Talk:Bird/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A layman's opinion

I was startled when I had a question about migration and I looked at the article on Bird and found the first sentence to be "Birds...are theropod dinosaurs, characterised by feathers, a beak with...". I thought I'd been misdirected and this was an article on the evolution of birds.

Most people do not regard birds as dinosaurs. An article's title should have the most common meaning to our readers. The first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not the place for introducing "new" scientific classifications to the ordinary non-expert.

Wikipedia is published primarily for the intelligent layman. (I believe that's policy; can anyone help me and find the reference?) By WP:UNDUE, editors should not ignore the majority consensus of our readers, certainly not in the lead paragraph. Otherwise, the Bird's article will begin to sound like an article which should be named (say) "Controversy about birds being dinosaurs". Or a taxonomic treatise rather than a part in an encyclopedia.

If you agree, I'll start us off by suggesting that the lead sentence be modified as:

Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae), including all modern birds, are really theropod dinosaurs, characterised by feathers, a beak with" and so forth.

I include the word really because, without it, the sentence won't make sense to most people.

Or we could take out the part about dinosaurs in the first sentence:

Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae) are characterised by feathers, a beak with...

And leave the part about being dinosaurs for the second sentence: Birds are really a sub-classification of theropod dinosaurs.

What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that a change is needed. Have a look at the equivalent pages of Mammal, Fish and Reptile. The relationship to dinosaurs does not even need to be in the second sentence, but does deserve a place in the lead.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Really" is a term too biased to be used in Wikipedia, I haven't seen any WP article that uses "really" in an original phrase actually.

Most people do not regard birds as dinosaurs.

But as explained by many sources, birds are classified as theropod dinosaurs

The dinosaur part shouldn't be taken out, unless you want to take it out in the Oviraptorosauria article to make it as this:

Oviraptorosaurs ("egg thief lizards") are characterized by short, beaked, parrot-like skulls, with or without bony crests atop the head. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Birds are vertebrates" seems to be too simply and undescriptive, I suggest the lead to be this:

Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae) are a subgroup of theropod dinosaurs, characterised by feathers, a beak with no teeth, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a lightweight but strong skeleton.

Laymen's misleading opinions do not take account in Wikipedia, unless people are going to add that peterosaurs, plesiosaurs, and synapsids are dinosaurs in their articles. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I accept that "Birds are vertebrates" might be overly simplistic. However, I think that having an opening sentence stating that birds are dinosaurs is very likely to be misleading - it is a statement about the evolutionary relationship, not about birds that exist today. After all, we don't start the Human page with "Humans are slime-moulds".

I copied the following from the Dinosaur article. I think this is a nice succinct statement.

The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic Period and, consequently, they are considered a subgroup of dinosaurs. Some birds survived the extinction event that occurred 65 million years ago, and their descendants continue the dinosaur lineage to the present day.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest version states "Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae) are highly advanced Dinosaurs...". Is this not the same as stating "Humans are highly advanced slime-moulds"?

No it's more similar to stating "primates are mammals". Editor abcdef (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be factually incorrect to state "Humans are highly advanced slime-moulds"?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Slime mould" is a polyphyletic and paraphyletic group, it would be more correct to state "humans are highly advanced eukaryotes". Don't ask me if humans are highly advanced Archaea, they aren't, they are highly advanced lifeforms. "Archaea" is another paraphyletic group.

This is getting too far, as these groups above are far higher ranked than dinosaurs and birds. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to let readers feel comfortable about their previously conservative knowledge, it's purpose is to convert information from reliable sources into a less (but not too less) technical encyclopedia to provide free information for the readers. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added the information about most scientists accepting that birds are therapod dinosaurs; it is now the second sentence of the lead. 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the vast majority of readers (non-biologists) will not initially understand that birds are dinosaurs - anymore than they are likely to understand humans are "highly advanced eukaryotes". Give the lay readers the basics first, so they know they are on the right page and they are being informed, and then develop the argument (which will be surprising to many of them) that birds are considered to be dinosaurs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the change I made, @DrChrissy:? The first sentence should let them know they're on the right page—without any mention of dinosaurs. Your analogy isn't comparable. Saying that birds are modern dinosaurs is like saying humans are modern primates; saying birds are modern slime molds would be like saying humans are modern slime molds. MeegsC (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, that's exactly what Wikipedia should let them know: birds are dinosaurs. As MeegsC stated, the analogy of eukaryotes isn't comparable, stating "humans are highly advanced eukaryotes" is analogous with stating "birds are highly advanced eukaryotes", not "birds are dinosaurs". The human article already states that humans are great apes. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are both missing the point I am trying to make, however, I will not labour this as I am now happy with the way the first 2 sentences read.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I know your point, but my solution to the laymen problem is that if most readers do not know birds are dinosaurs, then we Wikipedia should present the fact to them straight in the lead sentence. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We may just have to agree to disagree here. I think the balance is right at the moment. We tell the reader some basic information so they realise they are on the correct page, then hit them with something they might not know but might be surprising to them....initially.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No teeth?

In several places we state that birds do not have teeth, but what about the "egg tooth"? Of course I realise this is not a "true" tooth, but do we need to mention this in the article?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary here. We cover it in detail in the beak article. MeegsC (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not overly worried about this. I was just thinking that someone knowing very little biology might look at the Bird article after hearing the term and would not get any information. There is also the Egg tooth article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Theropod Dinosaurs

