Talk:Pelagornis sandersi

Does this need a separate entry?
I know we're all super-exited about this new species, but shouldn't it be part of the existing Pelagornis article? Hypnotosov (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All species are notable enough for stand-alone articles per long standing consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this so I'll defer to your knowledge, I did add a reference on the other article so it is no longer a widowed entry. However if you go to this page first it looks as if sandersi is the only species in the genus Pelagornis, what would be the best way to rectify this? Hypnotosov (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First thing would be to list the other species on Pelagornis proper.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I would expect a species article to talk only about the species, not other related species in the same genus.  Similarly it doesn't talk about other members of Pelagornithidae or Odontopterygiformes.  This is a species article, not a genus, family, or order article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When I originally wrote my comment the article didn't have a proper taxo box and the species wasn't referenced in Pelagornis proper, so my concerns are actually mostly covered now. Hypnotosov (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be merged to the genus article, per Wikipedia paleo project guidelines. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Geological period???
Shouldn't the geological period the fossils came from be mentioned somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.234.24.10 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe The BBC claims the fossil to be 25million years old, fox 25-28 million. I don't know how this translates into geological periods. Martin 4 5 1  19:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 28 to 25 million years ago would place it in the Chattian epoch of the Late Oligocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Flying bird
How did the scientists find out it was a flying bird? Since it is extinct and we only have the fossil skeleton? I'd like to see that in the article.. Jayakumar RG (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they are trained vertebrate paleontologists and recognize a bird when they see one. 50.111.3.17 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Pronouns
The pronoun use in this article is confusing, especially when comparing different birds. eg. "In this regard, it supplants the former largest known flying bird, Argentavis magnificens (which is also extinct). Its wingspan, without feathers, was about 4.0 m (13.1 ft), while that of P. sandersi was about 1.2 m (4 ft) longer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.254.236 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of problem all readers of Wikipedia are invited to fix themselves. Be bold!  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wingspan confusion
First sentence: P. sandersi's wingspan was 6.1m to 7.4m. "Without feathers" not mentioned at all yet.

Later: A. magnificens' wingspan was 4.0m. "Without feathers" specified.

Finally: P. sandersi's wingspan was 1.2m longer than A. magnificens'. "Without feathers" ambiguous.

Can we reconcile the different figures here, please? Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The the range in the first estimate is a combination of the conservative and generous estimates, implied with feathers.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some news articles say the wingspan of A. magnificens is somewhat hard to estimate as there is very little fossil material available. And so does Wikipedia's Argentavis article (which mentions "5.09 to 6.07 m (16.7 to 19.9 ft)"), considerably more than the 4m mentioned here. Even if that difference is due to in/excluding feathers (seems unlikely?), it should be spelled out more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.91.12 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is that, by comparison with complete wings of relatives, each bony wing of Argentavis would be 1.8m, this was estimated by Mayr and Rubelar (2010), Ksepka (2014) doesn't explicitly replicate it in the paper but does mention 4m bony wingspan in interviews and his estimated of 5.1-6.1 for its total wingspan (including feathers) are congruent with it. The larger estimates for the total wingspan of Argentavis in the 7-8m range would indicate leading primary feathers 80-120% the length of the bony wing, in contrast to just ~33% in living soaring birds, something not possible not only for being such a huge jump in proportions but because relative feather length shows negative allometry with body mass. As it is the sentence is confusing to some degree yes, I will change it but, there's no wiggle room, unless Argentavis was aberrant beyond recognition as a soaring bird, its bony and total wingspans would be behind Pelagornis sandersi and P. chilensis. Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Image
Is it really appropriate to have a picture of a different species in this article? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Description?
Would somebody familiar with the literature please add a description of the animal (or at least of its fossil remains) to the article? I don't have a good academic source, but this blog points out that the creature is "characterized by bizarre tooth-like bony projections of the jaws." That's a very interesting fact not mentioned in the present article. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The tooth-like bony projections in the jaws are features found in all members of the order, actually.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Autochthony writes. Mr. Fink is undoubtedly correct, but a minor clause, highlighting this - for lay-folk - should not, it is suggested, be too great an imposition for folk seeking to broaden knowledge. may I suggest that readers consider this more generally - not just o the Wiki, but also I your daily social media posts, if they generally go to non-specialists? Thanks. Auto wrote 2046Z, 20151229  86.143.95.121 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Bigger than Argentavis?
I know that the news articles declared P. sandersi as the 'largest bird ever' but looking at the studies, the claim seems very dubious. The claim is based on wing span estimate ranging between 6.1 and 7.4 metres. In the article Size and Locomotion in Teratorns (Campbell & Tonni) Argentavis wing span estimates range from 5.7 and 8.3 metres. So it seems like P. sandersi might have had wing span roughly equal to Argentavis, but probably not very much longer. However in terms of mass, there is no contest: Argentavis is estimated as twice as heavy as P. sandersi. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have read Ksepka (2014) too, he addresses past estimates of Argentavis, basically, those are extrapolations using its estimated mass, not its fossils. Ksepka, using complete teratorn wigns, estimated the bony wingspan at ~4m, from this much more solid base, he estimated a total wingspan of 5.1-5.6m using the same equations that got him 6.1-6.4m for P. sandersi and 5.7-6.1m by scaling from the feather proportions of a modern relative/analogue, the same done on P. sandersi resulted in 7.4m. By any reasonable estimate P. sendersi had a noticeably larger bony wingspan, which means any estimate using bone/wing proportions will always put P. sandersi ahead.


 * Estimates over 7m for Argentavis require leading primary lengths over 1.5m (or over 2m, longer than the entire bony wing in the 8m estimates), which according to Ksepka, "contrasts sharply with both ratios seen in extant terrestrial soaring birds and the observation that primary length exhibits negative allometry with increasing body size." In fact, this wasn't the first time that a fossil-based bony wing estimate is presented for Argentavis, Myar and Rubilar (2010), in their description of the very complete Pelagornis chilensis, estimated the bony wing of Argentavis at 1.83m, shorter than that of P. chilensis at 2.1m. So when in comes to bony wingspans Argentavis falls behind not one but two Pelagornis species, however, it does seem like Argentavis would be the heavier of the three so I will edit that section to be more accurate. Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Pelagornis sandersi into Pelagornis. P. sandersi may be the most well-known species of Pelagornis, but it died out in the Oligocene, long before the Pleistocene, usually considered as the boundary for species article. This has already been discussed (see previous discussions), but the last opinion on this subject date back from 2017, necessitating new opinions. This article should be, like all other non-Quaternary species belonging to extinct genera, merged into its genus article. There isn't clear criteria for species relevance, but :

- is Pelagornis sandersi more noteworthy than its own genus ? On Google Trends, at least, Pelagornis sandersi seems largely less represented than its genus.

- is its assignment to Pelagornis at least questionable ? No, not anymore.

- is it a Pleistocene species of a well-known extant genus of animal, or a close relative to said genus ? No, it died out during the Oligocene.Larrayal (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge –Per reasons stated above. Larrayal (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - while the tag was removed due to a missing merge section, the very first section here is about that already. The article is pretty short, and much of the info goes for the genus overall, so a merge would be easy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Per most of the reasons above. There isn't much information in the article that would merit it needing its own article.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge From my comment on Talk:Pelagornis "The only real notable thing about P. sandersi is the size, and that is already included in the Pelagornis article, so it can just be elaborated upon and the two articles can be merged." Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears that there is unanimous consensus to merge these articles together. I think you have a better grasp on the actual information, but I'll be happy to assist with any of the technical "how to merge" details. Joyous! | Talk 01:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)