Talk:Flightless bird/Archive 1

Pheasants and chickens
Aren't these flightless birds? Or do they fly althought just a little bit? In the later case, shall a page list those birds which, can be theorized, are in a road to total flightlessness?
 * According to the chicken page, domesticated chickens fly short distances, while wild chickens can fly slightly farther.208.79.244.67 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Flightless Birds
What about Turkeys and Peacocks? I think Pheasants can fly (maybe not soar) for at least short distances. Who would want to hunt a walking bird? A really poor marksman I guess. They use dogs to "flush them out" of the bushes and as they fly away they shoot them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradBowman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure peacocks can fly if they want to, and so can turkeys, at least wild ones. Also, birds have more purpose than to be startled into flight by dogs and shot by men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed an addition by 79.78.221.218 which added chicken and turkey to the list of flightless birds - both can fly even if not very well. Possibly some domesticated breeds of these are too heavy to fly but that doesn't make the species flightless.Newburyjohn (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, chickens and turkeys--indeed, all members of the order Galliformes-- can fly quite strongly if they need to. This is the reason their breast muscles are so large. It allows for fast, powerful wingbeats that allow them to escape from predators and fly up into trees to roost.

Reference
The reference link does not work
 * I'm assuming you mean the "Rails" book link, as that's the one the Google Book search can't seem to find. I've removed the URL; if you click on the ISBN number and use the World Libraries Catalog option, the book does come up there.  Not sure what's happening at Google search. MeegsC | Talk 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Silkies
Why are Silkies listed independantly of Domestic Chickens? Aren't they a breed of Domestic Chicken? 147.226.196.32 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"There are about forty species in existence today."
According to the list provided and the number of species given in linked articles, there are actually between 58 and 61. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fly buddies
Because Wikipedia, more so than anybody, reflects the current frame of mind and the immediate meaning of words for those among the immediately living, I propose we prepare for the term "flightless" to be known as "air-flightless" as I am not sure that space travel is accurately referred to as flight. Flight is locomotion through an ocean, which penguins do quite well, just not as gracefully through the air as they do an ocean of salt water. Because it looks like the whole field of engineering is on the verge of busting through the glass ceiling as just last month I overheard two people with pocket protectors discussing how the actual lift of a wing is better referred to as drag. Furthermore they appeared to be speaking as if it were fact. In any event, their main point was flight occurs only in oceans, and it's the liquid version that most people associate with an ocean. -Dirtclustit (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The word "flight" is normally taken to mean flight in air. Locomotion through water is usually called "swimming."  "Air-flightless" would come across as redundant -- as well as pretty darned cumbersome.  Kostaki mou (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
This article can improved in many ways. One suggestion would be to add more information about the phylogenetic information for the different species of flightless birds. The article gives you the names of the flightless birds but not how they are related to each other. In order to understand their evolution, it is important to understand their ancestor and common traits. In order to support this suggestion a good graphic of a flightless bird phylogenetic tree would be a good addition. The organization of this article could also be greatly improved. It goes from talking about what a flightless bird is to a few sentences about their evolution, and then it jumps to where they are and how they behave in captivity and then back to evolution. I think it would be split up into easier sections to understand with more information in each section. More emphasis could be placed on the differences between flightless birds and birds that can fly. There is one or more sentences, but there has to be more traits that have caused such a major locomotion difference. (Film.1osu (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

