Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Aepyornis

Redundant Article

Why does this article exist? It seems like a proper subset of the article Elephant Bird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.75 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talks about the genus Aepyornis. Elephant bird is the family. --Auric (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction?

The lede suggests 1000 years ago, but the body suggests the 17th century. Any thoughts about how to make it more consistent? jxm (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The body says "since at least the 17th century", meaning 17th century or earlier. It isn't really a contradiction, although the basis of the figures could be discussed more. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The 'etymology' section doesn't actually give an etymology. It just talks about the roc and stuff. Basically what is 'aepy-' - elephant? 82.2.125.203 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section starts on the origin of the common name, "elephant bird," in reference to how rocs allegedly carried off elephants to eat, and that leaves of certain Madagascan palms, and the eggs of Aepyornis were thought to be the feathers and eggs of rocs, and then meanders unnecessarily. The generic name actually means "lofty bird," in obvious reference to the great height of the living animal. But, I forgot where I read that, as otherwise just directly translating it as such is original research.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Help. On entering ref to Morris 2014 I have deleted ref to "Hawkins". Quite what I did I am not sure, prob best do no more! If you can sort it out I will be grateful!Osborne 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "AnomieBot" has tried to correct things - but still not correct! Osborne 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I think the ref: "Hawkins, A. F. A.; Goodman, S. M. (2003). Goodman, S. M.; Benstead, J. P., eds. The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press. pp. 1026–1029. ISBN 0-226-30307-1." should be shown at the end of the section where there is a "[7]" ; how can I re-instate it?

It's fixed. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Osborne 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aepyornis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sinbad

Is it possible that the Aepyornis is the origins of the giant bird of the Sinbad the Sailor (10000 and one nights) tales? If a trading dhow had been blown well south by the trade winds some of the crew may have seen the living Aepyornis and taken the story back with them on return to their home countries.AT Kunene 123 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, most attempts to link the roc to the elephant bird focus on the latter's huge eggs. But, either way, unless there are actual documentation of Arab sailors seeing the live animal, or official scholarly speculation, we can't really put this speculation into the article, as it veers dangerously close to WP:SYNTH.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are myths and legends of huge birds going back the the earliest known Mesopotamians. It's a common, near-universal mythic motif, like gods living in the sky/among the stars, it doesn't need a basis in physical reality or even cultural memory. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Vorombe here

A recent DNA study [1] found that Vorombe was genetically indistinguishable from A. maximus, it also includes authors from the original study that named Vorombe in the first place. Given this, I don't think a separate article is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As a side note, given this is a rather recently extinct genus, I wonder if its species should be split. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure how much there would be to say to justify splitting. Elephant birds, despite their fame, haven't been subject to that much study, in comparison to say, the moa (even in that case the individual moa species are still mostly just stubs). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting articles for the two species is a conversation for later. A quick glance at the extinct birds of New Zealand and Hawaii reveals examples that go both ways (some split, others don't). The extinct mammals of Madagascar generally don't split.
I supposed splitting species would be "ideal" (treating recently extinct species the same way Wikipedia treats living species), if you're okay with stubs. Columbianmammoth (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. These articles should be merged as soon as possible. Columbianmammoth (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name Taking Priority Over Scientific Name

@Ostrich2Emperor:, can you explain why we need to give priority to common names that aren't that commonly used over the scientific names? Even if it means going against Wikipedia policy to have the taxobox name and article name match? Mr Fink (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because Elephant birds are recently extinct bird only going extinct in 1000-1700 CE and common names should be used just like Moa and also name of the article should be changed to Greater elephant bird Ostrich2Emperor (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give sources that show that use "greater elephant bird" and "lesser elephant bird" in priority over Aepyornis and Mullerornis? Like I had originally asked? Just because they're recently extinct doesn't mean that we should abandon the scientific names in favor of obscure common names.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exinct Birds 2012 uses the common names in priority over the Binomial name Ostrich2Emperor (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Species articles

Hildebrandt's elephant bird and the Giant elephant bird should have their own articles Ostrich2Emperor (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Aepyornithidae

New nature article confirmed that there are now two elephant bird families Aepyornithidae & Mullerornithidae Super Super Big Doctor (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article becomes widely accepted, the article should still stay as "Aepyornis" due to policy for keeping monotypic taxa articles at either the lowest ranking above or at generic level. And even if we needed to make a separate article for "Aepyornithidae," we'd still have to keep "Aepyornis" as a separate article. Mr Fink (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also, I thought monotypic families were a thing of the past... FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aepyornis