Talk:Secretarybird

Sagittariidae?

Hackett et al (2008 Science. 320:1763-1767) places the Secretary bird in Acciptridae. They do not have Sagittariidae. This should be changed, unless my reading of Hackett et al's phylogeny is incorrect. Can an expert comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.88.37 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tree?

Is the image of a tree relevant or vandalism?--203.45.119.219 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

These image were obviously meant to illustrate the "habitat" section, but without captions they are practically useless, and they will be soon deleted anyway. Removing them now Circeus 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Monday?

What does the "Monday" refer to in the reference The Terror Birds of South America - Marshall, L.G., Scientific American, 82-89 (Mnday 1 March 2001)? Is it Monday? (I think the first of March in 2001 fell on a Thursday.) -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To do

Needs a separate distribution and status section. AshLin (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles is looking like it will be the next colab of the month so this should get done soon! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Secretary Bird 4 votes is collaboration for June 09

Nominated 27th April 2009;

Support:

1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
4. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• In not terrible condition, has good images, kills two particular birds with one stone, it's a family all of its own (without the difficulties that entails as it is only one species) and it is an undercovered region of the world. Looks cool too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

fact cite

These eggs are incubated primarily by the female for 45 days until they hatch. Any cites for this? According to HBW both birds incubate, with some variation between pairs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed info

I'm pasting in here an edit by John Fairfield (talk · contribs), who provided an alternative first record of this species, using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as his source. I wanted to be sure he had a chance to defend his edit. I note, however, that Miller is listed as the first describer of this taxon, as indicated by the entry in the infobox.

SECRETARY-BIRD, a very singular African bird, first accurately made known, from an example living in the menagerie of the prince of Orange, in 1769 by A. Vosmaer,' in a treatise published simultaneously in Dutch and French, and afterwards included in his collected works issued, under the title of Regnum Animale, in 1804. He was told that at the Cape of Good Hope this bird was known as the "Sagittarius" or Archer, from its striding gait being thought to resemble that of a bowman advancing to shoot, but that this name had been corrupted into that of "Secretarius."

Thank you very much for your quick response. I am not sure which of our sources are considered to be the most "authentic" but I believe that at least the Encyclopedia Britannica (quoted below) is pretty adamant on whom it considers to have provided the first "description" of the Secretary Bird as well the fact that it has been described by several others prior to Miller. You will, however, notice that the EB concedes at the end of the article that Miller is considered the first to have conferred a scientific name on the Secretary Bird (albeit erroneous = "Falco serpentarius"). In conclusion I would like to mention that I have an original copy of Vosmaers Treatise of the Secretary Bird (published in 1769) in my collection and that at least in my opinion this document and its illustration provide a far more accurate portrayal of the bird than Miller

Kind Regards,

John F.

Start Quote

SECRETARY-BIRD, a very singular African bird, first accurately made known, from an example living in the menagerie of the prince of Orange, in 1769 by A. Vosmaer,' in a treatise published simultaneously in Dutch and French, and afterwards included in his collected works issued, under the title of Regnum Animale, in 1804. He was told that at the Cape of Good Hope this bird was known as the "Sagittarius" or Archer, from its striding gait being thought to resemble that of a bowman advancing to shoot, but that this name had been corrupted into that of "Secretarius." In August 1770 G. Edwards saw an example Secretary-Bird (apparently alive, and the survivor of a pair which had been brought to England) in the possession of a Mr Raymond near Ilford in Essex; and, being unacquainted with Vosmaer's work, he figured and described it as "of a new genus" in the Philosophical Transactions for the following year (lxi. pp. 55, 56, pl. ii.). In 1776 P. Sonnerat (Voy. Nouv. Guinee, p. 87, pl. 50) again described and figured, but not at all correctly, the species, saying (but no doubt wrongly) that he found it in 1771 in the Philippine Islands. A better representation was given by D'Aubenton in 1 Le Valliant (Sec. Voy. Afrique, ii. p. 273) truly states that Kolben in 1719 (Caput Bonae Spei hodiernum, p. 182, French version, ii. p. 198) had mentioned this bird under its local name of "Snakeeater" (Slangenvreeter, Dutch translation, i. p. 214); but that author, who was a bad naturalist, thought it was a Pelican and also confounded it with the Spoonbill, which is figured to illustrate his account of it the Planches enluminees (721); in 1780 Buffon (Oiseaux, vii. p. 33 o) published some additional information derived from Querhoent, saying also that it was to be seen in some English menageries; and the following year J. Latham (Synopsis, i. p. 20, pl. 2) described and figured it from three examples which he had seen alive in England. None of these authors, however, gave the bird a scientific name, and the first conferred upon it seems to have been that of Falco serpentarius, inscribed on a plate bearing date 1779, by John Frederick Miller (Ill. Nat. History, xxviii.), which plate appears also in Shaw's Cimelia Physica (No. 28) and is a misleading caricature

