Talk:Bird/Archive 5

Bird scales
I can't believe it. I came here to learn something about the scales on birds' legs and this article doesn't even mention this feature of avian anatomy. Like if birds were entirely covered with feathers! Is there any article in Wikipedia that discussed that subject? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that deserves a line. I'll look it up and add something. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to do it. I have here Avian Anatomy; Integument volumes I and II, by Lucas and Stettenheim. It is extremely detailed about the structure and diversity of avian scales. I'll try to get that up in the next few days.Jbrougham (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Westivoja
It seems to me that this user continued reversions are no longer in good faith, and \I've posted a warning on his talk page Jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good faith in what? Evolution? No way.69.217.174.69 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Westivoja

Did Dinosaurs Evolve to Birds?
In textbooks and this website dinosaurs are said to have evolved to birds. They state it as fact, not theory birds arose from non-birds and humans from non-humans nobody can rightly deny these facts. Well, I did some thinking on the matter of Dinosaurs evolving into birds and I found some apparent flaws. First of all, Dinosaurs are cold blooded and birds warm-blooded and a bird having such a low body temeture like the dinosaur would die in a matter of minutes. Additionally, during the process of evolving the creature would have wings too small, legs not fit to get food and too heavy to fly. Resulting in a death related to not being able to eat or drink (water). Also almost every Dinosaur-bird "fossil" has been found to be a fake. I wouldn't be suprised if " Archaeopteryx" was a fake. Now you know there is no possible way Dinosaurs could have evolved to birds. Now the Evolution theory is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.179.200 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all of your claims are wrong. Cold-blooded or partially cold-blooded birds would not die instantly. In fact the extremely successful subclass of birds enantiornithes may have been only partially warm-blooded (compared to modern birds at least). Also, most scientists think dinosaurs were not cold-blooded but at least partially warm-blooded themselves. There are other uses for wings other than flying that would be beneficial. Display, brooding, WAIR, etc. Caudipteryx has very small wings, obviously it used them for something. Nobody says the first birds have to have flown. They may have been flightless. Every published dinosaur-bird fossil has stood up to rigorous testing and are not fake. The only fake one that came close to being published and named was "Archaeoraptor". all other fakes have been found out before publication--they are fairly obvious to an expert. Even if dinosaurs did not evolve into bird,s the theory of evolution holds up, as it is based on logical principles that simply follow common sense. Something else would have evolved into birds instead. But all evidence points to dinosaurs right now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.evolution-facts.org/index.htmor http://www.drdino.com/ to see if it really follows common sense and logic. I didn't say this to be mean. Why would they make fakes if it was "science"? Also, when these "scientists" found bones (supposedly millions of years ago) all they have is bones, not blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.130.53 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fossils of early Cretaceous birds are often found by Chinese peasants and sold to scientists (yay free market!). Occasionally entrepreneurial peasants take several skeletons of different birds and reassemble them in order to create something unique and interesting (and therefore more valuable. Ka-ching$$$$$$!) So it isn't the scientists making the fakes, though they occasionally get taken in (but not for long). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't even know if The Geologic column is corect! There are only a few places on Earth where it exists and there are many other "columns" that might mean Birds haven't evolved from anything. Also, Cryptozoology suggests (too much info on Cryptozoology) that Dinosaurs are still alive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.130.53 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Crypotobiology is a load of bollocks and neither of the two subjects you mentioned have much to do with birds. Incidentally, this really isn't relevant to updating this article and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Crytozoology is the study of hidden animals, not Crypotobiology. From all the information I have read dinosaurs are still alive wich means most chances are dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. Also, no kind (horse and Iguana for example) has been proven to make a new kind only new species (leapord Frog and Fire belly Toad for example) wich means NO animal has evolved from another animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.130.236 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Evolution has only been around for two hundred years, creation for six thousand. First prove that dinosaurs did evolve to birds (I think a improvement to the article is to say the following:) Birds have not evolved from anything and the "Geologic column" is merely imagination, althogh fossils are intresting. Logic and common sence follows that evolution is not true and that dinosaurs are still alive in many lakes and swamps (even though they're very hard to find)
 * Good luck finding reliable sources for that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already found many. What the "Geologic Column" has to do with birds is that the "fact" (highly doubt it) that dinosaurs evolved to birds is that that's what it's based on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.183.193 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Please go to www.evolution-facts.org for information on how evolution has been disproved. I am not the owner of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC) From scientific (real science) research it has been proven that there is NO WAY dinosaurs evolved into dinosaurs. A website about Cryptozoology is currently being constructed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "From all the information I have read dinosaurs are still alive wich means most chances are dinosaurs did not evolve into birds."
 * Ok, even if dinosaurs are still alive (they're not), this makes no sense. Humans evolved from apes, and yet apes are still alive. Australians descended from Europeans, and yet Europeans are still alive. I descended from my mother, and yet my mother is still alive. Weird, huh? Remember kids--species don't evolve, populations evolve. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has EVER seen a kind make a new kind (Ape,Iguana) only new species. Did the people who taught you that, were they there? The Geologic Column ":The fossils date the rocks but the rocks date the fossils more accurately." was said by a evolutionist. my bet is that your not a cryptozoologist, so you wouldn't know about the dinosauers that are still alive. That's a GIANT subject. Too much information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.181.214 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your points seem to jump around as if they lead on from one another without actually doing so. So I'll just point out that 'kind' isn't a scientific term and isn't recognised as meaning much of anything and that crypobiologists don't know about the dinosaurs either, as if they did know there would be proof and if there was proof they wouldn't fall under the category crpytozoology anymore. I'm sure most of us would love for a brontosaurus to turn up in the Congo but until one does it is fairly safe to dimsiss the idea with a distainful wave of the hand. *bah*. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "So I'll just point out that 'kind' isn't a scientific term and isn't recognised as meaning much of anything "
 * Right. Species has a definition (sort of). Kind does not. Therefore, 'kind' is not a real entity. It seems roughly equivilent to a vertebrate family or an invertebrate order or phylum. Creationists tend to forget that Linnean ranks, while sometimes useful, are not real. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2008
 * A kind is like for example: a iguana and frog. A species is like green iguana and fire belly toad. that's what i mean when I say kind and species.
 * You're right when you say no one has seen a "kind" make a new "kind"; that takes place over a very long time period, and humans aren't/haven't been around that long. However, there are plenty of examples of things evolving towards new species—and over longer periods of time, the same processes eventually lead to new "kinds".  Read the excellent book Beak of the Finch by Jonathon Weiner to learn more.  MeegsC | Talk 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) You're right! Species making new species is called micro-evolution, the ONLY type of evolution that has been observed, but it is NOT proof for: Macrevolution, organic evolution, cosmic evolution, or stellar evolution.

