Talk:Bird

Second paragraph first sentence is lame

I know 50% of this talk page is this argument but the sentence “Birds are feathered theropod dinosaursand constitute the only known living dinosaurs.” reads to me as being overly pedantic and like someone really thinks their a special little boy for knowing birds are in the same group as dinosaur. top 3 things I hate about this sentence

1. 3 the word feathered should be deleted, many/most theropods were feathered and even if they weren’t feathered it’s a physical description not a cladistic one so shouldn’t be here
2. 2 it says birds are dinosaurs twice
3. 1 “Birds are dinosaurs” without any qualifiers isn’t actually common phrasing in literature. The second sentence says “birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term” which is a good way to phrase that information and how most ornithologists would probably phrase the fact that birds are cladisticly dinosaurs. The words “bird” and “dinosaur” are common terms first and cladistic terms second. The article on Mammals doesn’t describe them as “milk producing fishes” because that would be silly. The information that birds are dinosaurs and reptiles are 2 super similar pieces of information but the reptile sentence reads like it was written by someone familiar with bird science and the dinosaur sentence written by some pedantic dinosaur fanboy. If reptile gets qualifiers why doesn’t dinosaur?

but anyway the word “feathered” should be deleted 97.113.57.76 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the general sentiment expressed above, and I would as a minimum add "cladistically". However, "feathered" is correct in this context. The sense is "feathered (theropod dinosaurs)", not "(feathered theropod) dinosaurs", and actually implies, via the qualification, that theropod dinosaurs were not mostly feathered. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ya but “feathered” feels like an arbitrary qualifier, it’s a physical description not a genetic one 97.113.57.76 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It is an adequate and notable descriptor, please see the page to which it is linked Feathered dinosaur. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s correct, birds do have feathers. Birds having feathers is mentioned in the first sentence. I think the sentence might imply that theropods do not have feathers or that there’s a branch of the theropod lineage that is feathered and one that isn’t. I find it unclear what about birds the word feathered is trying to teach readers. 97.113.57.76 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a sentence that might have been designed by committee, which it effectively was after many discussions over how much emphasis to put on the birds are dinosaurs. I think this is debatable because dinosaur can be used in both its common language sense excluding birds (just as reptiles excludes birds) or to refer to the clade Dinosauria. I think the lede need only mention that birds are derived from reptiles. Which ones are a detail that can be explained properly later in the article in the context of their evolution. Most people coming to this article will want to read more about the familiar feathered animals that fly or the big ones that don't and will be put off if it starts over technically. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is going against the sense of the previous discussions which had as a major topic 'should the fact that birds are dinosaurs be in the lead paragraph or lower in the lead?' Many editors think it should be a major point in the lead paragraph. The wording under discussion here is already a compromise. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you talking like you aren’t the one that pushed for that sentence in the previous discussions? The discussions above were very mixed. 97.113.57.76 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If anything I think it should be in the lead paragraph, but the second paragraph was an adequate work-around compromise. I "pushed" for nothing more than factual coverage, which the page now conveys. I have no idea how many and how far back discussions went, but Wikipedia editors keep pages on their watchlists and come by when the topic refers back to other discussions. Were you, as a named editor, involved in earlier discussions? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I was not involved. I am IP because I was drunk when I posted and forgot I wasn’t logged in on my phone. From someone reading the pages opinion is diverse and I’ve noticed just a few editors being super vocally pro dinosaur vs many less vocal people on the other side. I don’t think it’s good form to say that you won the previous discussion when there was a variety of opinions.