End Quote

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:John_Fairfield" —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Fairfield (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomic history

The history of the taxonomy is a little involved and probably too technical to include in the article - but I'll mention it here. (I don't completely understand it)

I noticed that in 1891 Sharpe in Vol 1 of his Hand-list placed the secretarybird in the order Accipitriformes, the family Serpentariidae and the genus Serpentarius. see here - this differs from the present taxonomy.

Walter Bock in 1994 on p. 212 of his book History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names writes:

"(23) SAGITTARIIDAE Finsch and Hartlaub, 1870 (1825) (Sagittarius Hermann, 1783) conserved in preference to Gypogeranidae Vigors, 1825 (Gypogeranus Illiger, 1811 = Sagittarius) and Serpentariidae Selys-Longchamps, 1842 (Serpentarius Cuvier, 1798 = Sagittarius) [Art. 40(b)]."

The ICZN code: Article 40. Synonymy of the type genus (There are paras 40.1, 40.2 and 40.2.1 but no 40(b))

It appears that although Finsch and Hartlaub introduced Sagittariidae (actually as Sagittariinae) in 1870, well after Gypogeranidae Vigors, 1825 and Serpentariidae Selys-Longchamps, 1842, Sagittariidae has priority because the genus Sagittarius Hermann, 1783 has priority over both Gypogeranus Illiger, 1811 and Serpentarius Cuvier, 1798.

Art. 40.2.1. "A name maintained by virtue of this Article retains its own author but takes the priority of the replaced name, of which it is deemed to be the senior synonym."

So presumably this is why Bock puts (1825) in brackets after Sagittariidae as that is the date that Vigors introduced Gypogeranidae.

- Aa77zz (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nosing around looking at info for Pelargopappus and other fossil taxa that sit within Sagittariidae. This allows us to split a family page off from the species - the above is then good for the family page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

weird voice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mzQI2gLbok

The link is to a video of a secretary bird making its deep growling noise. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

FAC

So shall we decide which section each of use does? Also does anybody else have The Birds of Africa? If not I'll order it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was looking pretty comprehensive as of now. I figure there must be some more cultural material and was going to look on google scholar for that, as well as seeing what recent journal articles there were. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

But don't we have to make sure the article accurately reflect the sources? That book is cited a lot. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I phone-scanned the secretarybird article in the The Birds of Africa and sent you (and Cas) a pdf on 22 Nov 2019. I can send you another copy if you wish. I have access to most of the sources cited in the article but not to Brown & Amadon (1968). Eagles, Hawks, and Falcons of the World. As I cannot access a library at the moment, I plan to eventually replace the cites to this book. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot. My labtop has since broken and I have gotten a new one so I lost that scan. I did get back the other scans that I sent Cas by searching my sent emails for my gmail. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Aa77zz, are there any other sources you don't have? If not, after Brown and Amadon is replaced should you get this copyedited and sent to GA? LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article accurately reflects the source and states that the cere is blueish grey. My understanding is that the cere is at the top of the bill where the nares (nostrils) are located. In the photo of the head the tissue around the nares is yellow. What am I missing? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The source, Brown et al 1982 Birds of Africa, is obviously wrong. Kemp 1994 HBW Family Sagittariidae Morphological Aspects here has "the yellow cere around the elongate, vertical, oval nostrils" - as in the photo. The HBW family page has lots of info that isn't in the HBW species page. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• There are different opinions as to which sex is larger. Brown et al 1982 Birds of Africa has: "males often paler than females and with a longer crest and tail, and somewhat larger." They give the wing measurements as male: 630-670mm, female: 610-660mm but don't give a refence for the measurements. Ferguson-Lees & Christie Raptors of the World give the male as 107% of the female. (explained on p23 this is calculated as cube of middle of the range of standard wing measurements - presumably those quoted by Brown ie (650/635)**3 = 1.072). BUT Kemp 1995 on breeding p.62 has "The sexes of the Secretarybird were very similar in size and colour but, when breeding pairs were seen together at close range, males could usually be distinguished by their slightly smaller size, more blue-grey upperparts, more developed crest with some grey feathers, proportionately longer central tail feathers, more rounded head and less extensive bare facial skin behind the eye." The weights published by Biggs et al 1979 don't specify the sexes. Clearly, any difference in average size is small - with a big overlap. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So do we just have to replace cites to "Brown & Amadon (1968)"? What do we have to do to get this to GA? LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just looking at content, wondering whether there is more on vocalisations. Will have a look. Also taxonomic history - need a source that shows all tehse are synonyms. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to replace the 1969 book today or tomorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay - have nominated at GAN. Will get some fresh eyes on it that way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Casliber, Aa77zz whats the next step? LittleJerry (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me just ask Sabine's Sunbird for one lookover before nominating...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Secretarybird/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "mostly terrestrial" this made me smile. I think I understand this is intended to mean "ground-borne" but it kind of got me thinking about extra-terrestrial secretarybirds too...
• I'm interested as to why this isn't at "Secretary bird", it seems to be far more common to have the space. Indeed, I've been lucky enough to see these and read about them and today was the first time I noticed that the unspaced variant was acceptable, nay even the "common" name...

