Talk:Ornithology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zyv2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled edit
I am expert. I specialise in Geese and Ducks and would like to help improve your Ornithology article, particulary with respects to Geese and Ducks. George 22:03, 30 Sept 2006 Ornithological observations can be quite droll, but given the right author and perspective, the study of birds can come alive. The writings of both Annie Dillard and John James Audobon attest to each author’s natural affinity for birding. A passage from Audobon’s Ornithological Biographies, describing the patterns of a great number of pigeons, bears a striking parallelism to a passage from Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Each account varies in certain aspects of style and tone while agreeing on others. However, after examination, the bird patterns described in one may very well have been identical to those of the other. The interesting comparisons and contrasts between each author’s methods of describing the birds are reflective of the effects of the birds on each author. John Audobon and Annie Dillard’s rendering of birds contain some notable comparisons as well as some prominent distinctions. First, each account gives evidence of the excellent observational abilities of the author with specific and copious commentary by each on the patterns and behaviors of birds. However, equally as numerous are the differences in style between the two. For instance, the methods of observation clearly affect each author’s description. Audobon’s opening line, characteristic of most scientific accounts, describes the setting of his inspections, both time and place. Nowhere in Dillard’s piece is location described (accept the title). This shows the more technical nature of Audobon’s writing as opposed to Dillard’s artistry. Also, each writer’s use of metaphor is peculiar to his and her specific voice. Audobon’s metaphors and similes are short and scientific in nature, describing appearance instead of symbolism. “The air was literally filled with Pigeons; the light of noon-day was obscured as by an eclipse; the dung fell in spots, not unlike melting flakes of snow.” Distinctively, the extended analogy of Dillard’s composition portrays the beauty of the bird’s actions. Also, Dillard makes it evident that she is familiar with the craft of weaving. “They seemed to unravel as they flew, lengthening in curves, like a loosened skein… Each individual bird bobbed and knitted.” This achieves a more emotional effect than Audobon’s erudite comparisons. In addition, Audobon’s exact figures (“163 [dots] had been made in twenty-one minutes”) contribute to his mathematical description while Dillard’s approximations (“they flew directly over my head for half an hour”) reflect her opinion that exact numbers are irrelevant. The appendage to Dillard’s passage incorporates an aspect that is nonexistent in Audobon’s piece. While the introspective reflection logically follows her imaginative account, it sharply contrasts with the strictly informative description of Audobon’s passage. There are numerous similarities and differences between Dillard and Audobon’s descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.87.195 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The "links" issue
This certainly needs sorting out. It seems quite odd that there are some links to organisations and not to others. Would something like a dmoz link at the bottom to ornithology sites help to tidy up the article a little. Equally the publications section seems to be advertising for some publications? -- Herby talk to me 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Birdwatching
Should birdwatching garner an explicit mention somewhere under "Popular ornithology"? Circeus (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Shyamal (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback
A MOS issue is naming of headings and avoiding repeating the article name in the heading title. eg. rename the 3 subheadings under history:


 * Antiquity
 * (something sciencey?)
 * Birdwatching

Remove 'ornithological' from 'techniques' heading.

