Talk:Vulture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natelp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Diclofenac and conservation

Many vultures are endangered and conservationists decided to breed some in captivity for 20-30 years in order to protect and make the species larger; these conservationists are trying to get enough birds into a protected area before they all disappear. Throughout the past decade, the Asian species of vultures, (white-backed vulture, long-billed vulture, and slender-billed vulture), have declined in their population by more than 95%. One reason why the vulture species is dieing out is because of kidney failure; this happens because the livestock that the vulture catches was often treated with diclofenac, (a painkiller like Aspirin or Motrin). Conservationists decided to put a stop to this by putting a ban on the veterinary use of diclofenac. Rick Watson, international programs director for the Peregrine Fund in Idaho, said that it would take a long time before the drug is completely removed from nature. Some conservationists realize that since the population is declining so rapidly, they have to act quickly. These conservationists have decided to collect 25 pairs of vultures from each species and then bring them to 3 different facilities where the birds can reproduce. Once the environment is rid of diclofenac, the conservationists will let the young vultures live in the wild. However, the cost of this project has reached about $1 million for it to be run in the US each year! Also, other groups around the world take care of sick or injured birds. The one species of vulture that is the closest to extinct is the slender-billed vultures. One conservationist stated that he wasn’t sure if this type of vulture was even breeding anymore. The loss of these vultures, besides the unfortunate fact that they would disappear forever, can create a health hazard because of the dead animal carcasses that are left uneaten. These have been linked to spreading diseases such as anthrax. Also, other animals that have been eating the carcasses usually eaten by vultures, have increased in population. Some of these animals include wild dogs that can spread rabies and they can physically attack people. Hopefully these conservationists will be able to use their bright ideas to keep the vultures from becoming extinct.

i got this information from an article that i got from the following link: [[1]] this is the url: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0511_040511_vultures.html

This is the White-Backed Vulture File:White-backed vulture.bmp

Acetaminophen is also very dangerous to Indian vultures. It is cheap, and widely used on cows in distress. The cow, if dead, is then consumed by the vultures, and the pain-killer is poisonous to them.

Vultures in India

About this statement:

The decline has led to problems for certain human communities, such as Parsis, that rely on vultures to eat the bodies of their dead.

Are there any cultures in India other than the Parsis who rely on vultures to eat their dead? Offhand I seem to remember reading of Buddhist monks in Tibet who disposed of their deceased brethren in a similar fashion, so perhaps the same is true of Buddhists in India? --Saforrest 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See article on Sky burial. Snowman 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vultures in culture

Sould this have own pages or page? and linked to disambiguation page. Snowman 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

List of vultures

Is a formal list of vulture species needed on this page to assist classification? Snowman 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say not - they are in two different families and best listed there, especially as there is no geographical overlap. jimfbleak 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree, completly. Your question asks about species, but I do think that a list of genuses ^genea, however, would be appropriate, but not species, Jim is right, I think.

The reader of this should be given a quick tour of basic types beyond the big split. The species could be listed in the sub-articles.Chrisrus (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like this:

Diurnal Birds of Prey:

• 1. Falcons (No vutures here, primordial form from which they evolved and share morphology)
• 2. Condors and New World Vultures (Is a condor a vulture? How many more basic types (genea)?
• 3. Everything else (Vultures in this third group may have evolved from separately from different falcons, hawks, eagles).

In the thrid catagory, we need a list of genuses, or type, but omiting all hawks and such.Some text would be needed to make clear that the list corresponds to no family as it will be omitting all other types of Diernal Birds of Prey which aren't either 1. or 2. above.

This would deal with the problem of there being no one scientific term for "vulture in catagory 3, above" other than the term Old World Vulture. The problem is old world vultures are less related to each other than they are to the particular group of hawk or eagle or they evolved from.Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If each genus with internal link brackes we can see how many have articles and how many are still blank, and how many still need articles or redirects. Then it becomes another nice little project for someone, assuring that there is at least a stub for each basic type of vulture.

The best tool for this job might be [2], the UMish Animal Web. Its sytem of classification links enabled me at Talpidae to clean up all the red internal links there, down to the last species, on the classificantion list. I wouldn't have been able to do it without this tool.

