Jump to content

Talk:Accipitridae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old discussion

[edit]

Tannin, please revert if you're not happy with this jimfbleak

This family is listed both under the "falconiformes" order and the "accipitriformes" order. What's up with this? --Mithcoriel 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Merge request. Accipitriformes is redundant with Falconiformes and Accipitridae. Dysmorodrepanis 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Accipitriformes is not covering anything that is not included in either Falconiformes or Ciconiiformes, but the positions of the some families, e.g. the New World vultures, is unclear. Accipitriformes appears to still be in use and it would seem odd to me for an encyclopedia not to have an article covering the subject. JohnCastle 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know that the enlarged Ciconiiformes, inc birds of prey, is widely accepted by national ornithological societies outside NAm jimfbleak 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were/are accepted by the AOU but IIRC nobody else. At any rate, they're paraphyletic. I have gotten ahold of some more recent nuc/mtDNA paper that suggests Falconidae - Accipiteridae - Sagittariidae - Pandionidae in Falconiformes, but outgroup choice should be carefully studied.
In any case, "Accipitriformes" would be treated in the systematics section of Accipitridae - compare the discussion of alternative taxonomic models in Anatidae. Accipitriformes and Accipitridae are nearly 100% about the same subject. Dysmorodrepanis 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is this: S/A's DNA-DNA hybridization suggested a distance between falcons and accipitrids that is an artefact due to most accipitrids having a rearranged genome. DNA-DNA hybridization is essentially worthless here.
What can be said is that falcons are probably not significantly more distinct from hawks than the osprey is from either, and actually closer than secretarybirds. Pending the ultimate resolution of the issue, it seems a Falconiformes that includes all of 'em is the most prodent way to go. It almost certainly would need to be split due to being deeply divergent, but it is quite possibly a clade.--24.235.170.31 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)--24.235.170.31 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)jack like's hawks ti hi[reply]

New review/taxonomy/systematics

[edit]

Carole S. Griffiths, George F. Barrowclough, Jeff G. Groth, Lisa A. Mertz (2007) Phylogeny, diversity, and classification of the Accipitridae based on DNA sequences of the RAG-1 exon. Journal of Avian Biology 38 (5) , 587–602. doi:10.1111/j.2007.0908-8857.03971.x

I noted that the taxonomy used here is from the 1930s! Apparently it got its way into the Clements system and revisions never made it through, except perhaps in the AOU. E.g. the "true eagle" clade that people have been proposeing for decades is pretty robust.

The system proposed in that paper differs a bit from the one outlined above, in treating the falcons as more distinct yet part of the Accipitriformes. But if one wants to underscore this, given the uncertain position of the owls, cypselomorphs etc to these, it might even be better to split Accipitriformes off. So it might also be reasonable to raise all tribes to subfamilies of Accipitridae, and the subtribes to tribes. If there is a precedent (there are 2 older systematics in the paper apart from the Peters one) I'd say we rather use that, pending resolution of the basal phylogeny of Accipitriformes and their closest relatives. Whatever these may be. For all we know, it might be pigeons. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so comparing the lists it seems that the closest thing to the truth is:
Amadon, D. and Bull, J. 1988. Hawks and owls of the world: an annotated list of species. Proc. West. Found. Vert.

Zool. 3: 297-330.

which seems hard to get. That list, however, apparently uses morphological data (and what analysis? It would be interesting to know) to arrive at a system that maps very well on the molecular analysis. There are the odd genera that need to be moved, but Amadon & Bull would seem good as a baseline.
Of course Google Scholar or so might know an update on the A&B taxonomy, which might even be easier to get. The karyotype review also can be compared against the new data. There is some grounds to be wary with mtDNA data; hybridization is not so frequent but can happen over wider distances than usual for birds. But such oddities may probably be spotted as they'd tend to stand out, and also little affect the phylogeny at large. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is some paper! I'll try and have a read of it some time. Intersting that the old world vultures are split so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haven't seen this one cited yet:
Heather R.L. Lerner and David P. Mindell (2005) Phylogeny of eagles, Old World vultures, and other Accipitridae based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37 (2), p.327-346
i have a pdf copy but can't find a link for it at the moment. here's the abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4G94HM8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1fb192e3e31e95baa0e3c2bdc1253bd2 - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dryotriorchis

[edit]

Why in section 'Genera' the genus Dryotriorchis was not considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.81.35.15 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A matter of taste"

[edit]

"...but whether this group should be considered a family of the Falconiformes or one or several order(s) on their own is a matter of taste..."

The AOU has recently highlighted a DNA-backed change in their accepted taxonomy which places Falconidae between parrots/passerines and seriemas, very far from Accipitridae. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird opening sentence?

[edit]

"The Accipitridae, one of the two major families within the order Accipitriformes (the diurnal birds of prey), ..."

This is plainly not true. It looks like someone has just replaced "Falconiformes" with "Acciptriformes" and not considered the effect on the meaning of the sentence.

I'm assuming that "two major families" refers to Falconidae and Accipitridae. Obviously the Falconiformes are not members of Acciptriformes, and Acciptriformes is not synonymous with "diurnal birds of prey". (Unless you're trying to say that the acciptrids are paraphyletic to falcons ... but Falconidae is still the nominate sub-taxon?)

Ok, research in molecular genetics is going to cause revisions and controversy in classification, but we need to be careful when making wholesale replacements of one term with another non-equivalent term!

I'm going to try to reword that to recover its original meaning; I hope I don't put anyone's nose out of joint.

Pelagic (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Accipitridae. 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:

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) 22:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circinae

[edit]

Hi,

There seems to be some internal inconsistencies surrounding the subfamilies of Polyboroides and Geranospiza. Different pages on here and different external sources put Geranospiza in either Circinae, Accipitrinae or Buteoninae. Polyboroides seems to be in either Gypaetinae, Circinae, or its own subfamily, Polyboroidinae.

On further inspection there's much more internal inconsistency than that above so I'll probably defer.

YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accipitridae&oldid=1197907372"