Talk:New Caledonian crow

August 2007

Someone incorporate this finding: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6948446.stm

I've done it, but from a different source, Jimfbleak 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

This article could really do with a picture... are there no usable ones available? Chaos syndrome 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently rooks are now also part of this elite group of tool users. Doubly interesting as they are not habitual tool users in the wild. http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=5230 by the way there's a nice picture at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/fig_tab/414707a_F1.html 83.70.200.239 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47678000/jpg/_47678022_corvid_226b.jpg there is another picture from the bbc website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbyyellow (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Of this statement: "also spontaneously makes tools from materials it does not encounter in the wild, the only non-human species known to do so." Seems false, since I've seen Bonobo's in captivity, albeit on video making complex tools. Perhaps they encounter rock but do they encounter the type of rock given to them by researchers? This should be clarified I think.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

^I agree. Jax-Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The tool use of this bird is amazing and should be discussed at length in the text. However, I feel to have this term in the first sentence and discussed in the opening paragraph is a little over the top. Should we not first describe the bird and then introduce its tool use a little later in the article? There are in fact many animals which use tools, although I accept this bird seems unusually clever at it. But the article is about the bird, not tool use.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What information would fit "first describe the bird"? It has a relatively recognizable crow-like appearance and its endemism comes strongly implied in its common designation. There's nothing in this aspect that deserves, one could say, "priority". On the other hand, the facts that do make this particular species stand out seem distinctive enough to warrant the place of the opening paragraph, which would have no space to go if the material that goes into the Description becomes said entry. However, perhaps the text itself hasn't the best structure.Snjón (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead paragraph. Let me know what you think. Remember, the lead paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the information contained within the article. It therefore contains information presented elsewhere in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it now holds a good deal of content and not just the specific previous facts. And you're right, it's more in line with what's usually found in other articles. Sorry for that initial, pointless opposition. Snjón (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I looked in Wikicommons for a better lead image, but there is not any alternative! I was amazed by that. Plenty of videos, but no images! Happy editing.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ability to infer weights of objects from effects of wind

Here's another study demonstrating a cognitive ability of this species. [1][2] -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)