Changed the first lines to further educate people in science, altough it is true that birds are vertebrates most people know this but by instead telling the readers that birds in fact, are Dinosaurs they might learn something by just reading the first lines of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornhead (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. It's getting really frustrating that you apparently don't feel the need to engage with your fellow editors before making these changes. If you keep getting reverted and directed to the talk page, it's a pretty clear indication that others don't agree. For one thing, there are now two sentences in a row that say exactly the same thing. And when laymen (i.e. non-specialists) aren't sure they're on the right page (see reader comments above), that's a bad thing. Make it clear we're talking about birds that we all know and love (i.e. the "usual suspects") and then hit 'em in sentence #2 with the new information. MeegsC (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been the only one reverting, but I understand what you're saying. I just learnt how to use the talk page, so you'll understand if I'm having difficulty responding or engaging with others. Now, the reason I want to have the text saying that Birds are Dinosaurs is because it is not a new fact. If we look at another group of animals page (In this case Carnivora) it says Carnivora is a diverse order that includes over 280 species of placental mammals. What I'm saying is, if other pages deticated to certain groups of animals tell the readers what clades they belong to why should it be different from birds? One person mentioned it would look like the Bird page was a evolution page however with that logic so would the pages about, carnivora, sharks and so fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornhead (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more than this page. Look at the archives. Look at the comments made by people from the dinosaur project. Look at the comments made just above by multiple readers and editors. And again you've changed the article so that the first two sentences say exactly the same thing. If you're going to leave your first sentence — against the positions hammered out by multiple editors over several days worth of work — at least fix that! Geesh. MeegsC (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. If you also look at comments by multiple editors you'll see that people (Believe it or not) also disagree with you. Geesh, take your negativity somewhere else, you haven't said anything to me proving that you're right or why people should learn that Birds are Vertebrates. All you've done is bashing a new user, good job. Keep it up. geesh.. I can also add that users who browse pages will most certainly be more interested to continue read about birds when they see directly that they are dinosaurs. After all, people are here to learn and most people actually know that birds have a spine, even if you don't think so. Therefore directly pointing out the fact that birds are dinosaurs (which is a fact that should be widely known but isn't because people don't like to point it out) people will learn about both dinosaurs and birds in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornhead (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"The birds are dinosaurs" statement in the lead is an old issue, lots of people think it is the most important thing because they are unaware of the complexity of phylogenetic labels. The complexity is well known to taxonomists, and although there is some shock value for science communicators to say something like "birds are dinosaurs", there are multiple possibilities when one deals with the tree of life (and please do not discount reticulate evolution), one can name a group based on the root node, a branch or the leaves/crown (see crown group, Avialae etc.). This is exactly the reason why we do not introduce humans as therapsids (or as synapsids or amniotes for that matter) in the lead although they are correct in one sense. These relationships require a nuanced explanation and that already exists in the main text. Featured Articles need more careful editing and have been through more eyes and the reason for such edits being reverted is not because of a disagreement. The general public can be easily misled by poor wording and the complexity of phylogenetic (or broadly cladist) nomenclature. Notice for instance that on your user page, you separate your liking for the the birds and the dinosaurs. Shyamal (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the consensus one already arrived at too, per Shyamal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so do I Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll go one further - it doesn't matter much that birds are dinosaurs. It matters to Dinosaur that birds are dinosaurs because it changes the context in which we view dinosaurs, and changes them as a group from extinct to extant. But what does birds being dinosaurs change about BIRDS? Why is that important other than a piece of interesting trivia? It helps put them in a wider context when their ancestors are considered, but this is an issue best discussed in the evolution section, not the first sentence of the article! Birds being dinosaurs is not more important or interesting to know than the fact that birds are reptiles, or that birds are tetrapods. Emphasizing this fact smells a little bit like fanboyism. We want to mention dinosaurs because dinosaurs are COOL and so, if birds are dinosaurs, birds become COOL too (I guess if birds were not dinosaurs they would not be cool). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the mention of theropods as "cool" personally, more a fundamental part of bird evolution and history. Wikipedia is here primarily for the layman's research. 82.132.219.101 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may put my two cents in: That birds are dinosaurs is as much of a scientific fact as anything in evolutionary science (and not some contested opinion as claimed in one of sections further up this talk page, neither is it the equivalent of saying humans are slime-molds, which they aren’t), and its something that the general public is not aware of. If this confuses laymen so much, that’s unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not supposed to only tell people what they already know (or at any rate, believe they know). In fact, that’s all the more reason to educate people of this fact (and yes, it changes how some people think of birds, but more importantly, it changes how they think of phylogeny). The opening sentence is probably not the right place for that, but somewhere in the opening paragraph and/or the taxobox it should be mentioned that birds are an extant clade of theropod dinosaurs, to help make this knowledge a little more widespread. --Ornitholestes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also I don’t see why the complexity of phylogeny is an argument against that. It’s not as if linnean taxonomy hadn’t long been abadoned by real scientists. If we have to mention that birds are vertebrates, certainly it is much more relevant to mention that they are also reptiles, and dinosaurs, as it sais something about their relationships. Ornitholestes (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And there is an extensive section at Bird#Evolution_and_classification which explains the different usages. Shyamal (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ornitholestes:, the information is currently in the lead's second sentence! Is that not early enough? The question was not whether it should be included; clearly, it should. The question is whether it should be in the first or the second sentence. Have you actually read the article's lead, or are you just responding to the talk page comments? Please have a look at the actual lead and let us know whether you think that's clear enough for the lead. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you’re right. I was just taking reference to the discussion on this talk page, that’s all. Second sentence seems fine to me. Ornitholestes (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"This is exactly the reason why we do not introduce humans as therapsids (or as synapsids or amniotes for that matter) in the lead although they are correct in one sense."

This analogy is not even close, introducing humans as therapsids is equal to introducing birds as sauropsids, not birds as dinosaurs. The closest analogy possible to "birds are dinosaurs" is "Primatomorphs are mammals".

Why? You seem to be thinking along the lines of old-fashioned classes and orders. How about changing both bird and human to "birds are tetrapods" or "humans are tetrapods"? This is a much more useful category based on obvious anatomical features. Entomologists would probably rank Tetrapoda as a class... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Why is that important other than a piece of interesting trivia?"

By that logic the lead sentence of other articles on other groups of dinosaurs shouldn't state they're dinosaurs, since it's nothing more than "a piece of interesting trivia".

That's true, and I've edited many articles that started out with some tortured, convoluted intro to try and wedge the buzz-wod dinosaur into the first sentence. Like, "Protoceratopsids are an extinct group of ceratopsian cerapod ornithischian dinosaurs." This is like somebody listing the Virgo Supercluster in their postal address just to prove how smart and science they are. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Most people don't know birds are dinosaurs" is actually an argument for rather than against stating the fact in the first sentence. If most people don't already know, then it should be taught to them, it's simple. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Re "it should be taught to them": it is - read the 2nd sentence. DexDor ^(talk) 04:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ludicrous. People are acting as if the fact that birds are dinosaurs is the most important thing about birds, which is a very dinosaur-centric view for a bird article. Why not make the title of the article "Birds (which are dinosaurs you guys!!!!)"? Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And people are acting as if the fact that other dinosaur groups, say protoceratopsids, are dinosaurs is the most important thing about protoceratopsids, which is a very dinosaur-centric view for a protoceratopsid article. Why not make the title of the article "Protoceratopsids (which are dinosaurs you guys!!!!)"?

And why should the bird article state they're dinosaurs in the second sentence and not the first? Why not just make the first sentences of articles on other dinosaur groups, say protoceratopsids, "Protoceratopsids are endothermic vertebrates, characterised by a horned face, a beak with teeth, and the laying of hard-shelled eggs. Scientific consensus is that protoceratopsids are a primitive subgroup of ceratopsian dinosaurs."? Editor abcdef (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That actually sounds like an excellent intro sentence. It describes protoceratopsids based on what they are, their biology, and their appearance, not what they are related to, which for the majority of readers is less important. Minus the parts about endothermy and hard shelled eggs which are likely but not directly attested by evidence. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Weight and longevity

Has this section been discussed? Shyamal (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I would eliminate it. It's bulky (in an already huge article), North America-centric (with a couple of token exceptions) and could easily be converted to prose if we decide that some of the information is important enough to keep. And I'm not entirely sure why weight and longevity were chosen as the two table elements (since nothing is explained). The single line of text says something about these being different "even in closely related species", but then gives no examples. Not much use, really. MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Another lead edit suggestion

While we are on the lead. I had a bit of trouble parsing this - " Birds have more or less developed wings;" (ie - developed as a verb rather than as an adjective) and felt that something on the lines of "Birds have wings that vary in the extent of development;" would read better. Comments? Shyamal (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315005353/http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/land-water-and-wool/pf061365/pf061365.pdf to http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/land-water-and-wool/pf061365/pf061365.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