Others I'll have to think about. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have attempted another alternative. Made the other changes as well. Shyamal (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a good choice of article and could be a really fascinating FA. I get this feeling it could/should be alot bigger and more comprehensive but I don't know at the moment what else should be in it. I'll have to think on this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The science of ornithology has a long history and the study of birds has helped in the development of numerous concepts in mainstream biology. - the 2nd part of this sentence is a bit vague. Being more specific would help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Birds have interested humans since very early times, and stone age drawings of birds are possibly the oldest indications. - oddly constrcuted sentence which ends rather abruptly. I know what you mean and it is a point which needs making and I too am puzzled how to phrase it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewritten a bit. The lead summaries will need some skilled copyediting. Perhaps a request on the League of CEs may help. Shyamal (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, not yet. Wait till we're satisfied the article is comprehensive first. Otherwise you end up overrunning nice smooth text with new stuff. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Zebra finch genome
The draft genome has been publicly available since last summer, so it's not merely ongoing, even if there doesn't seem to be a journal article yet. Narayanese (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Books on the history of ornithology
I added the reference to a fine and in my opinion highly relevant recent book on the history of the field: Valerie Chansigaud (2009): History of Ornithology. New Holland, London, ISBN 978 1 84773 433 4. But User:MrOllie deleted it. I'd be most grateful for an explanation. Ornithologician (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I feel it would be good to add an earlier classic book of this type: Erwin Stresemann (1975). Ornithology from Aristotle to the Present. Harvard University Press. Ornithologician (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, while Stresemann is mentioned in the article, there is not a single citation to his work. Unless there are objections, I'd like to add the sources above. Ornithologician (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You used it to reference the statement 'the science of ornithology has a long history', a trivial reference to an obvious statement. It seemed to me that the insertion was more about adding an artificial reference to the book than about adding and referencing useful new information. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stresemann's books is a good source but it is not used here, a lot of the history there was already documented by Newton and others. So while something new may be cited, it is currently not needed as a support reference. A separate "Other sources" section could be added. As for the book by Valerie who is active on the French Wikipedia, the focus I believe is predominantly on art. May be useful for developing some other article on natural history art. Shyamal (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the point about Chansigaud. But Newton (Ian, not Alfred) is cited three times; the earlier work of Stresemann not at all. I am afraid this does not really look like a balanced article to me. Ornithologician (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... Not balanced because it doesn't reference the book you think it should? Find something new that it adds to the article (i.e. beside what's already referenced) and add it in.  Otherwise, the article is already well-referenced.  Yes, it's using somebody else's book, rather than Newton's.  But unless Newton is saying something else — which isn't already included in the article — not using the Newton reference is hardly unbalanced!  MeegsC | Talk 11:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean Stresemann's book, not Newton's. Wouldn't you agree that absence of citations to one of the century's preeminent ornithologists makes the article unbalanced? Are you saying we should always just cite the most recent textbooks and ignore the pioneers? For now I put it in the rudimentary Stresemann article... Ornithologician (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not make the article unbalanced unless Newton has some point of view which is not being properly reported. - MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Put it in 'Other Sources' if you like, but far better just pick the best facts that it contains and the article doesn't, add them and cite to the relevant pages in Stresemann, and there'll be light instead of heat for once. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with History of ornithology
4 years after its creation, this article is still duplicated and vastly outshined by Ornithology, which has much more thorough coverage. At the time of its creation, the creators invoked WP:DEMOLISH to avert a merge/deletion, but 4 years later WP:REALPROBLEM and WP:PUTEFFORT seem more appropriate (in essay terms, the "house" is already built, and History of ornithology is a cardboard box with a door drawn on it). It makes little sense to direct the reader to an impoverished subtopic article when the primary article already explains the topic in depth. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a lame effort as it stands, though as far as WP:PUTEFFORT is concerned, it does scrape over the bar (there are citations). As for being a WP:REALPROBLEM, it's real enough, and could fill large textbooks, so an article is justified: if well-written it would be far longer than the current (quite nice) section in Ornithology. For example, pioneers Bewick (ah, he's in a later section...) and Montagu are not even mentioned - you will easily find others - so an additional history is readily justified. Who knows, maybe I'll make a start on it. As always, we'll do better to work on articles than talk pages. See you there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Completed the merger. If you have any questions regarding it, ask me. Ljgua124 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts about study classification
First, a disclaimer: I'm not an ornithologist. I'm not a biologist. I'm not even a scientist. As such, I won't feel very offended if you decide to take what I say here with grains of salt--I'd advise you to, in fact. Nonetheless, I believe this is a point worth mentioning:

In order to reach the ultimate conclusion that I want to share with you, I'm first going to need to construct a very boring and truistic series of axioms and deductions thereof. Bear with me, please.

1. All birds are dinosaurs.

2. All dinosaurs are reptiles.

3. Ergo, all birds are reptiles.

Don't worry, that's not my actual point.

1. Ornithology is the scientific study of birds.

2. All birds are reptiles.

3. Herpetology is the scientific study of reptiles.

4. Not all reptiles are birds.

5. Ergo, ornithology is a sub-discipline of herpetology.

This article states that ornithology is a branch of zoology--and that's not incorrect. Zoology encompasses all animals, which includes reptiles--and, therefore, birds.

