Talk:Hoatzin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Ecuador, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Is it okay to link the word rufous to the definition in Wiktionary? That word kind of stumped me when reading this article. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rufous It may be a common word, though my vocabulary isn't horrible. But i am not a biologist and may not have been exposed to it because of that. (Just the tiniest suggestion.) Thank you, Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.4.146 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

	Birds Portal Hoatzin 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. Please do not substitute this template.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit Major taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae

WikiProject Echo has identified Hoatzin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

Just a couple of points i noticed in a quick glance at the article.

"Some, like Hoatzin, doves, and flamingos, also are unique in feeding their young esophageal secretions."

If the animal feeds its young cud, I think it is technically inaccurate to call it secretions. Phlegm is an esophageal secretion, cud is stomach regurgitate.

"Species: O. hoazin"

Another technical point. The Genus: Opisthocomus is correctly pointed out, but the species would just be "hoazin." Genus/Species of Opisthocomus hoazin.

Comments?

Can you call something unique if others have a similar property? How about unusual? 209.183.190.169 12:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is not "cud," as cud comes from the stomach, but the hoatzin brings it back up from the crop. This is not the same as crop secretions (think "pigeon milk")--only feeding a chick crop secretions would be like feeding your child enzymes without the food the enzymes are meant to process. 71.217.114.221 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pigeon milk is actually specialized cells from the crop lining. Flamingo milk is much the same, but not just from the crop (I think). Penguins seem to do something similar, and they are neither in the proposed "Metaves" nor related to any of the groups put therein. The Hoatzin seems to feed its young on true regurgiations. So what we have here is, again, another homoplasy (if I'd have reason the Metaves had - at present - any merit, I'd suggest renaming them "Convergaves"... convergent traits so thick that you can't touch them without hitting one ;-P no, I wouldn't do that of course. Inventing junior synonyms lacks style.) Dysmorodrepanis 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notarium?

"While the hypothesis of their relationship is based on DNA, it is notable that these birds share some obscure anatomical features, e.g., the notarium - a fused series of thoracic vertebrae." - I have removed this sentence from the Metaves discussion, because I can't seem to find a source (searched notarium metaves and notarium hoatzin flamingo on Google). It seems not all to implausibe though and would somewhat strengthen the case for the Metaves being if not a clade then composed of clades and not dominated by homoplasies. So if a source is available, please add. Dysmorodrepanis 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Out Goes The Notarium. See here - either plesiomorphy or homoplasy, making the sheer presence of a notarium entirely worthless for a phylogenetic consideration. (It might be tempting to look at how precisely the fusion is achieved, but I wouldn't think that anyone had looked at that.) Dysmorodrepanis 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong with the systematics section

The specific part is this:

[...]Miller discussed these findings in the light of the supposed affiliation of the hoatzins and the Galliformes, which was the favored hypothesis at that time, but had been controversial almost since its inception. He cautioned, however,

that Hoazinoides by no means establishes a phyletic junction point with other galliforms.

- for obvious reasons, as we know today.[...]

It may have been vandalism or some sort of accident... later I'll check the history of the article to see if there is an intact version of the segment, but I'm kinda busy right now and maybe someone is looking for something to fix, so there is it. --Extremophile 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this and I think it's stills the original version. What's so odd about it? At the time Miller described Hoazinoides, the prevailing opinion was that the Hoatzin was related to the galliforms, and thus Miller duly compared Hoatzinoides to the Cracidae which had been correctly recognized as "primitive" galliforms even then. But he himself had doubts about the Hoatzin-galliform theory. The one piece of Hoatzinoides bone was hardly sufficient to challenge the mainstream view, and so Miller said, essentially, "yeah we all can see that the skullcap of Hoatzinoides is intermediate between that of a cracid and the Hoatzin, but - caveat emptor - that does not necessarily make it a missing link, so it's too soon to party; the issue is as unresolved as ever." For obvious reasons, for as we know today, if there's anything the Hoatzin is almost certainly not closely related to, it's galliforms ("Almost" only because with the Hoatzin, it's better to CYA).

You might want to read the original source, keeping in mind that galliforms were one of the earliest group of modern landbirds to evolve, whereas the Hoatzin originated at least (and only if the Metaves are good) about a dozen or so million years later. If the Metaves are not good, it originated probably many tens of millions of years later.

Maybe what confuses you is the ambiguous "for obvious reasons"; it refers to "by no means establishes a phyletic junction point" but technically might also refer to "He cautioned" (which would give it an interesting - though wrong - conspirational bend, as if Miller had known some... thing... and chosen to hide it at his time. Haven't looked at it that way... heh. No, he simply had that "bad gut feeling" of an experienced professional).

I didn't know any better way to phrase this at that time; if you have an idea, write away! Dysmorodrepanis 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I could have got it if I've read it more carefully. At first sight, however, it's somewhat dubious, since the quotation is not immediately on the same line, between quotation marks, or in a separate paragraph, with a colon following "however". It looks like some accident or randomness of vandalism. Both the quotation ant the " - for obvious reasons" look like lines whose beginnings were cut, while "however," gives the impression (at least to me) that it would be continued on the same line, but the continuation was deleted. For the layman (or at least for this layman who writes now) the connection between the parts is not quite obvious as it may be for someone who already know about it. What about:

He cautioned, however, "that Hoazinoides by no means establishes a phyletic junction point with other galliforms" - for obvious reasons, as we know today.

or:

He cautioned, however:

that Hoazinoides by no means establishes a phyletic junction point with other galliforms.

- for obvious reasons, as we know today.

I tend to prefer the version with the quotation marks, as now that I see it, seems somewhat weird a quotation beginning with "that" preceded by a colon, as it breaks the continuity.--Extremophile 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx

Could someone mention please that the chicks of the Hoatzin share the same two fingers winged form as the prehistoric bird and that this suggests some sort of evolutionary link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)