There has been rapid fossilisation! One showed a fish giving birth. Another showed fish mating. Another showed dinosaurs in a swimming position. Plesiosaurs (my favorite) have been found many miles from the ocean. Clams have been found fossilized with they're shells closed! Petrified trees have been found standing up, through the "geologic column" (see qotes) This is more proof of the flood (you call it mythology) than "millions and millions of years". In our textbooks we are no longer taught frog + magic (a kiss)=prince. now we are taught frog + millions and millions of years = prince! See, the first fairy tale got a little to boring so they (Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin by the way all he got was a degree in theology and they call him a great scientist) made up a diffrent fairy tale. When you read "millions of years ago" this is the interpetation: once upon a time. Did all the flood water come from rain? Ofcourse not that would be impossible! The water came from the water chambers, when thay broke open (that's where the fault lines come from) they went about twenty miles in the air! They hit the top part of the atmosphere and those parts of ice (maybe suspended by the magnetic field) flew off into space into comets, some turned into the rings around (I think, there may be more) uranus and saturn. One came back, hit the north pole so it was 300 below zero and froze them (mammoths), with food (undigested) in there stomachs in roughly five hours. Noah had each kind of land animal (not bugs or marine reptiles) as I described erlier. When they got off the ark (not the little sailboat seen in children's books) dinosaurs and birds were among them. Also, you (dinoguy2) said that we evolved from apes, we did not! Look at http://www.evolution-facts.org/index.htm, wich has an online book: "The Evolution Cruncher". Okay the age of the earth (what it has to do with birds: little time = Evolution silly = birds did not evolve from dinosaurs). The earth is shrinking, there was some testing after the 50's I believe. That means it used to (earth) be going faster, wich means "200 million years ago" the day and night cycle would be huge! Also, the wind's force is stronger when the earth rotates faster, that explains how the dinos went extinct (a couple small ones are probably still alive)! They were blown away! The moon is getting away from earth, a couple inches per year (nothing to worry about, nothing you can do about it anyway) wich means "200 million years ago" the tides were huge! The dinos were mooned! There are many others download "The Age of the Earth" seminar at http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php. Qotes "The rocks date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." - O'rouke J. "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."- Adolf Hitler NOTE: Adolf Hitler was a very strong believer in evolution. The improvement for the bird article is: "Birds were created by God on the fifth day around 6,000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.187 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * you badly need to cough up some real (non-creationist/claptrap) sources and get off your soapbox. this isn't the place for it. you're wasting bandwidth and time (yours and ours -- but more importantly, ours). you're obviously not looking for debate but for conversions... want to talk birds and dinos? fine. if not, just keep it to yourself and your buddies at Answers in Genesis (or wherever it is you came from). - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heres a problem: Evolutionist sites will not disprover their own theory, will they? Hey I didn't come from anybody I just heared how absurd evolution is and thought I should tell some people. But, you're right, I will stay on topic (my opinion: I wasn't wasting your time) 1. Okay, you didn't have to read all that I'll just tell you the truth: Dinosaurs did not evolve to birds. I'm sorry that you got so mad becaise evolution is a silly religon. Dinosaurs did not evolve to birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.187 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I came across a creationist article about dinos-birds at http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/birds/birds.htm. I think that would be intresting to read. I think a Answers in Genesis article has something about it. But in REAL science we prove it happend and if there are any mistakes or lies we get rid of them. First prove they did evolve then I'll point out any mistakes or lies (don't worry I'll reasearch it good).


