BIRD - meaning of word
Rozmiar: 8938 bajtów


BIRD



#redirect World Bank

Bird



: ''For other meanings of ''bird'', see bird (disambiguation).''
Many - see #Bird orders.
Birds are bipedal, Homeothermic, egg-laying vertebrates characterized primarily by feathers, forelimbs modified as wings, and hollow bones. Birds range in size from the tiny hummingbirds to the huge Ostrich and Emu. Depending on taxonomic viewpoint, there are between about 8,800-10,200 living bird species (and about 120-130 which have become extinction in the span of human history) in the world, making them the most diverse class of terrestrial vertebrates. Birds are a very differentiated class, with some feeding on nectar, seeds, insects, rodents, fish, carrion, or other birds. Most birds are diurnal, or active during the day. Some birds, such as the owls and nightjars, are nocturnal or crepuscular (active during twilight hours). Many birds bird migration long distances to utilise optimum habitats (e.g., Arctic Tern) while others spend almost all their time at sea (e.g. the Wandering Albatross). Some, such as frigatebirds, stay aloft for days at a time, even sleeping on the wing. Common characteristics of birds include a bony beak with no teeth, the laying of hard-shelled Egg (biology)s, high metabolism rate, and a light but strong skeleton. Most birds are characterised by bird flight, though the ratites are flightless, and several other species, particularly on islands, have also lost this ability. Flightless birds include the penguins, Ostrich, kiwi, and the extinct Dodo. Flightless species are vulnerable to extinction when humans or the mammals they introduce arrive in their habitat, for example the Great Auk, flightless Rallidaes, and the moa of List of New Zealand birds. ==Bird orders== This is a list of the taxonomic orders in the class Aves. List of birds gives a more detailed summary, including families. *Struthioniformes, Ostrich, emus, kiwis, and allies *Tinamiformes, tinamous *Anseriformes, waterfowl *Galliformes, fowl *Sphenisciformes, penguins *Gaviiformes, loons *Podicipediformes, grebes *Procellariiformes, albatrosses, petrels, and allies *Pelecaniformes, pelicans and allies *Ciconiiformes, storks and allies *Phoenicopteriformes, flamingos *Accipitriformes, eagles, hawks and allies *Falconiformes, falcons *Turniciformes, button-quail *Gruiformes, cranes and allies *Charadriiformes, plovers and allies *Pteroclidiformes, sandgrouse *Columbiformes, doves and pigeons *Psittaciformes, parrots and allies *Cuculiformes, cuckoos *Strigiformes, owls *Caprimulgiformes, nightjars and allies *Apodiformes, swifts *Trochiliformes, hummingbirds *Coraciiformes, kingfishers *Piciformes, woodpeckers and allies *Trogoniformes, trogons *Coliiformes, mousebirds *Passerine, passerines == Evolution == Birds are generally considered to have evolved from Theropoda Dinosaurias. Specifically, birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids. As more non-avian theropods that are closely related to birds are discovered, the formerly clear distinction between non-birds and birds becomes less so. Recent discoveries in North-east China (Liaoning Province) demonstrating that many small Theropoda Dinosauria had feathers contribute to this ambiguity. The basal bird ''Archaeopteryx'', from the Jurassic, is well-known as one of the first "missing links" to be found in support of evolution in the late 19th century. It remains the most primitive known bird. Other Mesozoic birds include the Confuciusornithidae, Enantiornithes, ''Ichthyornis'', and Hesperornithiformes, a group of flightless divers resembling grebes and loons. The recently discovered dromaeosaur, ''Cryptovolans'', was capable of powered flight, contained a keel (bird) and had ribs with uncinate processes. In fact, ''Cryptovolans'' makes a better "bird" than ''Archaeopteryx'' which is missing some of these modern bird features. Because of this, some paleontologists have suggested that dromaeosaurs are actually basal birds whose larger members are secondarily flightless. Evidence for this theory is currently inconclusive. It should be noted that although ornithischian (bird-hipped) dinosaurs share the same hip structure as birds, birds actually originated from the saurischian (lizard-hipped) dinosaurs, and thus arrived at their hip structure condition independently. In fact, the bird-like hip structure developed a third time among a peculiar group of theropods, the Therizinosauridae. Modern birds are classified in Neornithes, which are split into the Paleognathae and Neognathae. The paleognaths include the tinamous (found only in Central and South America) and the ratites. The ratites are large flightless birds, and include ostriches, cassowaries, kiwis and emus; some scientists suspect that the ratites represent an artificial grouping of birds which have independently lost the ability to fly, others contend that the ratites never had the ability to fly and are more directly related to the dinosaurs. The basal divergence from the remaining Neognathes was that of the Galloanseri, the superorder containing the Anseriformes (ducks, goose and swans), and the Galliformes (the pheasants, grouse, and their allies). See the chart. The classification of birds is a contentious issue. Charles Sibley & Ahlquist's ''Phylogeny and Classification of Birds'' (1990) is a landmark work on the classification of birds (although frequently debated and constantly revised). Evidence for the various orders seems to be fairly good, but the relationships between the orders are in a state of disarray. Evidence from modern bird anatomy, fossils and DNA have all been brought to bear on the problem but no strong consensus has emerged. See also: Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy. ==Reproduction== Although most male birds have no external sex organs, the male does have two testicle which become hundreds of times larger during the breeding season to produce sperm. The female's ovary also become larger, although only the left ovary actually functions. In the males of species without a phallus (see below), sperm is stored within the proctodeum compartment within the cloaca prior to copulation. During