Talk:List of extinct bird species since 1500

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds High‑importance Birds portal List of extinct bird species since 1500 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge 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. Extinction High‑importance This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Structure of page

I'm beginning to wonder how to structure this page. The original idea was to list the species by date of extinction, but they are often not sure. Would a geographical sorting be better? PàğaĿ.

• Sort them by family, that's what the books do. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Structure of entries

Also, is it a good idea to put brief texts about the species on the listing page, or should I drop them and keep all the information on the separate bird pages? I'm beginning to lean towards the later approach. --Pinkunicorn

I'd favor the following approach: a brief statement of area of occurrence and date of extinction for every taxon, followed by an indent for subspecies. Additional explanations could go here initially (but briefly, a few lines at max - see Bay Thrush and Rodrigues Starling for taxa which demand longer explanations), but with actual species/subspecies pages becoming available, they should be merged into these ASAP (see Labrador Duck for a species where only the Location and Date info needs to be here really). Trivial information should not be put on this page either way; explanatory notes should be reserved for remarks on taxonomy

A problem is that the verification of an extinction usually takes decades (the 50-year-caveat), so many of the taxa I listed today are not officially extinct, but the only reason for that is that nobody has gone looking yet. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dodo

Was the dodo really hunted to extinction? Surely not for food. The Dutch name was walgvogel. Walg=loathing vogel=bird. Even after days of kooking the beast was inedible and the saylors refused to eat its flesh. Jcwf

Dodo had no enemies on the island. With human traffic, it was gone within 80 years. The forests it lived in were destroyed and the animals settlers brought with them, pigs, rats, and cats, destroyed the dodo's nests. Will add something. Ortolan88

Hawaiʻi

I believe there used to be a giant flightless goose in Hawaii, but I don't know if this became extinct after 1600. I suspect probably before. Mintguy 22:20 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

The nene isn't particularly giant, to my knowledge, but it is flightless and endangered. It's the state bird. - Montréalais

There was a greater nene (nene-nui), a giant nene (unnamed as of yet, but listed), 4 species of moa-nalo (goose-like oversized ducks of the mallard kind) and at least 2 more goose species with undetermined affiliation. They are found on the page on Recent prehistoric extinctions as all became extinct before 1600. -- Dysmorodrepanis 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Hawaii listed as the hardest-hit area, when Guam (according to the next sentence) has had a higher rate of extinction? Tokerboy

I think what it's saying is that 30% of all bird extinctions ever occurred in Hawaii. Although 60% of Guam's species were lost, they were probably a smaller percentage of all extinctions ever. -- Zoe

Ever? That seems very unlikely. 60% of extinctions due to man sounds more like it -- stewacide 16:55, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

aaah, a closer reading reveals you are probably right, and I have fixed it to make this distinction more clear. Tokerboy

Probably needs some updating though. I'd rather say 60% of human-induced bird extinctions in the Late Quarternary were in the Pacific, generally. 2000 species of rails alone are often cited, but this is an estimate based on what has been dug up (literally) to date. The 60% Hawaii figure dates from the mid-80s when this was the only major area of the Pacific reasonably well explored. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename article...

Shouldnt the name of this article be List of extinct birds? -AnonIs this article for all extinct birds, or only recently extinct ones? As written the page should probable be called Historically extinct birds or something like that, since it seems to be exclusively on extinctions caused by man. -- stewacide 17:00, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that you are right about the nature of the content, but I'm not sure that the name change is necessary. If I wanted to look for info on extinct birds, I would look under this title. Although strictly speaking prehistoric birds are also extinct, you would expect to find Archaeopteryx under Fossil birds or prehistoric birds rather than this article.

The book of the same name, incidently, contained exactly what I would expect it to, excluding fossil species. jimfbleak 17:12, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If that's the intent of this page then I think it does need a name change. I can't think of any reason, for example, that something like Teratornis shouldn't be included in a list of Extinct birds, although clearly it doesn't fit with the page (since they went extinct a few million years ago with no help from man).

IMHO this page should be renamed to Historically extinct birds, with Extince birds either serving as a catch-all or a pointer to Historically extinct birds and Prehistorically extince birds. List of historically extinct birds might be even better. -- stewacide 17:28, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

there are 14 links directly to this page. No-one has thought it necessary to create a link as you describe. I'm especially wary of List of..., sicne sooner or later some idiot will wonder why it isn't alphabetical (believe me, it happens. Jim

Well, I've been over the Prehistoric Birds list. It was not bad as it was very comprehensive (I would not have had the passion to copy everything relevant from the FMNH list...) but the layout was somewhat messed up. I will do some finetuning, remove the redlinks etc, but the Prehistorics page can't stand as it is. It's far too large now I included all the late-Quarternary-pre-1500 extinctions I could lay my hands on. It has to be split into 2 sections: pre-Late Quarternary birds and Late Quarternary prehistoric extinctions - the former being without human "aid" and most of the latter will be. Technically, the split will be along the lines of "Fossil" and "Prehistoric" as per the Wikipedia categories for taxon classification ("Fossil" and "Subfossil" in scientific lingo).