That aside why do you feel that birds being dinosaur should not be qualified with the word “cladisticly” 97.113.57.76 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's pro-dinosaur, the established fact that birds are dinosaurs deserves mention in the lead and the disagreement was as to where. Nobody won, a compromise works for everyone and no one, the essence of compromise and consensus. And no need to qualify the factual representation, the qualifier in this instance would be "avian" dinosaur. Apologies for thinking you may have been involved in past discussions, if I recall correctly without rereading the comments a couple of editors seemed determined not to call birds dinosaurs so was checking if you were one of the past participants. I appreciate the explanation, editing-while-drunk or high is a thing and not many come right out and say it, kudos to you and to honest discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The relation to dinosaurs is important but I think that fact should should be integrated into the sentence about how they are reptiles (i think the connection to reptiles and crocodiles is more important anyway, dinosaurs are hella dead). Plus I think the first sentence is jarring in an otherwise very well written article. “Dinosaur” is a paraphyletic grouping like reptile, fish, monkey, procaryote, invertebrate and many other valid terms in biology which include all but one taxon. The term dinosaur alone is almost always used to refer to the creatures that died 66 million years ago excluding the one group that survived. The sentence below says “birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term” because that’s how you have to discuss a paraphyletic term. Saying “birds are reptiles” alone would not be fully accurate because the term reptile usually excludes birds. 97.113.57.76 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Birds are not related to Dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not a paraphyletic group, they are only a paraphyletic group if you exclude birds, which you shouldn't be doing and which the phrase you're objecting do doesn't do, so the problem you are trying to address doesn't exist in the first place. No one should understand the term "dinosaurs" in its obsolete bird-excluding sense and this phrase simply helps spread the knowledge to the people who somehow still avoid it. 2A03:32C0:A:462A:1:0:B66E:EB6A (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaur is really obviously paraphyletic, nobody is arguing that birds are not dinosaurs in a cladistic sense. The term dinosaur almost exclusively refers to non avian dinosaurs because the term predates modern cladistics, just like reptile. Birds are equally dinosaurs and reptiles, two terms that are usually not used to describe them. Dinosaur being paraphyletic is not an anachronism, it is useful to have terms that are not monophyletic. Are modern mammals "Stem mammals"? I understand Being needlessly pedantic is important to dinosaur nerd, but it makes the term dinosaur less useful for it to necessarily mean birds aswell. Always beleive in hope (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Modern mammals are not stem mammals by definition. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggested rewording:

"Based on cladistic taxonomy, birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs (and therefore the only living dinosaurs); therefore, they are also reptiles, with their closest living relatives being crocodilians. They descended from Avialae, a lineage of feathered theropods that first appeared in the Late Jurassic with members such as Archaeopteryx."

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The commonest use of the term "reptile" now seems to be for the paraphyletic group (there's nothing wrong with ordinary language terms being used for paraphyletic groups), and this is also how the article Reptile uses the term. So I would say:

"Based on cladistic taxonomy, birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs (and therefore the only living dinosaurs); their closest living relatives are crocodilians. They descended from Avialae, a lineage of feathered theropods that first appeared in the Late Jurassic with members such as Archaeopteryx."

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this wording. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this would do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not as written. There is no need for the words "a group of". Why would the three of you want to add that? And why is "cladistic taxonomy" needed as a descriptor instead of just stating the fact, as the long-term and talk-page discussed wording has done. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Because (a) it's important to communciate that birds are a nested group because of the common, incorrect assumption that birds = dinosaurs, and (b) without "cladistic taxonomy" we'll get into this argument every month here with someone who doesn't understand why their vernacular understanding doesn't line up with the page. I'd rather be precise and not waste any more time here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

A "nested group" or "group" seems like extra wording to say the same thing. That birds are theropod dinosaurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an example of a discussion that comes up regularly in several contexts. "Dinosaur" has two senses. Dinosaur_CL as used in common, non-scientific language, refers to a paraphyletic group that does not include birds. Dinosaur_SL as used in scientific language, refers to a clade that does include birds. Birds are dinosaurs_SL, they are not dinosaurs_CL. All we are asking is that the sentence makes it clear that dinosaur_SL is meant. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Change in second paragraph first sentence

“Birds are feathered theropod dinosaursand constitute the only known living dinosaurs. Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians.” Change to “Birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, being theropod dinosaurs with their closest living relatives are the crocodilians.” I think that’s a better summary of the article text and less jarring in tone. If you think that change is dumb and bad respond so I won’t be aloud to make the edit request lol. If you think the change is good also respond. Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The long-term sentence seems fine as is. I take your "less jarring" to mean that people are not used to realizing that birds are actually dinosaurs, living dinosaurs. That's one reason, aside from accuracy, why the fact could actually be near the start of the lead paragraph, to notify readers of the factual information encyclopedically as soon as possible so as not to "jar" them when it is explained further in the second paragraph. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

