accipiter. They are mainly woodland birds that hunt by sudden dashes from a concealed perch. They usually have long tails and high visual acuity.
to read most hawks belong to the genera Accipiter.
(see red-tail hawk for an example)
"Nocturnal birds of prey—the owls—are separate from the diurnal families, and are in the order Strigiformes. Although the term "raptor" is sometimes used more broadly, in general it includes owls."
Does or doesn't? -- Sambostock 11:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
PBS has a new episode of Nature about raptors, lots of cool facts about their anatomy and skills.
One neat thing they mention is that many dive hunters have a peak vision angle ~45deg off of centerline, and dive in a spiral to keep an eye on prey. Nature states that the indirect flight path is to avoid the drag of cocking the head to one side to watch the target. What I think is actually happening there is that the stereo vision is useless for common ranges; the raptor instead spirals to sweep it's view back-and-forth. By comparing how much the prey appears to move against the backdrop, the predator should gauge very useful range information. It's just like how astronomers use the Earth's orbit to range out a distant galaxy; the wider a range of views used, the better.
68.0.226.163 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Previously I added some information regarding the spiritual and religious aspects of birds of prey amongst many Native American tribes in North America. This information was removed and the person removing them deemed the inclusion of this information "parochial." Many birds of prey are viewed as religious or spiritual objects to numerous tribes and tribal members in the U.S. This is not a parochial argument but a matter of fact. For references supporting this, see, for example, these government sources:
Clinton, William J. Executive Memorandum: “Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious.” 59 F.R. 22953 (1994). Retrieved December 10, 2007 ( http://www.animallaw.info/administrative/adus59fr22953.htm)
Saenz v. Department of Interior, D.C. No. 99-21-M (2001). Retrieved December 10, 2007 ( http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/08/00-2166.htm)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Native American Activities: Migratory Bird Feathers.” Retrieved November 21, 2007 ( http://library.fws.gov/Pubs2/nativeamerican01.pdf)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Eagle Parts for Native American Religious Purposes Permit Application and Shipping Request.” Retrieved August 6, 2006 ( http://www.fws.gov/permits/forms/eaglereligious.pdf).
These referenes are not presented so as to suggest that every tribe necessarily believes every bird of prey is religious or spiritual in nature or that tribal members "worship" birds of prey. None of these are the case. Instead, as was attempted to be shown, many birds of prey have a religious or spiritual use, meaning or import to many tribes and their members. Removing information demonstrating this religious and spiritual relationship between many Native American tribes and birds of prey (eagles, hawks, owls, etc.) is a disservice to wikipedia visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.203.230 ( talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
http://prime.lavalife.com/pictures/plus45/2008/03/24/15/1206385386636.jpeg
Can you tell me what kind of bird it is? The picture was taken in Mongolia, about an hour out into the steppes from Ulanbatar. And you can use the picture as an illustration of whatever kind of bird it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.5.68 ( talk) 14:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
can you tell me if any birds have a sense of smell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.7.217 ( talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be some work needed on this article. The lead is probably a bit too long, and could be broken up slightly, and even expanded, and the first line doesn't match the article title ("bird of prey" as of writing this). I tried to rewrite it, but I'm not sure I got it quite right. The problem is that Owls have their own article, and this one, which seems like it should cover all birds of prey, seems to have been written originally about raptors only (excluding owls, though I seem to recall often hearing Owls called "raptors" as well). The infobox certainly doesn't match the article title. I'm not quite sure how best to resolve all this. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
the entry hawk isn't dong very much in and of itself. what say we make it a section in this entry, a related term? - Μετανοιδ ( talk, email) 06:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
see also Talk:WikiProject_Birds#Merge_proposal. - Μετανοιδ ( talk, email) 07:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Support:
Comments:
I've had a quick run through and cleaned up a bit, but we need an agreed outline.