But I cannot think of good unambiguous names - "Fossil" is misleading perhaps, as Wikipedia as of now does not distinguish between subfossils and fossils. "Prehistoric" is a catchall term for both. The easiest bit is this here page - it should be renamed "Historically Extinct Birds" or such - technically, the appropriate term would be "Recent", but "Recently Extinct Birds" would be both misleading and wrong the; correctly it would be "Birds Extinct in Recent times". Then, the unelegant way would be a disambig for "Extinct Birds" listing the 3 categories (unelegant because most ppl will think of the dod or the IBW when hearing "Extinct Birds", and not of Confuciusornis). The elegant way would be a a redirect from "Extinct Birds" to this "Historically..." and disambig line or two at the head of this page.

So, any good suggestions for how to name the 2 non-Recent extinction pages? "Fossil Birds" and "Later Quarternary Prehistoric Birds" are the least awkward solutions that I can think of. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Since the ivory bills have been spotted in the wild, shouldn't they be removed from this article?

Record ist still controversial, but I changed the Ivorybill bit to reflect upon this. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Prehistoric Birds

I've found there is an article for Prehistoric bird. While it needs some work, I'm going to add a link to it on this page for ease of use (as it stands, I don't see any way to access a list of fossil birds from here). Dinoguy2 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

See above for renaming discussion for more on that -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Extinct since 1600, earlier extinctions not included?

Are birds that became extinct before AD 1600 not included? The IUCN Red List and the Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms (CREO) use both AD 1500 as starting date. What is the reason for using AD 1600? Pmaas 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yo Peter, good to see you here! I've changed the figure to 1500; since the list already included the Saint Helena taxa it really was that way already except that one number in the intro section. -- Dysmorodrepanis 22:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Extinction Dates

Extinction dates are a matter of contention. Rarely one can say when exactly a taxon has gone extinct. For many 18th century Polynesian extinctions, visits by scientists were so irregular and Norway rats probably jumped ship on every one of them that there is a 100-year-plus uncertainty period. I suggest reading this, especially Criterion 3; there should be a unified way what extinction date to give and how precise or vague it should be. I tend towards a more vague approach that could be refined using the "Dodo algorithm" published in Nature 426:245; even without that, narrowing it down to about 30 years or so is generally possible. See the entry on the Virgin Islands Screech Owl for a taxon that was shown to be extinct in 1995, but which may actually have disappeared as soon as 1865 (simply because nobody cared to look for a badly documented, unappealing and obscure taxon). Similarly, the Thick-billed Ground Pigeon (the latest officially confirmed extinction) has probably been gone since the 1940s at least. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Birds of prey subspecies

Hi, not to mean any offense, but I an unable to find any taxonomic reference confirming that these subspecies:

• Korean Falcon, Falco peregrinus pelax (Korea, 1967)
• Little Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus pygmeaus (England, 1866)
• Mexican Californian Condor, Gymnogyps californianus californianus, ([[Mexico, 1909)
• Nevada'sCalifornian Condor Gymnogyps californianus barberus
• Mongolian Golden Eagle, Aquila chrysaetos mongoliae (Mongolia,1944)

are still considered valid. The HBW does not list them, neither does the AOU, Birds of North America/of the Westenr Palaearctic etc. See also here for what reference works are considered the default basis for bird taxonomy on Wikipedia. I am not aware of any new paper reestablishing these populations as valid subspecies; if there is one, please let me know. Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One Sentence-Stubs

Noone will take notice of such articles (e.g. Amsterdam Island Duck) if you don't enter these stubs into the lists of the WikiProject Extinction or the Portal Extinction. Thanks. --Melly42 13:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which taxa should list here

It is possible to make a consensus for which taxa should list here and which not. Many species are not listed in the IUCN Redlist but where not seen for decades (should we left out this taxa?) and others seems to be doubtful though there is no official treatment (e.g. SACC, Clements Checklist) which shows how to deal with them. --Melly42 (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of recently extinct bird species. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://metropolis229.webcrossing.com/WebX/.2cba657e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615003304/http://www.uog.edu/up/micronesica/dynamicdata/assetmanager/images/vol38/spennemann.pdf to http://www.uog.edu/up/micronesica/dynamicdata/assetmanager/images/vol38/spennemann.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041018052716/http://www.kcc.org.nz/birds/extinct/list.asp to http://www.kcc.org.nz/birds/extinct/list.asp

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Late Quaternary Page Vs. This Page

At what point does the page List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species overlap with this? Several birds that have gone extinct before Western documentation, such as upland moa and Tyto pollens, are included despite the fact that specimens were never officially collected by European taxonomists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenD (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge from List of bird extinctions by year

Both lists can be accommodated on a single page by making a table that has (at least) two sortable columns, for year and taxon. -- Beland (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel like yes, we should merge both pages considering both are about extinct birds and because List of bird extinctions by year is lacking references. Also, it would add more detail to this page, so it says what year that type of bird went extinct. ValeAliz 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, given that each page serves a different function, and merging without an enormous amount of work would make the combined page very long. Klbrain (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)