copulation, the female moves her tail to the side and the male either mounts the female from behind or moves very close to her. He moves the opening of his cloaca, or vent, close to hers, so that the sperm can enter the female's cloaca, in what is referred to as a cloacal kiss. This can happen very fast, sometimes in less than one second. The sperm is stored in the female's cloaca for anywhere from a week to a year, depending on the species of bird. Then, one by one, eggs will descend from the female's ovaries and become fertilized by the male's sperm, before being subsequently laid by the female. The eggs will then continue their development in the nest. [[Image:Sea Gull 2.jpg|right|thumb|174px|A juvenile Laughing Gull on the beach at Atlantic City, New Jersey.]] Many waterfowl and some other birds, such as the ostrich and Turkey (bird), do possess a phallus. Except during copulation, it is hidden within the proctodeum compartment within the cloaca, just inside the vent. The avian phallus differs from the mammalian penis in several ways, most importantly in that it is purely a copulatory organ and is not used for dispelling urine. After the eggs hatch, parent birds provide varying degrees of care in terms of food and protection. Precocial birds can care for themselves independently within minutes of hatching; altricial hatchlings are helpless, blind, and naked, and require extended parental care. The chicks of many ground-nesting birds such as partridges and waders are often able to run virtually immediately after hatching; such birds are referred to as nidifugous. The young of hole-nesters, on the other hand, are often totally incapable of unassisted survival. "Fledging" is the process of a chick acquiring feathers until it can fly. Some birds, such as pigeons, geese, and Red-crowned Cranes, remain with their mates for life (or for a long period) and may produce offspring on a regular basis. ==Mating systems and parental care==
Sources for this section include: *Gowaty, Patricia Adair: Male Parental Care and Apparent Monogamy among Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia Sialis). ''The American Naturalist'' 121(2): 149-160 (1983). *Ketterson, Ellen D. and Nolan, Val: Male Parental Behavior in Birds. ''Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics'' 25: 601-28 (1994). *Zeveloff, Samuel and Boyce, Mark: Parental Investment and Mating Systems in Mammals. ''Evolution'' 34(5): 973-982 (1980).
The three predominant mating systems are polyandry, polygyny, and monogamy. Monogamy is seen in approximately 91% of all bird species. Polygyny constitutes 2% of all birds and polyandry is seen in less than 1%. Monogamous species of males and females pair for the breeding season. In some cases, the individuals may pair for life. Sexual selection theory and the relatively low typical parental investment that males make in offspring would suggest that polygynous mating systems should predominate in the animal kingdom. The real puzzle then is why do males become monogamous at all, especially so often in bird species. In most groups of animals, male parental care is rare, but in birds it is quite common; it is more extensive in birds than in any other vertebrate class. One reason for this large percentage of monogamy with birds is due to the fact that male birds are just as adept at parental care as females. In fact, male care can be seen as important or essential to female fitness. "In one form of monogamy such as with obligate monogamy a female cannot rear a litter without the aid of a male" (Gowaty, 1983). It is assumed that when such male care is necessary, monogamy will evolve directly with this. It seems strange then that a male’s ability to defend mates and resources relies on his ability to separate himself from parental care. [[Image:Redwing_nest.jpg|left|thumb|350px|These redwing hatchlings are completely dependant on parental care.]] The parental behavior most associated with monogamy was male incubation. This is very interesting, because male incubation is the most confining male parental behavior. It not only consumes time, but also may require physiological changes that interfere with usual mating. With the extreme loss of mating opportunities, there is a reduction in the reproductive success among males. "This information then suggests that sexual selection may be less intense in taxa where males incubate, hypothetically because males allocate more effort to parental care and less to mating" (Ketterson and Nolan, 1994). It is understood then that the females associated with these males base their choice of mate on parental behaviors rather than physical appearance. It is surprising that with the amount of time and energy needed, that paternal care is selected for at all. Evolution suggests that a female should choose mates that confer maximum fitness. Therefore, if males contribute to the care of the offspring both male and female fitness may be maximized. "High paternal care has been seen among many species of monogamous mammals and several authors suggest that male investment is one of the primary advantages of monogamous mating (Zeveloff and Boyce, 1980). This suggests then that this mating system whether costly or not must be advantageous in some way or these females would not be selecting males with this behavior. It seems likely that fitness is increased in some way by this behavior of male parental care, but not so extreme that it is adopted by most other species. Surprisingly, there appears to be a lot of research to show that monogamy and paternal behavior are actually maladaptive due to its cost to fitness. However, is this due to the use of male care in this mating system? While the answer may be yes, it also seems to prevail in bird populations for some reason. What this reason is though may never be pin pointed to an exact answer. Some observations are thrown out by a couple of researchers but with no conclusive data or results. The only thing concluded seems to be that it is unnecessary. For now, until more research is done, we must instead be content to just know it persists. ==Respiration== Birds respire by means of crosscurrent flow: the air flows at a 90 degree