 * here's a tip: learn how to place and sign your comments good too (while you're at it). - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we stay on topic?76.229.191.187 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) - Unfortunetly I do not have an account


 * At least evolution is  a testable theory, and not just mumbo jumbo inspired by unthinking faith  Jimfbleak (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunetly evolution is not testable. One men, after seeing it was impossible said "I would rather believe in the impossible (evolution) then Jesus Christ." Go to http://www.evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm to see how scientific evolution is. You say "Archeoapteryx (or whatever you call it) is proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Before the flood (I believe it) they were very intelligent thus inabling them to fool with dino and bird DNA and make Archeoapteryx (or whatever you call it). Once there was a mouse with a human ear. 69.217.174.69 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Westivoja
 * Might I suggest downloading Firefox, and then the add on that has a built in spell checker? Then possibly try and write a few sentences that link from one another in a logical sense? Sabine's Sunbird   talk  20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry.69.217.174.69 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) I don't have an account

This is all utter BS. evolution has been proven, creationism disproven. We are not changing wikipedia to include suspect propaganda without reliable sources. Sliver Slave (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Go ahead, but evolution is not a reliable theory. So show me some proof.76.229.144.206 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Westivoja
 * Evolution is only ont a fact if you disagree with any of the following statements--


 * 1. environments change over time.
 * 2. some traits are better suited to some environments more then other.
 * 3. animals with better traits for their environment are statistically more likely to reproduce
 * 4. traits are passed down through reproduction.
 * Logically, if all of these are true, evolution must happen due simply to the nature of life, just as water must take the shape of its container due to the nature of liquid. Unless there is some outside force actively hindering the process to some degree or only allowing it to proceed to a certain point, which has never been demonstrated. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

