Talk:Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy of birds

Birds High‑importance

Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy of birds is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Untitled

Alquist seems to be a corruption of Ahlquist (see also "References" at the end of article).

Sebastjan

This article needs to go in-depth into exactly how this new list was put together. What exactly is the science involved? When did the research begin? Where was the headquarters for gathering the data? How did they extract the DNA data from all the species? etc. Kingturtle 08:00 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

what you've just added is a good start, although there are many things that need to be answered or expressed. Also, I think more explanation should go at the top, rather than so deep in the article. Kingturtle 08:04 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Another question....There are 18 pages to the checklist. Is the checklist itself actually broken into 18 parts, or are there 18 parts in wikipedia because of page size limitations? Kingturtle 08:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I was trying to translate this page for nl.wiki/ First of all my compliments to the author(s) of this article. However I did run into a problem. Galliformes traditionally refers to the fowls, the chickens, pheasans etc, not to the rails and crakes. I checked the paper (#117) and in the table the only Galliform that remains a Galliform (rather than being put into a different order) is a chicken, not a rail. In fact I did not see any reference to the rails and crakes at all. I think this is simply wrong on this page and not just there put also on the page on rails etc. nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf PS I would appreciate an answer on my nl.wiki userpage PPS I suppose the figure is wrong too, as it explicitly says rails?

The statement that “This revolutionary reordering has been widely accepted by North American ornithologists, including the American Ornithologists’ Union” is simply not supported by the facts. Of 7 ordinal-level changes proposed by Sibley-Ahlquist that affect North American species, only 1 has been adopted in the latest edition of the AOU Check-list (and that affects just a single species of accidental occurrence):

Ciconiiformes - this expanded order not adopted. The traditional orders Gaviiformes, Podicipediformes, Procellariiformes, Pelecaniformes, Ciconiiformes, Falconiformes, and Charadriiformes continue to be recognized.
Craciformes - not adopted.
Ralliformes - not adopted.
Strigiformes - not enlarged to include the Caprimulgiformes, which is still retained as a separate order.
Trochiliformes - not adopted. The hummingbirds remain a part of the Apodiformes.
Upupiformes - change adopted.
Galbuliformes - not adopted. The jacamars remain a part of the Piciformes.

John Trapp 16:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Craciformes and Galbuliformes: now you tell me. Working from a home encyclopedia, I just de-redded (is that a word?) most of the bird list here. (insert swear word of choice). Totnesmartin 00:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- I took this paragraph out: "Looking back, the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy marks the high point of phenetic analyses in phylogeny and systematics. Not 20 years later, many scientists would consider such a study barely science, as phenetics is considered an entirely outdated methodology except for selected specialist applications. Broad taxonomic studies in the early 21st century in almost all cases follow a cladistic approach, to avoid the most frequent error of the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy: the recovery of early basal lineages as single close-knit group rather than as the diverse and motley grades they actually are." There is clearly a strong POV being discussed here, but there are no references. If "many scientists consider such as study barely science," it should be easy to find a citable source to back that up. Additionally, the paragraph as a whole doesn't really seem relevant to Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy. It would be better placed on Phenetics (although I would assume there is already plenty of criticism about the method at the Phenetics article)63.78.97.2 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Why isn't the title Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy of birds? It seems overly imprecise.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recurvirostridae

Somehow I'm missing the Recurvirostridae in this list. Anyone has the expertise to elaborate on this? 193.190.112.194 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity of Distances and Topologies

There are many types of 'Taxonomy' (or, more generally, 'Systematics'), each one with they applications. Does not make sense use the word 'outdated' for any kind of scientific result.

Cladistics is only more a type of taxonomy; for example in Aves it is NOT an improvement of the Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy, but rather a construction with different objectives.

Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy was a major influence in the field of taxonomy, because it fostered a culture of seeking distance measurements between species. 89.180.35.58 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC) A.C.[reply]

Moreover, Galloanseri (now Galloanserae) still adopted. 89.180.35.58 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a section on the impact and the controversy

Groundbreaking and controversial, but no real sense of that is given in the current article Bueller 007 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on current status column

Why does the "Notes on current status" column only care about which order everything is in, and not whether the families have been split or merged? Or that Eoaves is paraphyletic? Some bias I'm seeing. Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which version of the Clements taxonomy?

Seriously. Which version of the Clements taxonomy is this article even comparing the Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy to? My guess would be one from the time when the Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy was published, so in 1990 or slightly before it. Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is in the earliest version of the article (2003) and doesn't mention Clements, just a general statement that it was compared to a traditional approach. That it was a comparison with Clements was only added in 2008 (with this edit). If the traditional approach was that in Clements, it makes sense that it would be the version existing in 1990. I think this would have been the 3rd edition of the book. I'm not sure of publication date, but my notes have the 4th edition as published in 1991. — Jts1882 | talk 06:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting more uncertain of the sourcing for this article.

Among the differences from traditional/Clements taxonomy it lists "new Ralliformes rails and crakes. Previously part of Gruiformes", but I can't find Ralliformes in any of the sources I have access to (unfortunately not the actual books). Sibley et al (1998), the archived scricciolo page (assumed to follow Sibley & Ahlquist 1990), and the Taxonomicon (Monroe and Sibley 1993) classification all include Rallidae in Gruiformes. Where does Ralliformes come from?
The list of families under Gruiformes lists ten families including Aramidae. This agrees with the scricciolo page, but both Sibley et al 1988 and Monroe & Sibley (1993 via taxonomicon) have Aramidae as a tribe in Heliornithidae. It seems odd that earlier and later taxonomies agree and the middle one has a different arrangement.
Another oddity is that Neoaves is defined by Sibley at al (1988) as excluding Galloanserae, as is the modern usage, but it seems the 1990 and 1993 books include Galloanserae in Neoaves.

For the most part it seems to be following Sibley & Ahlquist 1990 (as given in the scricciolo pages), but should an article of the system follow the the original (1990) or revised (1993) version? — Jts1882 | talk 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]