Talk:Passerine

message: More families to slot into place:
Tichodromidae
:Tichodromadidae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -> Paradoxornithidae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: -> Furnariidae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: -> Dicruridae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: -> Dicruridae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: -idae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: = Acanthisittidae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sylvidae? Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sylviidae. If you do not accept that the latter is merged into Timaliidae, which a) should be vice versa and b) is debatable, solely resting on a perceived divergence of the sylviid-timaliid clade coincident with emergence other family-ranked clades that is simply inferred from assumptions on the rate of molecular evolution that may or may not be correct (frankly, I find the idea to merge the "core Sylviidae" into the Timaliidae inane given the absence of hard - i.e. fossil - evidence and really wonder why usually good and thorough scientists would seriously suggest such an idea, as it creates another non-informative mega-group, albeit an arguably monophyletic one. I think it is because the research has been conducted from the timaliid point of view, which naturally includes core sylviids with the timaliiids... but it is equally feasible to see it as some timaliids being included with the core sylviids. All that can be said is that the traditional Timaliidae are paraphyletic with regards to core Sylviidae.) Dysmorodrepanis 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: -> Artamidae. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Paraphyletic. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: yes; apparently courtesy ITIS. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Superfamilies not (yet) fully resolved; some of the initial suggestions paraphyletic. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See above. Dysmorodrepanis 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Can someone say more about singing? Like: frequencies, patterns, simulation of bird songs etc. thanks, --Abdull 21:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the sentence as to include a link to Bird song. Dysmorodrepanis 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singing 

message: This article says, "...all of them gape in the nest as infants to beg for food", linking to altrices. Altrices says, "They include [...] many passerines." Either "all of them" refers specifically to the subset which are "songbirds and have complex muscles to control their syrinx", in which case it should be "all of these", or one of the articles is wrong/misleading. -Ahruman 09:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency? 

message: A while back I emailed one of the researchers working on the monumental task of sorting out the New World 9-primaries for information regarding this group. From what he told me there's still a bit of shuffling to be done with some genera leaving and others coming in. All this was just pers. comm. so not verifiable which is frustrating as I'd like to update the page. Just have to wait until he publishes.
--Deargan 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start off with tanagers to see which cardinal genera go there and vice versa. Dysmorodrepanis 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi D. He pretty much stated exactly who goes with who. Crystal clear as to what should be in Cardinalidae and certain which are tanagers, though clade placement he's leaving to another researcher specialising in that group. See F.K.Barkers webpage, there appears to be a big ongoing collaboration to do a comprehensive job on the NW9Ps - I can't wait! Stuff already published though I need to look up the references - Saltators are tanagers, and chats Granatellus are cardinals. For the rest I'll wait until the paper is published, I've no desire to steal anyones thunder. Deargan 01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cardinalidae]]:  cardinals

message: In addition to Irestedt et al. (2006): Nuclear DNA from old collections of avian study skins reveals the evolutionary history of the Old World suboscines (Aves, Passeriformes). Zoologica Scripta 35: 567–580.  theer is also this paper, 
*Moyle, R.G., R.T. Chesser, R.O. Prum, P. Schikler, and J. Cracraft. 2006. Phylogeny and evolutionary history of Old World suboscine birds (Aves: Eurylaimides). Amer. Mus. Novitates 3544: 1-22. 
...which also concludes that the broadbills are paraphyletic. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Broadbill]]s, [[Asities]] and Sapayoa 

message: Nominated February 10 2010;
Support:
#Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Passerine]] is the collaboratin for MArch/Arpil 2010

message: Okay folks, items here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleck, why do we always pick the hardest subjects for colabs? 
*The model should be bird, with notes on Distribution and habitat, morphology, behaviour, migration, relationship with humans, conservation and threats. This article pretty much needs it all. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: To-Do list

message: Should the sentence
:Sexual dichromatism is very rare among the basal lineages of Passerida, and probably their plesiomorphic condition. 
read
:Sexual dichromatism is very rare among the basal lineages of Passerida, and probably reflects their plesiomorphic condition. ?--Wetman (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "reflects"? 

message: The article states that passerines include more than half of all bird species.  What about the non-passerines?  Do they fall in one major group, and if so what group?  Or groups, plural? A brief reference with link(s) would be useful to a non-specialist such as myself. Karl gregory jones (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-passerines 

message: What do these birds eat? I can't find it on the page.  Supercuty27  00:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet? 

message: Add Elachuridae? — kwami (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  new family 

message: The statement "passerines are distinguished from other orders of birds by the arrangement of their toes (three pointing forward and one back), which facilitates perching" is incorrect, as several other orders of birds also have an anisodactyl toe arrangement (pigeons, eagles, hawks, vultures...). I'm currently searching for a better definitive morphological character that defines the Passerines. I believe that this is the tendon arrangement that allows for the perching mechanic but I welcome input from the community.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsethis (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toe Arrangement/Definition of a Passerine 

message: there are multiple elements of pop culture and the related i’ve come across lately that reference passerines directly and i thought maybe it’d be interesting to add 69.14.221.80 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make sure that they are WP:SOURCEd with reliable, preferably 3rd party citations, and are written to be more substantial than a laundry list of blurb-mentions.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  quite random, but just a thought about maybe adding an “in popular culture” section