I request that the sentence about Jesus speaking through the cock as a vessel be revised to reflect what is actually written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus never uses a rooster as a kind of avatar for himself. He merely states that he will be denied three times before the rooster crows or before the next day. 74.143.190.246 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - By another - Arjayay (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with removal, -the verse cited does not explicitly use the cock as a messenger, simply says that XXX will happen before the cock crows. Given the common perception that roosters crow at dawn, Jesus could just as well have been saying XXX will happen before daybreak. Turning the rooster into a messenger seems like a stretch Cannolis (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Class, to be exact

The Taxon Aves is a Class, not an unranked group. (It happens to be a clade, yes, but it is also ranked.) However, I am having trouble with the much less user-friendly new syntax for the Taxobox. I can't even find the lines of code that define the ranks in the table! Someone, please, help me fix the issue. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it back. user:ELP-PhD is attempting to expunge any use of the word "class" when describing Aves; I've advised that editor to come here to gain consensus for this category of changes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have YET to see a cogent argument supporting Aves as a valid taxonomic Class. Organisms CANNOT simultaneously be in two taxa of the same rank. Therefore, Aves cannot be BOTH a group within the Class Reptilia (as any modern treatment places them) and their own Class. This is not "cutting edge science". This is basically freshman-level college biology (Biol 101, if you will). You are choosing to ignore DECADES of science on this topic because it might ruffle some feathers (pun intended). This is a perfect example of why I tell my students to ignore Wikipedia. As the saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." This, by the way, is my LAST post on the topic. I'm tired of wasting my time. I should have known better than to venture down this InterNet worm-hole.ELP-PhD (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Our role is to reflect common perception: we and all our readers have a sharp concept of "bird", and it is as class-like as can be imagined. We (the public, and editors) know that cladistics places birds in with a group of dinosaurs, a fact we accept with bemused delight, without having our rock-steady concept of feathered, flighted bird even slightly ruffled, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, not common perception so much as sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have YET to see a cogent argument – In some sense, we don't make arguments like this here. We just write what is supported by sources. I've given you high quality, recent sources that call Aves a class. Do you have any that say it isn't? I don't have a super-strong opinion here, I'm no expert; I'm just trying to focus the discussion on what will carry the day. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, Template:Taxonomy/Dinosauria was changed last month to always display Clade Dinosauria in automatic taxoboxes. There are thousands of bird articles using conventional taxoboxes that don't have Dinosauria, and a few hundred using automatic taxoboxes that now have Dinosauria. Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

About that: if we decide we want "clade Dinosauria" on (non-avian) dinosaur taxoboxes and do *not* want it on bird taxoboxes, I think we can do that by using template:Taxonomy/Aves/Skip. I think we used to use that but aren't any more, I don't know if that was intentional. If there's consensus to do that I can try to make that change. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This is how it was done up until recently, somebody changed it. I would support using the skip template in situations like this and skipping to the next available crown group, to avoid being arbitrary. So I'd have Aves link to the parent taxon (Ornithurae) and then skip to the next crown clade (Archosauria). Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

So, are any of the entries in Category:Herpetology journals publishing papers on birds now? Not as far as I can tell. Google Scholar has 86 results for "clade Aves" or "Aves clade" since 2012, and 1030 for "class Aves". Papers using "clade" seem to be mostly palaeontological, papers using "class" are on living birds. Trying to shoehorn well known English words for organisms into cladistic definitions doesn't always work very well. My state conservation department has one set of (stricter) regulations for "game fish" (which are specifically enumerated) and another (weaker) set for "nongame fish" (all species not listed as "game fish"). I don't think conservation officers are going to listen to a cladist insisting that all tetrapods fall under the "nongame fish" regulations. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that these things are useful for neontology and should probably be kept for articles on living animal groups. Extinct groups and non-crown groups should use clade only. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source in lede

Using "Inquisitr" is really a step down. I'd like to see it gutted (it's in the Dinosaur lede as well, if anyone cares to tackle that). 84.33.25.54 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the link between birds and dinosaurs a recent discovery?

In 12 years of schooling I never once heard birds described as dinosaurs (reptiles yes, but not dinosaurs). In all my conversations with schoolmates, friends, co-workers etc, dinosaurs have been spoken of as a long-extinct species. The lede of this article was a massive shock to me, as I'm sure it is to many; I would go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people consider dinosaurs and birds to be separate animal groups. If this is a recent discovery, could we mention this, in order not to confound the many generations of people who've been taught that dinosaurs were wiped out long ago? Or, if the dinosaur stuff is simply vandalism that slipped under the radar, could it be removed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C826:6C56:1FCB:F1A7 (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you consider "recent", but I recall the first book I owned that described birds as a type of dinosaur rather than just descendants of dinosaurs was this one, published by a major museum in 1995:[1] I bought this at the museum after they had re-opened after a five year renovation, and I was as shocked as you to see birds included in the dinosaur display and at that time they even had a sign up nearby that stated "birds are dinosaurs". So I'd say scientific consensus on this topic was reached at least 20 years ago. , probably earlier as it would have taken a while for this to be proposed and incorporated into the museum display. Whether or not birds are dinosaurs rather than descended from dinosaurs is a bit of a semantic issue (like saying humans are apes rather than just descended from apes). Birds have been widely accepted as the direct descendants and continuation of the dinosaur lineage since at least the late 1970s, and prominent paleontologists like Bob Bakker were including birds within the same "class" as dinosaurs by the early 1980s. To the short answer to your question is: birds considered the descendants of dinosaurs but still "cut off" into their own distinct group of animals, at least a 40 year old idea. Birds as a group of actual dinosaurs, first proposed around 30 years ago, widely accepted 20 years ago. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I noticed the Dinosaur lede mentions that birds were accepted as dinosaurs in the late 20th century. Could we have something similar here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.112.178 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why clade Avemetatarsalia and not clade Dinosauria?

Throughout the article it is stated that birds are dinosaurs however when looking at the taxonomy box on the right side of the article the only clades listed are Avemetatarsalia and Ornithurae. Avemetatarsalia is a clade further past Dinosauria. It is a clade within Archosauria which includes dinosaurs, pterosaurs, their common ancestor, and all relatives to have evolved from said common ancestor. It's too broad and doesn't belong in the box. As for Ornithurae, that is a clade that groups modern birds with their closest avian ancestors and relatives thus they too are members of the class Ave. It's redundant to have Ornithurae or Euornithes as they are considered 'true birds' within the class Ave and serve no purpose as a clade above the taxonomic class Ave. I suggest that the first clade above class Ave should be Ornithothoraces which includes all true birds in class Ave and their closet non-avian dinosaur relatives the Enantiornithes, or alternatively you can use the more inclusive clade Avialae, meaning bird wing, which is a clade of Maniraptor Theropod dinosaurs that includes birds and non-avian dinosaurs more closely related to birds than to Troodon or Velociraptor. The second clade above that should be clade Dinosauria, not Avemetatarsalia. This reinforces the scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs.