nicely put. - Metanoid (talk, email) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To have dinos - birds a MAJOR change in DNA and RNA would have to happen. By the way (to Dinogy2), if evolution is true how don't you know one of those brain connection aren't backwards? How can you trust your own thoughts? How did thoughts evolve? Emotions? Kindness? What if you were the inventer of the computer, and you had two computers fighting saying "Does Dinoguy2 exist?". Then they make absurd predictions of gradually, over time they got all they're circutry. How did birds get wings? Did the poor dino say "I got to evolve some wings." Then did it happen?76.236.135.224 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Westivoja
 * Please do not continue to use this page as a soapbox for your religious beliefs. There are plenty of websites which encourage such postings, and your comments would be appropriate there.  This is a page for improving the Bird article, which will not ever say "God created birds on the fifth day." MeegsC | Talk 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I can't see what the removal of Archeaopteryx thom the lead (I didn't like it there, it said it was the oldest known bird even though it as arbitrarily choosen as that the oldest bird) has to do with religious beliefs. confused by edit comment Narayanese (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Narayanese, this was directed at the anonymous IP who's been posting pro-creation messages to this thread since the very beginning. MeegsC | Talk 08:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Sorry. Narayanese (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MeegsC, he's been warned more than once -- much more. but he's found a comfortable soapbox and nestled in. and as he's been here for quite some time now wasting space with people actually responding to him, he's going to continue to foam at the mouth till an admin does something about him. what, I don't know. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Please, I would like some evidence that dinos evolved into birds.69.217.167.107 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Westivoja
 * This is a talk page for discussing how to improve our entry on birds, not to discuss the merits of current scientific theory on the origin of birds. If you wish to know more about the some of evidence that supports evolution of birds from dinosaurs you may be able to find some useful information on the wikipedia page on the origin of birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds). If you still have some questions after reading the article I suggest you look at some of the external links on that page. Coffeeassured (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my last edit. We discuss science, not origins. And dinos-birds is your RELIGON. Don't use wikipedia to spread it.76.250.172.166 (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Westivoja

Wow, what a load of creationist intelligent design crap! Why don't you look at what you're typing and then see what sounds more reasonable? Water shot out of some mythic water chambers, hit the sky, flooded the earth, formed Saturn's f***ing rings?! Read a goddamn science textbook...any science textbook (third grade physical science would be better then the crap you're touting)...Dr. Dino and evolutionfacts are bogus creationist websites, by the way, and their only agenda is to promote the spread of ignorance and bring back the good ol' days when the church controlled science and the government. If you really think the world was a better place back then, then maybe you better brush up on your history, too. Great Deluge? Dr. Dino says the water for the great deluge came from the oceans. Well, then where the hell did it all go, back to the oceans? Because I can tell you right now that there is physically not enough water on this planet to cover all of the continents completely. That has been proven with math and science, to put it in simple terms for you. You believe in math, don't you? Or is your math as fuzzy as your psuedo-science? A bearded man getting two of every land animal on a boat? Did he get the animals from North and South America? Really? He did? Wow, that's pretty amazing that a semitic guy from the Levant or Fertile Crescent discovered the Americas all by himself, BEFORE his magic ark was built. Only two of every species? Ever hear of inbreeding or is that another 'myth' that you guys refuse to believe in? You f***ing people are trying to get us thrown back into another dark age. If you had your way, the U.S. would be left in the dust while the rest of the world passed us by, scientifically and technologically. A hundred years from now, Chinese, Indians, Europeans, Africans, and Arabs will be making colonies on Mars while you guys will be searching for dinosaurs in the woods behind your hovels, using leeches to bleed people of disease, trying to prove God made the Sun orbit the Earth, and other such nonsense. Go take your damn invisible pink unicorn of a theory and f*** off! One last thing. I like how you guys still love to attack Darwin, when his theory isn't even the one that has made it into modern science. He had good ideas and the modern theory of evolution is based on some of his ideas, but he isn't the main man you guys think he is. That is like attacking Sigmund Freud because you hate psychology or psychiatry (I doubt you will get that one). Way to be behind the times, but I suppose that is no surprise since you think it is our responsibility to prove YOU wrong when YOU have no evidence to prove YOUR claims aside from a book written AFTER the death of Jesus. Get off the F***ing net and go beat off to a bible somewhere.

how
when you find a bird in some ferns and you try to nest it how long will it take for the bird to hatch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.106.159 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Good question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Did you find a bird, or an egg?  If an egg, it may not hatch if you're trying to "nest" it, because (unless you have an incubator) you'll probably find it difficult to keep the eggs at an appropriate temperature. MeegsC | Talk 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

