Talk:Ratite

Omnivory section - over-zealous editing?

Quote:

- "Ratite chicks tend to be more omnivorous at 4 metres (13 ft)."

What is this meant to mean? I suspect a block of text has been removed here, leaving 2 sentence fragments. Someone could check the history for an errant deletion? Liam Proven (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Relation between mammals and ratite evolution

someone added some sentences on how ratites developed in Gondwana because mammals "evolved in the northern hemisphere." First of all this is wrong Gondwana had mammals, secondly, there isn't anything about lack of mammalian predators allowing the evolution of ratites (except in specific cases like in NZ) in the ref at end of the paragraph, and as this is a fairly substantial claim made without reference to published references I am deleting it. Amdurbin (talk)

oops, I misread the citing, it's a book that I haven't checked, but since the claims made are based on the fundemental assumption that there were "fewer" mammals in the southern hemisphere is wrong, and the paragraph is wrong in other ways, eg

"The existence of mammalian predators alongside smaller flightless birds has proven disastrous to these populations as evidenced by local and widespread extinctions of some Ratite species as these predators were introduced to different islands. Most Ratites evolved into larger and faster animals to escape the limited number of predators. Kiwis are an exception to this rule as they coped with predators by being secretive forest dwellers."

Kiwis didn't evolve in response to mammalian predators...what is evidence for ratites evolved into larger and faster animals specifically to escape a 'limited' number of predators...first sentence here implies that 'island ratites had trouble with introduced mammals' (humans included?) is evidence for ratites requiring absence of mammals to evolve...etc. so it still needs deletion Amdurbin (talk)

Merged Struthioniformes into Ratite

I have merged the page Struthioniformes here, since the two were talking about the same group, and ratite appears to be the common name. It may be that I made the move in the wrong direction, though, and somebody more familiar with birds should confirm which name is in wider use. Some of the content has been removed, but it was a survey of the particular species included here, and so is repeated on their pages. I am not sure where the moas fit into the suborders given here.

If the terms Struthioniformes and Ratites are synonymous, shouldn't this be stated in the article?

I don't think that merging Struthioniformes with Ratites was a good idea. All of my other sources strongly suggest that all of the ratites, ostriches, elephant birds, emus, moas, rheas, kiwis, etc, all belong to their own seperate orders.--Mr Fink 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have come to the same conclusion. While molecular data apparently works either way, there is still Palaeotis. And if this bird is correctly identified as a "proto-ostrich" (and everything suggests it is), it means that its ancestors must have flown to Europe. This does not very well fit into the "one order fits all" aproach. Paleobiogeography tentatively suggests an African origin for the entire group (if it is indeed monophyletic), because the volant paleognaths are all known from Europe and South America, and because the largest diversity appears to have radiated out of Africa (the Struthioniformes sensus stricto, i.e. the ostriches and Palaeotis). Check also http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/houde/Palaeotis.pdf; I have expanded the article to deal with this and will sooner or later add something on ratite evolution pending the accumulation of enough references. Dysmorodrepanis 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Forget the "out-of-Africa" scenario. Ostriches appear to be the youngest extant ratite lineage. Current research points towards the ratite morphotype being neotenic and highy apomorphic. There appear to be several ways to achieve flightlessness in birds, such as sheer gigantism (Columbiformes, Galliformes), exaptation (Rallidae), "pure" adaptation (seabirds such as penguins), and neoteny (ratites). Dysmorodrepanis 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Changing article text below:

Kiwi are notable for laying the largest eggs in relation to body-size of any bird.

To:

Kiwi are notable for laying eggs that are very large in relation to their body size. A kiwi egg may equal 15 to 20 percent of the body mass of a female kiwi.

Reference: Kiwi Myths

Myth 6: Kiwi lay the biggest egg in the world, in proportion to their body size

Although the female kiwi undoubtedly has to cope with a monstrous egg that equals 15 - 20 per cent of her body mass, she is not the most heavily burdened female in the bird world. Small seabirds, such as storm petrels, have proportionately bigger eggs – up to 30 per cent of their weight – and they have to fly with it on board.

