Talk:Flying and gliding animals

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): John.waswill. Peer reviewers: KyleMadden24, ThatsCrazey, Roosterchair.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing Amphibians from list:

You mention that some amphibians glide in the introduction, but don't include any in details the actual article. My I suggest looking into the Flying Frog species? Most use their webbed feet as a form of parachute to glide in trees.

(thank you for all your work, I'm not really an editor of things like this, I just like frogs) 138.49.3.60 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

• This page seems to be badly formatted..--Thiamshui 16:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. It needs someone to look at the content, as well as the layout, as quite alot of it is unnecessary. --Chachu207 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hello. Thanks for the comments and the formatting. I was trying to look up this topic on wikipedia, but there was nothing listing all the types of animal that glide and comparing them, so I decided to make one. Discussions on what kinds of animal show certain kinds of locomotion is interesting from a comparative biology standpoint. I would like to add a little more on generally what makes a glider or flyer. However if anyone else would like too, please feel free. A little on where the animals are from, and what they are like, especially where it concerns aerial locomotion, is useful so that one can make a one page comparison. I'll clean it up when I get a chance. Still learning wikipedia formatting. Nicolharper 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cats and gliding mammal page

Do cats belong? Couldn't the same parachuting be said for many primates, squirrels, and just about any aroboreal mammal. Also note the gliding mammal page. Should this be merged, split off, or expanded? --Aranae 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction between parachuting and falling should be made. :) And there is little info in gliding mammal describing the mechanism, it just basically cites a few animals and could very easily be merged and redirected to this page. -Dawson 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the discussion. I added cats as they are mentioned on the Berkeley Flying and Gliding pages as an example of a parachuter, and I thought they would provide a light comparison to full gliders and parachuters. They do have a 'righting reflex' for falling which many other animals don't have. Whether they should be in the list or just mentioned in some text at the top of the section generally describing the types of animals that fly and glide. I'm not sure. At the moment I'm leaving them in the list, but mentioning that there may be other animals with 'limited parachuting.' Nicolharper 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. --Aranae 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for the user talk. Nicolharper 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Flying and Gliding mechanisms

I'll flesh out the mechanisms when I get a chance, but this may not be for some time. If anyone else fancies writing up on the biomechanics of flying and gliding feel free. The link to the Berkeley site in the section is a good start for information. Nicolharper 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wing loading in soaring birds need sorting out

Hi Nicolharper here. I am not sure that the section on soaring birds and [wing loading] is correct. Does large size allow low wing loading? Nicolharper 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project of interest - organismal biomechanics

Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ballooning

Ballooning added to 'Types of aerial locomotion' list - I intentionally made it vague, since this turns out to be more complicated than expected; and there seems to be some "controversy" (believe it or not). Frankly, I have no inclination to resolve this on my own; anyone interested please see discussion : Talk:Spider_silk#Ballooning_vs._Kiting. ~Eric F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [oops]
- P.s.: I just noticed this is briefly discussed later in the article; but should probably have been included on the list anyway. Note also that this phenomenon is not exclusive to spiders; some larvae (e.g.: gypsy moth) and mites as well. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Homology image

I added an image, but am uncertain about placement. All 3 examples are mentioned in the section, but not in relation to Homology or analogous structures, which are not discussed in this article. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC) - Btw, I would have no real objection if the image were to be removed.

first flying animals

1. The article does not provide information on when which kinds of animals developed the ability to fly.
2. Its information on the first birds is very confusing. In fact, it only talks about theropod dinosaurs that are not birds. It makes this even more confusing in incorrectly using the restrictive "that" after a comma, which indicates a non-restrictive clause: "There were several species of theropod dinosaur thought to be capable of gliding or flying, that are not classified as birds (though they are closely related)."
3. It does not even mention the most famous bird ancestor, Archaeopteryx!
4. Some quickly found sources we can use to fix this mess:

• http://www.port.ac.uk/special/pterosaurs/evolutionofflight/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3319145/Museums-forgotten-fossil-was-first-creature-on-Earth-to-fly.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Archaeopteryx
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Pterosaur
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15150591
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14307985
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17612354
• http://www.livescience.com/29231-cretaceous-period.html
• http://www.brecorder.com/agriculture-a-allied/183/1179387/ to find the Royal Society article
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20079390
• http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/origins.html
• http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
• http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/converge.html
• http://www.livescience.com/29001-bird-crouch-evolved-before-flight.html