The list of types of birds of prey which is the second section seems very northern hemisphere to me, and either needs to be rethought or rewritten. It introduces vague terms which add more confusion. Perhaps better to discuss by Accipitridae subfamilies and the other small families?
jimfbleak ( talk) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article has the wrong definition of a bird of prey. It says "Birds of prey are birds that hunt for food primarily on the wing, using their keen senses, especially vision." However, I am quite sure that the definition is a bird that kills other animals using its talons. But then, why would a Vulture be a raptor? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, Birds of Prey are birds that kill their prey with their talons and as a result vultures aren't actually birds of prey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.62.4.10 ( talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a section on the "definition" using two rather old second-hand books. I wonder if any of the terminology that I have added needs bringing up-to-date. Comments and copy-editing welcome. Snowman ( talk) 18:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "raptor" an older Greek or Latin word? Thus it would predate the French word "rapiere." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.32.79 ( talk) 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
instead what is missing (more than editing) is to expand it a bit more. it IS an interesting subject, and area in general. and i am sure there is more RELEVANT-INTERESTING material that can be added.
Chronomaster5779 ( talk) 16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
75.144.124.13 posted this comment on 29 July 2013 ( view all feedback).
I found much of what I was looking for, except an overview of the more distant ancestry of birds and their descent from dinosaurs.
i have put therfore a link to "origin of birds" page, in the "see also" category
Chronomaster5779 (
talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
a user who is reading 'birds of pray', is most likely that he would not search "bird" to find the evoulution of 'birds of prey', and would not choose to "go back"(in an association concept) to 'bird' article to search for it. a person who already chosen "birds of prey" article is either not interested in "bird" article, or came from the "bird" article(with or without reading about evolution), or want to know the specific evolutionery phase of 'birds of pray'. in that case, the current user either already read the summerized evolution in 'bird' page(or even read the main article on dinosours and birds) or searching for it from 'birds of prey' article and on. therefore i think it answers better and more directly, if an "origin of birds" will be put. there it will also be point out that dinosours and evolution regard only to birds in general and not to birds of prey in particular, in which case what IS relevant is the "recent" evolution which is their ancestors. (am i correct?)
for common sense, in linking pages concept, it is conceivable that user WILL be interested to "surf" from 'birds of pray' to the generalized article of 'bird'. so im adding "bird" too... Chronomaster5779 ( talk) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
yes but not everyone is aware of every single link. you also exclude a possibility that someone searches very swiftly towards the "see also" section, to find a referance to bird evolution, rather than reading thorouhly the article.
more over, if it has a link inside the article, and it is a main related article, it should defenetely also be in the obvious "see also" section. it is not about how inteligent readers are, it is about ease of relevant article assosiation and search for public.
Chronomaster5779 ( talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Cathartidae (new world vultures) were removed from this article in August 2013 by an unsigned user, claiming that they don't belong here because they are related to storks.
However, this is an article about the common term "bird of prey" as traditionally understood, not about a phylogenetic clade.
Many authors, whilst acknowledging the Sibley & Alquist taxonomy, continue to group the new-world vultures with the other diurnal birds of prey. Also, is the relation of cathartids to storks undisputed?
If we are going to remove Cathartidae from the family list, then we also need to remove mention of condor from the introduction, and possibly other clean-up.
And if we remove new-world vultures on the basis of them not taking live prey, then we also need to exclude the old-world vultures, plus other acciptrids that are heavily reliant on carrion.
I'm putting the Cathartidae back; please discuss here their ex/inclusion if you feel strongly about this decision.
Pelagic ( talk) 02:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Overall your section on sexual dimorphism was very well written. I would watch out when using scientific terms that are not common to the general public because it makes some concepts hard to understand. For example, you wrote “This is due to the fact that the ecological model is less parsimonious, making it more complex than sexual selection.” Perhaps it would be better to use the sentence “This is due to the fact that explanations based on ecological factors involve more evolutionary steps/processes, making the matter more complex than hypotheses based on sexual selection.