Avian dinosaurs
Elmidae: I disagree with your deletion of my addition (and have restored it - fixing a typo) and want to discuss it with you and other editors here before you delete it again.You said: "everyday terms should not get these definitions, particularly not technically-correct-but-decidedly-unusual ones)." That birds are a family of dinosaurs is mentioned elsewhere in this very article (Origins of Flightlessness as well as See Also), though not as directly. So I believe placing some reference to this in the lede (which is sometimes the only thing people read) is appropriate. I also dispute that this fact is "decidedly unusual" - whatever that means in this context. If you read the dinosaur article it is made clear. But even if it were unusual, it is correct - so what is wrong with stating it as such (and parenthetically for that matter) as a matter of education? In fact, looking at the original first sentence "Flightless birds are birds that..." is redundant. Perhaps it should just be "Flightless birds are avian dinosaurs that..." And wow - I just looked at the Birds page. The very first line makes this point!!! RobP (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * First up, the sequence (as set out at WP:BRD) is that if an edit is challenged and reverted, discussion happens while keeping the previous status quo; so please don't jump the gun here. - Second, do you see Giant Panda saying "The panda is a bear (carnivorous mammal)" - or Komodo dragon, "The Komodo dragon is a lizard (scaled reptile)" - or Coelacanth, "The coelacanth is a fish (marine chordate)"? That's because the lede is intended to summarize the salient details of the article, not whatever related fact might occur to you when you see the word "bird". We are decidedly not going to start every one of ten thousand bird articles with the phrase "avian dinosaurs" (which is not any more relevant to flightless birds than to any other group of or individual bird). That Bird starts with that very definition should give you a hint about why it is not necessary to gum it onto wikilinks leading there. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the BRD issue. On the details of our disagreement, however, I do not think any of your comparisons hold. The panda, coelacanth, and Komodo dragon are articles on specific species. This one is on an arbitrary sub-category of a family (if that's the right term... or is it clade?) of animals. As the first sentence speaks of evolution causing this differentiation, I see nothing wrong with going the extra distance and specifying WHAT birds actually are evolutionary. Some people reading this article (maybe most) will not click on over to the bird one, as they think they know what a bird is. So they would not see the first sentence there that says "Birds (Aves), also known as avian dinosaurs..." I was simply thinking that it made sense to specify that fact here. In short, do you believe that "Flightless birds are birds..." with it's duplicated use of "bird" is better than, say, "Flightless birds are avian dinosaurs that...? And, again, keep in mind that birds starts out "Birds (Aves), also known as avian dinosaurs..."  RobP (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In short, do you believe that "Flightless birds are birds..." with it's duplicated use of "bird" is better than, say, "Flightless birds are avian dinosaurs that...? Yes, that's exactly what I believe, since that is how we introduce articles about sub-groups. If you want exactly equivalent examples:


 * "Carnivorous plants are plants that derive some or most of their nutrients (but not energy) from trapping and consuming animals..."
 * "An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location..."
 * "A microcomputer is a small, relatively inexpensive computer..."
 * "An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet that orbits a star other than the Sun..."


 * None of these contains in that sentence a further definition of the parent group, although that definition is invariably found in the first line of the parent group article ("mainly multicellular, predominantly photosynthetic eukaryotes", "the basic unit of biological classification and a taxonomic rank", "a device that can be instructed to carry out an arbitrary set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically", "an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant"). It's just how articles are constructed here.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now THAT is a good argument. Request for change withdrawn! RobP (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Other possible examples?
Hello, I noticed that it lacks to name some birds like Kagu (Rhynochetos Jubatus), Lowland Kagu (Rhynochetos Orarius), Hodgens' Waterhen (Tribonyx Hodgenorum), and Marquesas Swamphen (Porphyrio Paepae) in the list (among others). The extant Kagu (Rhynochetos Jubatus) only can glide near the ground when fleeing, gliding is not flying, Kagu lacks flying muscles anyway so it could not fly even if it wanted to. The other species are prehistoric but it's known that they couldn't fly. The only perhaps more "enigmatic" one could be Lowland Kagu (Rhynochetos Orarius), but if the other smaller living form Rhynochetos Jubatus can't fly and Rhynochetos Orarius was bigger we can assume that it couldn't fly neither, maybe it was even unable to glide but we need more fossil information of this bird as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.233.239 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on our articles and/or sources, I'd say you would be on firm ground with Hodgens' Waterhen, but not so with any of the kagus - the recent species is described as "nearly flightless", and as long as it can still glide, that seems to be correct. Making original research deductions for any of the extinct species would be even less suitable. Basically, following the sources and no extrapolation is the thing :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, talking about Lowland Kagu and Marquesas Swamphen would be a little unstable, but I dissent about the extant Kagu and think it should be added to the list, because the article says that Kagu's wings "lacks the flying musculature" so (as I said before) it could never truly fly even if it wanted to, Kagu just glides some distances near the ground. Even the IUCN Red List considers it as a flightless bird, and Kagu references on its Wikipedia article says flightless (but some others says almost flightless). I think we shuoldn't consider gliding as flying, because the bird is not a very poor flyer, it can't actually "fly", just glide (and we have to take into account that Kakapo glides too and it's flightless, but only to come back faster to the ground from a tree top or high branch, that's an example of why gliding is not flying). There's a book talking about this (https://books.google.com/books?id=Sb1IJYzXZhUC&pg=RA1-PA60&lpg=RA1-PA60&dq=%22george+Comer%22+antartica&source=web&ots=PyWGg3gGng&sig=HepQRZ8dF0IG_vZnCM-UBnBxiEw&hl=en). And there are examples of almost flightless birds that are included in the list anyway like Samoan Moorhen, Roviana Rail, and even Gough Moorher which can flutter some distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.244.37 (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that gliding is not what one can expect from a flightless bird (and I think the term "almost flightless" is correct to show the difference), but to fly and to glide are two different things but both requires wings, and Kagu's wings still (as the book says) relatively longer compared to another flightless birds'ones, like Kiwi or the extinct adzebills, which makes it able to glide but not to fly and that's why I think it would be appropriate to include it on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.244.37 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Behaviorally flightless birds?
There are a number of birds, some of which are mentioned in this article but others are not, that have clearly lost the ability to fly long distances. In most cases, they can weakly flutter short distances, but can no longer fly at great heights or long distances. Such birds include the Okinawa rail, the Galapagos rail, the Laysan duck, and the Henderson Island fruit dove. These birds show the same adaptations that flightless birds do, such as reduced flight muscles and a smaller sternum keel. Could these be considered, perhaps, "behaviorally flightless" in the sense that they show adaptations to a life without flight and their flying abilities are heavily restricted?

