Talk:Darwin's rhea

Original Genus
I have a book that states that Rhea Pennata used to be caled Pterocnemia pennata. I have cited it in the article, If there be an expert and I am wrong can you let me know. speednat (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Alright, now I am confused, the first book Latin Names Explained, A guide to the Scientific Classification if Reptiles, Birds & Mammals, was published in 1995 so I assumed it was outdated information. However, I have now read my second book, Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, with a published date of 2003, and it also states 2 genera, with the lesser rhea being classified Pterocnemia pennata. Help speednat (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert and am equally confused, but note that Darwin Online supports your suggestion of "Pterocnemia pennata" – footnote states "Named by Gould Rhea Darwinii, however it had already been named Rhea pennata by Orbigny [1834]-47, vol. 2, p. 67 note 2 [now called Pterocnemia pennata (Orbigny, 1834)].", confirmed by Steinheimer 2004 and Freeman 2007. Rhea is easier for us non-experts and the taxonomy section says "As late as 1995 it was classified in the Pterocnemia Genus", but the lead should show both in my uninformed opinion, even if there's been a decision superseding Pterocnemia. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image
I think that the current infobox image needs to be sized to 300px to see the details in the image, and this size would not be unusual for the image in the introduction. It is a wiki guideline that images can be sized at 300px (usually no larger than this) to be able to see fine details of the image. I think that the default infobox size is too small for this particular image. Further, the caption is important for this image as it helps to identify the subspecies. Snowman (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the ssp to the taxobox, and set at 250px, although I don't mind 300px if that is generally preferred jimfbleak (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, it is a bit better at 250px, but the trouble with 250px is that some people complain about anything less than 300px, which is the max for self-set-size viewing, because those that set it for 300px will see a smaller picture if it is set at 250px. Anyway, I think that this marvellous image with much fine detail is seen better at the larger setting of 300px. It is currently Bird 294 for identification, and you may with to contribute to the discussion on its identity. I understand the the ssp identification depends heavily on the location, so I opted to give the location rather than the spp in the caption at that juncture; however, I thought that it was most likely to be the nominate and with your confirmation of the spp, I think your new caption is fine. Snowman (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My evaluation of this article
As part of that course, I wrote ~300 word evaluations of various bird articles on wiki. My evaluation of this one is reproduced below, which is just my thoughts about possible improvements and things the article does well.


 * This article on the Lesser Rhea or Darwin's Rhea is not lacking for content, but could use some reorganization. In addition to the standard bird article sections, there are headers about "Etymology" and also "History of the discovery of the genus Rhea". The "Etymology" goes into a bit too much detail behind the species' name, and I feel like it could be condensed and merged with the article's lead section. The "History..." section is written as a story, and seems very out of place in a Wikipedia article. A short mention of the genus's discovery by Darwin and a link to the source of the story would be a better way to keep the article focused but also allow interested parties to look up additional information if they wanted it. The taxobox has an image showing the Rhea's habitats, but the picture is done in a different style than what I've seen in other articles, and it also looks like it's been compressed to the point of having small but noticeable distortion artifacts. The references are the bare minimum - the footnotes list a name and a date, nothing more, making the sources difficult to track down. There's not much of note in the talk or history pages.

WolfyFTW (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

IUCN
I think that the status of this species has changed from NT to LC, according to the IUCN official site. Please check it out...

With regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.244.17 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Darwin's rhea. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313074639/http://www.taxonomy.nl:80/Main/Classification/99286.htm to http://www.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/99286.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426041532/http://lacaledoniasur.com.ar/english/choique.html to http://lacaledoniasur.com.ar/english/choique.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Darwin's rhea. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/99286.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920120305/http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop348.html to http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop348.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Size is still not quite right
In the article about the greater Rhea americana the heigh is to the raised head, while in this article it is not specified what the size refer to, as it says "The lesser rhea stands at 90 to 100 cm (35–39 in) tall". In any case, I've seen several of these birds and with their heads raised they are far taller than 1 m. Therefore it makes it seems like there's a huge difference in size between the two species; there is a difference, but it's not that big. 212.97.250.79 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Unclear section
This is really vague writing. The problem that it presented is unclear, and there's no reason not to actually state the "mechanism" in question:

"When Gould classified Darwin's rhea and the greater rhea as separate species, he confirmed a serious problem for Darwin. These birds mainly live in different parts of Patagonia, but there is also an overlapping zone where the two species coexist. As every living being had been created in a fixed form, as accepted by the science of his time, they could only change their appearance by a perfect adaptation to their way of life, but would still be the same species. But now he had to deal with two different species. This started to form his idea that species were not fixed at all, but that another mechanism might be at work."

Bueller 007 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)