Would anyone care to give it a go? I hope so. It's pretty fun, actally. It'd be a good assignment for an ornothological student or hobbiest. Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Potentially remarkable fact about anthrax

I recently heard on Animal Planet that vultures are the only animal species immune to anthrax. Can anyone confirm/disprove? --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Me again. After a quick Google search, it appears that "birds usually are naturally resistant to anthrax. Buzzards and vultures are naturally resistant to anthrax [...]". I think this should be mentioned in the article--any opinions against it? --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This article does not give a primary source, and may just be repeating speculation. As an American site, it may well also be using buzzard as a synonym for New World vulture, rather than to refer to Buteos. Does the article mean that the two distinct families, the American Cathartidae, and the Old World vultures share this immunity? jimfbleak 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert, note how my interest on this factoid was aroused by a comment on Animal Planet--therefore I can't comment on technical details in any satisfactory way. I simply wanted to raise the issue for someone more knowledgeable to comment on it. Even if it isn't true, the very fact that it isn't should be mentioned in the article, given the relatively large assortment of sites which hold that to be true. (Personally I doubt the statement is false, but it's just a relatively uninformed opinion.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Translations

It might be informative to more people (and especially to people who live near wild vultures) if this article was translated to Indian languages (to other language wikis) by anyone who has the appropriate language skills. 62.173.88.59 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia

So what species of volture do we have here? Maybe the Wedge-tailed eagle? No we dont have any here. Any comments? Enlil Ninlil 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there are no species of vulture in Australia; however, there are other birds of prey in Australia that preform the scavenging function that vultures provide elsewhere.Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bird of Prey?

Isn't a vulture classed as a bird of prey as some vultures do kill animals when their dying? Lee.17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

restaurant for vultures in nepal

I found this conservation effort in Nepal quite interesting. I am not sure if it is noteworthy to be added. Dock^Hi 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Breeding of vultures in the wild,Himachal-Pradesh,India

The dooms day for this master bird has not yet arrived as the breeding of the bird in the wild has created new hopes of survival of this species .

                                       Distt.kangra, himachal-pradesh,india is blessed with the breeding of 

these birds in the wild .various sites have been recorded in the district Where vultures are breeding without any big mortality. The following Species are under supervision since oct.2006.

It is observed that some times the young ones are remain unattended during the nights as their parents remain out on one reasons or the other. The nests in this case are made of with the leafs and branches of the Pinus roxburgii tree.. The birds are breeding in the branched old trees of conifer and therefore such trees needs special care to protect the existing habitat. Each breeding area is generally confined to about 5 hacs.

ABSTRACT OF BREEDING OF VULTURES IN WILD IN DISTT.KANGRA OF H.P.DURING2006-07. • Total nesting since Oct.2006 =40 no’s. • Total successful breeding =38 no’s. • Mortality =5%.

Abstract of breeding of vultures in the wild during2007-08 in Distt. Kangra of H.P.

S.No Name of Species Total Nests/eggs Total fledgling Total breeding success 1 White rumped vulture 49 40 81.63% 2 Himalyan griffon 07 04 57.14% 3 Egyptian vulture 06 06 100% Total 62 50 80.65%

In addition three more sites are recorded during the month of September 2008 where the breeding of vultures is going on ,the detail is as follows:- Sr.No Location Group strength Nest recorded Species 1. Manei, Near Gagal 38 8 Gypes bengalesis 2. Masatgarh,Near Jawali 12 4 ..do.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.66.185 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulture breeding in wild,Himachal-Pradesh,India by D.S.DHADWAL

The dooms day for this master bird has not yet arrived as the breeding of the bird in the wild has created new hopes of survival of this species . Distt.kangra, himachal-pradesh,india is blessed with the breeding of these birds in the wild .various sites have been recorded in the district Where vultures are breeding without any big mortality. The following Species are under supervision since oct.2006.

It is observed that some times the young ones are remain unattended during the nights as their parents remain out on one reasons or the other. The nests in this case are made of with the leafs and branches of the Pinus roxburgii tree.. The birds are breeding in the branched old trees of conifer and therefore such trees needs special care to protect the existing habitat. Each breeding area is generally confined to about 5 hacs.

ABSTRACT OF BREEDING OF VULTURES IN WILD IN DISTT.KANGRA OF H.P.DURING2006-07. • Total nesting since Oct.2006 =40 no’s. • Total successful breeding =38 no’s. • Mortality =5%.

Abstract of breeding of vultures in the wild during2007-08 in Distt. Kangra of H.P.