In terms of actual edits, I removed the word “also” from your first sentence because it was not necessary, seeing as it’s an intro sentence for a new section. For the section on kestrels, you should define which sex of the species is the smaller one. The flow of the sentence makes the reader feel as if both sexes would respond to harsh environments by decreasing in size. I added a semicolon to a sentence because it felt like a run on. Overall, you shared great information and it looks good! Daisuke 780 ( talk) 06:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have responded to the critiques you guys have posted, and I also added a section on a potential third theory as to why sexual dimorphism has evolved in raptors as well. In addition, I have made my section more conclusion based rather than listing the results of a single experiment. Leflame123 ( talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Leflame123
Overall this section of the article flows very well. I fixed a couple sentences to not specifically reference experiments and just summarize instead. The only other thing that I can think of to add would be maybe adding smaller subheadings (=== heading ===) for each different explination in order to break up the big chunk of text. Besides that great work! Adowney31 ( talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
In terms of edits, I changed the wordings of some sentences to avoid repetitious phrases. I also tried to make sentences with scientific phrases a little bit easier to understand (for example, the sentence with the definition of parsimonious in it). I changed the phrase “in addition” to “additionally” because I felt it improved the flow of the sentence. Also, I changed “much more data” to “a significant amount of data”. For the part about kestrels, I broke the sentence into two because it was a lot of information to digest in one take. Overall, I like how you explain why sexual selection hypotheses are more accepted than ecological hypotheses. Plus, the use of the kestrel species was a good way to give imagery to the subject. For this section, “Dimorphisms can also be the product of intrasexual selection between males and females. It appears…” I think that the order of this sentence can be fixed along with wording choice. I tried to change the order but I do not want to change the meaning of what you are trying to say. Finally, the last sentence feels like an introductory sentence. I think it would be good to add some extra information to give the section a good closing. Daisuke 780 ( talk) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bird of prey. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What are folks' thoughts on adding this cladogram to the Classification section?
This cladogram is my best effort for visually depicting how different clades of birds are considered birds of prey vis-a-vis polyphyletic assemblages.
Telluraves |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heavily borrowed from Telluraves.
― Aidan ⦿ ( talk) 03:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
From Stoop: "the high-speed attack dive of a bird of prey (most usually a hawk, eagle, falcon or owl)" - how to include here in birds of prey? Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Seriemas should be considered birds of prey, as there's no good reason to exclude them. -- 2607:FEA8:2900:8B7:DD7C:4453:E6CE:F133 ( talk) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
In fact, no one considered them birds of prey until 2019. And even now, it seems like a fringe idea. Traditionally, seriemas were classified in Gruiformes. So I'm not sure this article should be calling them birds of prey anymore than it should call ravens or shrikes birds of prey. -- Grey Clownfish ( talk) 01:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 22 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 20 March 2017 for a period of one week. |
The contents of the Falconimorphae page were merged into Bird of prey on 10 November 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Do they attack people? Kids? -- 202.47.49.189 ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Needs to be merged with Raptor Mintguy 16:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm leary of the statement that no falcons build nests. The recent uproar over the eviction of "Pale Male" in New York City seems like a counter-example. Perhaps Pale Male is not a falcon???
Maybe we should change the line:
Hawks are medium-sized birds of prey that belong to the genera Accipiter. They are mainly woodland birds that hunt by sudden dashes from a concealed perch. They usually have long tails and high visual acuity.
to read most hawks belong to the genera Accipiter.
(see red-tail hawk for an example)
"Nocturnal birds of prey—the owls—are separate from the diurnal families, and are in the order Strigiformes. Although the term "raptor" is sometimes used more broadly, in general it includes owls."
Does or doesn't? -- Sambostock 11:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
PBS has a new episode of Nature about raptors, lots of cool facts about their anatomy and skills.
One neat thing they mention is that many dive hunters have a peak vision angle ~45deg off of centerline, and dive in a spiral to keep an eye on prey. Nature states that the indirect flight path is to avoid the drag of cocking the head to one side to watch the target. What I think is actually happening there is that the stereo vision is useless for common ranges; the raptor instead spirals to sweep it's view back-and-forth. By comparing how much the prey appears to move against the backdrop, the predator should gauge very useful range information. It's just like how astronomers use the Earth's orbit to range out a distant galaxy; the wider a range of views used, the better.
68.0.226.163 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Previously I added some information regarding the spiritual and religious aspects of birds of prey amongst many Native American tribes in North America. This information was removed and the person removing them deemed the inclusion of this information "parochial." Many birds of prey are viewed as religious or spiritual objects to numerous tribes and tribal members in the U.S. This is not a parochial argument but a matter of fact. For references supporting this, see, for example, these government sources:
Clinton, William J. Executive Memorandum: “Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious.” 59 F.R. 22953 (1994). Retrieved December 10, 2007 ( http://www.animallaw.info/administrative/adus59fr22953.htm)
Saenz v. Department of Interior, D.C. No. 99-21-M (2001). Retrieved December 10, 2007 ( http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/08/00-2166.htm)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Native American Activities: Migratory Bird Feathers.” Retrieved November 21, 2007 ( http://library.fws.gov/Pubs2/nativeamerican01.pdf)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Eagle Parts for Native American Religious Purposes Permit Application and Shipping Request.” Retrieved August 6, 2006 ( http://www.fws.gov/permits/forms/eaglereligious.pdf).