By jarring I mean that the sentence is written bad. The reptile, crocodile and dinosaur relationships are super similar information but the article currently reads to me like “I fucking love DINOSAURS, but anyway the phylogenetic relationships birds have…” when I feel like dinosaur, reptile and crocodilian should be treated with equal weight, dinosaur is only a more important piece of information to to dinosaur scientist, not to bird scientists. Since you disagree that the article should be written well I will not submit an edit request. I am the person who posted last time (shocking I know) I do think that me and you should have a duel with like those light up light sabers or something. If you don’t like the edit I suggested it is YOUR responsibility (Randy Kyrn) to change that sentence to something better. If you think that sentence is the best that the largest encyclopedia of human knowledge can muster then you must thing humanity is pathetic. Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see you're getting personal and want to fight with light sabers. May I point out that I didn't do, or fund, any of the discoveries and research that led to birds being designated biologically as avian dinosaurs. To me this interesting factual information about birds being the last living dinosaurs is first sentence lead worthy. Since dinosaurs are encyclopedically divided between avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs, leading with reptiles or crocodiles in the second paragraph would miss that major division point, as reptiles are not divided between avian and non-avian. In fact, please read the first few sentences of Wikipedia's reptile page where it separates out birds from the general definition of reptile (something else I had nothing to do with). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Old estimate of extinctions - wrong and innacurate number of extinctions.

There has been a new accepted study that showed that in fact 750-1800 species did not go extinct since the end of the Pleistocene or the start of the colonisation of the Pacific islands by humans. The old estimate is from 2006 from a book written by another ornithologist that has been recently disproven.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/68968197/Fromm_Meiri_2021_extinct_birds-libre.pdf?1630439727=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DBig_flightless_insular_and_dead_Characte.pdf&Expires=1682519576&Signature=fKZkPpWtxHc0nRn~NthlfF8O-EYBwelm5aHyHgpOVhoIgm2Q1mbsOsqCDBsO5zrCSBjz4odbPHmodeDWHZtdEzsnmyj25QlnMx9~bHbrxlu5LchsnBto7bG9FnGSivQSOo4AQnGLrME3CyveBwlFhz5VtDyY~xPN4uC8X2ckH3ofCx3sIaM~FajzzOQK10DrsL8rRZFm4DASOnztk0CNG767II5IzSY5N6-oSSMM5v0ewLdmY30fl5NJoyJDfTSlNIAdXzSfh-87J2vIZrQxp0ueHG-I71I8L~IaPPBBIb8HocBio~oRiTIkOAvjIlmQP~SU6VusiTIc5j4bjn3MAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

This is the new study that stated that only around 4% of all birds that ever existed went extinct since 50,000 years ago, no mentions of thousands of birds extinct on islands, and it is a supported study by many scientists. It also says that at least 469 extinctions have occurred since 50,000 years ago (the end of the pleistocene), most of them large flightless birds on islands, yes, they claim that there could be more waiting to be found in fossils but it is very highly unlikely that the number is above 100 more. Also only 48 bird species have gone extinct on continents (including australia) the rest are only on islands. I suggest updating the information with this new source and deleting the old and erroneous information. It is highly unlikely the number of extinct species is above 4-5% of the total. Also the bird biodiversity in the pacific islands is still rich with thousands upon thousands of birds living there today. I say we update it. Just wanted to put this out there to start a discussion. This can scare people into thinking the situation is worse when it is not, no, 750-1800 species did not go extinct in oceania, only 469 species of birds have been identified as gone extinct since 50,000 years ago and while more can be found, it is highly unlikely the number would be higher than 600.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.14206 86.124.25.38 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also to add, this estimate is from 2021, and a much more reliable and accurate one, I suggest we add this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.25.38 (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The divisions of Paleognathae

The small box in the "Diversification of modern birds" section shows that Paleognathae are subdivided into Struthioniformes and Tinamiformes, which is icorrect - Paleognathae are subdivided into Struthioniformes and Notopaleognathae, the latter of which include tinamous (Tinamiformes) along with the kiwis, the emus, the rheas and the cassowaries, all of which are missing from the image box in question. 192.193.116.142 (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The small box caption says "Basal divergences of modern birds based on Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy", which is what is shown. The updated division into five orders is shown in the large phylogenetic trees to its left/below in the "Classification of bird orders" section. Perhaps it would be better to just show Palaeognathae without the orders to avoid confusion. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've simplified the tree to just show the three major branches. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)