I have advocated for clearer clade names in infoboxes before, but apparently there are systematic rules about how the clades are picked. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

flightless birds

The paragraph on wings names many types of flightless birds and almost no types of birds that fly. It's all exceptions. I would like to balance it out better and cover the wing better. The paragraph also doesn't mention feathers. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Classification of birds in the taxoboxes

Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Reptiliae or Aves?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v073n03/p0382-p0385.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v117n03/p00820-p00825.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v091n03/p0732-p0735.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v071n02/p0172-p0178.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v103n04/p0835-p0835.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v106n01/p0094-p0101.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v113n03/p0698-p0702.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v096n02/p0331-p0340.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/nabb/v024n04/p0113-p0121.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v092n03/p0576-p0581.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323064035/http://media.library.uiuc.edu:80/cgi/b/bib/bix-idx?c=bix;cc=bix;sid=0c4f6243857204b94fcdebc6dce5d8b2;type=simple;page=browse;inst=bix_10;sort=region to http://media.library.uiuc.edu/cgi/b/bib/bix-idx?c=bix;cc=bix;sid=0c4f6243857204b94fcdebc6dce5d8b2;type=simple;page=browse;inst=bix_10;sort=region

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs.

I get it. Ostriches and some of the bigger birds look like dinos and want the thrill of living alongside the real deal in the 21st century. So we dig up articles by insane, religious cladists and use them to support the "Dinos live!" angle. Someone please do the right thing and remove the dinosaur stuff from the lede. Cheers. 5.64.42.147 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, because 100+ years of established, published science says that birds are unequivocally theropod dinosaurs. We will not remove valuable information from this article solely to appease the minorities, and that's what the YEC and BAND crowds are to this article; minorities. This is an article about birds as a biological group of animals, not the cultural conception of the word "bird". That's what Wiktionary is for. We cover as much of the minority opinion as is necessary, but not any more than that; so if you wish to make birds non-dinosaurs, then you have to prove 100+ years of science wrong in a manner that can actually convince the scientists. Pro tip; you won't be able to do it. We don't place "But maybe it was just God" in every science article, and we're not going to violate our own policies just to appease the BAND crowd.

Prove that science is wrong and we'll change it. Untill then, this article is not being touched. Raptormimus456 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment from 5.64.42.147 is eerily close to what Cal King says here:[2]

Dinosaurs are extinct. Extinction is forever. They cannot reclaim the planet. There are nutty scientists who claim that birds are living dinosaurs, but these nutty scientists are cladists. Cladists have been severely criticized by Darwinians over the years as being insane, being religious, and being unscientific. Indeed, it is nothing short of insanity to say that birds are living dinosaurs, because even if birds evolved from a dinosaur (and there is a mountain of evidence that opposes that hypothesis), it does not mean that birds are dinosaurs.

After all, mammals evolved from a cynodont therapsid reptile, but that does not mean that mammals are reptiles. Similarly, dinosaurs themselves evolved from primitive archosaurian reptiles, which in turn evolved from a primitive diapsid. If we go back in time, all land vertebrates, including reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals, evolved from a fish. So, why not say that human beings, birds, dinosaurs, lizard, turtles, snakes, frogs, salamanders and whales are all fish, if we insist that birds must be called reptiles?

Lastly, Dollo's principle states that evolution is not reversible. That means birds cannot evolve back into the same animals as their ancestors, no matter what that ancestor was. That is one more reason why it is insane to claim that birds are living dinosaurs. Birds evolving back into their reptilian ancestor is about as implausible as humans evolving back into a shrew.

King's comment was not a popular one, but he's clearly more knowledgeable about the subject than I. Does his position hold water? 82.132.226.196 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, who is "Cal King"? He's not a scientist publishing in a reputable journal — Yahoo Answers is hardly that! And that "mountain of evidence" against birds evolving from dinosaurs? Funny that only a few fringe evolutionary scientists believe that; most modern evolutionary scientists feel the mountain of evidence favors what Cal King dismisses! No scientist is saying that birds are evolving back to reptiles; Cal King is misstating (either because he doesn't understand, or because he's trying to sway the argument) what scientists believe. The definition of "dinosaur" is changing; some people are clearly having problems with that! MeegsC (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cal King is a notorious crank who used to do this kind of trolling on the Dinosaur Mailing List many years ago before he quit (I assume he was banned). Read literally any source by a mainstream paleontologist or paleornithologist (or modern ornithologist for that matter) from the last 15 years. Just to address a few basic points... "even if birds evolved from a dinosaur (and there is a mountain of evidence that opposes that hypothesis), it does not mean that birds are dinosaurs." Yes it does, under the most prevent current nomenclature. "mammals evolved from a cynodont therapsid reptile, but that does not mean that mammals are reptiles" therapsids are no longer generally considered reptiles. "So, why not say that human beings, birds, dinosaurs, lizard, turtles, snakes, frogs, salamanders and whales are all fish" Because "fish" is not a formal clade, but a grade of basal aquatic vertebrates. If you were to treat this as a valid scientific group, which most modern biologists do not, then yes, we are fish. "That means birds cannot evolve back into the same animals as their ancestors, no matter what that ancestor was." Straw man argument, literally nobody is suggesting anything like this; what has changed is the method of classification, not the course of evolution. Birds are now merely classified among dinosaur the way bats are classified among mammals. By the way, the fact that the anonymous OP uses the term "religious cladist" here makes me suspect this IS Cal King, and I have to wonder if it's a coincidence a second anonymous user extensively cited his Yahoo Answers page... Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Another compelling Cal King argument:[3]

As for dinosaurian feathers, it is a hoax. The first supposed feathered dinosaur is Sinosauropteryx of China, which is a close relative of Compsognathus of Sohnhofen, Germany. Sohnhofen preserved many feathers and Archaeopteryx, and yet there is no trace of feathers on Compsognathus. It would be very odd that Sinosauropteryx is feathered but its close relative Compsognathus is not. At the end of the 20th century, a group of 4 experienced scientists (John Ostrom, Peter Wellnhofer, Alan Brush, and Larry Martin) went to China to look at the supposed "feathered dinosaur" Sinosauropteryx. When they returned, not one of them would say that what they saw was feathered, not one. And yet you will find no shortage of web sites or scientists who claim that Sinosauropteryx is a feathered dinosaur. Other scientists have published papers claiming that what they find on Sinosauropteryx and other dinosaurs are most likely collagen fibers, which is an ancient protein that can be found on the skin of many animals, including animals as primitive as a nematode worm. Yet people who firmly believe that Sinosauropteryx is a feathered dinosaur are not persuaded by the lack of evidence of Compsognathus feathers and the lack of evidence that Sinosaurotperyx has feathers.

There is also a second group of fossils that are claimed to be feathered dinosaurs, such as Microratpor, Anchiornis, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and even Archaeopteryx. The problem with these claims is that these animals also have a lot of birdy traits, in addition to feathers. Therefore many scientists claim that they are birds, not feathered dinosaurs. In conclusion, some scientists who desperately want to hang on to the belief that birds are descendants of dinosaurs (primarily because they don't want to suffer career damage by admitting they were wrong) believe that Sinosauropteryx has feathers and that Microraptor and birds that do have feathers are dinosaurs. In short, if the evidence does not fit the theory that birds evolved from a dinosaur, then make it fit.