S.No Name of Species Total Nests/eggs Total fledgling Total breeding success 1 White rumped vulture 49 40 81.63% 2 Himalyan griffon 07 04 57.14% 3 Egyptian vulture 06 06 100% Total 62 50 80.65%

In addition three more sites are recorded during the month of September 2008 where the breeding of vultures is going on ,the detail is as follows:- Sr.No Location Group strength Nest recorded Species 1. Manei, Near Gagal 38 8 Gypes bengalesis 2. Masatgarh,Near Jawali 12 4 ..do.. D.S.Dhadwal ph. 09418143080 E.mail devinder_dhadwal@rediffmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.66.185 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nature and scope of this article

This article should limit itself to those things which are true about all vultures and not of any other birds. The rest should be left to New world vultures and Old World Vultures. If that leaves precious little that can be said in this article, so be it, that's the nature of vultures. It could possibly be replaced with a disambiguation page. Chrisrus (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First, identify the referent for the English word "vulture." That wouldn't be a problem if "vulture", like ("giraffe" or most other such words) coincided with current zoological taxonomy, which, for obvious reasons, is based not on what animals are, but rather how they are related. The result would be an intro which said something resembling "Vultures are raptors with naked or featherless patches on their heads that scavenge rather than hunt." Any other features that unite all vultures would be listed.

Is there anything else to be said about them in general? purhaps a factual essay about their place in human culture? If not, the rest of the information in this article should be moved to either Old World Vultures or New World Vultures. Is this agreed?

It seems that Bathrobe, perhaps without reading the above, has done as I have been suggesting. The hard work of separating out what text belonged with which of the two main types seems to have been acomplished. If anyone can see a better way, please speak now before we move to what, if anything, an umbrella article on Vultures in general should do.

Definition:

Morphology

By saying they are Falconidae, or Diernal Birds of Prey, we cover most of what defines them.

Is there a need to briefly describe that which "Falconidae" implies in the definition of "Vulture"?

Also, We have mentioned the bald patches on the head. Is there anything else which unifies and separates them from other Falconidae?

Proposition A: "A vulture is a Falconidae with a bald face (?and?)."

Behavior

Is this settled?

Proposition B: "carrion-eating Falconidae", with maybe a caveat.

Is it a solitary animals,why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.47.121 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

Proposition C: Vultures result when Falconnidae give up killing their own meat. This has happend at least twice?

That should be Accipitridae (Falconiformes).

Bathrobe (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I read [3]. All vultures are Falconiformes, which is the technical term for Diernal Bird of Prey. Accipitridae contains Old World Vultures, which has no zoological synonym, and many kites, eagles, and hawks, but not New World Vultures. So changing the above to Accipitridae would omit New World Vultures, or Cathartidae. Chrisrus (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So if a New World Vulture is a vulture, Vulture = a diernal bird of prey that is evolved in specific ways by a lifestyle of carrion eating. If not, it's a "hawk, eagle, or kite" (Accipitrid) that is evolved to eat carrion. This must be decided, are new world vultures vultures or not?Chrisrus (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Old World Vultures, which has no zoological synonym" -- maybe not, but they are placed together (i.e., adjacent, in consecutive order) in most taxonomies. Perhaps the day will come when Gyps is suddenly placed up near Pernis, but for the moment at least it is down near Gypaetus etc.

Secondly, "are new world vultures vultures or not?" In one sense, this is a kind of meaningless question. You seem to be stuck on the common-language name. In defining "vultures", we have two basic choices (although no choice is going to be clean cut):

They are both called "vultures" in common language, so they are both by definition kinds of "vulture". That's basically why we have this article.

There is some biologically motivated concept of "vultureness", some gestalt as you have called it elsewhere, that conspires to place these birds all in the category of "vulture". If that is the case, you really need to come up with a pretty watertight, natural definition that is not simply an excuse to uphold common-language terminology.

My feeling in watching you struggle with this question is that language keeps getting in the road. You are unconsciously equating common-language usage with some kind of God-given, pre-ordained, naturally determined category in convergent evolution. Because natural language has the concept of a vulture, you seem to be tortured by the difficulty of defining or delimiting what this is in biological terms. I say this because you don't seem to be bothered at all by cases where natural language hasn't come up with a shared name. The example I gave elsewhere was "flying squirrels", "sugar gliders", etc., animals from completely different families which share remarkable similarities but which don't have a common English term. Since they don't have a common English name (such as flirrel, for instance), the issue of what a flirrel is doesn't torture you at all, even though this seems to be as good an example of convergent evolution as vultures, moles, or anything else.

