Talk:Northern harrier

Northern and Hen Harrier
Please note that the Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius) of America is now being regarded as a distinct species; the DNA differs about 0.8 %. See for example Robert E. Simmons: Harriers of the World (2000). I recategorized the pictures on commons, please check if they still suit the article.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If primarily based on a DNA difference of 0.8% (which really is nothing, regardless if mt or n), we're well outside the realm of the biological species concept, which (still) is the basis for major taxonomical works in birds. This has been discussed before, but in general taxonomical changes that are outside those recognized by major checklists need strong evidence for us to even consider following them. A difference of 0.8% is not strong evidence for splitting them if following the BSC; it is evidence for keeping them together. Field guides and other popular literature commonly recommend novel taxonomic treatments (for an extreme example, check König & Weick's Owls of the World), but they rarely provide hard scientific evidence. For that reason alone, they are rarely followed by major taxonomical authorities. The fact that Harriers of the World was published almost 10 years ago, and not even one major taxonomic authority has followed the split says it all. I'm not saying it couldn't happen; just that the above quoted evidence doesn't make the cut. Please also note that commons usually use the most conservative taxonomy because it otherwise rapidly can mess up the situation for the various wikipedias. For example, the commons link in the English article now only leads to photos of the European and Asian population, but not the North American population. • Rabo³  • 21:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Beringian splits are always controversial, and even if this is correct because of the genetic variation—remember that undoubtedly valued species can have a genetic difference of nil—this probably will not be considered for some time. &mdash;innotata 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without more background, we only have the numbers. As such, 1.5-2% are standard quoted minimum. While there are numerous cases of certain species pairs with a lower divergence, nothing in the above (e.g. comparable divergence among sympatric relatives) indicates that this is the case here. Furthermore, a genetic difference of zero is not possible between two species (a few old claims of this have long since been discounted; sampling is to blame, e.g. only mtDNA in close relatives with known hybridization events). PSC species cannot, by default, have no difference, and BSC species, although not necessarily monophyletic, will still have a level of divergence. If you are aware of any animal species pair where adequate sampling has shown no genetic divergence, I would be very interested in hearing about them. • Rabo³  • 05:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Marsh hawk
There is currently a redirect from 'marsh hawk' to the hen harrier article. I have never heard that name used for a hen harrier. It appears that an earlier hen harrier article was split into two articles in 2003, hen harrier and northern harrier. A redirect was created from marsh hawk to hen harrier. I think this was incorrect, and that redirect should be to northern harrier. I propose making that change, plus deleting the Redirect template currently at the top of the hen harrier article. Comments? Masato.harada (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. Reason: Wanted to solicit knowledgeable folk before suggesting OP go to WP:RfD. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Masato.harada Support - Marsh hawk should definitely redirect to northern harrier. The AOU made the change in the 1982. grungaloo (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Marsh hawk should go to the northern harrier page. Craigthebirder (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed it. Masato.harada (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)