Talk:Falcon

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

Untitled[edit]

synonyms peregrine, peregrine falcon

Falcons more closely related to hawks?[edit]

Apparently there has been a study that shows that Falcons are more closely related to parrots than to hawks. Does anyone know anything about this? It might be interesting to mention in the article if true. Here is a link that might provide information that can lead to more reputable sources for citing: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/falcon-parrot/

SEE "Phylogeny of Falconidae and phylogeography of Peregrine Falcons" (2018), at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331118392_Phylogeny_of_Falconidae_and_phylogeography_of_Peregrine_Falcons. 

93.102.216.181 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft policy[edit]

Wikipedia have this daft policy that only proper names can be capitalised. At least three people have argued that bird species eg American Kestrel are correctly capitalised, but to no avail. The weakness of the Wiki way is, of course, that people who know the "real world" capitalised version use it, and therefore miss any links to related articles. Thus Horned Grebe goes nowhere, but Horned grebe does. jimfbleak 06:00 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

This is one of the things which redirects are for. Just redirect the "unofficial" capitalization to the "official" one, and everyone's happy. Bryan


It would have helped if the kestrel redirect had been given an explanation here jimfbleak 06:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

does it really matter how you capitalize it no matter how you do it its still saying the same thing

Eyass[edit]

I merged in the content from the Eyass article, and redirected it here. I have no idea if this content is accurate or important, it could be removed if it doesn't belong. --Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked article[edit]

Ok, I've tried to make it read more like a coherent article rather than a series of dot point that have been added at different times by different people. The info is essentially unchanged (except see below) and I have not checked whether all information is complete (eg whether there are other members of Falconidae) - a job for later.

I reinstated the 1-in-3 egg etymology for tercel/tiercel which I've always considered correct and added a couple of refs. I have a number of books (sadly without on-line equivs) which are in agreement. I listed the other etymology as an alternative. (Actually, if you think about it, tercel=third would make more sense if the male was 1/3 size of female, rather than 1/3 less). I also corrected the spelling of eyas but listed the alternative. A Google search for 'Eyas'[1] returns ~136,000 hits while for eyass[2] only 771. Secret Squïrrel 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks much more coherent now, jimfbleak 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections removed - reasoning?[edit]

The sections "Symbols and banners" and "Falcons in the arts" have been removed with the comment "Removed sections which belong elsewhere". WP is an encyclopaedia, and as such its articles need to be broadly inclusive without including trivia. These removed sections, especially the latter, seem by any reasonable assessment to be of potential interest, even if not to the editor who removed them. By what reasoning should reference to falcons in the arts be suppressed from the falcon article?
--Yumegusa (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Symbols and banners" was unreferenced, is off-topic and doesn't warrant its own section. The section "Falcons in the arts" was poorly formatted and is again off-topic. It belongs in a different article, for example Kigo. Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK re "Symbols and Banners". However, regarding the second section, I am sure you are aware that if a section is poorly formatted, the correct action is to reformat it, not to delete it. You have failed to respond to the core issue. By what criteria is reference to falcons in the arts "off-topic" in the falcon article?
--Yumegusa (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If formatting and poor citations (see WP:SPS) was the only problem with this then I would have course acted accordingly, however the section is entirely inappropriate for this article. It belongs in an article that deals with poems or kigo not in an article dealing with a species of bird! It is not appropriate to add indiscriminate information into a wikipedia article. Just because a poem has the word falcon in it, doesn't mean this article is the appropriate place for it. I suggest the articles Matsuo_Bashō, Kigo or even better List of kigo would be more suitable for the information. Polyamorph (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. A couple of comments:
  • I am familiar with WP:WIN, and find nothing therein to support your contention that there is no place for an "X in the arts" section in an article on X. Kindly be more specific.
  • As to specifics, we are not talking about a poem that simply "happens to have the word falcon in it"; we are rather dealing with a significant cultural phenomenon wherein the falcon assumes additional meaning and resonance, in a literary tradition stretching back some thousand years. Think Shakespeare rather than limerick. I accept that these matters may be outside your areas of interest and expertise, but that is hardly a valid basis on which to decide to exclude something.
  • Thanks for the pointer re citations. I could have cited (non-self-)published books, but chose the website for ease of reader-accessibility.
    --Yumegusa (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Talk:Sumo for the resolution of this issue. Polyamorph (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty sad. Since there's an entire work by Chaucer "starring" them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.143.133 (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Falcon Speed[edit]

The assertion that the Peregrine falcon is the fastest land animal is supported by National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060623-super-animals.html This article says that the Peregrine cruises at about 50mph, but achieves speeds of over 200mph during a stoop (diving on prey). If you count only horizontal speed, then the cheetah is the fastest at around 70mph (sprint). But if you count the highest speed achieved, then the Peregrine clearly comes out the winner. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reclassification[edit]

Looks like this article is in need of a massive revamp in light of: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-birds-frijun27,0,5786768.story 65.166.89.2 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"group with the hierofalcons and the more distant Prairie Falcon"?[edit]

I am reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon This is an important and good page.