These referenes are not presented so as to suggest that every tribe necessarily believes every bird of prey is religious or spiritual in nature or that tribal members "worship" birds of prey. None of these are the case. Instead, as was attempted to be shown, many birds of prey have a religious or spiritual use, meaning or import to many tribes and their members. Removing information demonstrating this religious and spiritual relationship between many Native American tribes and birds of prey (eagles, hawks, owls, etc.) is a disservice to wikipedia visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.203.230 ( talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
http://prime.lavalife.com/pictures/plus45/2008/03/24/15/1206385386636.jpeg
Can you tell me what kind of bird it is? The picture was taken in Mongolia, about an hour out into the steppes from Ulanbatar. And you can use the picture as an illustration of whatever kind of bird it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.5.68 ( talk) 14:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
can you tell me if any birds have a sense of smell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.7.217 ( talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be some work needed on this article. The lead is probably a bit too long, and could be broken up slightly, and even expanded, and the first line doesn't match the article title ("bird of prey" as of writing this). I tried to rewrite it, but I'm not sure I got it quite right. The problem is that Owls have their own article, and this one, which seems like it should cover all birds of prey, seems to have been written originally about raptors only (excluding owls, though I seem to recall often hearing Owls called "raptors" as well). The infobox certainly doesn't match the article title. I'm not quite sure how best to resolve all this. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
the entry hawk isn't dong very much in and of itself. what say we make it a section in this entry, a related term? - Μετανοιδ ( talk, email) 06:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
see also Talk:WikiProject_Birds#Merge_proposal. - Μετανοιδ ( talk, email) 07:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Support:
Comments:
I've had a quick run through and cleaned up a bit, but we need an agreed outline.
The list of types of birds of prey which is the second section seems very northern hemisphere to me, and either needs to be rethought or rewritten. It introduces vague terms which add more confusion. Perhaps better to discuss by Accipitridae subfamilies and the other small families?
jimfbleak ( talk) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article has the wrong definition of a bird of prey. It says "Birds of prey are birds that hunt for food primarily on the wing, using their keen senses, especially vision." However, I am quite sure that the definition is a bird that kills other animals using its talons. But then, why would a Vulture be a raptor? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, Birds of Prey are birds that kill their prey with their talons and as a result vultures aren't actually birds of prey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.62.4.10 ( talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a section on the "definition" using two rather old second-hand books. I wonder if any of the terminology that I have added needs bringing up-to-date. Comments and copy-editing welcome. Snowman ( talk) 18:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "raptor" an older Greek or Latin word? Thus it would predate the French word "rapiere." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.32.79 ( talk) 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
instead what is missing (more than editing) is to expand it a bit more. it IS an interesting subject, and area in general. and i am sure there is more RELEVANT-INTERESTING material that can be added.
Chronomaster5779 ( talk) 16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
75.144.124.13 posted this comment on 29 July 2013 ( view all feedback).
I found much of what I was looking for, except an overview of the more distant ancestry of birds and their descent from dinosaurs.
i have put therfore a link to "origin of birds" page, in the "see also" category
Chronomaster5779 (
talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
a user who is reading 'birds of pray', is most likely that he would not search "bird" to find the evoulution of 'birds of prey', and would not choose to "go back"(in an association concept) to 'bird' article to search for it. a person who already chosen "birds of prey" article is either not interested in "bird" article, or came from the "bird" article(with or without reading about evolution), or want to know the specific evolutionery phase of 'birds of pray'. in that case, the current user either already read the summerized evolution in 'bird' page(or even read the main article on dinosours and birds) or searching for it from 'birds of prey' article and on. therefore i think it answers better and more directly, if an "origin of birds" will be put. there it will also be point out that dinosours and evolution regard only to birds in general and not to birds of prey in particular, in which case what IS relevant is the "recent" evolution which is their ancestors. (am i correct?)
for common sense, in linking pages concept, it is conceivable that user WILL be interested to "surf" from 'birds of pray' to the generalized article of 'bird'. so im adding "bird" too... Chronomaster5779 ( talk) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
yes but not everyone is aware of every single link. you also exclude a possibility that someone searches very swiftly towards the "see also" section, to find a referance to bird evolution, rather than reading thorouhly the article.
more over, if it has a link inside the article, and it is a main related article, it should defenetely also be in the obvious "see also" section. it is not about how inteligent readers are, it is about ease of relevant article assosiation and search for public.