angle to the flow of blood in the lungs capillaries. In addition to the lungs themselves, birds have posterior and anterior air sacs (typically nine) which control air flow through the lungs, but do not play a direct role in gas exchange. There are three parts involved in Respiration (physiology): *the Anatomical terms of location air sacs (clavicle, Neck, and anterior thoracics), *the lungs, and *the Anatomical terms of location air sacs (posterior thoracics & abdominals). It takes a bird two full breaths (inhaling and exhaling), to completely cycle the air from each inhalation through the lungs and out again. The air flows through air sacs and lungs as follows. *First inhalation: air flows through the trachea and bronchi into the posterior air sacs. *First exhalation: air flows from the posterior air sacs to the lungs. *Second inhalation: air flows from the lungs to the anterior air sacs. *Second exhalation: air flows from the anterior sacs back through the trachea and out of the body. In birds, at each inhalation and each exhalation fresh air flows through the lungs in only one direction. Birds are therefore able to Diffusion more oxygen into their blood. Unlike humans and other mammals, there is no mixing of oxygen rich air and carbon dioxide rich air. Thus, the partial pressure of oxygen in a bird's lungs is the same as the environment. This is also why you would more likely see a bird on Mount Everest than, say, a mouse. Avian lungs do not have alveoli, as mammalian lungs do, but instead contain millions of tiny passages known as parabronchi, connected at either ends by the dorsobronchi and ventrobronchi. Air flows through the honeycombed walls of the parabronchi and into air capillaries, where oxygen and carbon-dioxide are traded with cross-flowing blood capillaries by diffusion. == Other anatomy == Birds posses a ''ventriculus'', or gizzard, that is composed of four muscular bands that act to rotate and crush food by shifting the food from one area to the next within the gizzard. Depending on the species, the gizzard may contain small pieces of grit or stone that the bird has swallowed to aid in the grinding process of digestion. For birds in captivity, only certain species of birds require grit in their diet for digestion. The use of gizzard stones is a similarity between birds and dinosaurs, which left gizzard stones called gastroliths as trace fossils. ==Birds and humans== [[image:iso_linnunpontto.jpg|thumb|150px|Birdbox is an artificial platform for birds to make a nest]] Birds are an important food source for humans. The most commonly eaten species is the domestic chicken and its Egg (biology)s, although goose, pheasants, turkey (bird)s, and ducks are also widely eaten. Other birds that have been utilized for food include emus, ostriches, pigeons, grouse, quails, doves, woodcocks, songbirds, and others, including small passerines such as finches. At one time swans and flamingos were delicacies of the rich and powerful, although these are generally protected now. Many species have become extinct through over-hunting, such as the Passenger Pigeon, and many others have become endangered or extinct through habitat destruction, deforestation and intensive agriculture being common causes for declines. Numerous species have come to depend on human activities for food and are widespread to the point of being pests. For example the common pigeon or Rock Dove (''Columba livia'') thrives in urban areas around the world. In North America, introduced House Sparrows, Common Starlings, and House Finches are similarly widespread. Other birds have been used by humans: for example Rock Dove to carry messages (many are still kept for sport), falcons for hunting, cormorants for fishing. Chickens and pigeons are popular subjects in experimental research in biology and comparative psychology. As birds are extra-sensitive to toxins, the Canary was often used in coal mines to indicate the presence of poisonous gases, so that the miners could escape. Colorful, particularly tropical, birds (e.g., Parrot (family)s, and mynahs) are often kept as pets although this has led to smuggling of some endangered species; CITES does considerable work to deter this. Bird diseases that can be contracted by humans include: psittacosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, Newcastle's disease, mycobacteriosis (avian tuberculosis), influenza, giardiasis, and cryptosporiadiosis. ==Trivia== *To preen or groom their feathers, birds use their bills to brush away foreign particles. *The birds of a region are called the avifauna. *Few birds use chemical defences against predators. Tubenoses can eject an unpleasant slime against an aggressor, and some species of pitohui, found in New Guinea secrete a powerful neurotoxin in their feathers. *Birds are among the most extensively studied animal groups, with hundreds of academic journals devoted to their study. ==See also== * Anting (bird activity) * ''Archaeopteryx'' * Avian pallium * Bird flight * Bird migration * Bird ringing (banding) * Birdfeeding * Birding * Carinatae * Conservation status * The biology of eggs * Extinct birds * List of birds * List of regional bird lists * Oology * Ornithology * Prehistoric birds Bird families and taxonomy discussion are given in list of birds and Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy. == References and external links == *[http://www.bsc-eoc.org/avibase/avibase.jsp?lang=EN&pg=home Avibase - The World Bird Database] *[http://www.i-o-c.org/IOComm/index.htm International Ornithological Committee] *[http://www.birdlife.net/ Birdlife International - bird conservation worldwide] *[http://birdingonthe.net/ Birdingonthe.net] *[http://www.surfbirds.com/ Surfbirds Birdwatching and World Birding] *[http://worldtwitch.com/ Worldtwitch - rare bird news around the world] *[http://www.birdforum.net/ BirdForum] *[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1402592,00.html Stanford University 2004 study] *[http://www.nhahonline.com/bird_digestion.htm The Bird's Gastrointestinal Tract] Originally published in ''Bird Talk'' magazine, February 2002. Chordates Birds Ornithology li:Veugele ms:Burung nah:Tototl nds:Vagel simple:Bird th:นก