line pulled out until we can cite it

 * By 2006, increasingly complete data had made it possible to verify the major proposals of the taxonomy, such as in Ciconiiformes, Gruiformes or Caprimulgiformes. I don't like having citation needed tags in our flagship article, so lets try and cite this quickly. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why revert my edit?
Why did you revert my little edit about birds being dinosaurs? I'm just asking. T.Neo (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read "Did dinosaurs evolve to birds" just above. MeegsC | Talk 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why? its generally accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs.Sliver Slave (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong section—I meant Birds or Avian dinosaurs. :P  (And ignore the last post there...)  MeegsC | Talk 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted since there are better ways to state things about clades. See Talk:Bird above. Shyamal (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, but birds are dinosaurs- in fact, at the very beginning of the article I read that birds are bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), vertebrate animals that lay eggs (basic description of a theropod). Plus we have a whole segment on the origin of birds. Wikipedia, although claiming to strive for NPOV, follows the general scientific veiw of things, for example, the article on global warming. Why not this? Most paleontologists belive that birds are dinosaurs. I am not going on a creationist rant as above. In fact, I am anti-creationist. Because the birds-being-dinosaurs theory is relativly new, and birds-being unique theory is as old as humankind, People arent ready to accept that dinosaurs arent long-dead scaly lizards, but in fact the most diverse living clade on Earth, and the sort of thing we come into contact with daily. Birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs- there are many gray areas between "bird" and "dinosaur"- for example, oviraptorids, dromeasaurs and therizinosaurs. Ask most paleontologists and they would probably agree with you. T.Neo (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're dinosaurs. And archosaurs. And maniraptorans. And paravians. And sarcopterygians. Etc etc. Why say they are theropod dinosaurs and not, say, tyrannoraptoran reptilimorphs? In phylogenetic taxonomy, "are" and "evolved from" are practically synonyms anyway. Highlighting the fact that birds ARE dinosaurs over the fact that they EVOLVED FROM dinosaurs smacks of political rhetoric at worst, dubious trivia at best. Especially in an article intended for a popular audience, most of which who will not have any understanding of phylogenetics. They can read the relevant section and learn these things if that's what they're researching--best not to make things too complicated otherwise.

Also: "Because the birds-being-dinosaurs theory is relativly new" It's not new, really. The only thing new is not the theory, but the language being used. Our understanding of the basic relationships have not changed all that much, it's just that we've changed what the words "dinosaur" and "bird" mean by changing classification systems and definitions. We didn't so much discover that birds are dinosaurs, we've forced them to be dinosaurs by changing the definition of "dinosaur" to include them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What edit? By the way, it doesn't matter what scientists think. And in one of these edits I saw a montra. When yoou say 'it's just commonly accpepted", in other words (or what your trying NOT to say) How dare you question our theory!!!. Thanks for discussing your religon with me. http://www.drdino.com/ http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/index.html http://www.evolution-facts.org/ http://www.creationism.org/ http://freehovind.com/index http://www.livingdinos.com/ http://www.halos.com/
 * I get your point.
 * When I said "relativly new" I meant that it has only recently caught on, whereas there have been thousands of years of total non-understanding of what birds evolved from.
 * Cheers.
 * T.Neo (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

sensu specification needs to be added
The circumscription for Aves should be specified like (sensu Gauthier, 1986) or whatever else (Clarke, 2004?) is chosen but where does this go in the taxobox ? Shyamal (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted the question on the taxobox usage page as well. has a nice summary. Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a taxobox, not a cladobox. We only should be citing the nominal author (Linnaeus, 1758). Various phylogenetic definitions can be discussed in the text. Incidentally, the oldest definition of Aves is Charig 1985 as noted here Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree fully that it can be discussed in text. But when we have space for synonyms, there is not space for handling taxon circumscription changes. Of course it is quite a complicated story to try and tell in a box !Shyamal (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of lead
I find it has rather too many technical words (bipedal, endothermic, tetrapod, clade), plus I'd like to change to bit about "earliest known bird" since I suspect if an earlier bird-like dino was found it wouldn't be considered a bird, so it's more earliest by definition (not that there seems to be a definition of bird everyone agrees on). I should also point out that the 150–200 Ma date is without any visible source. (oh, it's for the whole Jurassic, not for when birds evolved) Hmm, the latest ancestor of moderna birds and Archaeopteryx hasn't been found, so finding an older bird is a possibility... but I still don't think it should be in the lead. Narayanese (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What about something like this? :


 * Birds (class Aves) are bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), vertebrate animals that lay eggs. There are around 10,000 living species, making them the most numerous tetrapod vertebrates. They inhabit ecosystems across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Birds range in size from the 5 cm Bee Hummingbird to the 2.7 m Ostrich. The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period, with the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx, c 155–150 Ma (million years ago), as the earliest recognised bird. Birds are regarded as the only clade of dinosaurs that survived the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event around 65.5 Ma.