Chronomaster5779 ( talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Cathartidae (new world vultures) were removed from this article in August 2013 by an unsigned user, claiming that they don't belong here because they are related to storks.
However, this is an article about the common term "bird of prey" as traditionally understood, not about a phylogenetic clade.
Many authors, whilst acknowledging the Sibley & Alquist taxonomy, continue to group the new-world vultures with the other diurnal birds of prey. Also, is the relation of cathartids to storks undisputed?
If we are going to remove Cathartidae from the family list, then we also need to remove mention of condor from the introduction, and possibly other clean-up.
And if we remove new-world vultures on the basis of them not taking live prey, then we also need to exclude the old-world vultures, plus other acciptrids that are heavily reliant on carrion.
I'm putting the Cathartidae back; please discuss here their ex/inclusion if you feel strongly about this decision.
Pelagic ( talk) 02:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Overall your section on sexual dimorphism was very well written. I would watch out when using scientific terms that are not common to the general public because it makes some concepts hard to understand. For example, you wrote “This is due to the fact that the ecological model is less parsimonious, making it more complex than sexual selection.” Perhaps it would be better to use the sentence “This is due to the fact that explanations based on ecological factors involve more evolutionary steps/processes, making the matter more complex than hypotheses based on sexual selection.
In terms of actual edits, I removed the word “also” from your first sentence because it was not necessary, seeing as it’s an intro sentence for a new section. For the section on kestrels, you should define which sex of the species is the smaller one. The flow of the sentence makes the reader feel as if both sexes would respond to harsh environments by decreasing in size. I added a semicolon to a sentence because it felt like a run on. Overall, you shared great information and it looks good! Daisuke 780 ( talk) 06:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have responded to the critiques you guys have posted, and I also added a section on a potential third theory as to why sexual dimorphism has evolved in raptors as well. In addition, I have made my section more conclusion based rather than listing the results of a single experiment. Leflame123 ( talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Leflame123
Overall this section of the article flows very well. I fixed a couple sentences to not specifically reference experiments and just summarize instead. The only other thing that I can think of to add would be maybe adding smaller subheadings (=== heading ===) for each different explination in order to break up the big chunk of text. Besides that great work! Adowney31 ( talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
In terms of edits, I changed the wordings of some sentences to avoid repetitious phrases. I also tried to make sentences with scientific phrases a little bit easier to understand (for example, the sentence with the definition of parsimonious in it). I changed the phrase “in addition” to “additionally” because I felt it improved the flow of the sentence. Also, I changed “much more data” to “a significant amount of data”. For the part about kestrels, I broke the sentence into two because it was a lot of information to digest in one take. Overall, I like how you explain why sexual selection hypotheses are more accepted than ecological hypotheses. Plus, the use of the kestrel species was a good way to give imagery to the subject. For this section, “Dimorphisms can also be the product of intrasexual selection between males and females. It appears…” I think that the order of this sentence can be fixed along with wording choice. I tried to change the order but I do not want to change the meaning of what you are trying to say. Finally, the last sentence feels like an introductory sentence. I think it would be good to add some extra information to give the section a good closing. Daisuke 780 ( talk) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bird of prey. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What are folks' thoughts on adding this cladogram to the Classification section?
This cladogram is my best effort for visually depicting how different clades of birds are considered birds of prey vis-a-vis polyphyletic assemblages.
Telluraves |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heavily borrowed from Telluraves.
― Aidan ⦿ ( talk) 03:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
From Stoop: "the high-speed attack dive of a bird of prey (most usually a hawk, eagle, falcon or owl)" - how to include here in birds of prey? Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Seriemas should be considered birds of prey, as there's no good reason to exclude them. -- 2607:FEA8:2900:8B7:DD7C:4453:E6CE:F133 ( talk) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
In fact, no one considered them birds of prey until 2019. And even now, it seems like a fringe idea. Traditionally, seriemas were classified in Gruiformes. So I'm not sure this article should be calling them birds of prey anymore than it should call ravens or shrikes birds of prey. -- Grey Clownfish ( talk) 01:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)