Talk:Harpy eagle

Untitled

This species is described as lower concern in the taxobox, endangered in the text. jimfbleak 05:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Man-eating?

I deleted the 'man-eating' description (refering to Haast's Eagle), since I could find no evidence that this species actually preyed on humans. Tjunier 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Largest eagle?

I edited the "largest eagle" because of the following phrase as quoted, "Only the Philippine Eagle and the Steller's Sea Eagle approach similar dimensions. The male, in comparison, weighs only about 10.5 lb (4.75 kg).and the fact that the Philippine eagle had surpass it in size.

The word, "most powerful eagle" is still debatable or can be reputed; It it more safer to claimed as "one of the most powerful eagles".

The largest prey recorded of the Harpy eagles is a red howler monkey that weighs about 15 lbs.

Here are some Eagle species largest prey records; (Which the bird take and carry-off)

Bald eagle lifting a 6.8 kg or 15 lbs mule deer. http://www.birding.com/birdrecords1.asp

The Golden Eagle takes a small mountain sheep or goat and carry off to it's nest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

The Philippine Eagle largest documented prey is a 14 kg or 30.8 lbs. Philippine cervus deer at a nest studied by Kennedy in 1985;

http://birdbase.hokkaido-ies.go.jp/r...n/pithjeff.pdf (ECOLOGY pp14-16)

Saying "the bulkiest and one of the most powerful eagle in the world" would look very bad, so I put "perhaps". What do you think??

189.70.39.11 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't appreciate the word "perhaps" as it was edited before:

"The talons are up to 13 cm (5 in) long, longer than a Grizzly Bear's claws "perhaps" the most powerful of any raptorial birds."

He commented saying this is not a "guesspedia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informaticz (talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Length

The Harpy Eagle on average, does not even reached the 1-meter mark or 100 cm in total length at least based on the comparison measurements study made by Blas R. Tabaranza Jr. and It looks like Male Philippine eagles are even longer than female Harpy eagles.(Male Eagles are relatively smaller than female Eagles)

Source:http://www.haribon.org.ph/?q=node/view/117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputlogs (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferguson-Lees et al. (see link from "talon size") had the Harpy Eagle at 89–102 cm and the Philippine at 90–100 cm; whereas The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Birds – The Definitive Guide to Birds of the World (Perrins 1990) had them at 91–110 cm and 86–102 cm, respectively. Perrins's range for the Phillippine Eagle is the most commonly used I've seen (BirdLife International for example), and is very agreeable with its weight range (4.7–8 kg); on the other hand his range for the Harpy Eagle is rather generous compared to most sources. As a source I would consider Ferguson-Lees far superior of the two. It should be noted that compared to the Harpy Eagle's vast weight range (4–9 kg for both sexes), both length ranges seem quite narrow.

But if we are in search of the longest eagle, Wedge-tailed Eagle (85–106 cm) and Steller's Sea Eagle (85–105 cm) have the strongest claim for the title; though all four seem to have a similar average. It seems unlikely that any eagle exceeds 100 cm in average length.

--Anshelm '77 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippine eagle is clearly averaging a little over a 100 cm mark in length; If you will look the Haribon.org data [1] Haribon measures 940 - 1121 mm (112.1 cm) averaging 1.021 meter in length (112.1 cm or 44 inches probably the longest (Philippine) eagle specimen = with a tag from Brookfield zoo FMNH # 224493 January 11, 1959) also from another link [2] Philippine eagle 90-100 cm in length, 110 cm of which the longest specimen measured. I beleive it really depends on the specimen available however the comparison measurements study made by Blas R. Tabaranza Jr. is just a simple method in getting the average measurements.

For size comparison:[3]

The data/links above proves that (Philippine eagle) exceeds the 100 cm in length.

Talon size

13 cm is gross exaggeration that probably originates from confusion with tarsus length (114–130 mm, Ferguson-Lees et al. 2001). Note that the spike-like claw of Southern Cassowary (image), longest among extant bird species, reaches 12 cm; while the Harpy Eagle's hindlaw in truth measures up to 7 cm – the largest among raptors and (very likely) extant flying birds. This text has hallux claw mesurements from 57 to 65 mm (with 119–145 mm tarsus).