Umm, it would appear that Phil Currie accepts that it had feathery thingies (integument) on it for starters....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Compelling" in what sense, anonymous IP? Again, some random person's rant on Yahoo Answers doesn't qualify as science! MeegsC (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I do find it compelling that this person who otherwise seems interested in the topic is apparently totally unaware of all research published this topic since 1998, nearly the past 20 years, and the numerous papers that have directly refuted the interpretations discussed above. This one is a good start.[4] To sum up, the entire argument against the dinosaurian origin of birds is one enormous logical fallacy hung on a constantly shifting goal post (Feduccia et al. in 1996: "Dromaeosaurids have nothing to do with bird origins! They are obviously totally reptillian in every way"; Feduccia et al. in 2002: "Dromaeosaurids are obviously early flightless birds! They have nothing in common with dinosaurs!") Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Birds are sadly not dinosaurs.[5] It's high time someone put an end to this little fantasy here on Wikipedia. 185.54.163.174 (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to think that a "dinosaur" should be a featherless monstrous creature that no longer exists. Please consider that what can be called a dinosaur may vary per person, and that animals that evolved from dinosaurs could be called dinosaurs because what differentiates a category of organisms from a another is a blur, and therefore whether a animals should be on a different category from their ancestor/s is also a blur.Gonzales John (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a troll - ignore them. They just want attention. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sentence removed from lead

Birds, specifically Darwin's finches, played an important part in the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. - arguably the mockingbirds were far more important to his thinking. But anyway the lead is way too long as it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2017

In the first paragraph, change "and a lightweight but strong skeleton" to "and a strong, yet lightweight skeleton" John Clifford (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sooty shearwaters

There is written:

Seabirds also undertake long migrations, the longest annual migration being those of sooty shearwaters, which nest in New Zealand and Chile and spend the northern summer feeding in the North Pacific off Japan, Alaska and California, an annual round trip of 64,000 km (39,800 mi).

Which hemisphere's summer is that? Szalakóta (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The northern one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Visibility

The font size at the cladogram Bird#Classification_of_bird_orders is now set at 75%. Why not 100%? It is barely visible. — 188.162.65.16 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on lead

• First sentence: "also known as avian dinosaurs,[3]", this is not common usage, which makes the assertion distracting. Also, I think the relationship to reptiles probably deserves as much emphasis. So, how about "Birds (Aves), a sub group of Reptiles, are the last living example of Dinosaurs. They are a are a group of endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton."'

• In the lead, suggest that common names are used (Dinosaur vs Dinosauria), which would match the title of those articles.

• Remove mention of archosaurs in first paragraph.

• 10,000 extant species is probably low.

LaTeeDa (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Natalios (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v073n03/p0382-p0385.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v117n03/p00820-p00825.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v091n03/p0732-p0735.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v071n02/p0172-p0178.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226062512/http://www.ummz.umich.edu/birds/resources/families_otw.html to http://www.ummz.umich.edu/birds/resources/families_otw.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v103n04/p0835-p0835.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v106n01/p0094-p0101.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v113n03/p0698-p0702.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v096n02/p0331-p0340.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/nabb/v024n04/p0113-p0121.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v092n03/p0576-p0581.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.library.uiuc.edu/cgi/b/bib/bix-idx?c=bix%3Bcc%3Dbix%3Bsid%3D0c4f6243857204b94fcdebc6dce5d8b2%3Btype%3Dsimple%3Bpage%3Dbrowse%3Binst%3Dbix_10%3Bsort%3Dregion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead dispute

Yesterday {@Ticklewickleukulele: changed the lead, was reverted by @Loonball5:, who was reverted by @Materialscientist: and myself. Loonball has said his view, that the existing wording has consensus, but this has been a long running dispute on this page and the existing wording was inaccurate. Birds are not reptiles (not a taxonomic group) , nor are extant birds dinosaurs; they are descended from a line of dinosaurs. (In much the same way as humans are neither fish nor are we living mammal-like reptiles). Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with Sabine's Sunbird here. The claim that birds "are the last living dinosaurs", apart from being sensationalist rather than encyclopedic, is simply wrong. It would mean that humans are fish; or indeed, that we are protistan Eukaryotes (which unaccountably have become multicellular). It's basically a curious denial of the possibility of speciation, an odd thing to claim in an evolutionary framework based on cladistics. It may sound exciting to start with dinosaurs in the first sentence, but it isn't sensible. The alternative wording "can be considered to be the last living dinosaurs" is scarcely any better, though the placement at the end of the paragraph is a slight improvement. "in the same clade as some of the dinosaurs" would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sabine's Sunbird and Chiswick Chap.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Cladistically speaking birds belong to the clade Dinosauria, so this is technically correct from a modern scientific perspective. However I feel this is not a neutral way of putting it (Birds (Aves), a subgroup of reptiles, are the last living dinosaurs.) as they are not usually considered to be dinosaurs by the general public. Far better to instead to explain the scientific view that birds belong to the same clade as dinosaurs, of the subclade Feathered dinosaurs, and therefore can considered as avian dinosaurs from a cladistic perspective. It would be unambiguous and less contentious. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like too much detail to me.....remember who our audience is.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A look through the talk pages and archives may be worthwhile here. I believe this subject has been exrensively....er, discussed. Britmax (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Birds and reptiles are both classes. So, it logically follows that one does not include the other, but some disagree, so we say that "some say". Thus, the version with "some say" is the best version. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How about something like this?

Birds are descendants of extinct dinosaurs with feathers; this makes them the only surviving dinosaurs in modern classification systems.

A bit more neutral, as it explains the basis of inclusion a bit more. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The first part is fine, and we could use it as it is, but I suggest we drop all after feathers, the second bit is wrong for the reasons given above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks for your comment, this could be done. But if you think last bit is wrong perhaps you should read http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (from Berkeley University) which explains this. Since they belong to the clade Dinosauria they should be considered to be avian dinosaurs from a cladistic perspective; modern classification is based on cladistics. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The cladistics is certainly true; the "based on" is the flaky part. Taxonomy may ultimately be supposed to follow cladistics, but it's a very large, very slow dinosaur of an organisational beast, and it's inevitably many steps behind whatever anybody thinks the clades are at any moment; and taxonomists don't all agree, either. We mention the cladistics later in the lead; that still doesn't mean your second statement is tenable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes but in the lead we summarise what is in the text. In the text it makes statements like Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised subgroup of theropod dinosaurs. We'll merely be summarizing statements like that. I think it's an important point since it was a major breakthrough in the understanding of bird phylogeny. Explaining the difference between non-avian and avian dinosaurs is an important obstacle to overcome in understanding bird evolution. Google Scholar has 794 results for "avian dinosaur" and "non-Avian dinosaur" [6]. If you look at the lead of the Dinosaur article it fully explains this with statements like The fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs,.

