Talk:Accipitrimorphae

Vultures are not Accipiters.

Quoting New World vulture:

"New World vultures do not form a monophyletic clade with the superficially similar family of Old World vultures; similarities between the two groups are due to convergent evolution. Just how closely related they are has been a matter of debate (see Taxonomy and systematics). Many now consider them to be in their own order Cathartiformes, closely related to, but distinct from, Old World vultures and allies (Accipitriformes).[1]"

Vultures are not raptors (from the Latin word rapere, meaning to seize or take by force), they are scavengers and carrion eaters, and neither their physiology nor psychology/behavior correlates with those of true predatory birds like hawks, eagles, owl or accipiters. Source: 18 years as a state and federally licensed falconer.

"Vultures have historically been grouped with other raptors on the basis of their overall appearance. Often seen soaring high in the sky, they are often mistaken for hawks or eagles.

However, it has recently been determined that the seven species of New World vultures are more closely related to storks than to the hawks and eagles with which they were originally grouped. Unlike all other raptors, vultures are not birds of prey. They feed solely on carrion, preferring animals that have been dead for two to four days. This certainly explains why they, unlike all other raptors, lack strong, grasping feet and talons. Feeding on carrion has led to a number of other vulture adaptations. Long, broad wings allow for many hours of effortless soaring. The elevated hind toe and blunt talons allow for easier walking. Their bare heads keep otherwise-present feathers from getting dirty and specialized enzymes and bacteria allow them to eat contaminated meat."

"COMMON NAME: Turkey vulture

SCIENTIFIC NAME: Cathartes aura

NOTE: While included here, the Turkey Vulture it is not technically classified as a raptor."

Finally, there is already an article on Accipiters/Accipiteredae: Accipiter. The information in this article would be best copied, merged or moved to the pre-existing article.besieged^talk 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence you are using here are some out of dated information. If you have read the latest genetic studies (which can be found in the reference section), NW vultures are no longer seem to be related to storks. While it is possible that Accipitrimorphae and Accipitriformes might be the same thing, to state the article might not contain any actual fact is wrong to say if provided with enough references alone. Another thing is to say your own experience as a state and federally licensed falconer is considered to be original information which goes against the wiki guidelines. Lastly what about OW vultures? Are they not raptors too?--4444hhhh (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, "original information" only applies to information cited in an article as fact, not to talk pages nor to discussions of factual veracity. It was mentioned specifically as credentials that you're not dealing with a random, uneducated wiki amateur who has read a few blogs on birds, in the hopes that it might cause you to consider my concerns seriously and engage in discussion.

Secondly, you plainly are overreacting because NOWHERE did I say, claim or imply that the article does not contain any facts, but rather that there is room for debate regarding some of the information presented by the article as incontrovertible fact.

Thirdly, "latest" anything is no guarantor of factual accuracy, and never has been. Prior to the "latest" studies you're citing, the "latest" before them contradicted. Which is right? Has all of science settled on your "latest" study as bona fide truth that will never be contradicted by another study a few years from now? Because DNA examinations are always correct? Until there is wide scientific consensus, you can't claim something to be absolute truth and not expect to be challenged on it, particularly when the claims do not fit the facts as other people know/recognize them. Therefore, even in the face of the "latest" studies, it is not in any way inappropriate to question the claims being made, nor to expect an article to be written in a neutral way that covers all common (yet verifiable and valid) views/research on a given subject, particularly when the matter is far from absolutely proven, as it is in this case. My direct experience with birds of prey as well as command of the language (which defines raptors as predators: to do anything else pollutes the word "raptor" and diminishes its value and meaning, Q.E.D. it excludes scavengers and carrion eaters) and my own research into other people's published, verifiable, 3rd party, research tells me you're wrong: your research tells you I am wrong, gence the need for and use of maintenance tags on the wikipedia in order to begin discussion, attract wider attention, achieve a community consensus, and, hopefully, in the end, compile an article that is neutral, factual, and inclusive of all valid considerations/viewpoints/data, not just those of a single person or group of people.

For example, you probably could have just edited the article to say something like, "There has been significant debate in the past and present day as to the proper classification of some species in this clade. Current research in genetics has disproven a relation between vultures and storks, however, blah blah blah blah", or merely had the discussion with me here instead of unilaterally deciding for the whole wikipedia that you're right and I'm wrong and shutting down the entire mechanism I was attempting to invoke in order to spur such a conversation and seek outside assistance from other editors and subject experts.