Narayanese (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the "only surviving clade of dinosaurs" section. It makes the matter much clearer then my edit T.Neo (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the inclusion of Archaeopteryx is worthwhile. I like the revised line about the only clade of dinosaurs that survived, it makes cladistic sense without nonsense such as referring to birds as dinosaurs outright (which makes about as much sense as calling mammals amphibians because they evolved from them). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. May want to add something about feathers into the lead list of "ket characters," as all birds have feathers (even if some definitions make it such that some non-birds have feathers as well). Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Paleontologists regerd birds as the only surviving clade of dinosaurs" so right. Creationists don't. T.Neo (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Most" paleontologists. There are still a few holdouts. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are paleontologists that oppose the birds evolved from dinosaurs theory, Dinoguy, Im not stupid. T.Neo (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. I think the intro is a bit "wordy" and to appeal to those who don't understand these terms we need to edit it for wider appeal. Tallbert222 14:39 29 July 2008

Avian Dinosaurs?
WTF? Why does "avian dinosaur" redirect here? If I wanted to learn about birds, I would have saved myself some keystrokes and typed "bird" instead of "avian dinosaur". 68.190.147.184 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "non-avian dinosaurs" refers to dinosaurs that aren't birds, so I'm guessing that "avian dinosaurs" refers to dinosaurs that are birds. —  Wen li  (reply here) 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all palaeontologists support the idea that birds are dinosaurs
Most do, but a few support the idea they evolved from earlier archosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.28 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bird reproduction
How do birds reproduce? Is fertilisation internal or external? It doesn't appear to be in the article. 82.41.10.26 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anatomy -- Vision
I suggest adding Vision under the section Anatomy for Birds because:

Bird vision is different from human vision and is counter intuitive to most people's assumptions about it. For example, birds have four types of vision cones as opposed to human's (and most mammals) three types. The fourth detects the ultraviolet portion of the light spectrum. The bird benefits from this by greater precision in its sight but also by allowing it to see food sources with ultraviolet characteristics.

Most birds have eyes on the sides of their heads which creates a significant blind spot directly in front of them. This affects how they look at things. It usually cocks its head to see something close up and looks at it with just one eye. People often think a bird is looking at them when the beak is pointed in their direction when, in fact, that is the time the bird is least likely to be able to see them. Side vision allows the bird to have a wider range of vision allowing it to see predetors coming from a wide range of directions.

The above is not the specific language proposed, but merely the rationale for including the topic. I would like community feedback on this suggestion.