Tabor 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Stroppy"

The kiwi is described as "stroppy." I can't seem to find a meaning for this word. Is it from New Zealand English? Wachholder0 15:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Stroppy: Obstreperous, noisily and stubbornly defiant (Brit). [dmelliott: 20060304]

Characteristics

Could the types be presented in some logical order, presumably size?

Could all the same information capsules be presented for each type: height, weight, egg size, habitat, behaviour (ostriches are extremely agressive, while, though not small, the emu is shy, and the kiwi is "stroppy"), etc. Presumably, this is a comparative section. [dmelliott 20060304]

Extinct species - NZ settlement

While current thinking on NZ pre-European settlement is moving towards an understanding that the first settlers arrived in the 13th century, this is not universally accepted in the mainstream. Some (eg Jim Williams (Ngāi Tahu), of Otago University) would still place the earliest settlement at around 850 AD. DNA analysis of kiore (Polynesian rats) indicates that the rats were in New Zealand about 2000 years ago. This points to a very early landfall, as they must have been brought here by humans, but the belief that there was actual settlement here at that time or earlier is the province of off-the-wall alternative New Age theorists. Copey 2 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strengthens the case of two subsequent colonizations by Polynesians and should be discussed in some Maori- and/or moa-related article. FWIW, the present state of the debate is actually a rewind to some 30 years ago, when it was debated whether the "moa-hunter culture" in the strict sense was actually the first immigration wave only, which might have survived longer on the Chatham Islands (as the Moriori) after they became displaced by the second wave on the mainland. The "blitzkrieg" scenario of moa extinction, according to the two-wave scenario, was merely finishing off an already-depleted population of these birds. Dysmorodrepanis 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC):

I think that postulating the Moriori as an ancestral state is wrong because it ignores the strongly divergent environmental conditions between the NZ mainland and Chathams that constrained the evolution of the respective societies (See Diamond's "Collapse" for a good discussion). Also see http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/7676.full for the most up-to-date research on using kiore to date Polynesian expansion and colonization- it agrees with a date of ~1300 for colonization. Also the 2000 BP date was using radiocarbon data, not DNA. See kiore and refs therein.

whoopsAmdurbin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Hybrids

Does anybody know of any instance of hybridization between ratites (Emu X Cassowary, Ostrich X Rhea, Greater Rhea X Lesser Rhea, etc.)? I have searched the internet endlessly and have found nothing on the subject. Has it been tried by ratite farmers? If nobody knows, I would at least like to hear opinions on the matter.

I have been checking this entry daily for weeks and still no answer. PLEASE!!!!!!! the next person to look at this discussion, write your opinion.

Try asking the specialists at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Circeus 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will.

Identify Ratites as an order

I suggest changing the first sentence to identify ratites as an "order" rather than a "diverse group." Ratites are an order of birds, and the article does not even suggest this fact until the discussion of its evolution. r3 13:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a good thing. E.g. the fossil record of ostriches strongly suggests against ratite monphyly. To say that "cladistic" evidence (cladistics is a method of interpretation, not of gathering data) for any hypothesis is "strong" is seriously flawed. At present, nobody would really admit to have a solution for the problem; bad choice of outgroups and bad methodology in general have hampered taxonomic research in this group perhaps more than in any other bird clade, and few characters can really considered synapomorphic (as opposed to paleognaths, which by now are a bit better grounded in evidence). Olson, no lightweight exactly, in 1985 argued rather strongly for a closer relationship between ostriches and herons, if one can imagine that (and if, really only because herons have become also quite difficult to place more recently). "Ratites" ATM seem to be mono-or polyphyletic, with the case for the former perhaps a bit stronger, but even paraphyly cannot be wholly discounted. Dysmorodrepanis 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I got ill, spent a year in the hospital and came back and the controversy is still unsolved. I put in a statement synopsisizing (sic) the controversy with three references supporting both ends. Let me know what you think. Or even better if it can be improved on. speednat (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fictional ratities

Is there any actual source that describes Chocobo as ratites? Or is the the assumption of fans based on the fact that it's a flightless bird? If the later, how do you know it's not a Mihirung or something? As this article illustrates, there are many, many forms of flightless birds besides ratites.Dinoguy2 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some chocobos are capable of flight. This would seem to preclude their being ratites. I suspect it's just a guess. In earlier FF games, Chocobos were often thought to be more like large chickens, not the ostrich-like representation in the later and more graphically capable games. M0ffx 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I got the idea that they're a ratite from the Wiki article on Chocobos, but if they fly, which, yeah, some species do, then I guess they don't qualify. :) Perhaps it's a different genus, or something. What do I know from avis chocobii? :) -- Unsigned