My advice would be, stop getting stuck on common-language names and trying to justify them or make sense of them by grasping at concepts such as gestalt or convergent evolution. I don't think the situation is as bewildering as you find it. In English (and many other languages), there are two lots of birds that are called "vultures". They are so called because of historical accident (naming) and convergent evolution (similar ecological niche). It is fine to have an article on "vulture" as a blanket term for these two different groups of birds, but comparisons between the two should be confined to ways in which they have independently adapted to similar ecological niches.

Quite simply, since it is impossible to rigorously define what a "vulture" is in scientific terms, the question "are new world vultures vultures or not?" is rather meaningless. In the end, "vulture" is whatever language defines it to be, and NOT something that nature defines.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two things that cause problems like the one we had here. One is, as you point out, the fact that there is a word "vulture". In cases where this is not true, such as there being no word for "flirrel", then we might have the option of there being an article, but there is no imperative to do so, or at least less of one.

The second element necessary for there to be such a problem is that there actually be a referent to the word in question. For example, there may be less of a clear referant with "quail" than there is with "mistletoe", for wikipedian consensus has settled on opposite treatment in that case. The fact that "Mistletoe" gets an article and "Robin" gets a disambiguation page lies not in the fact that they are not both the result of a language based in the Brittish Isles faced with similar things. Only the distinguishable referent can explain the fact that Mistletoe gets an umbrella article by "Robin" does not. Do you see?

In the case of "Vulture" as it stands now, there is an umbrella article. It includes some of what it should, including the bald head, but not others, such as the wing structure, built for the soaring behavior, which it should contain. You fundementally misunderstand the problem to believe that I'm just confuesed by words, though there being a word is an important part of it. There is also a question of what to do with the Referent to that word. There is a thing called "misteltoe", although there is no taxonomical term for it. Old Word Vultures have no taxonomical synonym, either. "Accipitridae that has certain characteristics" is the best it has to offer, so it's that article's job to say what those characteristics are that cause them to not just be called vultures, but to actually BE vultures. The job is not done. We still need to finish listing the gestalt of features that define what exactly a Vulture is. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My only question is: Without the word, would the gestalt exist? If you think it would, then go ahead. But the problem remains. According to the "word", the New World vultures are vultures. When you ask, "Are new world vultures vultures or not?", you seem to be implying that, in terms of gestalt, New World vultures aren't vultures at all. In which case, what exactly is this "vulture" gestalt that is causing us so many headaches?

Bathrobe (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "My only question is: without the word, would the gestalt exist?" Obviously, without the word "vulture", diernal birds of prey with wings built for soaring instead of speed, bald patches on the head, and amazing stomach acid and resistance to anthrax, etc. would still exist. As proof, notice that "flirrels" exist, though the word does not, though there not being a word for them makes having an article about them less of an imperative than a possible option.

You say "According to the "word", the New World Vultures are vultures." Then you say that, when I ask whether people think that's true or not, I am implying that they aren't. I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I think they are, I was just asking if anyone disagreed. Prior to my asking that, I hadn't thought that that proposition was in question, but then someone said something that made me think that there are those that think they are not.

You ask what exactly the chararcteristics are that make something a vulture. Here I call your attention back to the top of this section. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Classification

This article discusses the New/Old World split, for example sight vs. smell. Is there anything else? What notable morphological differences set the New World Vultures apart? What about "short necks"? That one sort of leapt out at me? Larger nostrils on the beak?

Proposition D: "There are two main types, New World smellers and Old World lookers." Chrisrus (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Measurements?

Can someone put the measurements such as the smallest and the largest species? 04:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Comments From Class

The Vulture article is pretty detailed and well cited. However, the article itself is lacking probably one of the main aspects found in pretty much all the other bird/animal articles: a detailed physical description. The right side of the page, which contains photos, lists less statistical and factual data than some of the other viewed pages. The behaviors of the vulture are sufficient to satisfy passer-byers, but like most of the other viewed entries, it lacks that information about the specifics of the motives and behaviors of breeding as well as the various strategies applied to increase survival chances. Stylistically, this article also differs because of the sheer number of links, resembling almost a regurgitation of information of any relevance. In all, this article is lacking taxonomy, behavior, human relations, and description, following the format provided the WikiProject Birds project. TKYung (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Territorial exclusivity between Old and New World Vultures

Big question; if New World vultures only inhabit the American land mass but previously did also inhabit the Eurasian/African, and Old World vultures only inhabit the Eurasian/African land mass - what is the explanation for the current exclusivity of respective territorial occupation by these otherwise unrelated yet convergently evovled species?

Picture

Isn't this a picture of an eagle, not a vulture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.25.71 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)