Tannin, please revert if you're not happy with this jimfbleak
This family is listed both under the "falconiformes" order and the "accipitriformes" order. What's up with this? -- Mithcoriel 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Carole S. Griffiths, George F. Barrowclough, Jeff G. Groth, Lisa A. Mertz (2007) Phylogeny, diversity, and classification of the Accipitridae based on DNA sequences of the RAG-1 exon. Journal of Avian Biology 38 (5) , 587–602. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0908-8857.03971.x
I noted that the taxonomy used here is from the 1930s! Apparently it got its way into the Clements system and revisions never made it through, except perhaps in the AOU. E.g. the "true eagle" clade that people have been proposeing for decades is pretty robust.
The system proposed in that paper differs a bit from the one outlined above, in treating the falcons as more distinct yet part of the Accipitriformes. But if one wants to underscore this, given the uncertain position of the owls, cypselomorphs etc to these, it might even be better to split Accipitriformes off. So it might also be reasonable to raise all tribes to subfamilies of Accipitridae, and the subtribes to tribes. If there is a precedent (there are 2 older systematics in the paper apart from the Peters one) I'd say we rather use that, pending resolution of the basal phylogeny of Accipitriformes and their closest relatives. Whatever these may be. For all we know, it might be pigeons. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Zool. 3: 297-330.
Why in section 'Genera' the genus Dryotriorchis was not considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.81.35.15 ( talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"...but whether this group should be considered a family of the Falconiformes or one or several order(s) on their own is a matter of taste..."
The AOU has recently highlighted a DNA-backed change in their accepted taxonomy which places Falconidae between parrots/passerines and seriemas, very far from Accipitridae. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
"The Accipitridae, one of the two major families within the order Accipitriformes (the diurnal birds of prey), ..."
This is plainly not true. It looks like someone has just replaced "Falconiformes" with "Acciptriformes" and not considered the effect on the meaning of the sentence.
I'm assuming that "two major families" refers to Falconidae and Accipitridae. Obviously the Falconiformes are not members of Acciptriformes, and Acciptriformes is not synonymous with "diurnal birds of prey". (Unless you're trying to say that the acciptrids are paraphyletic to falcons ... but Falconidae is still the nominate sub-taxon?)
Ok, research in molecular genetics is going to cause revisions and controversy in classification, but we need to be careful when making wholesale replacements of one term with another non-equivalent term!
I'm going to try to reword that to recover its original meaning; I hope I don't put anyone's nose out of joint.
Pelagic ( talk) 14:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Accipitridae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
There seems to be some internal inconsistencies surrounding the subfamilies of Polyboroides and Geranospiza. Different pages on here and different external sources put Geranospiza in either Circinae, Accipitrinae or Buteoninae. Polyboroides seems to be in either Gypaetinae, Circinae, or its own subfamily, Polyboroidinae.
On further inspection there's much more internal inconsistency than that above so I'll probably defer.