Calling chocobos ratites is based on them being large, flightless birds with powerful legs for both running and kicking, all traits which are shared by the ostrich (which is the fastest living two-legged terrestial animal, and might even make a good riding animal in real life if not for its temperament). However, they differ from ratites in a number of morphological aspects, notably the shape of the beak and tail. The top of a chocobo's body is concave with a smooth curve from neck to tail, while the top of a ratite's body is convex and then turns upward at a sharp corner when you reach the neck.

Wee, applying rigorous scientific analysis to fictional species is fun! -- Milo

Phrasing

"Extinct by 1500 due to hunting by human settlers, who arrived around 1000, although at least one species may have survived past this date and maybe was seen by early European settlers."

"At least" can't go with "may" like this. What's the currently accepted theory - were they all dead or weren't they? Aaadddaaammm 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can (even the last "maybe" can, though it's probably factually wrong). There is uncertainty on whether there was moa survival until European contact, and there is uncertainty concerning the number of species that would have remained at that time. Current mainstream opinion answers with "probably not, but barely so, though the possibility cannot be discounted" and "one". There simply is no accepted theory, only a working hypothesis supported by the majority of researchers. The problem is that the most likely candidate for late survival would not have been encountered by Europeans in any case until later, because it would have survived only because of the remoteness of its habitat. So we're dealing with a hypothesis at present not supportable by the available evidence because that simply does not touch it; the point is that even if the Lesser Megalapteryx survived until after European contact, its eventual demise would most likely not have been witnessed by Europeans, and hardly so by Maori either (The "moa" legends are just that: legends that quite obviously do not refer to a critter encountered within living memory). Eyewitness reports are discountable due to (usually) the place and habitat being wrong. What would be needed is a post-contact radiocarbon date; no such material has been found to date. We do not even know where the last population of the Lesser Megalapterxy lived exactly (i.e., where to search caves for remains). Dysmorodrepanis 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Farming

Can the different Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Rhea) be kept together in the same enclosure, or free range?. - 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Systematics

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the systematics section. First, it was only from the discussion that I figured out that the ratites might not be monophyletic.

In view of that, can we say anything on speculations about closer relatives, such as the herons mentioned above?

"DNA analysis appears to show that the ratites diverged from one another too recently to share a common Gondwanian ancestor" Recent divergence means recent common ancestry, so it's consistent with a common Gondwanan ancestor. Should that say "diverged from each other too long ago"?

"However, recent analysis of genetic variation between the ratites conflicts with this [Gondwanan monophyly]: DNA analysis […] suggests that the kiwi are more closely related to the cassowaries than the moa." I don't see what which ratite is closest to the kiwi has to do with the monophyly of the whole group. And I think the sentence would be better as "the kiwi are more closely related to the cassowaries than the moa is", but I didn't change it because it might mean "the kiwi are more closely related to the cassowaries than to the moa".

I think more needs to be said about Palaeotis, at least that it could fly.

"Research continues, but at present the ratites are perhaps the one group of modern birds for which no robust theory of their evolution and paleobiogeography exists." Does that mean that perhaps no robust theory exists, or definitely no robust theory exists and perhaps the ratites are the only group without such a theory? I'd have trouble believing the latter—the AOU says incertae sedis about several groups.

"Struthioniformes sensu stricto": Can't we call this "Struthionidae" independent of all controversies? —JerryFriedman 04:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Long-held Assumptions Of Flightless Bird Evolution Challenged By New Research

• Sciencedaily.com

What does this mean

In the intro section it says

Most parts of the former Gondwana have ratites, or have had until the fairly recent past. Their closest living relatives are the tinamous of South America

What does it mean? I understand that there are living Ratite's so presumably it means the closed living relatives of some particular prehistoric ratite species? Billlion (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense at all!

Under "behavior - reproduction" there is this sentence, "Ostriches are the only ratites where they female incubates, and with them, they share the duties, with the males incubating at night. Kiwis stand out as the exception with a monogamous relationship."

