Talk:Condor

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

Erasing extra lines[edit]

I've erased a little empty space, but the pictures and the empty space in the start of the article must be fixed. Please help!

Size[edit]

For California Condor, Raptors of the World (Ferguson-Lees & Christie, 2001) gives length (beak to tail) 109–127 cm (43–50 in.), weight 8.2–14.1 kg (18–31 lb), and wingspan 249–300 cm (98–118 in.). These measurements are undoubtedly largely based on captive birds.

It's not the largest bird in North America, however, outweighed by Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator, up to 17.2 kg/38 lb.), and Mute Swan (Cygnus olor, up to at least 14.3 kg/31½ lb. – generally heavier than C. buccinator), an introduced species. But it does have the largest wingspan, the runner up being American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, 244–290 cm/96–114 in.).

The Andean Condor is larger, yet shorter. Ferguson-Lees gives length 100–122 cm (39½–48 in.), weight 11–15 kg (24¼–33 lb.) for males and 7.5–11 kg (16½–24¼ lb.) for females, and wingspan 274–310 cm (108–122 in.). Does the name "South American Condor" have any official status? I've never seen this name before.

The order should be changed in "Ciconiiformes" (new researches). --Gan 12.11.2005

great. could you please put this mass info in .? :) --Procrastinating@talk2me 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature[edit]

>The order should be changed in "Ciconiiformes" (new researches). --Gan 12.11.2005 n I agree with this opinion. There is the following 1997 paper:

FORTY-FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS [1]

It includes taxonomic and nomenclatural changes adopted by the AOU Committee on Classification and Nomenclature between 15 March 1995 and 15 March 1997. The AOU Committee based its recommendation for Cathartidae upon the morphological and molecular analyses described in Ligon (1967), Rea (1983), Sibley and Ahlquist (1990), and Wink (1995). The changes were subsequently included in the 7th Edition of the AOU Check-list of North American Birds [2]. I believe we and others in the field should follow these recommendations until the alternative point of view is accepted. To find the appropriate changes in the above document, perform the text search using a keyword "cathartid". The current (7th Edition) AOU Check-list for North American Cathartidae can be seen here [3].

And, of course, there is no such a species "South American Condor". Must be "Andean condor".

I represent a California condor research group [4] [5].--Michael Romanov 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surpriced to read that Condors still seems to be concidered as "The Vultures of the New World", it's been at least 10 years ago I first red that new science had ruled out that Condors and Vultures are taxonomical related. Condors should not be placed in the "common birds of preys", just like Owles no longer is. Condors do not belong to Falconiformes any more (nore to Accipitriformes as Vultures do). Condors are a completely new order or perhaps they are related to Storks. The similar way of living between Condors and Vultures have got nothing to do with the taxonomy of the birds. Besides there are more then two spieces of Condors. The Lowland Condor (before known as King's Vulture) i the Amazonas is one for instance.

/Swedish ornithologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.33.160 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest birds????[edit]

California Condors are the largest bird

Ostriches are bigger.63.225.86.56 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Harpyan eagle (Amazonaz and central America south of Mexico) and Stellers Sea Eagle (Kamtjatka peninsula, Russia) are both heavier, and some of the Pelicanes too. Thats certain. Wingspread - some albatrosses are wider, I belive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.33.160 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DDT[edit]

The story blames DDT as a cause of Condor decline, though much of the research in this area is contradictory. See: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm . The article should note that DDT exposure was a popular theory about the cause of condor eggshell thinning.

The entire issue needs more references anyway. Note that research on non-toplevel-predator species cannot be transferred to CCs, and that at any rate, the "junkscience" references are more or less junk science from the heat of the debate in the 70s(!) themselves. If one cites bygone science, then it should only be a keystone study (no matter if it is wrong - if it broke ground, it is encyclopedia-worthy). Simply burying the issue under a shitload of references of which a lot certainly was bought science (billions in revenue were at stake, against which the price of a scientist's ethos weighs little) is not sufficient. The adverse effects of organochlorides on the reproductive effort of toplevel carnivorous birds, especially k-strategists, is as far as I can recall well documented in the field. Especially the rebound of populations after organochloride restriction, conciding with decreasing substance levels in the environment cannot easily be explained away.
Besides, anyone who advocates DDT against malaria can't be taken seriously as a distributor of scientific fact. There is a thing called "pesticide resistance", which was the main reason the stuff flopped in the first place: 5 years respite, 50 years rollback. Dysmorodrepanis 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split article[edit]

  • Support The two species need their own accounts, but there still need to be a Condor page. The problems won't completely go away as evidenced by pages like peafowl and Turkey where one species of two or three is much better known than the others, so these pages tend to be treated as synomynous with Indian Peafowl and Wild Turkey respectively. jimfbleak 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport three pages total: one for Condor, one for Andean, and one for California
  • Support; different critters. I think each species should have its own page. Antandrus (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per jimfbleak, but instead of separate Condor page, integrate such info into and expand New World vulture Dysmorodrepanis 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Who would like to split the article? --Melly42 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a split, but as the article does not always clearly define which species they refer to, it needs more work. --Mfranck 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense[edit]

"The Coat of Arms of Chile features a condor."...So..? --Ziget 03:35, 28 September 2007

Haha totally right, the coat of arms of Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia..also have a condor in it...so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.187.70 (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Monotypic Genus[edit]

if there are two species within a genus, then the genus cannot be monotypic. propose to delete monotypic genus in this article or another editor revise monotypic. παράδοξος (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accipter[edit]

new world vultures and condors do not exhibit any morphological or behavioral traits that significantly differentiate them from old world vultures. compare old world vultures to the "more closely related" hawks, goshawks, kites, and eagles. just because one person says old world vultures are more closely related to hawks, goshawks, kites, and eagles does not necessarily mean new world vultures are "superficially related" to old world vultures.

where is the beef? show independent research that proves old world vultures are genetically different than new world vultures and more closely related to hawks, goshawks, kites, and eagles, than falcons are related to accipters. just think about it: hawks, goshawks, kites, and eagles are more different than falcons compared to new world vultures and old world vultures. new world vultures are morphologically and behaviorally similar to old world vultures, not to mention occupying the same niche. let us talk about these biological organisms. παράδοξος (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentavis as a relative of the condor[edit]

I've edited the text to be less specific; implying that Argentavis was a relative of the California Condor specifically is a bit dumb. It was not a condor at all, it was a teratorn. Whether teratorns were related to condors at all is apparently debatable, but mentioning Gymnogyps specifically is unnecessary because Argentavis wasn't even a condor. It was confusing, since the text never bothered to mention that it belonged to a different family, it implies to the reader that it was a condor when it wasn't. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish version[edit]

Hello there, I'm not able to add the Spanish version of this article. Could anyone please add this link http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultur_gryphus to the list of languages? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.165.149 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Ok, so the name comes from kuntur which become condor in Spanish, which everyone uses now I think. But in french it used to be called a contour. Do people think this comes from its habit of gliding i.e. contouring,, or just a coincidentally apt homonym? Oblomov99 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condor&oldid=1213956680"