Bird



----- (the above heading is just there to force the ToC to the top of the page) User:Seglea 01:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) ---- Um... It seems that something of the form "birds have wings" would be a good idea. ---- Yeah, Ostrich, it seemed that way to me, too. Which is why when I made Bird re-direct to Aves, I copied all the text from Bird. However, for some strange reason, the text wasn't showing up. But the text showed up in the diff on the History. And really weird was when I went to edit the page to the text back in, it was already there! Don't know what was going on, it shows up now. With luck it will stay there. I just checked on Wikipedia:Bug_reports, and this looks just like what they're talking about page caching. user:Aidan Elliott-McCrea, Friday, May 10, 2002 No mention of birds as pets under Birds & Humans? -- wm Is the listing of orders in a particular sequence? If so, what is it? It doesn't look familiar. User:Tannin : The following orders are still out of sequence. For now, I've stuck them all in immediately above the passerines. Could some kind soul from the Northern Hemisphere slot them in correctly please? :Order Piciformes (woodpecker and toucan) :Order Trogoniformes (trogon) :Order Coliiformes (mousebird) :Order Gaviiformes (loons or divers) : User:Tannin 14:23 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC) ---- The passenger pigeon was popular on the menus? User:Kingturtle 00:11 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) Why is the oxpecker/water buffalo relationship explained under Birds & Humans? User:Kingturtle 00:13 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) ---- I have been thinking (yes, I know, it's a dangerous occupation, but I can't seem to give it up) that there is a case for splitting the idea of a formal, technical "main bird page" on the one hand, and the more informal, introductory main bird page on the other. What I have in the back of my mind is that this present page bird should be much as it is now, but fine-tuned to be an ''introduction'' rather than a comprehensive entry, to be a "start here" page, if you like, and that the arcane details (in particular, the horrors of taxonomy) be consigned to a different page. If so, then the obvious way to do it would be to heep this page pretty much as-is, and put the more formal page at Aves (which is currently just a redirect to here). The taxoboxes would usually link to Aves, and the body text to bird. It would need some heavy-duty link fixing, but nothing that couldn't be done in a couple of hours. No hurry about this, just an idea that has been flapping around in the back of my head. Worth pondering? User:Tannin 09:20 May 3, 2003 (UTC) :I don't think that is a good idea. Aves and birds are ''exactly'' the same thing - it is far better to spin off the detail in traditional daughter articles such as Bird evolution, Bird anatomy and physiology etc. But yes, this article should be introductory in nature. --User:Maveric149 ::I need to think a bit more about this-as you say, there is no rush. User:Jimfbleak ---- Josh asked ''Why the double list of birds?'' Because that's the way that nearly all the articles are arranged, Josh. There simply isn't room in the taxoboxes for common names - not unless we want to wind up with huge taxoboxes that don't leave a lot of room for actual text and pictures. In any case, all too often the common names for groups of creatures don't line up with the orders and families: there are many common names that refer to a little bit of this family and a little bit of some other one. Sometimes they even cross over into different orders! Originally, I was in favour of including more information in the taxoboxes, and spent quite some time working up a fancy table layout that would accommodate this. Other people working on the birds disagreed with me, however, and so I gave way on the point. As time has gone by, I've become convinced that I was wrong, and that the standard "lean 'n mean" taxoboxes are much the best. In the end, there is often far too much information that ought to go on a list to fit it into a taxobox - information heading in "both directions" if I can put it that way: * We often want to "zoom in" on extra detail and a more comprehensive listing of common names and alternative names or add other details (such as mentioning that this species is extinct, for example), and this can't be done in a taxobox. * We also need to "zoom out" and place a given taxon within a context of other relevant taxa - knowledge on its own is useless stuff, it's only when you can place that datum in a context that it becomes meaningful. Quite a bit of the discussion that led to this arrangement took place on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds and its talk page. Run your eye over that and see what you think. User:Tannin 04:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC) I think I don't understand why we have the taxoboxes, then. Recall on Talk:Chordate you said that their top half was usually irrelevant, so obviously what value the taxoboxes have derives largely from their bottom half. But here, we find that the bottom half is necessarily redundant, because the same information needs to be copied out in the article proper. If both halves are unnecessary, what purpose does the whole serve? Possibly they're convenient navigational tools - I definitely appreciated them when working on the ciliates - but that was ''without'' lists in the articles themselves. I'm not sure I can say those wouldn't work just as well. -- user:Josh Grosse ----- Something on birds in mythology and symbolism would be good! Is there anything already on the wikipedia in that area? --User:Sam Francis 10:39 8 Jun 2003 (UTC) ---- Tiny, but informative, addable facts to "preening"-sentence: # Do most birds ever preen each others? Like...chimps who eat each other's lice? :-) I have never seen a crow do that, but I haven never a chimp either in meatspace. # Do birds sometimes use water (from a pool or river), or even saliva, like cats? --User:Menchi 22:05 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) == Main photo == Shouldn't the first photo in the article (the one in the table) be of a bird showing its wings and preferably in flight? :Image:Albaasmall.JPG seems like it would be a more representative photo. --User:Maveric149 02:24, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) :Ideally, yes. It (in a perfect world) would also be as representative a bird as possible - i.e., a passerine or (better yet) a near passerine, such as a parrot or kingfisher. Also it should be colourful (for visual appeal), and as crystal-clear as 250-odd pixels can make it. All in all, that adds up to a pretty tight set of criteria and I don't have anything in my collection to satisfy it. I doubt that Arpinstone does either. As I see it, the flycatcher is a temporary placeholder while someone finds (or takes) the perfect shot. Neither it nor the albatross is ideal. I'll not object if anyone wants to replace the flycatcher with the albatross, and I'll keep trying, though kingfishers are very thin on the ground in my part of the world. User:Tannin :BTW, over the next day or so, I plan to revise bird for layout: as it stands it has lots of good info but the layout is as ugly as a hat full of ... er whatnames. ::Has anybody asked User:Jimfbleak if he has any pictures that meet the above criteria? User:RickK 02:52, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) :::They haven't, but I haven't. User:Jimfbleak