Wemerson (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Vision is already covered in the article, in the anatomy section. Both the subjects you mention are covered, albeit slightly abridged. The article has to be brief in some areas because it covers so much ground. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Separate bird vision article now too. jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Classification
Has anybody read the recent paper in Science, "A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History" by Hackett et al? According to the results of their phylogenomic study, a number of current classifications as paraphyletic (Falconifiormes, for example, containing hawks, eagles & vultures) or should be subsumed into others (Apodiformes into Caprimuligormes, Tinamifoemes into Struthioniformes). One suprise is that Parrots and Passerinesa re sister clades and that their closest relative is Falcons but not Hawks. How does this affect how the various sub-clades under Aves are organized here in WikiPedia and what is teh best way to mention thsi very important study? --Bytor (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. At present we seem to be mentioning it in the articles for various families in the context of other studies. This paper is a huge leap forward and extremely interesting, but don't imagine it to be the last word in avian taxonomy! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of classification, why is deuterostomia listed twice in the taxanomic breakdown at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinter (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Scales
I have moved the section on scales to bird anatomy, the article is too long and the section was overly detailed compared to other aspects of bird anatomy. It was good, so I couldn't just delete it. The summary bit on scales links to it for the curious. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Olfaction
There is apparently some growing evidence of olfactory receptors in birds however the one source I did find says they have been found in testicular tissue. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/esn051 Need to watch these studies and add a rider to the comment on the poor sense of smell if need be. Shyamal (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unable to trace the paper mentioned in http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/716/2?rss=1 Shyamal (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bird Photos
I have seen some amazing photos by a photographer friend of mine which really could enhance this page and others. He won BirdGuides Photo of the Year 2006 with photo of a Sparrowhawk taking a Snipe. It can be seen at: http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=853. I am new on Wikipedia so any comments would be appreciated. Many thanks. (Tallbert222 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
 * It's a great photo and would be welcome on the page (the photo, not a link). If you do appoach your friend please make it clear what the terms are that we impose on images though, it may not be compatible with what he wants. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Birds (Articles by popularity)
Just an FYI, since I haven't yet seen a reference concerning this yet, I've asked Z-Man to run a bot which is able to count # of hits each article receives over a specified time period. He can run it by Wikiproject (tagged). He ran it for the month of June 2008. Hope you find it interesting. The link is: WikiProject Birds/Popular pages.......Pvmoutside (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Diet and feeding
I think that it is an oversight that the feeding method of parrots having strong beaks to crack nuts is not currently included. See "Diet and feeding" section. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. There could be a mention, but it should just be short, maybe with a wiki link to parrot? Is this covered in the parrot or specific bird breed articles? Bob98133 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, something short like that should suffice. I would have added it, but I have not got a reference ready and I did not want to break any of the excellent grammar in the section. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everything can be crowbarred in (space space space!) but a mention of strong-billed seed predators which includes parrots (as well as finches) would not go amiss. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Page too big
This page is too big, according to Article size, and also according to the fact that it takes quite a long while (9 seconds) to load, even on my brand-spanking-new Intel Core 2 Duo machine. 117kb currently. I think it is not too ambitious to get this down to at most half that. The official guideline is 32kb. I propose:


 * Detailed edits to make the text more concise.
 * Moving the more specialized material onto sub-pages.
 * Deleting some of the less interesting of the random facts and examples and moving them to pages on the specific species. (Although I think they're all interesting.)

Any other thoughts? Let's get on this. Cazort (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As one of the major contributors to this page, can I suggest some caution? Yes, the page is big. It was almost this big when it was featured. At the time I compared it to the equally large dinosaur and evolution, both of which broke 100k and both of which are featured. And I wish to strongly strongly contest the statement I think it is not too ambitious to get this down to at most half that. I put an enormous amount of effort into keeping the amount of text down. The fact is that this is an article about the largest class of vertebrates, and there is a huge amount to cover. And cited. A lot of stuff is barely covered at all, peaople mentioned some omissions in the FAc and have done so since.  Much of the volume is not actually readable text, it is refs. Readable prose is actually only  49.4k (see here). I am happy to go through and edit it down (it has crept up since FAC) but any severe reduction of content would seriously damage the completeness of the article. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  00:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all these pages are too big. I agree though that we shouldn't try to make any hasty changes which is why I posted here before making any edits!  I do think there's a serious problem when the page takes almost 10 seconds to load on my brand new hardware...some of us are not that fortunate, and I think we need to consider technical constraints.  A page is no good at all if it freezes someone's computer, and having the page so long also inhibits editing.  Cazort (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is the speed of the computer but the speed of the connection that matters. The speed at which I can load it depends on how much other downloading I'm doing, not my computer speed. But with regard to these articles, I reiterate, these are massive subjects. And we already have many subpages that are considerably more substantial than the sections (see bird vocalization, bird conservation, bird migration). And the biggest problem is not the text, anyway, it is the citations. There are 195 of them and while I don't think all of them are needed they are there because reviewers thought they were, so I had to add them. Hack away at them too much and the FA status is threatened. You also mentioned the examples given; these improve the readability of the article once it has been downloaded, they add context and serve as examples to people can see what the more general pints are actually about. I used a 400 page textbook to write this article, and I condensed it down to the bare bones while keeping it readable. It is also worth pointing out that Article size has two exceptions, lists and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability. Like Dinosaur and evolution, bird is a basic summary of the whole field of ornithology and other related fields like aviculture. I agree that it would be better to be shorter and I promise that I will review and prune over the next few days (joy, more work) as some duplicated examples, refs and uncleanness images have crept in, but comprehensiveness and completeness necessitate that this will be a long article. I strongly feel that the article would be more flawed for being shorter for the sake of being shorter only. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably connection problem, loads OK on my old machine. Few FAs are as short as 32K. Whilst some minor pruning may be possible, to maintain comprehensiveness, readability and FAness, this article is never going to be much shorter jimfbleak (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked from my connection from Oslo as well as from India (via a VPN) and I find no perceptible difference in loading time in spite of vast differences in the bandwidth. I think only edits to the lead can be a little tricky but in my opinion such edits should be discussed on the talk page. (There is also a way to mark the lead as an editable first section). Shyamal (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy
"Centripetal moults of tail feathers are seen for example in the Phasianidae" Probably that's correct, but why the provided data source points to absolutely different family Caprimulgidae?--Vicpeters (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, the next sentence "Centrifugal moult is seen, for instance, in the tail feathers of woodpeckers and treecreepers" refers to the artice about moult of owls. Are these real sources?--Vicpeters (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see the first ref (I'll check it at work tomorrow) but I imagine it is the same as the second one. Read the ref given, it discusses the point made in the article in the introduction. Many refs will do this, they talk about molts (or whatever) in general, then discuss what it says in the title. For the second one the citation does support what the article is saying. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary references were mostly dealing with exceptions to the rule. I rewrote some bits from Pettingill - slightly dated, but these things dont change.Shyamal (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur
Are not birds just an order of Dinosaurs, like stated on the Dinosaur article? Why they are classified as a whole class here?200.90.138.113 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reason mammals are not classified as an order of reptiles: some classification systems group in never-ending Russian-doll nesting patterns, some divide by arbitrary cutoff points. Both ways are discussed in the text, the info box only uses the second method for simplicity. More simply, Birds are clade of dinosaurs, not an order of dinosaurs. They're also a clade of reptile, a clade of tetrapod, a clade of sarcopterygian fish, etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we all know they are not really dinosaurs, any child can see that. It takes a real genius to get paid to invent such a fantasy, and then get everyone to ignore the fact that there is no real actual tangible evidence.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

