Talk:New World vulture

message: I believe that first picture is a California Condor because of the white underwings and lack of the Andean Condor's head and neck ornamentation.  I'm absolutely convinced it's not a Turkey Vulture, a bird I'm very familiar with.  —JerryFriedman 19:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: My reading shows that these birds are not closely related to storks but they are more closely related than to Old World vultures or other diurnal raptors. --Droll 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this only holds true for accipitrids. See Falconiformes article for ref. Dysmorodrepanis 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Storks 

message: It would assist verification if page numbers were included in the notes. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: This page makes the distinction between the two condor species, and the five vulture species. However, no distinction between the two is given. This is especially confusing, as the five vulture New World vulture species are different than the Old World vulture species. (Vulture points back to this page for clarification on the New World species.) So ... what's the difference between a condor and a (new world) vulture? Is it purely linguistic? Why make the distinction between New World vultures and condors - it seems that it would be clearer to call the old world vultures in general "vultures", and new world vultures in general "condors", so why isn't it done?  -- 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between condor and vulture? 

message: OK then, what does this need....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly expansion. Some sections need adding, like distribution and migration, but mostly single paragraph sections need to be expanded. This shouldn't be too hard as all the research work has already been done for the individual species articles. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last piece in the FT jigsaw puzzle... 

message: Calling these birds "New World Vultures" is thinking in three dimensional terms - perhaps the fourth should be taken into consideration. As the article mentions that this clade is known from Old World fossils and it is implied that they evolved there, the name of the article should probably be "Cathartidae" (see below). A member of the "Old World" vulture lineages was also found in the New World (Neophrontops spp.) until quite recently, further necessitating a name change. 
It also deserves mention that Cathartidae is a junior synonym for Vulturidae - see here - thus it is unusual that the former name is still being commonly used. It appears that palaeontologists prefer using "Vulturidae" - see here - and ornithologists prefer "Cathartidae"; since "Cathartidae" is more widely used/known, it is still the best candidate for the title of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.233.82 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change? 

message: This identical sentence, "They were widespread in both the Old World and North America, during the Neogene," appears in both this article and the Old World vulture article.  To what group, New, Old or all vultures of whatever clade does "they" in this statement refer?μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatally Ambiguous "They" 

message: I nominate this article for Good Article status based upon the following criteria:
# The article sources are reliable. I was able to check one source, and the source validated the article’s claims. The article did not close paraphrase or appear to plagiarize the sources. I specifically checked the claims made about the Reed source.
# The article presents all information in a neutral way. The article is also well-written. It is concise and keeps focus on the topic.
# Besides 2 citation needed spots, there are no other cleanup banners on the page.
# The article does not seem to be the subject of any ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
# The article does not specifically concern a rapid current event that has a definite endpoint.
# As stated above, I did not notice any close paraphrasing or copyright violations. I do acknowledge that I do not have any reference-checking software, so my review of this aspect was limited.
# The article has a nice amount of images. All of the images used are on WikiMedia Commons and released for public use.
WhitleyTucker (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will note the taxonomy section is rather outdated, and the fossil/extinct species section could use some help.--Kevmin § 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An awful lot of space is used on  Teratornithidae for some reason. Could be cut down to a short sentence, since they may not even belong here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Nomination

message: The lead claims "Many now consider them to be in their own order Cathartiformes, closely related to, but distinct from, Old World vultures". Later in the article, there is a contradictory statement "Although New World vultures have many resemblances to Old World vultures they are not very closely related." How can it be said that New World vultures "are closely related to, but distinct from Old World vultures" but also that "they are not very closely related"? I am not an expert on this topic, but it definitely seems that either the lead is wrong or the article is wrong. Since there is a citation in the article text, would there be any objection in me changing the lead to be consistent with the article text? AuburnMagnolia (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory claims about taxonomy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New World vulture. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302073659/http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html to http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Cathartidae Lafresnaye 1839 is listed as the formal name, with Vulturidae Illiger 1811 as a synonym. How is that possible? Shouldn't the oldest name be preferred, per ICZN rules?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.176.102 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cathartidae or Vulturidae?