Talk:Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy 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. Please do not substitute this template. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
Alquist seems to be a corruption of Ahlquist (see also "References" at the end of article).
Sebastjan
This article needs to go in-depth into exactly how this new list was put together. What exactly is the science involved? When did the research begin? Where was the headquarters for gathering the data? How did they extract the DNA data from all the species? etc. Kingturtle 08:00 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
what you've just added is a good start, although there are many things that need to be answered or expressed. Also, I think more explanation should go at the top, rather than so deep in the article. Kingturtle 08:04 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
Another question....There are 18 pages to the checklist. Is the checklist itself actually broken into 18 parts, or are there 18 parts in wikipedia because of page size limitations? Kingturtle 08:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
I was trying to translate this page for nl.wiki/ First of all my compliments to the author(s) of this article. However I did run into a problem. Galliformes traditionally refers to the fowls, the chickens, pheasans etc, not to the rails and crakes. I checked the paper (#117) and in the table the only Galliform that remains a Galliform (rather than being put into a different order) is a chicken, not a rail. In fact I did not see any reference to the rails and crakes at all. I think this is simply wrong on this page and not just there put also on the page on rails etc. nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf PS I would appreciate an answer on my nl.wiki userpage PPS I suppose the figure is wrong too, as it explicitly says rails?
The statement that “This revolutionary reordering has been widely accepted by North American ornithologists, including the American Ornithologists’ Union” is simply not supported by the facts. Of 7 ordinal-level changes proposed by Sibley-Ahlquist that affect North American species, only 1 has been adopted in the latest edition of the AOU Check-list (and that affects just a single species of accidental occurrence):
- Ciconiiformes - this expanded order not adopted. The traditional orders Gaviiformes, Podicipediformes, Procellariiformes, Pelecaniformes, Ciconiiformes, Falconiformes, and Charadriiformes continue to be recognized.
- Craciformes - not adopted.
- Ralliformes - not adopted.
- Strigiformes - not enlarged to include the Caprimulgiformes, which is still retained as a separate order.
- Trochiliformes - not adopted. The hummingbirds remain a part of the Apodiformes.
- Upupiformes - change adopted.
- Galbuliformes - not adopted. The jacamars remain a part of the Piciformes.
John Trapp 16:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Craciformes and Galbuliformes: now you tell me. Working from a home encyclopedia, I just de-redded (is that a word?) most of the bird list here. (insert swear word of choice). Totnesmartin 00:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
