Talk:Neognathae

Birds Top‑importance

Neognathae is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Systematics

I have reverted to the old systematics. Basically, the new one is utter nonsense for the most part (what is it based on? Livezey & Zusi's wel-intended but deeply flawed study which would have killed the career of any young ornithologist stone dead?). "Gaviomorphae" are refuted since the 1930s. "Pelecanimorphae" is not monophyletic. "Cuculimorphae" is almost certainly false (it should at least partially belong into Passerimorphae). "Psittacimorphae" is highly suspect. "Falconimorphae" is... well, no serious ornitholgist would really want to place any bets on the relationship between diurnal and nocturnal raptors. "Gruiformes" are not monophyletic either as delimited here. The "Craci" are paraphyletic. And so on.

Anything not even mentioning the Mirandornithes is utterly rejected - and for good reasons too - by almost every ornithologist today.

I strongly suggest using the TOLweb phylogeny for the time being. Apart from Falconiformes being in a weird place (DNA-DNA hybridization data's fault, most likely, because accipitrids cannot be analyzed with that technique in a meaningful way) and Coliiformes and Psittaciformes probably too distant from each other, this is (as of 2008-JAN-08) as good as one can ever expct it to get. Nothing outrageous, all the good clades are there; overall it's surprisingly good. In fact, it is amazing how little has changed in the last 2 years. Guess they were extremely lucky in picking up a good point in time to start. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intense wording for an intense topic?

"the Mesozoic record of Neognathae is at present utterly devoid of birds that should have been present if these proposed clades were real". Seems a bit intense, like someone has a personal vendetta against this clade. It's funny to read, but perhaps not the most encyclopedic tone. This topic is not my expertise, so I'm creating a talk post in case I am wrong and that truly is the best wording. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]