''Wood pigeon''
::::This is the best I can do but I don't think it's what you want. Pity about the strange object in the background, I suppose it's a water sprinkler. Let me know if you want me to put it in the taxobox. If it is wanted I'll have a go at removing the sprinkler in Photoshop.
::::User:Arpingstone 10:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) ::I think your criteria are too narrow. We should find just a better picture than the current one, not an ideal. The current picture is also problematic, because it is non-free in Wikipedia-sense. I have no idea whether it qualifies as fair use, I am referring to the rules of Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Non-commercial licenses ::I find all these images appropriate: :Image:CommonMyna.JPG, :Image:Female Chaffinch 800.jpg, :Image:Common starling in london.jpg, :Image:Southern grey shrike.jpg. Pick any that you like, my favourite is the myna. They are better than the :Image:Lemon-breasted Flycatcher.jpg, because they are profile images and show the wing(s) and tail. ::By the way, the mental image of a typical bird varies from place to place. I think that gulls and terns look far more typical than parrots. There are several images in Wikipedia showing them flying. But this must be a coastal, European bias... -User:Hapsiainen 01:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) :::I chose a starling photo instead of a myna photo, because it isn't so wide, and it has stronger contrasts. -User:Hapsiainen 00:57, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) ----- == no known poisonous bird species == My text about the interesting situation with no known birds being poisonous was deleted soon after I entered it. Why is it not a significant fact about birds, in general, that there is no known species that is poisonous to man? - User:Bevo 21:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC) :That isn't what you wrote though. You wrote that they are not known for being poisonous. The stronger statement you have made here on the talk page is more interesting. User:Morwen 21:20, May 5, 2004 (UTC) ::I'll see what other comments appear here, and then maybe try a rewrite. - User:Bevo 21:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC) :::I deleted it because there are very few species of any animals that are toxic when eaten, certainly no mammals, birds or reptiles. It would be more distinctive if they were toxic. If you meant venomous, same applies, vast majority are not venomous. The vague reference to an unnamed species is unhelpful, and the comment should be for that species when identified, rather than in a general article about all birds. User:Jimfbleak 05:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ::::Thanks for the comments. - User:Bevo 15:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC) :::::IN any case, there ARE some poisonous birds - see pitohui User:Seglea 01:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==dolphins== whats with the dolphin picture???? Can i just remove it from birds article?--User:Avsa 14:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :What Dolphin picture? User:Morwen 14:55, May 22, 2004 (UTC) ::I think Zero00 is referring to the neat photo of a penguin leaping from the water. I thought this was a dolphin at first too. User:Robertmacgrogan 00:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==Capital letters for common names of species - Please!!!== There is a huge discussion on the Wikiproject Tree of Life pages about whether we should use capital initial letters in the common names of species of plants and animals. However, it is (virtually) undisputed that we should always do so for birds, because that is the rule in the technical literature of ornithology. Please don't break that rule on this page of all pages, unless you can persuade everyone else that we should do away with it... and I don't fancy your chances. User:Seglea 01:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) :Sorry about the capitalization thing. I was unaware that this had been the subject of much discussion since I did not see it mentioned on this page. And to me the capitalization seemed inconsistent, and I thought I was regularizing things. My mistake.User:Robertmacgrogan 16:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) == Unknown species of bird == Could any of you bird enthusiasts help me identify some of the birds in Commons:Unknown birds? Thanks, User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance) 23:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) == Mating systems and parental care == As a non-expert I can follow the start of this section reasonably well, but get confused and almost totally lost from these sentences onwards (end of second paragraph): :''It is assumed that when such male care is necessary, monogamy will evolve directly with this. It seems strange then that a male’s ability to defend mates and resources relies on his ability to separate himself from parental care.'' Ok, monogamy follows from male care. This reduces male's ability to defend mates (against competitors?) and resources (nesting sites?). Is the last sentence accepted by bird experts as true? Further on there is this about male incubation: :''With the extreme loss of mating opportunities, there is a reduction in the reproductive success among males.'' Why would this lead to a reduction? I thought reproductive success meant success at producing an offspring, and not just success at fertlising an ovum, but what good does it do a species (or the male's genes, so to speak) if many ova are fertlised but very few (or none if incubation fails) develop to further pass on their genes? The remaining paragraphs don't seem to state anything definite, but appear to be like an essay or an academic discussion, and we're left with the last unenlightening sentence: :''For now, until more research is done, we must instead be content to just know it persists.'' Sorry if this seems critical, but I honestly didn't get a sense of what the state of knowledge is in this area, but being a nonexpert cannot see how to improve the wording. -User:Wikibob | User talk:Wikibob 18:39, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC) This section also needs editing for NPOV, and to discuss nonmonogamy as well. It's known that many apparently monogamous birds are not genetically monogamous; one recent study says as many as 40% of the eggs laid in their study species were fertilized by another male and not the mother's mate. ("Infidelity has its benefits", ScienceNOW 6 April 2005, original study in Proc. Roy. Soc. B) This section seems to be driving toward some particular theory of avian monogamy, and it seems odd that this isn't mentioned. -Bedawyn (7 April 2005) ==Bird bones== The article says birds have hollow bones. This is not true according to [http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/bird5.htm this link] , my textbook, my professors. I'm going to edit that part out. -User:132.177.122.113 20:19, Apr 20, 2005 :From your link: "Birds need to be light to aid flight, and their hollow bones reduce skeletal mass without sacrificing strength." You didn't understand the text. -User:Hapsiainen 21:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) ::Heres another one. I don't think that you understood it. ::http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96/842732147.Zo.r.html ::Their bones contain marrow and support structures. :::Then you could write more about it under "Other anatomy". People were suspicious when you removed text. I don't think that word hollow is misleading. -User:Hapsiainen 11:21, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bird