Also modern cladistics is the basis for classification. If you look at the infobox it describes the birds belonging to the clade Ornithurae. Also the Aves, Chordata and Animalia also form clades as well as more traditional groups. It's at the basis of classification for the article, as it uses groups recognized as clades to be consistent with the modern science. Look at the Bird#Classification of bird orders section, it's composed primarily of cladograms. The science in the article is very much up to date, and the lead should reflect this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Do we really need to summarise the bird's relationships with the dinosaurs in the lead paragraph when its the subject of the whole of the second paragraph? Rather than trying to summarise it down to a single easy to understand sentence thats also correct maybe use that space? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, if we're allowed 3 or 4 paragraphs, why not use them. And it's already covered as you say. If we were coming to this fresh, would we not want the first sentence of the first paragraph simply to say "Birds (Aves) are a group of endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton."? Anything else is basically an intrusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I still believe we should stress in the first paragraph that birds are part of the dinosaur lineage. Dinosaur extinction is possibly the biggest misconception going. Loonball5 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well on that there is a quite definite answer: this article's function is NOT to proselytise (per WP:NPOV) about dinosaur extinction or lack of it. It's to focus on birds, which are certainly not "dinosaurs" today, however dinosaurian their pedigree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be reporting scientific consensus, not proselytising. Loonball5 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is that they are descended from dinosaurs. That isn't the argument that you are making. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying understand part of this you disagree with. Is it (a) birds are members of the clade Dinosauria; or (b) members of the clade Dinosauria are dinosaurs? Before you answer you might want to have a look at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_10 (University of Berkeley website) and the lead section of the article Dinosaur. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

B, absolutely. Look, there are no Alan Feduccias here ;) (Did he ever see the light?) But while the position of Aves in the clade Dinosauria is not disputed, I would contend that the proposition "all members of the clade Dinosauria are dinosaurs". Dinosaur and bird are common names and common names do not align seamlessly to clades. I would argue that the situation here is similar to the term mammal-like-reptile. That's a paraphyletic grade, not a clade. Dinosaurs, as popularly and widely understood, is a similar grade that covers the non-avian Dinosauria from the Triassic through the Cretaceous. In respectable scientific publications you will see some definitions of Dinosaur that include the birds [7] but you'll also find plenty of sources that use the common name dinosaur and bird to distinguish between the two [8] [9] [10], [11]. The extinction of the "dinosaurs" as such is not a myth, in the sense that the most widely accepted definition of dinosaur dinosaurs all died on or before KT.

That said, I'm not perhaps against presenting both interpretations. Perhaps...

• Birds are a class, Aves, are of endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton. In modern cladistics they are understood to be the last extant lineage of dinosaurs.

Happy to discuss further. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That said we absolutely need need to quickly take out the line "sub group of reptiles." Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you got any sources to back up "B" as being wrong? All the recent sources reliable sources state quite clearly the opposite. The lead should be based on reliable sources, not personal opinion. I have many sources that say the opposite, e.g. [12] and [13]. I would like a source that gives the opinion "not all members of Dinosauria are dinosaurs".--Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a scientific statement which is wrong or right, Jules, it's a English language question about prevailing usage. And I provided four examples right in my reply. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The other editors are repeatedly stating that birds are in the clade Dinosauria, which we all accept. Membership of the clade, however, does not imply being "a dinosaur", and Sabine's Sunbird's usage examples make that crystal clear. Jules's argument that there is clade membership is beside the point, it's not in dispute and doesn't prove that birds are dinosaurs. The first sentence of the lead is wrong and misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I mean if we're using dinosaur with its "common" meaning instead of a synonym to dinosauria, the dinosaur page should be edited to include pterosaurs and icthyosaurs and such; currently Dinosauria redirects to Dinosaur and that article treats them as being the same word. --Jessietail (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The version of the lede I am looking at right now [14] starts "Birds (Aves) are a group of endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers" and ends the first para with "Birds are descendants of extinct dinosaurs with feathers; this makes them the only surviving dinosaurs in modern classification systems". This, in my judgement, is just fine. It makes the dinosaur point, places it into context (i.e., it's a consequence of current taxonomic rules), but avoids bludgeoning the reader over the head with an arguable overstatement as the very first thing they see. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402124421/http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/birds-survived-dino-extinction-with-keen-senses/ to http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/birds-survived-dino-extinction-with-keen-senses/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622030534/http://bcs.whfreeman.com/gill/bcs-pages/body-right_10.asp?s=10000&n=00010&i=99010.06&v=chapter&o=%7C13000%7C00010%7C&ns=undefined to http://bcs.whfreeman.com/gill/bcs-pages/body-right_10.asp?s=10000&n=00010&i=99010.06&v=chapter&o=%7C13000%7C00010%7C&ns=undefined
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617234727/http://ijas.pagepress.org/index.php/ijas/article/download/ijas.2005.296/610 to http://ijas.pagepress.org/index.php/ijas/article/download/ijas.2005.296/610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224040649/http://ejour-fup.unifi.it/index.php/eee/article/view/667/613 to http://ejour-fup.unifi.it/index.php/eee/article/view/667/613

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728053547/http://198.81.200.84/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2811%2900264-3?switch=standard to http://198.81.200.84/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2811%2900264-3?switch=standard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414184051/http://wild.enature.com/blog/how-do-birds-eat-if-they-have-no-teeth to http://wild.enature.com/blog/how-do-birds-eat-if-they-have-no-teeth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

139.130.119.254 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Birds are on Minecraft

Not done: There is no need to mention every work that birds appear in. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

Someone changed most or all appearances of the word "bird" outside of links and title to what appears to be an internet meme term, "birb". I request this to be reverted. FriedrichKieferer (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Already done Thanks for catching this. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

2A02:C7D:DE35:7E00:3CE5:709B:42FC:71E8 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Errors

Dinosaurs is not extinct, becaused birds and other aves are dinosaurs, aves is not a class, becaused birds and dinosaurs are reptiles, aves is clade and order name saurischia and suborder name theropoda.

Not done: it says Birds are descendants of extinct dinosaurs with feathers..., not that all dinosaurs are extinct. Birds are feathered dinosaurs, but earlier feathered dinosaurs (i.e. their ancestors) are now extinct. See feathered dinosaur, most clades are now extinct, only the Neornithes clade survives. That's why it then says ...making them the only surviving dinosaurs according to cladistics. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Pterosaurs?

″DNA-based evidence finds that birds diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Palaeogene extinction event 66 million years ago, which reduced the Pterosaurs, and killed off all the non-avian dinosaur lineages.″ is a sentence in this article. It seems to suggest that K-Pg mass extinction didn't kill of the pterosaurs and only reduced their numbers even though the K-Pg mass extinction most definitley wiped out the pterosaurs, unless there is something I'm unaware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.118.107 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, pterosaurs (which are not dinosaurs) did die off during the K-Pg event. I will alter it to reflect this. ----Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Extinct?

The opening paragraph currently states: "They are descendants of extinct dinosaurs with feathers".

It's not possible to be the descendant of an extinct species. The fact that it had descendants means it didn't become extinct.

Nope. All species are the descendants of other species that, in almost all cases, have long since become extinct. E.g., Homo sapiens is the descendant of Homo erectus, an extinct species. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Homo Erectus didn't become extinct. It evolved into a new lifeform. No catastrophic event occurred to eliminate Homo Erecuts. The Dodo became extinct, because all extant members of that species died and had no remaining offspring. Simply because a species doesn't exist today, doesn't mean that species became extinct, it is simply no longer extant.