Hi, I think it would be an unnecessary distinction. I mean you can say almost flightless instead of behaviorally flightless for the first two as far as I know (another example could be the cuban Zapata Rail), but the latter two clearly fly better than the first ones and you can say they are simply poor flyers instead of almost flightless (I give you the examples of the Kokako and Rock Wren from New Zealand, and tinamous from South America). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.238.83 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have heard the Kokako and the Rock Wren described as "almost flightless" on occasion. And their flying abilities aren't much better than the Okinawa rail or the Henderson Island fruit dove (indeed, they might be worse), so for all we know that term is appropriate for them. As far as "almost flightless" vs "poor flyer" goes, I think it sort of depends on whether the bird in question is actually evolving towards flightlessness or not. Tinamous are an ancient group of birds, but are still no less able to fly than they were 20 million years ago. They're just poor flyers. The Laysan duck, on the other hand, evolved quite recently from a typical duck with full flying abilities, which it has largely lost. It shows a significant degree of reduction in its sternum and flight muscles compared to its closest relatives, and does seem to be in the process of losing its ability to fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.66.196 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the New Zealand families of wattlebirds and wrens are, indeed, poor flyers but the members of the first one (Kokako, Saddleback, and the extinct Huia) are more capable flyers than the members of the last one. I read in one occasion that the Rock Wren only flies approximately 10 meters and near the ground (the Rifleman too), and I wouldn't be surprised considering that 3 (three) species of 6 (six) New Zealand Wrens were completely flightless. Based on that you can say the Acanthisittidae family extant members are almost flightless or semi flightless, but the Wattlebirds are more able to fly apparently so the mentioned distinction would be inadequate for these. I mean, in almost every information about them (and videos) it's stated they fly not very long distances but those clearly look longer compared to what a New Zealand Wren can do and Callaeidae members still being able to reach tall trees. Besides, almost all New Zealand Wrens are terrestrial so it wouldn't be surprising that they had shorter wings and less developed flight anatomy compared to Wattlebirds which are arboreal (but we have to note that they sometimes go down to the ground to feed). A good example of an almost flightless bird is Gough Island Moorhen (Gallinula Comeri). Now talking about tinamous, they are poor flyers but they fly better than Kokako or New Zealand Wrens (I have seen them personally for years). Laysan Duck is a poor flyer and ,perhaps, its flight is comparable with tinamous one and the species can easily be on the process of turning flightless considering that Hawaiian Islands had several species of flightless Anatidae members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.238.83 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)