Pangolin12's photographic guide to ratites

pangolin12

pangolin12

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
5+ year member
We already have a photographic guide for mammals, so why don't we make a guide to birds? I'll get us started with the ratites and tinamous. This guide will cover:
Struthionidae
Rheidae
Casuariidae
Dromaiidae
Apterygidae
Tinamidae
 
If this makes you happy;):
order struthioniformes
13 species in 5 families: apterygidae (kiwis), dromaiidae (emus), casuariidae (cassowaries), rheidae (rheas) and struthionidae (ostriches).
..........................................................................
struthionidae
two species in one genera
..........................................................................
struthio
two species

common ostrich struthius camelus
three living subspecies

s.c. camelus
photo by @Animal at zoo hamburg
full


s.c. australis
photo by @Eagle at zoo krefeld
full


s.c. massaicus
photo by @alexkant at nahariyya zoo-botanical gardens
full



somali ostrich struthio molybdophanes
monotypic

photo by @lintworm in Ethiopia
full
 
You still have a number of errors.....

1) Struthioniformes is no longer accepted other than as a synonym for the Struthionidae, as the classic definition encompassing all flightless palaeognaths is paraphyletic, excluding as it does the Tinamiformes.

2) The names of families/orders are capitalised, as are genera.

3) The Dromaiidae is synonymous with the Casuariidae.

4) "Genera" is plural; "Genus" is the singular.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
You still have a number of errors.....

1) Struthioniformes is no longer accepted other than as a synonym for the Struthionidae, as the classic definition encompassing all flightless palaeognaths is paraphyletic, excluding as it does the Tinamiformes.

2) The names of families/orders are capitalised, as are genera.

3) The Dromaiidae is synonymous with the Casuariidae.

4) "Genera" is plural; "Genus" is the singular.
Click to expand...

These "number of errors" are only two errors. The other two are just personal opinions and extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely subjective (I would prefair to keep these two opinions as errors, and the contrary opinions as the more correct and widely accepted ones).

There is a third error, that is calling the genus Struthius instead Struthio.
 
Kakapo said:
These "number of errors" are only two errors. The other two are just personal opinions and extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely subjective (I would prefair to keep these two opinions as errors, and the contrary opinions as the more correct and widely accepted ones).

There is a third error, that is calling the genus Struthius instead Struthio.
Click to expand...
They're not just personal opinions - they are the current taxonomic opinion. But that is why in the threads there should be taxonomic notes for each family or genus, where it is relevant, to illustrate the differing viewpoints (either current or former).
 
Chlidonias said:
They're not just personal opinions - they are the current taxonomic opinion. But that is why in the threads there should be taxonomic notes for each family or genus, where it is relevant, to illustrate the differing viewpoints (either current or former).
Click to expand...


I think you didn't get the point. The """""""current""""""" taxonomic opinion (or most of the current ones) is (are) ALWAYS a personal opinion.
I considere the Struthioniformes including all ratites except Tinamidae as the current taxonomic opinion (formerly each family had their own order (except Casuariidae and Dromaiidae in the same order), but the global consensus appreciation changed after to unite all them in a single order). I considere Casuariidae and Dromaiidae as separated (but very closely related) families as the current taxonomic opinion, it's the most universally accepted like in the previous case. And, I also consider that Struthio is a monotypic genus with a single extant species (plus some more fossil species), being Struthio camelus molybdophanes a subspecies of Struthio camelus, and of the current taxonomic opinions this is the most widely accepted by far.
 
Kakapo said:
I think you didn't get the point. The """""""current""""""" taxonomic opinion (or most of the current ones) is (are) ALWAYS a personal opinion.
I considere the Struthioniformes including all ratites except Tinamidae as the current taxonomic opinion (formerly each family had their own order (except Casuariidae and Dromaiidae in the same order), but the global consensus appreciation changed after to unite all them in a single order). I considere Casuariidae and Dromaiidae as separated (but very closely related) families as the current taxonomic opinion, it's the most universally accepted like in the previous case. And, I also consider that Struthio is a monotypic genus with a single extant species (plus some more fossil species), being Struthio camelus molybdophanes a subspecies of Struthio camelus, and of the current taxonomic opinions this is the most widely accepted by far.
Click to expand...
No, I got your point. You don't like changes in taxonomy. But scientific opinion is not the same as a personal opinion.
 
Kakapo said:
I think you didn't get the point. The """""""current""""""" taxonomic opinion (or most of the current ones) is (are) ALWAYS a personal opinion.
I considere the Struthioniformes including all ratites except Tinamidae as the current taxonomic opinion (formerly each family had their own order (except Casuariidae and Dromaiidae in the same order), but the global consensus appreciation changed after to unite all them in a single order). I considere Casuariidae and Dromaiidae as separated (but very closely related) families as the current taxonomic opinion, it's the most universally accepted like in the previous case. And, I also consider that Struthio is a monotypic genus with a single extant species (plus some more fossil species), being Struthio camelus molybdophanes a subspecies of Struthio camelus, and of the current taxonomic opinions this is the most widely accepted by far.
Click to expand...