--Espoo (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the page as a whole needs some very broad re-organization, and the lists of flying/gliding critters should be moved entirely to "List of..." pages. There should be whole sections on the evolution of both flight and gliding, and I should really get around to expanding the biomechanics section. I'll fiddle with it a bit, and feel free to do likewise, and we'll see about improving it. HCA (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are go, much better. Now it just needs to get cleaned up and wiki-fied, but I'll leave that to the wiki-gnomes. HCA (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no information on the models of how powered flight evolved in mammals, simply that they presumably evolved from gliders; more attention should be given to how the transition to powered flight was made. Little mention is made of the selective pressures that led to the development of flight, perhaps more information could be added on the subject. While there is mention of ancestral forms of flight (pterosaurs), the article could benefit from more information on ancestral flight. Wolfer.13 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we only really have good fossils in birds. In all 3 other examples of powered flight, the fossil record doesn't allow us to do more than speculate. There's a fair amount of scientific literature on each, but it's all highly contentious and won't allow broad generalizations. HCA (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Molluscs

"observed to continue jetting water while airborne possibly providing thrust even after leaving the water." I removed the word "possibly" because under Newton's Third Law of Motion it absolutely must provide thrust. If the water is jetted in the direction of flight it will slow the animal, but it will be "providing thrust." Although I do not know, from the text as quoted, it seems likely that the thrust is such as to propel the animal in the direction it is traveling when it leaves the water. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Powered flight language usage

"Additionally, because flying animals tend to be small (to increase surface area to mass ratio)" - this does not seem right to me - the use of "to increase" implies intent.

I have made tweaks to address this concern.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flying and gliding animals. 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/20060709070057/http://www.szgdocent.org:80/resource/ff/f-rain1a.htm to http://www.szgdocent.org/resource/ff/f-rain1a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexican free-tailed bat flight-speeds

I was rather surprised to read of a bat flying at more than 160 kph. There is also criticism of this in an RS here[1]. I think this RS should be included to indicate the results are contentious. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not the only skeptic in the universe, then. I pulled the ref earlier today - it seems the website was down when I tried to read the source, but it's back now, but the Royal Society paper is at least totally respectable. Of course, it may be wrong, for reasons such as given in the New Scientist article you cite. I'll put that in the article now - I'd not have thought you needed permission to mention it actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I was very close to entering it without discussion but since the original research has been entered and reverted, I thought I'd open it up for discussion. The New Scientist criticism seems perfectly plausible and probably needs to be entered for a balanced article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've put that in already now, with a more detailed discussion in Mexican free-tailed bat. The discussion was about whether the phys.org source existed (or was a mistake on that site) - it does and it wasn't, but the site did go down. The New Scientist states valid reasons for skepticism about the Royal Society findings, and a quote is provided in the ref in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've just read your edits. Thanks. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flying and gliding animals. 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/20100816034946/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/08/literally_flying_lemurs.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/08/literally_flying_lemurs.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611055757/http://www.caf.wvu.edu/~rwhitmor/ornithology/Ancient%20feathered%20animal%20challenges%20dinosaur-bird%20link.htm to http://www.caf.wvu.edu/~rwhitmor/ornithology/Ancient%20feathered%20animal%20challenges%20dinosaur-bird%20link.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

removing a sources needed tag

because I added citations and addressed places that needed it still Balle010 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Flying fish

A recent edit to the Types section added an allegation that Hatchet Fish are capable of powered flight. If that's true, then we should add them to the Flying animals section. If it isn't true, then it should be removed from the Types section. Although even then, maybe it should still be added to the Gliding animals/Fish section.

Note that it looks like Hatchet Fish were included in the Flying animals section for a long time, until they were removed in an edit on 9 December 2020, in part because at the time there was no reference for the information. Although the recent edit does include references. - Burner89751654 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah makes sense, luckily there are sources! (And peer reviewed ones at that!) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)