I admit I was surprised by your ngram result. My preference is to follow the IOC in all cases as this avoids lots of time consuming argument. For interest I checked the other world lists. The Handbook of Birds of the World and the Clements checklist both use secretarybird but the fourth edition of Howard and Moore uses secretary-bird. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

But we regularly digress from the IOC on capitalisation, don't we? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Their rules which we explicitly ignore for their example i.e. yellow-throated warbler... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, as you may remember, we had a rather heated discussion in 2014, where the bird editors (almost all of whom favoured capitalisation) were outvoted by the editing community at large. So it was democracy I guess... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• " diurnal raptors" bit sea of blue here, I was literally expecting an article about "diurnal raptors".

raptor redirected to "bird of prey" anyway, so used the more accessible term and delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• recognizable vs savannah, that's USEng vs BritEng. Pick one and use it.

changed to recognisable - trying to use BritEng - Aa77zz (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would think its vulnerable status would be suitable for inclusion in the lead.

I agree - added - Aa77zz (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "one to three eggs is laid. All three young " one to three, then "all three" is a bit jarring.

I've rejigged the second sentence to separate the threes - better? - Aa77zz (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "birds of prey" and "raptor" offer the same link in the lead, so that's really overlinking.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "height to as much as 1.3 m (4.3 ft) tall" no need for "tall" in this construction.

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1779 the English" no comma and the vs "In 1835, Irish naturalist" comma and no the.

fixed - "the" added x 2 - Aa77zz (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• In general avoid false titles.

as above - Aa77zz (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Where is "Senegambia"?

now wikilinked - Aa77zz (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sagittariidae, Pandionidae, Accipitridae and Cathartidae are all overlinked.

I would like to retain the duplicated links in the cladogram. I normally add links to figures and cladograms as it allows readers to understand them without having to search through the text to find a link. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "enigmatic bird Eremopezus " is "enigmatic" a biological term here? Our article says it only exists in fossils, so I guess that's pretty damned enigmatic...

Happy to go with any other more Anglo-saxon adjective that conveys the same meaning - in this case "little-known" but with an added twist of taxonomic uncertainty...might be a ratite or might be related to this critter...so could change to "little-known" or "poorly-known" I guess...IFYSWIM? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• No need to link major unambiguous geographical entities, like France.

fixed France - are there others? - Aa77zz (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Accipitridae is mentioned before accipitrid but not linked.

link moved to earlier occurence - Aa77zz (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see the IOC calls it Secretarybird and that could be a reason for our own title, but we often ignore the IOC for issues such as capitalisation so if that's the only reason the article is as titled, I remain to be convinced.

We'd agreed to follow IOC as default until gazumped by the 2014 capitalisation debate. So now IOC is default unless someone proposes and gains consensus for a page move. Lots of sources use both - and it seems as though newer sources tend to use the term unspaced as one word whereas older sources tend to use two words spaced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the ngrams I posted above demonstrates that the spaced version is by far the common name in most of the rest of the universe. But you're right, this isn't a requested move, it's just a surprised shrug of the shoulders that we aren't applying COMMONNAME. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The ngram puzzles me - the sources I am looking at, there appears to be a higher proportion of unspaced than is reflected by that graph. Must try and get a sense of most official sources and take it from there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "raptor" in the Description section is overlinked.