It makes no sense to me at all and I would correct it except I have no clue what to correct it to.

Can an expert or someone with the proper knowledge please correct this sentence and provide a citation?

Thanks. 98.247.77.63 (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

fixed, based on reference in Great_spotted_kiwi#Breeding_and_nesting. David Woodward (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Struthioniformes and the other ratites being seperated

supposedly, I have read, from people here, that struthioniformes, rheiformes, apterygiformes, casuariiformes, Lithornithiformes, aepyornithformes, dinornithiformes, are all seperate orders, wheras in the past some of these were below struthioniformes. I can't find a source for this to verify. can someone point me in the right direction speednat (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• The classification of birds is controversial with regard to which families should be elevated to the order level, but the List_of_birds page describes the families Struthionidae, Rheidae, Casuariidae, and Apterygidae as all being part of the order Strutioniformes. As far as I can tell, the taxonomy on the List of birds page uses the terms ratite and Struthioniformes synonymously, which is why I changed the redirect for Struthioniformes back to this page, rather than to the Struthionidae family / Struthio genus article which it linked to before. I am going to add a short paragraph to this article's introduction explaining this. MathEconMajor (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is little controversy in order-level ratite classification, as far as I know. The various ratite groups certainly are quite distinct, and the strong support for the rhea-tinamou clade fixes things. Read through all the current literature on ratites, and you'll see a multiple-order classification. Even popular encyclopedias like those on animals by National Geographic, Firefly, and the universities of California and Melbourne use a five-order classification. Why is Wikipedia so far behind? innotata Talk Contribs 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Moa, tinamous, implications for Ratites

New research has the extinct moa species as being most closely related to the tinamous rather than to other ratites. Big implications for this article. First the NZ Herald version, then the paper it derives from:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10623539

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/1/90

Kahuroa (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Most of them now extinct"

Surely that's true of any group of animals, such as, say, the reptiles, and is not notable. Perhaps "many of them recently extinct"? 81.131.32.148 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes and references

It makes a lot of sense to have separate lists of footnotes and references when one has numerous citations to different pages of the same source(s). Then one can substitute a long list of notes with short entries and a short list of references with long entries for a long list of references with long entries.

However, it really does not make sense to have separate lists of notes and references when there is only a single entry for each source in the notes list. Then the notes list is simply redundant, and just makes it harder for the reader to go from the point in the text where the citation occurs to the reference entry. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Continental drift"

In the Evolution section:

"The longstanding story of ratite evolution was that they share a common flightless ancestor that lived in Gondwana, whose descendants were isolated from each other by continental drift,..."

This should say plate tectonics, as it does later in the section. Continental drift was an early 20th Century theory that the continents drifted around on the ocean. It's not the same as plate tectonics, which is the currently accepted theory. 24.59.58.64 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Monophyletic vs Polyphyletic and the Place of Tinamous

In the article ratites are described as a polyphyletic group which excludes the tinamous, but I would argue that due to genetic evidence of their place in the clade, it makes more sense to describe ratites as a mostly flightless monophyletic group including the tinamous as the flighted exception which illustrate that flightlessness evolved convergently within the clade multiple times. 204.58.180.206 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Because of the genetic evidence, we consider ratites to be polyphyletic. It seems that you are suggesting that instead, we expand the concept of ratites to include tinamous. It seems that some sources actually do this. But I think the main reason this isn't done is because the concept of ratites is based on their lack of keels, which is convergently-evolved. Ratites are therefore unlike most non-monophyletic taxa, which are paraphyletic. With a paraphyletic group like Reptilia, you could argue that it should be expanded to include its descendants. But tinamous didn't evolve from ratites. Rather, ratites evolved separately 6 times from palaeognaths who resembled tinamous. Tinamous happen to be the only living flying palaeognaths, but palaeognaths originally flew. Grey Clownfish (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does Ratitae redirect here?

Why doesn't it redirect to Palaeognathae instead? And why isn't it a disambiguation page? Ratitae has been used for both palaeognaths as a whole (as in Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy of birds) and for ratites alone. But only the sense of palaeognaths as a whole is monophyletic.

I'm not suggesting that we redirect Ratitae to Palaeognathae. I'm just asking why it redirects here. Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)