Your interpretation of the term "extinction" is at odds with that of biologists. More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. - second paragraph of Extinction; and see various other materials in that article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation of that paragraph is incorrect. 99% of all species are extinct because they went extinct! Not because they evolved into other organisms. The Earth has suffered many major extinction events that cause many species die out. Homo Neanderthalensis: extinct. Home Erectus: non-extant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that asking you to read any of the sources in that article would be a waste of time? Good luck with your crusade to alter global term usage across one and a half centuries of scientific literature, then. But please don't perpetrate your first heroic charges on Wikipedia, as we're kinda trying to cultivate a habit of sticking to that body of work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Elmidae: that the wording is bad (this is not the case of phyletic speciation) - I have boldly suggested an alternative - not sure it will go well with some. Shyamal (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I just undid that. As noted in the comment, "according to some" gives the impression that there is some doubt/split about the issue, which is not the case. "According to cladistics" just demarcates the specific framework within which this statement is true. - I don't really see the above confusion as indicative of a need to make any changes here, to be honest. Unwillingness to accept the standard definition of a term should not be a reason to switch the wording around to accommodate that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Elmidae. From a cladistic perspective birds are most definitely dinosaurs as they belong to the clade Dinosauria. See [15]. The species birds are descended from are most definitely extinct: in fact all species alive today are descendants of extinct species. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "cladistics" terminology is so unanimous or unambiguous as claimed either - it depends on whether the name refers to the stem or crown group etc. But I can live with the text we have! Shyamal (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow Elmidae, you certainly become quite patronising and bullying if people don't immediately agree with your position don't you? Here's a paragraph from the page you specified indicating the precise situation with birds. It classifies it as "pseudoextinction", and not "extinction" when an old taxon evolves into a new one. Thus the opening paragraph indicating extinction without at least a qualifier is confusing at best.

"Extinction of a parent species where daughter species or subspecies are still extant is called pseudoextinction or phyletic extinction".

Can I suggest you alter your viewpoint on this page a little? You clearly seem to think that you have some sort of ownership over it, and you take any challenge to your opinion quite personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 07:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you are putting some effort into backpedalling, but you are still wrong: phyletic extinction is still extinction, and there is no reason to replace it with some variant of "no longer extant". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Elmidae: pseudoextinction still results in the extinction of the parent species; the "pseudo" part merely refers to daughter species who survive. See Pseudoextinction: Pseudoextinction (or phyletic extinction) of a species occurs when all members of the species are extinct, but members of a daughter species remain alive. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The quote you just included Mrjulesd disproves the statement you just made. Pseudoextinction of a species occurs what all member of the species are extinct, but daughter species remain. They clearly indicate in that sentence that the pseudoextinction applies to the parent species. Re-read it please.

What we are talking about here is a Venn diagram. While it can be said that extinction may cover both pseudoextinction and extinction. It is more correct here to say that the parent species is either pseudoextinct or phyletically extinct, as the word extinction is ambiguous.

Given that most of the population still think that dinosaurs went non-phyletically extinct (as in, eradicated by a meteorite), it is fair to assume that most readers would be very confused by that opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 23:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that would confirm "the non-avian dinosaurs are extinct" as extinct means No longer in existence; having died out. Look anywhere you like, e.g. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/dinosaur-extinction/ entitled Dinosaur Extinction and its opening sentence Sixty-five million years ago, the last of the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. But if you actually have a look at the article the offending line was removed when I decided to condense the text (but please note I do not consider it to be wrong before) so this all probably moot. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine Jules, I'll end it here. I will however say that the key words in the text you included are "non-avian". The original text before your edit simply said "dinosaurs". This means all dinosaurs, not just the non-avian variety. Nobody is arguing that any non-avian dinosaurs survived. 202.167.15.165 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Communication audio

Hello! User:Davros69999 just reverted my edit that removed three songs: File:Falco columbarius - Merlin - XC101582.ogg, File:Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) (W1CDR0001427 BD9).ogg, File:Cuculus canorus.ogg. I also add the drum of a woodpecker: File:Picidae pecking on wood.ogg. Since there is already a song, the extra songs aren't needed, but I think that adding an example of another method of communication (the drumming of a woodpecker) is significant enough to warrant inclusion. What do other editors think? RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello 私に叫ぼう I was looking at the choices in both bird vocalization and the main subject bird commuincation and the only choice was a songbird. Now the owl and the falcon represent predatory birds something that is mentioned momentarily. I figured this provided a wider range of bird communication than what was here. Also both examples provide length rather than a second or two call. I believe it is important to provide variety because the songbirds are not the only birds that manipulate sound. Not only that but most predatory birds are extremely intelligent which adds another element to bird communication. The Cuckoo song was perfect because we all know that sound from a clock and here is the real deal. I was trying to put a small box with a small variety of bird calls rather than one thumb here and one thumb there but I couldn't figure that out (Example of this is the cicada calls or the Whale songs illustrating my point. If a variety of calls or songs is a good thing in the Whale song and cicada sections, considering the wide variety of birds and bird calls it might enhance the segment. The woodpecker is a good addition. Totally agree because it provides another dimension to the subject

First off, cuckoos don't sing, since they aren't songbirds. Anyways, the calls don't add much, since they are all sorta similar (they are all vocalizations), and they clutter the section. Thus, I don't think it would add much value to add more sound bites to the communication section, aside from the house wren song and the woodpecker drumming sound. I could see a begging call in the parental care section, but not else. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 03:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've converted all of the sounds to the {{Listen}} template. I removed the owl one, since it isn't very interesting, and put the three other sounds (the song, the mimicry, and the drumming) into one template. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 15:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Please change Columbimorphae to Columbidae because I think this is a mistake by the editors. Thanks 122.106.4.217 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not a mistake, as Columbimorphae is a taxon containing the orders of the pigeons, sandgrouses and mesites as per gene sequencing.--Mr Fink (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Apokryltaros (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart 14:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding content to taxobox

Before you get too far down the list, maybe there should be a discussion about your edits @Anônimo 2:? The content you're adding is going to push the taxobox waaaaay down, and while its valid, this page is huge already and can't include everything, especially in the taxobox. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agree - please don't do this. This will end up sandwiching a third or more of the article between the box and whatever is on the left, and in particular is going to remove the small cladograms from the vicinty of the accompanying text. I would suggest this material doesn't all need to be present in the overview article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a nice table and could be useful somewhere, but I have to agree, its too much for the taxobox, even if collapsed. Perhaps most of it could go in a taxonomy section before the phylogeny section in the Neoaves article. Then some of the additional ranks could be added as well.   Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's not about birds in general, but about clades of birds, the information really needs to sit in those articles, not in the articles about the whole group. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As   Jts1882  notes, it is a nice table. While the information can be incorporated in other articles, it makes sense to include it in Bird as well (or perhaps Neoaves, with a hatnote in the Bird article). How about converting it to a real Wikipedia table in a new section rather than leaving it as part of the Bird taxobox? Peter Brown (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? It isn't information about "birds" the subject of the article, but about bird groups the subcategories below. It isn't giving examples of subcategories to illustrate a point about the higher subject, it's just listing huge amounts of information with no context. This article is already monstrous, and if we incorporate this we'll need to cite it too, further bloating it. And that's an important point, this is uncited and given the flexible nature of taxonomy in birds it will probably need a lot of them. At some point we have to remember that editors don't just add stuff, we remove too, and that isn't a bad thing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, whats with the editorialising in it? Mousebirds are a living fossil? Why them and not older lineages? Leave that stuff in the articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any citations for the date ranges. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I note that the first of the edits, with an edit summary "fixed typo", removed several orders from the cladogram and messed up the cladogram topology. I think I've restored it to how it was.   Jts1882 | talk  08:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2019

myth Charlesgwyneth (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Grammar fix

