Talk:Old World vulture

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"They were widespread in both the Old World and North America, during the Neogene."

This identical sentence, "They were widespread in both the Old World and North America, during the Neogene," appears in both this article and the New World vulture article. To what group, New, Old or all vultures of whatever clade does "they" in this statement refer?μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name for vulture applied to lovers

I'm deleting the paragraph

In Southern Africa, the name for a Nubian vulture is synonymous with the term applied to lovers, because these vultures are always seen in pairs, mother and child remaining closely bonded together. Pairing, bonding, protecting, and loving are essential attributes associated along with the vulture's size and its ability to soar high in the sky.

It is

  • Not relevant to the section on ancient Egypt. Even in ancient times, Egypt was not located in Southern Africa.
  • Vague. Hundreds of different languages are spoken in the southern half of Africa. Surely this metaphor isn't found in all of them.
  • Undocumented. I see no evidence for this statement in published sources.

ABehrens (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Old World vulture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This link: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225774.300-painkillers-turned-bird-killers/ for citation #7 seems to require payment to view. Is there another source we can use instead? ALeafOnTheWind (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Rename Old World vulture to vulture

The title New World vulture and Old World vulture is like saying American football and European football.

Reason?

From New world vulture article:

New World vultures do not form a monophyletic clade with the superficially similar family of Old World vultures, with the similarities between the two groups being due to convergent evolution.

They do not seem closely related.

They are called vultures because when people see a unfamiliar animal, such as those first colonists who arrived in america, they try to compare to the most similar animal that it looks like, for example rakali or water rat is called a rat even though it is not.

Not everything that eats carcass and has slight biological similarities is a vulture.

What is my argument?

Take for example rails and grebes, they are not called ducks even though a ignorant person could mistake a duck for a coot.

New world vultures could be called condors, while Old world vultures are just vultures.

@Gyrkin: it would be much simpler if new-world vultures were collectively called condors, but unfortunately that's not the term in most common use. Pelagic (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]