I can only find one link. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "sub-terminal.[26][23] ref order.

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• thowing - typo.

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "or an irruption or rodents" of rodents??

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Could link thermals.

fixed -Aa77zz (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "hoarse growling" vs "guttural croaking"...

gone with "guttural croaking" for consistency - although growling and groaning are also used. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "2-3 eggs" en-dash, and I'm sure in the lead it was 1 to 3?

well spotted - it should be 1-3. ndashed, - Aa77zz (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "1.0–1.5 metres (3–5 ft) across with a depth 30–50 centimetres" no need for expanded metres/centimetres suddenly here.

fixed - all abbreviated -Aa77zz (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "clutch of 3 eggs" three.

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "at the Oklahoma City Zoo built " no need to so quickly repeat the zoo name.

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The species now successfully breeds in captivity around the world," I wasn't sure I could find the "around the world" noted in the reference for this sentence.

removed "around the world" as not in cited source. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link carrion.

linked - Aa77zz (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "to 5 times" five.

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• " them down and pin then" ->" knock them down then pin them..."

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "(approx. 3200BC)" -> "(c. 3200 BC)"

fixed - Aa77zz (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have on a quick run through. Hopefully some of it's helpful. It's on hold. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It is very helpful - thorough as always and not afraid to push until satisfied. It's what we need at this point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for your review. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem everyone, I thoroughly enjoyed the article which is beyond GA quality. I hope to see it at FAC soon. I'm promoting, as the name issue is somewhat outside the scope of the GA criteria, but I would still be interested to see any justification, especially if this does go to FAC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Secretarybird vs Secretary bird....

So I was surprised to see this graph, which indicates the spaced form is more widely used, yet the IOC, HBW, Clements, IUCN redlist all have unspaced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

San Diego Zoo uses spaced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone see any other important sources using spaced? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

When viewing the ngram link above you need to click the box marked "case-insensitive" - because as we know well most ornithologists use uppercase for the initial letters. Even with this change the spaced version appears more popular but the ratio drops from 37:1 to around 10:1. According to the google ngram more authors use the hyphenated form than use the single word. I've looked at the journal articles that I've downloaded to my laptop - not all of which are cited in the article. Of those published in the last 20 years, 8 use the unspaced form, 4 add a space and 1 uses a hyphen - thus a majority use a single word. I have a couple of fieldguides (or field guides?) on Afican birds: the guide on W. Africa was first published in 2001 and uses a hyphen, the guide on E. Africa was first published in 2002 and adds a space. The Atlas of South Africa Birds published in 1997 (currently an external link) uses the single word. So although some ornithologists add a space it appears the important modern sources use the unspaced form. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Howard & Moore (4th ed) published 2013 is/was an important source - but is now out of date. It uses a hyphen (Vol 1 p.234) or here. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I was half-hoping at least one source would reflect on the spaced vs unspaced spelling variants...but no luck after looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Parkes, Kenneth C. (1978). "A Guide to Forming and Capitalizing Compound Names of Birds in English" (PDF). The Auk. 95 (2): 324–326. JSTOR 4085449. - gives this bit on rules - 1A Compound bird names should be spelled as a single word, unhyphenated, if: A. The second component is the word "bird." Examples: Tropicbird, Frigatebird, Oilbird, Hummingbird, Puffbird. Shyamal (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant. Now to think how to add.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Passage re possible origin of name is nonsensical

With regard to the following: Glenn's statement would only make sense if there was evidence that the Dutch/Afrikaans name secretaris was not itself ultimately derived from Arabic, i.e. there is no reason why Dutch could not have acquired a mutated form of the Arabic name. (Possibly via French, another Romance language, or the Latin commonly used in scientific circles in the early modern era.)

"C. Hilary Fry of Aberdeen University suggested that "secretary" is from the French secrétaire, a corruption of the Arabic صقر الطير saqr et-tair meaning either "hawk of the semi-desert"... Glenn has dismissed this etymology on the grounds that there is no evidence that the name came through French, instead supporting Buffon's etymology; namely, that the word comes from the Dutch secretaris "secretary", used by settlers in South Africa."

I have to say that the hypotheses that the name relates somehow to the appearance/behaviour of the bird, reek of folk etymology. Fry's hypothesis is far more plausible in terms of linguistics and how loanwords mutate, in the transition from one language to another.

Grant | Talk 07:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)