In the “Extant Orders” section of the info box there is a misspelled word. “Woodpicker” should be spelled as woodpecker. Crazymantis91 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems fixed. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

Under 'Classification of bird orders', at the order of the 'Suliformes (boobies, cormorants, etc.)' - the term 'boobies' direct to the unrelated article of David A. Boody. This should be changed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby. PleaseUseContraceptives (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC) PleaseUseContraceptives (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done   Jts1882 | talk  11:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Taxobox and "Dinosauria"

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this as it's about the Taxobox, or maybe this has already been asked or discussed? Anyway, now if birds are dinosaurs, shouldn't we see "theropoda" and "dinosauria" in the taxobox as well? Why are they excluded? Is the scientific community still not completely on the boat about birds being dinosaurs? I don't get it. They either are dinosaurs, or they're not, right? They can't be "half dinosaurs". Why are birds only partially referred to as dinosaurs in the article (such as in the category section and lede, but not on the Taxobox section)? I'm very curious and a bit annoyed as well, as this has been one of my pet peeves when it comes to this article. Sure, I'm no expert - So maybe I'm missing on something, but if the velociraptor and archaeopteryx can be classed under "dinosauria", "saurischia" and "theropoda", why not birds? Shouldn't we be consistent or are we actually not completely sure here? ~ Meganesia (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure this will have been discussed before, probably many times. There has been a decision to use the Avialae/skip template to skip over the reptilian clades straight to Amniota. I agree that too much is skipped. There ought to be at least one intermediate clade (e.g. Dinosauria or Archosauria) indicating that birds are on the reptilian side of the main Amniote divide. I think it would be a good idea to create a Dinosauria/skip template for the parent of the Avialae/skip template. Jts1882 | talk 12:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad that somebody agrees and understand my pet peeve when it comes to this article. Yes, there has to be a dinosauria entry as well on the taxobox. If birds belong to dinosauria (or whatever -sauria), you should include it. Otherwise, be consistent and remove anything dinosaur-related on the article and let's stick with "avian" or "bird". Something tells me that the Wikipedian (?) scientific community is still not quite satisfied and confident about birds being dinosaurs, hence the reason why everything related to dinosaurs is omitted from the Aves taxobox. It's pretty telling. I don't know. But I just dislike inconsistencies and lack of decisiveness (fence-sitting). ~ Meganesia (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that dinosaurs are paraphyletic; the idea that dinosaurs are monophyletic is essentially the position of cladists, and is included in the article. We should stick to what we can agree to, and thus dinosauria should not be in the taxobox. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 14:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we should omit anything that is dinosaur related on the article. Just to be consistent, no? Honestly, this is one of the reasons why creationists would sneer at us. We still can't make up our mind. Again, birds are either dinosaurs, or they are not. They cannot be "half" dinosaurs. This article is sort of insinuating the latter. One part of it, such as the taxobox, completely ignores birds' dinosaurian roots, and the other part is all about birds being evolved from dinosaurs and are "feathered dinosaurs" themselves. It's just rather dishonestly contradictory methinks.~ Meganesia (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Humans are descended from small arboreal mammals, and proto-primates, and from mammal-like reptiles, but you wouldn't describe us as those. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The line must be drawn somewhere, though. ~ Meganesia (talk) 12:41, 03 June 2019 (UTC)

The wiki page for Ornithurae shows the taxonomy for what should be shown for birds. ~ JKP 23 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.145.245 (talk)

Uric acid content of bird waste

Accepted knowledge regarding uricotelism has been questioned recently in an ornithological journal article, but it would probably be wise to watch what this leads to before we alter the relevant statements. Shyamal (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That article suggests that the questioning is not only recent. There seems to be a significant literature on the urine containing urate salts (due to pH) and degradation products (due to bacteria). That reference can serve as a secondary source. A simple statement that the uric acid is modified in the caeca and that the excreted material contains urate salts and dragradation products might be in order.   Jts1882 | talk  13:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Avialae seem to be equally used as synonym to Aves

Avialae:

• "Avian Evolution: The Fossil Record of Birds and its Paleobiological Significance": "Aves is used for the clade including Archaeopteryx and extant birds throughout this book"
• doi:10.1101/634170: "We use Avialae here following the preferred term used by most non-avian theropod workers, whereas Aves is preferred by most ornithologists."
• doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.003: "This clade includes all living birds and extinct taxa, such as Archaeopteryx and Enantiornithes. Some researchers refer to this group as Avialae, but others use the name Aves"
• Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (Philip J. Currie, Kevin Padian)
• "Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs": "This traditional sense can be captured by modern phylogenetic taxonomy by defining the name “Aves” using a node-based definition: Archaeopteryx, Neornithes (“modern birds”), and all descendants of their most recent common ancestor. The colloquial term “birds” is usually applied to this same group. These definitions of Aves and birds are the ones adopted generally for this volume."
• doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00293.x: "Subclass Avialae Gauthier, 1986 > [Infraclass Alvarezsauria (Bonaparte, 1991)] > Infraclass Aves Linnaeus, 1758 ..."

Pygostylia:

• "The Inner Bird: Anatomy and Evolution"

Neornithes:

• "The Rise of Birds: 225 Million Years of Evolution": "Throughout this book, I use the clade name “Avialae” for Archaeopteryx and most basal birds and reserve the name “Aves” for modern birds."
• "The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs": "And, we'll continue working within Avialae, the clade that includes Archaeopteryx, Aves, and everything in between"
• "The Dinosauria, Second Edition": "“Birds” as an informal term continues to apply to Archaeopteryx and all more derived members of Avialae (with Aves/Neornithes considered the crown taxon)"
• doi:10.1186/s12862-018-1312-0, and doi:10.1206/748.1

AS ^sa 03:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@AS: Is there a question or statement you would like to post here? Eric ^talk 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, Avialae should be listed as one of the synonyms in taxobox. Then I don't see why Neornithes redirects to Bird and Avialae doesn't. I suppose Neornithes should have separate article too. AS ^sa 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Another less optimal option for discussion could be merging the Avialae page with Bird (although both have full articles and I haven't looked at them enough to see how a merge would work in keeping all of the key text). But apparently not all of the early avialae are considered birds. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Avialae and Neornithes are not synonyms, but Aves can be a synonym of either. Avialae includes many extinct species, which are not part of Neornithes, the crown group. Unfortunately, Aves is used in a variety of different ways, with synonym of Avialae and Neornithes being just two (see Avialae article for Gauthier's four definitions). Merging is not appropriate as there are numerous intermediate taxa: Avialae (=Aves) Euavialae > Ornithothoraces > Euornithes > Ornithuromorpha > Ornithurae > Neornithes (=Aves). There are articles on some of the intermediate taxa. I think the bird article would be better using Neornithes in the taxobox with Aves as a synonym as that would help avoid the confusion.   Jts1882 | talk  17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@AS: Thanks for clarifying. Eric ^talk 17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I was lazy to explain. AS ^sa 18:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"I think the bird article would be better using Neornithes in the taxobox with Aves as a synonym as that would help avoid the confusion." - this sounds less confusing for me too. Ideally, there should be one more disambiguation notice at the top about Avialae but it would be a lot of notices. AS ^sa 18:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)