But, leaving it at that isn't quite descriptive enough--to me, at least. We're missing an opportunity to disseminate additional information that is relevant to the subject, I would argue.

Now, I know the term 'reptile' is virtually meaningless, from a standpoint of systematics--however, in that light, the term 'reptile' is generally taken to be synonymous with 'diapsid'--a classification for organisms which have two temporal fenestrae in their crania. To put it in less fanciful terms, it just means that they have two gaps (excluding mouths and whatnot) in the back of their skulls. All of what we typically call 'reptiles' have this trait in common--or, if they do not, are descended from organisms which did.

With all that out if the way, the truly salient point here can be divulged: All birds are diapsids, too--as are/were all dinosaurs.

Some states actually require one to be a licensed herpetologist in order to own certain birds--mostly ratite birds, like emus, as I recall.

As such, I believe we should edit this article to where it sheds a proper amount of light on this little detail.

Oh, and sorry for taking so long to get that across. Ghost Lourde (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

first photograph on the page
The first photograph on the page should make the article look great, but this one doesn't do that for me. I think we should get a better, or even a more ornithology-based, such as the image of a woodpecker being measured, photo to be used on this page; it would motivate people to contribute, and to read this page. VarikValefor (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * An excellent suggestion. Shyamal (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Overly Eurocentric History
This article completely ignores Arabic, Syriac & Persian works dedicated to birds -which I'm trying to research with little success so far.

This assertion about Frederick II of Hohenstaufen in the article is not reflected in the reference, and is likely false:

"The studies that he undertook ... were published in 1240 as De Arte Venandi cum Avibus ... considered one of the earliest studies on bird behaviour, and the first work known to include illustrations of birds."

For one, most sources date this work to 1250, furthermore did he actually do the studies referred to? I'm also quite certain many earlier Arabic works were illustrated, nor is it clear that the original version of De Arte Venandi cum Avibus was illustrated (as opposed to the famous Vatican copy of 1260) -the reference says it is doubtful. Also earlier Norman kings in Sicily had adopted falconry from the original Arab population of that Island long before Frederick was raised there (as evidenced by the works De Arte Bersandi (of Guicennas), Dancus Rex and Guillelmus Falconarius). De Arte Venandi cum Avibus is mostly an abridged version of the work known as De Scientia Venandi per Aves or Liber Moaminus or Moamín translated by one Master Theodore of Antioch of an unknown Arabic work for Frederick between 1240 to 1241, combined with a work simply called Falkenbuch (likely a German synopsis of the earlier Norman works). Note that De Scientia Venandi per Aves was also illustrated, and based on extant copies, was much more popular than De Arte Venandi cum Avibus which only gained attention in the 18th century (as the reference indicates). Note also that other translations of the De Scientia Venandi per Aves were prepared in a number of Italian dialects around the same time. The original Arabic book is lost, but it is thought to be largely based on a work of al-Ghassani of the 9th century.

Well known ornithological/falconry works I've found so far (all earlier than Frederick):

--Kitāb al-ṭuyūr; كتاب الطيور; Book of Birds a.k.a. Kitab dawari at-tayr; Book of Birds of Flight [early 800s] (basis for De Scientia Venandi per Aves; published centuries before Fred, with at least some editions being illustrated, I believe)

--Kitāb al-mutawakkilī; Book of Mutawakkil (a caliph) [800s] (basis for the Spanish work Libro de los animales que Caçan [1252])

--Kitāb al-bayzarah; كتاب البيزرة; Book of Birds of Prey [1201] (Bāznāmeh; بازنامه in Persian)

--Kitāb manāfi‘ al-ṭayr; كتاب منافع الطير; Book of the Uses of Birds [770s-780s]

--Kitāb al-Ḥayawān; Book on Animals; Liber de animalibus a.k.a. Abbreviatio Avicennae, in the Ṭabīʿiyyāt (Physics) in the Kitāb al-Šifāʾ (Book of Healing) [1027] (commentary/update of Ibn Sīnā on Aristotle's work, itself only translated from Arabic to Latin in the 1220s -a very large proportion of the Kitāb al-Šifā concerns the biology of birds. Note Aristotle's work is also called the Kitāb al-Ḥayawān.)