Here is an image of a Harpy Eagle's talon next to those of other species (left to right: Harpy Eagle, Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Great Horned Owl, Red-tailed Hawk and Peregrine Falcon). Compare this with 64.75 mm for the Harpy Eagle and 55 m for the Golden Eagle (can reach c60 mm) at haribon.org (see cache if that doesn't open). I've measured a White-tailed Eagle's hindclaw's outer curve at 61 mm myself; it's a slightly larger (3.1–6.9 kg) species than Golden (2.8–6.7 kg) or Bald Eagle (2.5–6.3 kg).

I suppose this exaggeration easily escapes notice, as not all realize that the difference between identically proportioned 6 and 7 cm claws is nearly 60 % in volume. Between 7 and 13 cm the difference is 540 %.

An image of a preserved Harpy Eagle's foot. A replica on Bone Clones, with a length of 3 in (76 mm) for the whole digit.

--Anshelm '77 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right 13 cm long talons will be less effective in carrying a large prey, these talon or claws work much like the human hands, imagine if we have a 13 cm or 5 inches long finger nails? It would be hard to hold, they will be too long and unstable in holding large prey. 3 inches is more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informaticz (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Talons pressure does not matter

Note that pressure depends on the area whose claws make force. Moreover, a merely 5kg on 1mm2 equals to 500 kg/cm2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.150.75 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Move proposal (American Harpy Eagle --> Harpy Eagle)

The name "American Harpy Eagle" isn't used by anyone actually dealing with this species with any level of regularity. All major check-lists (IOC, AOU+SACC, Howard & Moore, Clements, HBW, etc) just use Harpy Eagle (which already redirects here), as do all the field guides to the region where it occurs (Birds of Peru, The Birds of Ecuador, Birds of Northern South America, Collins Field Guide to the Birds of South America: Non-Passerines, the various Brazilian guides, Guide to the Birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras, Collins Field Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Central America, etc). A google search for "American Harpy Eagle" gives approx. 7750 results, while the search for "Harpy Eagle" -American gives more than 5X as many results, and there can be no doubts that some valid results have been left out of the latter, as many pages will use American elsewhere in a text dealing with this species. "American Harpy Eagle" is presumably an attempt of avoiding confusion with the Papuan Harpy Eagle, but even that name is loosing ground, as both HBW and Clements use New Guinea Eagle, while IOC use Papuan Eagle. It is further worth noting that among the major check lists that support Harpy Eagle is both the current (HBW) de facto standard per wikiproj. birds, and the standard that (following the on-going discussions on wikiproj. birds) may well end up being the future de facto (IOC). • Rabo³ • 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Good call. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Simplify - simplify - simplify. Maias (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons given by Rabo3. MeegsC | Talk 11:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incubation

Corrected incubation length from 56 months to 56 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew Rammer (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harpy Eagle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. It seems to me this is not quite ready, but I'll give a couple of pointers and see how far the nominator takes it.
• The intro needs to be a summary of the entire article. It is way too short now.
• The images seem randomly picked and placed, could be much better in layout, and similar images should be removed.
• No, make that a quickfail, there are maintenance tags and unsourced sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Harpy eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fondoperegrino.org/Touchton-Harpy.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://webserver.eln.gov.br/Pass500/BIRDS/1birds/p52.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/artigos/Volume144/ara144not8.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://atbc2013.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sponsor-flyer-atbc2013.pdf

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:198.46.126.2 - edit warring

One more try. I suppose there's a vague possibility that you don't know you do have a talk page, so I'll repeat the reasoning here.

• You cannot add a link to that YouTube movie as a reference because it is a straight tape from a copyrighted TV broadcast and thus violates our copyright rules - see WP:VIDEOLINK. Thus this is an unreferenced statement and should not be added.
• Your follow-up about this being equivalent to the grip strength of a 6yo child is a conclusion YOU are drawing, rather than something that someone has already published in a reliable source. Thus it constitutes original research and cannot be added under any circumstances.
• Your insistence on re-adding the material in spite of these issues constitutes WP:Edit warring and is disruptive.

You have now been warned multiple times. On the next instance, I will report you for edit-warring and you may be blocked from editing for a time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

nomination

User:BlueMoonset is there any requirement to nominate it again as GA, it was expanded a year already. 124.123.30.165 (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I just posted a note on your talk page. As you are not a significant contributor to the article, you need to consult here with those who are to see if the article is indeed ready to be nominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd head plumage

Odd head plumage

Shouldn't the description (or Behavior) have a mention of the way the head plumage sometimes is shown in pictures, like the one here? Ainali (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:SIRS reference that discusses the head plumage, please update the article accordingly and WP:cite the source(s) you find. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)