True. Apart from all the tangible evidence. Published in all of the top journals. Seriously, just go look at a velociraptor skeleton and a chicken skeleton side by side. This is probably a reasonable start to the paper chain: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119137677/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.142.252 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This classification for aves is historic, the classic classification is not coherant with the actual knowledge. Reptile is paraphyletic, class should be Sauropsida and Aves, an sub-order. Vincnet (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us know when you publish this so we can mention it in the article ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Birds aren't Dinos! Refer to my discussion that turned into an archived debate: Did Dinosaurs Evolve to Birds. I used to be Westivoja, but now Dinoguy4.Dinoguy4 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Westivoja

What is the largest order of birds?
02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, what is the largest order of birds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.205.120 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Passerines. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A missed detail
It may be useful to consider adding that uricotelism in birds makes them physiologically less dependent on water, apart from the bit on sea-birds being capable of eliminating salt. Or should this go to Bird anatomy? Shyamal (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a section, please feel free to give it a thorough copy edit. Shyamal (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we are giving undue prominence to alternative theories
It is now firmly established that birds are dinosaurs. Yet we give almost as much space to the alternative theory of two rather marginal US ornithologists. I have edited this down but here is the original in case people feel some of it should be restored: Scientists Larry Martin and Alan Feduccia believe that birds are not dinosaurs, but that birds evolved from early archosaurs like Longisquama. The majority of their publications argued that the similarities between birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs were convergent, and that the two were unrelated. In the late 1990s the evidence that birds were maniraptorans became almost indisputable, so Martin and Feduccia adopted a modified version of a hypothesis by dinosaur artist Gregory S. Paul; where maniraptorans are secondarily flightless birds but, in their version, birds evolved directly from Longisquama. Thus birds are still not dinosaurs, but neither are most of the known species that are currently classified as theropod dinosaurs. Maniraptorans are, instead, flightless, archosaurian, birds. This theory is contested by most paleontologists. The features cited as evidence of flightlessness are interpreted by mainstream paleontologists as exaptations, or "pre-adaptations", that maniraptorans inherited from their common ancestor with birds. NBeale (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Preening and Molting

Birds take good care of their feathers. They usse their beakes to spread oil on their feathers in a process called preening. When feathers wear out birds replace them by Molting.