bird: i see you too have suffered at the hand of the wikopedia fascists. they are evil. they are the great shaytan. they pretend to be the high and mighty "oh we are for free exchange of information. we even have a gpl liscense nonsense, but they practice the most subtle form of censorship. kepp on fighting the good fight. - User:sayyed al afghani :Have a look at that guy's record. Subtlety is definitely not his strong point... - User:Mustafaa 23:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) I've seen some of your contributions, mustafaa- objectivity sure isn't one of your strong points. ------------- Whomever last reverted this page to a March 8 version may please now go do something productive and allow this contributor to manage this contributors talk page. Previous versions of this page are available in the Page history and are widely available at several other user sites. ---- Hello, "bird" I am User:Plato, I have noticed that you are another victim of the "Wikipedia Witch Hunt," trust me, its quite comman...here's an offical policy on it:Wikipedians should generally refrain from witch hunts of users who may be reincarnations of banned users. My suggestion to you is to talk to User:Jimbo Wales, trust me, he will solve most of your problems...If you are banned E-mail me, I will respond.--User:Plato 05:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Thanks, Plato, but I'm sure most of my problems will be solved within the next nine or ten decades by my inevitable death, so there is nothing so urgent taking place here as to warrant bothering Jimbo. Many of the aggressive responses I get from other users are helpful to me in sorting out the various behaviors typical of various users. I also am observing the development of a type of neural network at Wikipedia. I notice that the network is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear. User:Bird 05:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) Interesting....sort of like our MTV Culture in America (as I jokingly put it), it seems even wiki (which i thought was above the Fray is not) gets afraid of "gadflys" such as yourself and I.--User:Plato 06:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Hello Bird. I'm not sure if you've seen, the thread of our discussion on the Wikipedia board was inadvertently deleted. I would have asked for it to be deleted shortly anyway so in that sense it doesn't matter, but I got a message notification from that thread and didn't get a chance to read the message. If it was from you, and you want to repeat the message, I can be reached on the board, my talk page or by e-mail as usual. Regards -- User:Sannse User talk:Sannse 23:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Bird, Thanks for warning me about Jimbo, its evident to I that he and his syops are bothering me only because i used to be a vandal. You and I will always be viewed with suspicion because of our backround.--User:Plato 00:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) --- Bird, I will get banned from wiki eventally because no one on this site (expect you and few other) like someone who speaks the truth. You where right no one on this site thinks highly of anyone who doesn't fit into there mold--User:Plato 03:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::It is easy enough to avoid conflict with other writers. You really don't need to have any conflicts other than those you choose to engage. But it might seem lucrative to engage in conflict to resolve disonance this document tends to create. This document can tend to create disonant cognition by its encouragement of faulty, substandard information produced by writers of unreliable commitment to the credibility of their work. User:Bird 03:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) Bird, if you want people to read and understand your views, write them in common language. Many of us can decipher it, but if we can't, we just won't read it. Plato, us sysops are not a band of people plotting against you, trying to stamp out all dissonants. We are simply attempting to keep the peace on Wikipedia; otherwise, it would run rampant with vandalism and other such actions. Because both of you have partaken in such actions, we are inherently more suspicious of you than others. (I used that language because you guys like verboseness...) User:Ugen64 04:04, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC) ::Ugen, I have no problem explaining my views to intelligent, articulate and interested individuals. If you are unable to understand this simple language, I am certain you are unqualified to contribute to an encyclopedia. Your distrust for this username is a product of efforts by the creator of this username to undermine your trust. I have manipulated other user names to demonstrate continued niave trust among this juvenile group. And while you claim sysops are keeping the peace, evidence suggests they are practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including hazing, peer pressure and class-hatred. If you want to repair the ignorance you discovered in yourself reading my repoly to Plato, and to which you intervened in my conversation with Plato to suggest incoherence, click on this link, cognitive dissonance since apparently some Wikipedia editors are unable to use their own neural networks and cannot funciton without a hyperlinked neural prosthesis. From the tone, stance and approach of your writing, Ugen, I beleive you have failed to comprehend basic personal boundaries, such as in your creation of "if-then" orders that assume I have no intelligence or agency as an individual. Put simply, Ugen, your psychopathology is evidence of the reasons much of the world hates Western culture. ::What's more, since you demonstrate no interest in the way this contributors views of Wikipedia developed and then were infected by a realization of the harm and innacuracy of this pseudo-encyclopedia, I can only conclude your reply to me is an act of personal hostility intended to colonize my thoughts, and to imply to other readers that your niave view of why people persue sysop privilages here is the only correct view. I trust your habits will cause you repeated problems as you continue to live. User:Bird ==Hey== Haven't talked in a while Bird, I feel you deserve a Barnstar for being brave in standing up to the wikipedia establishment--User:Plato 15:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Thank you, Plato. I am currently contemplating whether I wish to help repair damage to Wikipedia's evolving jurisprudence that presented when one admin arbitrarily and permanently blocked this username, after I contributed comments and a vote to the Quickpoll page. You can see my statements that apparently led to that unilateral action by reviewing the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bird user contributions] I attributed to this username. But there is only so much one person can do to remediate an unrepentant group of antagonists. Sometimes, especially in the past week, it has been easier to assume that Western culture will have an opportunity to learn the futility of unilateral, vigilante jurisprudence in the context of more significant conflicts elsewhere. At this juncture, the function of this emerging network more accurately demonstrates the disfunctional aspects of the human brain better than anything I could contribute to the articles I donated on the subject. == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- User:Ram-Man ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| User talk:Ram-Man