No the current taxonomic opinion is not a personal opinion, it is an opinion of a GROUP of well-informed scientists, everything you type below is your personal opinion. I can't think of any recent publication that did not split Somali ostrich as a separate species, Somali ostrich diverged from the other ostriches >3.6 million years ago, a pretty long separation for a subspecies... It seems you very much dislike genetics, but it is an extremely useful complementary tool to morphological studies and in many ways a superior one....
 
Chlidonias said:
No, I got your point. You don't like changes in taxonomy. But scientific opinion is not the same as a personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Gosh, it is really so difficult to understand? Or is that I'm too obtuse explaining it, maybe because of my not perfect English? Or is that you're just kidding me???? Looks like te latter! The point has NOTHING so see with the fact that I like or dislike changes in taxonomy. The point is that scientific opinions ARE personal opinions, and this is an absolutely objective fact without possible discussion, not my personal opinion unlike my taxonomic preferences. I hope that you get it now, I don't know how to explain better.
 
lintworm said:
No the current taxonomic opinion is not a personal opinion, it is an opinion of a GROUP of well-informed scientists, everything you type below is your personal opinion. I can't think of any recent publication that did not split Somali ostrich as a separate species, Somali ostrich diverged from the other ostriches >3.6 million years ago, a pretty long separation for a subspecies... It seems you very much dislike genetics, but it is an extremely useful complementary tool to morphological studies and in many ways a superior one....
Click to expand...

The many different current taxonomic opinions of EACH taxon are personal opinions and to negate this so obvious fact is just to lie. Each of these opinions are groupally supported, obviously, I never negated that. There are zillions of publications that do not split the otrich into two species. See just here Struthio [camelus or molybdophanes] (Ostrich or Somali Ostrich) - Avibase for see that 60 recent references keep it as a single species and only 9 references as two species, this compilation of references is just an extremely tiny percentage of all the publications to the respect, but the porportion of each taxonomic school is the same. Your perception is also wrong: I don't dislike genetics. I just considere them a useful COMPLEMENTARY tool to morphological and MANY OTHER kind of studies (from biochemical to ethological, etc), whose study as a conjunct is the base of the taxonomy. In no way is a superior one, as much it's an equal one.

And now, please can we go back to a field guide of ratites?
 
Recently, I've read some interesting articles about the current scientific opinion on the taxonomy of the Paleognathae, their origins in the northern hemisphere with multiple migrations and several independent developments of giant size. Struthioniformes are considered the most basal of the current paleognathans as a sister group of the Notopalaeognathae (Rheiformes; Tinamiformes + the extinct moas; Novaeratitae with Casuariiformes and kiwis + the extinct elephant birds).
 
Kakapo said:
There are zillions of publications that do not split the otrich into two species. See just here Struthio [camelus or molybdophanes] (Ostrich or Somali Ostrich) - Avibase for see that 60 recent references keep it as a single species and only 9 references as two species, this compilation of references is just an extremely tiny percentage of all the publications to the respect, but the porportion of each taxonomic school is the same.
Click to expand...
Most of those references are not particularly recent, and most are actually just different years of publication (e.g. nineteen references for Clements, dating back to the first edition which is presumably the 1974 book) - there are only 12 different publications there, and of the entire sixty-odd list only three date from after the split: Avibase, which lists it as "camelus or molybdophanes"; eBird, which lists it as "camelus/molybdophanes"; and Clements, which lists it as "camelus".

You can't blindly point out old taxonomic references from before a species is split to show that the split isn't accepted by "the majority".


Kakapo said:
And now, please can we go back to a field guide of ratites?
Click to expand...
This is about ratites. That is one of the points of the photographic guides, not just to show some pretty pictures but to also cover the taxonomic status of species.
 
Kakapo said:
Gosh, it is really so difficult to understand? Or is that I'm too obtuse explaining it, maybe because of my not perfect English? Or is that you're just kidding me???? Looks like te latter! The point has NOTHING so see with the fact that I like or dislike changes in taxonomy. The point is that scientific opinions ARE personal opinions, and this is an absolutely objective fact without possible discussion, not my personal opinion unlike my taxonomic preferences. I hope that you get it now, I don't know how to explain better.
Click to expand...

Is this thread just going to devolve into another one where one person insists that something that's pretty clearly subjective is actually objective just because they said so...

I think the taxonomy that one choices to follow is a personal opinion but the taxonomic research that goes into it is certainly not.

~Thylo
 
I'm going to postpone this until, like TheEthiopianWolf03 suggested, the mammals are finished as this thread has just seemed to turn into a big argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top