As for my overarching assertion, it is that to compare or relate vultures to accipiters is a mistake at any level besides the most distant relation, and lumping them in with accipitrimorphae is a taxonomical mistake that I will happily argue even with someone with a doctorate in evolutionary biology, because it dilutes the meaning of the words involved and implies commonalities in relation that simply don't exist, if only because the clade itself could be a misnomer, and scientists are just as bad as anyone else about using language improperly: words have meanings, and specific ones at that, otherwise they'd just be worthless noise and no one would be able to communicate ideas or concepts. IF there is actually a recent enough evolutionary comparison (and there really doesn't seem to be), then perhaps the clade itself needs to be renamed (to something like "aviamorphae")to remove the comparison between the two distinctly different groups of birds who share basically no traits worth noting besides being birds with a common distant ancestor. Otherwise, we might as well say that all birds are accipitrimorphae just because they share a distant dinosaurid ancestor (thus completely watering down the word "accipiter" and rendering it just another word for "bird"), or lump Homo Sapiens in to a clade named "rodentiamorphae" along with rats and squirrels because we once shared a distant ancestor: the fact of the ancestry is undeniable, but any modern relation or comparison is useless and would be horribly misleading, just as "accipitrimorphae" implies accipiters or other related predatory birds, which vultures do not qualify as because they are not predators, they lack the physiological adaptations common amongst predatory birds, and their diet and behavior is both common across their own species, and completely different than that of real raptors. Again, I don't care if people THOUGHT that vultures were birds of prey for however long, it doesn't make it true any more than the fact that people used to think the Earth was flat, nor does the fact that 90% of Texans call vultures "buzzards" actually makes it so.

I will grant, however, that this may actually warrant its own article instead of being merged with accipiter or accipitridae, but I still believe that is a subject for community discussion, expert/admin comment, and consensus.

besieged^talk 03:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the important thing is you realized that it is silly to merge this article with Accipiter or Accipitridae, but I am afraid you seem to misunderstand taxonomy or not have a clear idea. If you bothered to read the latest papers on bird phylogenies and ornithological communities, they do seem to agree that cathartid vultures are related to other raptors. Clearly you have not. Again, taxonomy is not clear cut and often goes against word meanings. Do you realize how many pointless renaming we would have if every taxon or clade were to be renamed since it may contain taxa that were once not part of? Based on your argument, then birds cannot be dinosaurs as the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard" - same principal according to you, just different example. Or whales are not ungulates because they don't have unguligrade movement at present or that whales are carnivores and their relatives, hippos and ruminants are not? I do agree science is ever changing and present views could be wrong, but with the amount of unrelated studies have shown this is the case. This article never implied Accipitrimorphae equals Accipiters. And you do realized that vultures of the Old World - the ones you see eating zebra carcasses and being chased by hyenas - have been seen as derived eagles and THAT view has been universally accepted by scholars, falconers and naturalists (regardless where New World vultures fit in on the tree). Again with your horrible example/argument, according to you, they cannot be because dilutes the meaning of the words involved and implies commonalities in relation that simply don't exist. Not to sound cocky or arrogant, but I am currently a zoology major and this is the sort of thing they teach us, and I would be afraid if my professors were making up stuff as they go (where clearly they are not). That is why I removed those tags long before we are having this discussion as you clearly don't understand cladistics or the current literature. If you have, than you should provide the research the people you know here as well, if you want a neutral article.--4444hhhh (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Could somebody please try to clean up the mess about Cathartidae?

I am no expert on birds and do not claim to have great insight into the subject, but if you go link by link through the cladistic articles about accipitri-whatevers and new world vultures you cannot end up anything but confused. There is about 5 or six different conflicting statements about what condors and co right now are meant to be seen as. The height of insanity has been reached in THIS article where it claims that the clade it talks about might be a junior synonym to its daughter clade Accipitriformidae. Whisky-Tango-Foxtrott? EITHER the placement of Cathartidae in this group is correct, then there is no way A.-morphidae should be the same as A.-formidae as A.-formidae would need a distinction from Cathartidae. OR the placement in this new group "above" A.-formidae is wrong, then the morphidae-moniker is simply not necessary and should not be used. To declare it a synonym is nonsensical in the face of this question (where the condor belongs on the cladistic tree) and just causes confusion.

So what IS the current state of things in regards to Carthartidae? If anybody has reliable and un-challenged information about the subject it should be edited accordingly in ALL related subjects on Wikipedia so that finally everything in this group of articles says the same thing. If there is not even anything close to scientific consensus that should be part of the correct article (namely this one as the term was created to enable a placement not in but besides the Accipitriformes) and only mentioned shortly in all higher tier cladistic articles (A.-formes, accipiter, new world vultures, osprey, secretary bird and so on) to avoid the same confusion to sneak into the system again. Is there no standard procedure in place to keep these kind of subjects as contradiciton free as possible when new science is included? As far as I understand that's the main task of these projects, isn't it? --5.146.47.110 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)