--Kitāb Ṭabāʾiʿ al-Ḥayawān; Book of animal physics? [1100s]

--Butyrum sapientiae; Cream of Wisdom [1220s?] (a lengthy encyclopaedia in Syriac by Abū l-Faraǧ Grigorios Bar ʿEḇrāyā (Barhebraeus) with much on zoology, never fully translated)

I will rewrite the paragraph on Emperor Fred's manual using the provided reference, but someone more knowledgeable of Arabic science should look into this.

Leo  86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look forward to your additions. Shyamal (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. Admittedly needs more sources, but for a few days I've been collating info on the subject simply to use to find online classic Arabic texts for more info on specific birds and by now the origins of each fact is fuzzy, but most stuff came from the (digital) Qatar National Library and the references listed on these subjects in the Italian version of Wikipedia, which for some reason is better in this case than the English stuff.


 * I must also add that the article is not only eurocentric, it is also anglocentric: lots of important German, Dutch, Portuguese and Russian works are not mentioned for example, while lots of rather unimportant British guys get superfluous pride of place. Guess the jingoism goes with the language. I also wish I could learn more about Turkic, Chinese or Indian works here.


 * Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Do consider registering yourself - which makes it possible for you keep track of discussions and you could also add value to discussions at WP:BIRD Shyamal (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Birdlore = Ornithology?
suggests that Birdlore is the same as ornithology and wishes this to be included in the lead on the basis of an entry on wiktionary - I would suggest that this is not appropriate, most certainly not for the lead. In modern parlance birdlore would be a component of ethno-ornithology. Lore is most certainly not the same as science - and birdlore would therefore be more like folklore about birds. Here is a more typical example of birdlore - https://www.ru.ac.za/media/rhodesuniversity/content/corylibrary/documents/Bird-Lore.pdf  Shyamal (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Birdlore" is a rarely used word, invented by William Barnes (see MEU ). It is rightly mentioned at Linguistic purism in English, but doesn't merit mention in this article, certainly not in the lead. William Avery (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Etymology
I'm no expert at anything, and admit I am unfamiliar with etymology as a word. So, this is what I perceive as an informational dead end. How does Etymology tie in? Synonymy? Is ornithology accidentally used instead of Etymology? Or is it assumed folks should know what Etymology is? (if so a repeat and or link to a definition would do justice here in my opinion. If I knew I wouldn't be reading but editing dierectly instead. A teacher once said something that I always take into account while composing. I think it may have Plato and a loose interpretation at best.. "to teach well, a teacher must assume the student knows nothing about anything". The established collegiate attitude of it being a student's job to be prepared falls quite short of being much help to anyone not looking for a degree, but just a casual expansion of thier knowledge instead. Those who live the college life tend to forget this I think, Especially proffessors who are used being able to demand students learn what they choose. Im not a student in that student in that sense. Most readers here are not either I'd guess. Just food for thought. Thanks for sharing what you have already.

Etymology The word "ornithology" comes from the late 16th-century Latin ornithologia meaning "bird science" from the Greek ὄρνις ornis ("bird") and λόγος logos ("theory, science, thought").[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.166 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Being an encyclopaedia, the origin of the term or word that the article is about is actually quite relevant. Being an encyclopaedia, any term that someone has never encountered before can always be looked up. See Etymology. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

History section is still Eurocentric and Anglocentric
The first half of the Early knowledge and study section is solid. More works from, say, India and China would be good, but I know from experience how hard it can be to find sources and literature on specific topics in those areas (at least, for a US American with access to the local state university's library).

The Eurocentrism and Anglocentrism start ramping up quickly, though. It goes from "a bunch of stuff from across Eurasia" at the very start of Early knowledge to "detailed treatises from all around the Mediterranean" for the next bit of Early knowledge to "pretty much just stuff from central and northern Europe and the US" for the rest of Early knowledge to "just Germany, Britain, the US, and three guys from elsewhere in Europe" in Scientific studies to "just the UK and US" in Rise to popularity.

I'm hardly an expert on digging up sources, but I might be able to do something at some point, and hopefully someone else can help out as well. RedKnight7146 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)