Talk:Rhea (bird)

Rheally confused

Species

The text mentions Rhea Americanus. One figure mentions Rhea americana and Rhea pennata. Another figure mentions six species. Have the rhea been evolving while the article was written?

the article's also confused as to whether there are 2 or 3 species. I suspect the 3rd is newly named and a sloppy edit has been done. PS of the quoted 6 species (above), 4 are extinct (marked with dagger) Chrismorey (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

• In Patagonia I saw them swallowing bolts and keys (instead of rocks).
• In Buenos Aires their eggs were a treat and to empty them without breaking the shell, a challenge.
• Mental 'rithmetic: amount in centimeters, double it once, double it again, divide by 100 (move decimal point 2 places to the left) and you have the amount in inches only 1.6% larger.Jclerman 23:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

How come only metric measurements? Ortolan88

Becaue that is what is used in science and in the whole world outside the US. Also was the choice of the person writing the entry. If you like, you can add American units in parenthesis after the metric ones. --maveric149

Condecension breeds condecension, maveric. You told me that. I have heard of the metric system and I also know how to do simple arithmetic. But I can't do the calculations in my head and I don't see why we should expect our readers to do so. By the way, they don't use the metric system in Liberia either. How about our Liberian readers?Ortolan88

What do they use in Liberia? On an international note, things like feet and inches are difficult to use because they vary in length from place to place. A French foot is about 17 British inches, so in worrying about everyone giving a length in just feet would be wrong. I don't know how common such units are, but then, that's one of the reasons most people went metric in the first place.

Liberia uses feet, inches and pounds.

I think this and other articles would be better if they had both metric and inch-foot-pound measurements for the convenience of the American reader.

The likelihood that even French people would think of the archaic French foot is slim, it seems to me. The likelihood that American readers would appreciate seeing inches, feet and pounds is quite high in contrast. I expect the American readership of wikipedia may be as high as 50 percent.

It's not like I was asking for measurements in poods and versts. Ortolan88

Feet and inches are now standardised worldwide (an inch is exactly 2.54 centimetres by definition). Gallons aren't (though the Imperial gallon has pretty much dropped out of usage - the US one is the only non-historical one) Yes, American readers deserve entries in cubits and furlongs or whatever their ridiculous measurement system uses ;), but equally American writers should translate their measurements into SI units. Getting "primary unit" consistency on Wikipedia is unlikely, but as long as they are consistent within an article that's OK. The exception is of course physics-related articles, where if you use American units as the primary unit the physicists will just roll about on the floor laughing :)

So, in summary, yes, if an article has just one set of measurements it's a bug, but I think the easiest thing to do is just fix it. --Robert Merkel

Hey, I think we ought to use the metric system, play nothing but soccer, and have more sophisticated attitudes about adultery, but we are so provincial. And the lack of topless beaches has made us the laughingstock of the world.Ortolan88

It's football ;) Seriously, sorry about the tail-twisting, but all in all do you think the above is a reasonable policy (in summary use one set of units consistently within an article, but provide translations, if a field of endeavour has a bias towards one set of units (science uses metric, drag racing uses imperial) stick with that set as the primary units)? --Robert Merkel

Hey! I like poods and versts! More poods and versts please.

Sorry: it's just that having both metric & imperial adds nothing to an article — any half-educated person can understand either one and do a rough mental conversion of the "5 feet = a bit less than 2 metres" variety. But seeing it in poods and versts would tell me something new I didn't know before — i.e., how long a pood is. Or possibly how heavy. (We don't seem to have an article on them.) Tannin 16:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is a Pood page, just not a "Poods" one. --BlackTerror 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Farmers sometimes consider them pests, because they will eat almost any crop plant. ... They do not eat most crop plants, but they will eat brassicas (cabbage, and baby chard and bok choi) if very hungry soybean leaves" -- Can someone resolve this contradiction? --Cwage 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

/* Trivia */ They will eat almost any broadleaf plant, however, the brassicas are their absolute favorite. I do not even think of raising chicks in my cabbage garden, but, they are very useful in keeping a pumpkin or melon patch melon free--without eating the plants.

Darwin's Rhea also in Chilean Patagonia

The diagrams don't show it, but the Darwin's Rhea is quite common in the Chilean part of Patagonia, as well as the Argentinian side. In fact, based on my observations the last two weeks, it is more common and less skittish in Chile than Argentina, possibly because of stronger protections against hunting.

Picture of chicks

This picture was linked to the ostrich before, but these are actually rhea chicks

File:Straussenkueken.jpg

. --HSuepfle. Maybe you want to like it here.

Hybrid

Can any species of rhea be hybridized with any other Ratite?

This has not happened yet. I suspect that the species are too far removed to allow this. Although it is possible the ostrich and rhea, as the most similar of the ratites, MIGHT, and I do mean MIGHT, have the capacity to be genetically compatible, their physical differences, just like a crossbreeding of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, make this highly unlikely. Artificial insemination would resolve the issue. To date, this has not been done. Donna. --4.254.72.129 00:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Technically the Emu & Cassowary are the most similar Ratites, But I see your point.

claws on their toes only or also in their wings?

