Talk:New World vulture

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

I believe that first picture is a California Condor because of the white underwings and lack of the Andean Condor's head and neck ornamentation. I'm absolutely convinced it's not a Turkey Vulture, a bird I'm very familiar with. —JerryFriedman 19:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relation to Storks

My reading shows that these birds are not closely related to storks but they are more closely related than to Old World vultures or other diurnal raptors. --Droll 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue deserves more thorough discussion, including references. Old World vultures seem to have certain DNA rearrangements that are unique to thats group (Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics April 2006 paper IIRC, but whether anything can be drawn from that I don't know (the other accipitrids have not been checked on that marker it seems). Altogether, molecular evidence for the Cathartidae relationships seems equivocal (and possibly suffering from the errors of early application of molecular taxonomy; I don't have any recent studies on the topic) while, morphological evidence is largely in favor of a relationship with Ciconiiformes (in general - not storks in particular!). Behavior, on the other hand, very strongly supports a ciconiiform relationship. Feeding habits are prone to fast change (in fact, they are possibly one of the driving factors of speciation, we're gonna hear more on this in 2 years or so when the research currently underway gets published), while characters like urinating on the legs are rather conservative. The evolutionary history of all taxa in question is farly well known, but the points of divergence are still a mystery or unresolvable (due to many early Neornithes presenting a mix of characters of many orders). Dysmorodrepanis 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• The studies suggesting morphological similarities between Ciconiiformes and Cathartidae are very dated - see Livezey and Zusi (2007) for an extremely thorough (and recent) overview suggesting placement of cathartids in Falconiformes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.233.82 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, the paper I mentioned is: Cytogenetics and Genome Research '112: 286-295. It does not mention whether this has actually been analyzed in NWVs, but it points out that Falconiformes have the most strongly rearranged genomes of all birds analyzed to date (which is to say, in all likelihood all birds since chromosomal studies are fairly bread n butter work and has been done for a long time). For some reason, in Falconiformes there exists a bias for chromosomes to aggregate until a certain size has been reached, and then to rearrange. Most birds have a medium number of large chromosomes and a large number of small chromosomes. Falconiforms have a large number of lerge and medium-sized chromosomes and very few (a handful or so) small chromosomes. So whether NWVs are falconiform could possibly be determined using nothing more serious than a good quality light microscope... Dysmorodrepanis 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this only holds true for accipitrids. See Falconiformes article for ref. Dysmorodrepanis 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes

It would assist verification if page numbers were included in the notes. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between condor and vulture?

This page makes the distinction between the two condor species, and the five vulture species. However, no distinction between the two is given. This is especially confusing, as the five vulture New World vulture species are different than the Old World vulture species. (Vulture points back to this page for clarification on the New World species.) So ... what's the difference between a condor and a (new world) vulture? Is it purely linguistic? Why make the distinction between New World vultures and condors - it seems that it would be clearer to call the old world vultures in general "vultures", and new world vultures in general "condors", so why isn't it done? -- 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Condor" is used for members of the genera Vultur and Gymnogyps (the Andean and California condors, respectively, the latter being included in Vultur by some ornithologists). The rest of them are called vultures, and "New World vulture" may be used as a collective term for all members of the family Cathartidae, whether they are called "condor" or "vulture" in English. According to Online Dictionary, "vulture" comes from the Latin and entered written English in the 14th century, and "condor" derives from a Native American word and began to be used around 1600. 153.2.247.30 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Last piece in the FT jigsaw puzzle...

OK then, what does this need....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly expansion. Some sections need adding, like distribution and migration, but mostly single paragraph sections need to be expanded. This shouldn't be too hard as all the research work has already been done for the individual species articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New World vulture is collaboration for October 2009

Nominated August 18 2009;

Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC) - Selfishly because I still want to get Procellariiformes featured all on my lonesome!
4. WhitleyTucker (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• (1) part of a Featured Topic potentially (2) a family (nice to get a higher taxon to FA)

The references are the usual untemplated ratbag of DIY formats, I've tried to tidy, but needs another check

Zim and Tozzer both need a page number

:Is there a better way to do the checklist ref? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Change?

Calling these birds "New World Vultures" is thinking in three dimensional terms - perhaps the fourth should be taken into consideration. As the article mentions that this clade is known from Old World fossils and it is implied that they evolved there, the name of the article should probably be "Cathartidae" (see below). A member of the "Old World" vulture lineages was also found in the New World (Neophrontops spp.) until quite recently, further necessitating a name change.

It also deserves mention that Cathartidae is a junior synonym for Vulturidae - see here - thus it is unusual that the former name is still being commonly used. It appears that palaeontologists prefer using "Vulturidae" - see here - and ornithologists prefer "Cathartidae"; since "Cathartidae" is more widely used/known, it is still the best candidate for the title of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.233.82 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fatally Ambiguous "They"

This identical sentence, "They were widespread in both the Old World and North America, during the Neogene," appears in both this article and the Old World vulture article. To what group, New, Old or all vultures of whatever clade does "they" in this statement refer?μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I nominate this article for Good Article status based upon the following criteria:

1. The article sources are reliable. I was able to check one source, and the source validated the article’s claims. The article did not close paraphrase or appear to plagiarize the sources. I specifically checked the claims made about the Reed source.
   
2. The article presents all information in a neutral way. The article is also well-written. It is concise and keeps focus on the topic.
   
3. Besides 2 citation needed spots, there are no other cleanup banners on the page.
   
4. The article does not seem to be the subject of any ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
   
5. The article does not specifically concern a rapid current event that has a definite endpoint.
   
6. As stated above, I did not notice any close paraphrasing or copyright violations. I do acknowledge that I do not have any reference-checking software, so my review of this aspect was limited.
   
7. The article has a nice amount of images. All of the images used are on WikiMedia Commons and released for public use.

WhitleyTucker (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I will note the taxonomy section is rather outdated, and the fossil/extinct species section could use some help.--Kevmin § 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

An awful lot of space is used on Teratornithidae for some reason. Could be cut down to a short sentence, since they may not even belong here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New World vulture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Danger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The primary issue I see initially is the relatively short lead. The lead should summarize the whole article; right now a basic description and material on conservation and culture are missing.

• The prose is choppy and many sentences should be combined. Example "The New World vultures comprise seven species in five genera. The genera are Coragyps, Cathartes, Gymnogyps, Sarcoramphus, and Vultur."

More later. Danger ^{High voltage!} 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Instead, they lay eggs on bare surfaces."; needs expanding. Does it nest on ledges on cliffs? Snowman (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the article for smoothness, so it's a little easier to read. Overall it seems quite a reasonable article in terms of coverage; my main feeling is that the lead should be extended slightly to reflect the article's contents, for instance of fossils. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Failed, almost entirely due to the short lead. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory claims about taxonomy

The lead claims "Many now consider them to be in their own order Cathartiformes, closely related to, but distinct from, Old World vultures". Later in the article, there is a contradictory statement "Although New World vultures have many resemblances to Old World vultures they are not very closely related." How can it be said that New World vultures "are closely related to, but distinct from Old World vultures" but also that "they are not very closely related"? I am not an expert on this topic, but it definitely seems that either the lead is wrong or the article is wrong. Since there is a citation in the article text, would there be any objection in me changing the lead to be consistent with the article text? AuburnMagnolia (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New World vulture. 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/20090302073659/http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html to http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Cathartidae or Vulturidae?

Cathartidae Lafresnaye 1839 is listed as the formal name, with Vulturidae Illiger 1811 as a synonym. How is that possible? Shouldn't the oldest name be preferred, per ICZN rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.176.102 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)