Bird



:::::::''~~=\Mob_rule/=~~''

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

B

BA | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | BI | BJ | BK | BL | BM | BN | BO | BP | BR | BS | BT | BU | BW | BX | BY | BZ |

Words begining with Bird:

BIRD
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird's-Foot_Trefoil
Bird's_Custard
Bird's_Eye
Bird's_foot_trefoil
Bird's_Marsh
Bird's_Nest_Fern
Bird's_Nest_Fungi
Bird's_Nest_Fungus
Bird's_nest_soup
Bird's_Opening
Bird's_Opening
Bird's_opening
Bird-flu
Bird-in-Hand,_PA
Bird-in-Hand,_Pennsylvania
Bird-in-Hand,_Pennsylvania
Bird-of-paradise
Bird-Of-Paradise_Flower
Bird-of-Paradise_flower
Bird-of-Prey
Bird-of-prey
Bird-of-Prey_(Star_Trek)
Bird-of-prey_(Star_Trek)
Bird-of-Prey_class_starship
Bird-people
Bird-scaring_rattle
Bird-scaring_rattle
Bird-scarring_rattle
Bird-stub
Bird-watcher
Bird-watching
Bird/animal_cruelty_replies
Bird/archive1
Bird/Brain_and_stuff
Birdbox
Birdboy2000
Birdboy2000
Birdcall
BirdColor
Birder
Birders
Birdfeeder
Birdfeeding
Birdfeeding
Birdfoot_Trefoil
Birdhombre
Birdhouse_In_Your_Soul
Birdhouse_in_Your_Soul
Birdie
Birdie,_the_Early_Bird
Birdie_(Street_Fighter_character)
Birdie_(video_game_character)
Birdie_Tebbetts
Birdie_the_Early_Bird
Birding
Birding
Birding_with_Bill_Oddie
Birding_with_Bill_Oddie
Birding_World
Birdland
Birdlife
Birdling's_Flat
Birdman
Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio
Birdman_Of_Alcatraz
Birdman_of_Alcatraz
Birdman_of_Alcatraz
Birdmessenger
Birdo
Birdo
Birdramon
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds,_IL
Birds,_Illinois
Birdsall
Birdsall,_New_York
Birdsboro,_PA
Birdsboro,_Pennsylvania
Birdseed
Birdseye
Birdseye,_IN
Birdseye,_Indiana
Birdseye_Frozen_Foods
Birdsfoot_trefoil
Birdsill_Holly
Birdsill_Holly
Birdsong
Birdsong,_AR
Birdsong,_Arkansas
Birdsong,_Arkansas
Birdsongs
Birdsongs_Of_The_Mesozoic
Birdsongs_of_the_Mesozoic
Birdsong_(novel)
Birdsong_by_Sebastian_Faulkes
Birdsound
Birdstone
Birdstrike_simulator
Birdsville
Birdsville,_Queensland
Birdsville_Track
Birds_Australia
Birds_by_country
Birds_nest_soup
Birds_of_Australasia
Birds_of_Australia
Birds_of_a_Feather
Birds_Of_Fire
Birds_of_Fire
Birds_of_India
Birds_of_paradise
Birds_of_paradise_(disambiguation)