As birds descend from/are related to theropod dinosaurs, some birds still have or had claws on their wings, such as Archaeopteryx, Turaco and the Hoatzin (but more, I guess that Alvarezsaurus nowadays is regarded as a bird, and some Phorusrhacos-like bird). I think that Thea is also one of these, as it was mentionend in an earlier version of this text (now found on some delayed "mirror" site[1]) and in this brief mention on Dinosaur Mailing List[2]. So, as Jerry Seinfeld would say, what's the deal with Rheas wing claws? --Extremophile 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

IONO, but all those clawed birds apparently have claws as a re-emergent trait (just like teeth are apparently not "buried" that deeply in birds) these things seem to pop up every now and then. So it may be possible in the rhea too. But I am not a ratite speciealist. (The alvarezsaurids are not generally considered bird ATM, but that all boils down to some intricacies of cladistics and might change though I'd rather say not and rather: remarkable case of parallel evolution. Basically, what makes them bird-like has been recognized to not be unique to birds in the meantime). Dysmorodrepanis 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Head detail image

Why is the image of the "Head of a Rhea (detail)" entitled "Caput_dromaius_novaehollandiae.JPG"? It does appear to be a Rhea, but 'Dromaius novaehollandiae' is the Emu. Lusanaherandraton 08:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhea farming

Are lesser rheas farmed? If (as I suspect) not, this section refers only to the greater, and it should be moved there – perhaps with a brief mention in the leading paragraph here, making it clear which species is meant.--Richard New Forest 08:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

requested info: size

• how big are these things? brain (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

about 5 feet 5 inches tall. Cant find the weight though. Docku:“what up?” 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhea Genera

Alright, now I am confused, I have two books that state the same thing. The first book Latin Names Explained, A guide to the Scientific Classification if Reptiles, Birds & Mammals, was published in 1995 so I assumed it was outdated information. However, I have now read my second book, Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, with a published date of 2003, and it also states 2 genera, with the lesser rhea being classified Pterocnemia pennata. However, Clements Checklist the the Birds of the World state one genus, but the Tree of Life web site states two. I am starting to lean towards the two genera. Before I incorporate both POV into the article (or change it), I would like to see what people think. speednat (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-post from Talk:Darwin's Rhea –

I'm no expert and am equally confused, but note that Darwin Online supports your suggestion of "Pterocnemia pennata" – footnote states "Named by Gould Rhea Darwinii, however it had already been named Rhea pennata by Orbigny [1834]-47, vol. 2, p. 67 note 2 [now called Pterocnemia pennata (Orbigny, 1834)].", confirmed by Steinheimer 2004 and Freeman 2007. Rhea is easier for us non-experts and the Darwin's Rhea taxonomy section says "As late as 1995 it was classified in the Pterocnemia Genus", but the lead should show both in my uninformed opinion, even if there's been a decision superseding Pterocnemia. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Taxonomy and references recommends these lists: [3] and [4]. Both lists use Rhea for both species. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the former list states "2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia into Rhea." Since there's obviously still mixed opinion and/or superseded references about, it would be helpful to readers coming from references using Pterocnemia for a brief note to that effect to be added to the lead of each article. Sound ok? . . dave souza, talk 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just went through a bunch of the sites and it looks like this:

• Rhea SACC, and IOC, Clements,
• Pterocnemia Grzimek's Animal Lif Encyclopedia, Avibase, Sibley and Monroe, Howard and Moore

I think that with IOC and SACC siding with Rhea, I will leave it that way, but make a note on the change in the taxonomy section speednat (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Order

Michaelprobe (talk · contribs) recently updated the taxobox on this page to change the order from Struthioniformes to Rheiformes. I have reverted these changes for the time being. I understand that the taxonomy of birds is a tricky subject, but it strikes me that this change is not "non-controversial" and should be discussed here first. Please express any opinions regarding this change here. If no objection is made, I will restore this change. I will also include this topic in discussion at WP:WikiProject Birds. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Rabbi-m (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC) There's an entry for Greater Rhea that also has the order Struthioniformes . The Struthioniformes entry makes no mention of the taxonomy issues at all. Certainly that should be dealt with. The Ratite entry does deal with it somewhat...

Nandu

There is no indication why "Nandu" redirects to this page. Snowman (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the local designations to explain this; the term "ñandú" is the Spanish common name, derived originally from the native Guarani language.Nordisk varg (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• It is the the bird's name in several languages as in German e.g. de:Nandus --Schwab7000 (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sternum

The rheas are ratites (flightless birds, with unkeeled sterna) in the genus Rhea, native to South America.

There should be one more link, but to Sternum, I guess, not to Sterna. --Schwab7000 (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

References

I noticed that all of the footnotes directly corresponded to one of the references. It seems redundant to me to have the exact same information duplicated, so I have removed the references section, renamed the footnotes section to references and changed all the references to in-line citations. No references have been completely removed, just reorganised. I also removed each instance of the same reference in the taxonomy section with a single instance of the reference at the beginning of the list. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Third species

IUCN has accepted Rhea tarapacensis (incl. garleppi) as a separate third species of rhea, following the 2014 review of Del Hoyo et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.40.189 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem!

Why does the full article not appear - shown only in the index and "Edit source"? Phycodrys (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry - I've found it, big space in the text!Phycodrys (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Picture for Puna Rhea

It would be very much appreciated if some one would add a photo for the Puna Rhea in the table.Puffin Crazy (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)