However, I am somewhat confused with the following:

(1) In this page we read in the text "a core group containing the Peregrine and Barbary falcons which in turn group with the hierofalcons and the more distant Prairie Falcon"

(2) However, there is a result of 1987 http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/6/388 where is stated that the F. mexicanus is related with the F. peregrinus, and separated of the Hierofalcons.

(3) Hence, there is a contradiction between (1) and (2). 89.180.35.58 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weight female-male[edit]

The male weigh about a third less than the female (not a third of the female).

This is EQUIVALENT to say that the female weight a half more than the male.

In fact, let X be the weight of the female and Y the weight of the male. Then X=Y-Y/3 <=> X=2/3 Y <=> Y=3/2 X <=> Y=X+X/2. 93.102.216.181 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speed[edit]

So far, the highest speed records (by cientists) were:

-About 51 m/s = 184 km/h, see "Stoops of peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus and barbary falcon F. pelegrinoides" (1998), at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292549918_Stoops_of_peregrine_falcon_Falco_peregrinus_and_barbary_falcon_F_pelegrinoides;

-About 196 km/h, see "Hunting flight speeds of five southern African raptors" (2017), at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/00306525.2018.1455754. 93.102.216.181 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcons & The Internet[edit]

Might just be me, but I don't think this section should be here. It covers "Win Falcon" and "Falcon Punch." I've never come across anything for Win Falcon in my travels across the internet, and unless I'm horribly mistaken, the origin of Falcon Punch is completely wrong. Aside from this, it's not significant. Should it be removed? --Slokunshialgo (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Removed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a falcon and should I put this video on this page?[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KoF5CBET_I

Thanks for any ID or advice! --Bcjordan (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a Yellow-billed Kite, and no, you shouldn't download it because there is no indication that it has been released under the GFDL. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I shot it. So I would upload the .ogv and license correctly, of course :) Thanks for animal ID! --Bcjordan (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Falcon endangered, cause the page doesn't say. 24.98.124.230 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture[edit]

I propose to add a section noting that because of their historical reputation as fierce predators, falcons appear in a wide range of cultural homages, including several sports teams named "Falcons", a substantial number of military aircraft named "Falcon", several military vessels, and various other topics. bd2412 T 16:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie-Peregrine-Hierofalcon[edit]

The Prairie falcon is closer to the Peregrine than to the Hierofalcons, but the Peregrine is closer to the Hierofalcons than to the Prairie falcon. 93.102.216.181 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (2018)[edit]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331118392_Phylogeny_of_Falconidae_and_phylogeography_of_Peregrine_Falcons 93.102.216.181 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type for Falco[edit]

Linnaeus included 26 species in Falco but (obviously) didn't specify a type. Two type species of the genus Falco have been proposed: Falco subbuteo (Eurasian hobby) and Falco peregrinus (peregrine falcon)

In Vol 1 of Peters (1931) the type given as Falco subbuteo Linné (A.O.U. Committee 1886)
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14478339
The cited AOU 1886 publication is
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1181889

In the 2nd edition of Vol 1 of Peters (1979) the type is given as "F. peregrinus L." = Falco peregrinus Tunstall. with a cite to Gray 1840 p. 3.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16109040
Gray 1840 p. 3 is here:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13668943
There is no note in Peters Vol 1 ed 2 as to why a change was made.

Vol 1 of H&M4 (2013) p.349 gives the type as Falco subbuteo Linnaeus 1758, type by subsequent designation (A.O.U, 1886, Check List 2nd ed p. 193) which is available here:
https://www.aviansystematics.org/4th-edition-checklist?viewfamilies=35
There is no comment on this choice.

Gray 1840 is clearly earlier than the AOU in 1886 - but I'm surprised that Gray specified a type (Falco peregrinus) that wasn't included in Linnaeus's list of 26 species but perhaps he thought that Linnaeus had included peregrinus - hence his "L.".

Perhaps the change in the 2nd ed of Peters is related to Hellmay & Conover, 1949, XIII, 293) Catalogue of birds of the Americas
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2758942
which has type, by subs, desig. (Brit. Orn. Un-Comm., List of British Birds, p. 149, 1915), Falco subbuteo Linnaeus.
A footnote reads: "The A. O. U. Committee (1886), though generally credited with designating the genotype, unfortunately failed to do so, but merely determined Falco subbuteo as type by employing the inadmissible method of elimination."
I don't know what the "method of elimination" is.
The BOU publication is this
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/22106410

I gone with Falco subbuteo and cited H&M4 - as it is the most recent, but I'm surprised no explanation is provided.

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falcon&oldid=1194039131"