Birds_of_paradise_(plant)
Birds_of_Pray
Birds_of_Pray
Birds_of_Prey
Birds_of_Prey
Birds_of_prey
Birds_of_prey
Birds_of_Prey_(comics)
Birds_of_prey_(comics)
Birds_of_Prey_(television_series)
Birds_of_Prey_(television_series)
Birds_of_Prey_(TV)
Birds_of_Prey_(TV_Series)
Birds_of_Prey_(TV_series)
Birds_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago
Birds_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago
BirdTalk
BirdTalk
Birdwatcher
Birdwatchers
Birdwatchers'_Field_Club_of_Bangalore
Birdwatching
Birdwatching
BirdWatch_Ireland
Birdwell
Birdwell_(clothing)
Birdwell_(village)
Birdwell_Beach_Britches
Birdwood
Birdwood,_South_Australia
Birdy
Birdy
Birdy_(bicycle)
Birdy_(disambiguation)
Birdy_(movie)
Birdy_Air
Birdy_Airlines
Birdy_Nam_Nam
Bird_(disambiguation)
Bird_banding
Bird_bath
Bird_box
Bird_Bros._(Max_&_G._Bird)
Bird_call
Bird_calls
Bird_Cherry
Bird_cherry
Bird_City
Bird_City,_Kansas
Bird_City,_KS
Bird_Classification
Bird_classification
Bird_diseases
Bird_dog
Bird_down
Bird_Dropping_Spider
Bird_feeder
Bird_feeders
Bird_flight
Bird_flight
Bird_Flu
Bird_flu
Bird_Girl
Bird_Girl
Bird_girl
Bird_images
Bird_influenza
Bird_in_the_bush
Bird_Island
Bird_Island,_Minnesota
Bird_Island,_MN
Bird_Island,_South_Sandwich_Islands
Bird_Island,_South_Sandwich_Islands
Bird_Island_(South_Georgia)
Bird_Island_(South_Georgia)
Bird_Island_Township,_Minnesota
Bird_Island_Township,_MN
Bird_is_the_word
Bird_Macintyre
Bird_Macintyre
Bird_McIntyre
Bird_McIntyre
Bird_migration
Bird_migration
Bird_nest
Bird_Noises
Bird_Noises
Bird_observatory
Bird_of_Paradise
Bird_of_Paradise
Bird_of_paradise
Bird_Of_Paradise.ogg
Bird_of_paradise_(bird)
Bird_of_paradise_(disambiguation)
Bird_of_Paradise_(plant)
Bird_of_Paradise_flower
Bird_of_Prey
Bird_of_prey
Bird_of_prey
Bird_of_prey_(disambiguation)
Bird_of_Prey_(Star_Trek)
Bird_on_tufa_at_Mono_Lake-1000px.jpeg
Bird_Pokemon
Bird_Pokémon
Bird_Pokémon
Bird_ringing
Bird_scaring_rattle
Bird_scarring_rattle
Bird_sighter
Bird_sighting
Bird_song
Bird_song
Bird_spit_soup
Bird_strike
Bird_stubs
Bird_Studio
Bird_Vetch
Bird_watcher
Bird_Watchers
Bird_watching
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL



YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
encyklopedia online