Talk:Common ostrich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ostrich (defense)

Due to its prehistoric looks and sizehere as Wmany great tales regarding the ostriches ways of natural defenses have been mytholoical. the head in the sand being foremost of falsehoods is in fact a digestive process/gathering pebbles to grind foods such as roots berries, aand an occasionally cricket. Another miscostrued act, kicking is actually more of a scare tacktic than a readiness to battle technique if forced to take a stance against a predator (Cheetas,Leopards, and Jackals) it can deliver a kick hard en ough to break bones, they tend to refrain from the use all together on multiple hunters due to slow and clumsy recovery leaving them very weak and unbalanced. Their main predator the cheetah has the right tools neededto compete with the Ostriches great speed 75-80kmh, And 50-55kmh for up to an hour it relies on open flat areas an drareley takes to the water getting it through eating moist vegitation. Their overgrown and eyes have developed for the wide and clear view you might see through binoculars, but with two competely seperate but 120 times that of a human eye. Therefore other predators usually pass the long distanse attemt unless their are young or injured animals available. despite the cheetas speed, it lack in numbers and need to stay healthy to survive as solitary animal. If coronted face to face at a stand off the Cheetah will usually choose self preservation and return to the wary and usually lone bird hours later when because it was sought after by a predator, it will be pushed from the group for up to a day, it is thought that the others have figured over time that leaving one vulnerable is is of more safety to the healthiest birds. However if the ostich chooses his stance while the large cat is still in pursuit feeling he may connect is generally done by young bird without the knoledg that at a full run the cheetah capable of a 13-18m high up to 35m in length long Jugular piercing leap hadn't had a chance to even kick the cat for some 30-35 yards making the attempt rather futile in most circum stances. At up to thirty chickks to one mother and 4-5 mothers per male they rely heavily on breeding for the survival of the species. After all they have been around during the dinasour age making it a resourceful and attentive creature rather than having the size or fight of the Water buffalo, it runs but both do what they do right with approximate succesful suvival rate at 98% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.58.29 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 December 2004‎‎ (UTC)

Conservation Status

Someone please indicate the conservation status of this species! Redwolf24 23:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• They are not under threat, afaik. Common Man 07:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Literary Critique

I would get fired from my job if I wrote as poorly (as of 8/17/05) as the primary contributor(s) to this wiki. C- writing here. I suggest that these persons work to preserve the grammar and style comments of random visiting editors. But I fully acknowledge that they have done most of the work and deserve most of the credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlprater (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 August 2005‎‎ (UTC)‎

Should I add culinary properties of the meat?

As a chef I am familiar with the intrinsic properties of ostrich meat should I add that to this article or create a new one? --Rakista 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Eyesize?

Surely more than just whales have ostriches beat for eyesize (though not of land animals) because squid eyes are gigantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.38.130 (talk • contribs)

Giraffes must have the largest eyes of land mammals, but I don't know how large. The runner up is the horse, with smaller eyes than an ostrich. Giant squid eye size has been exaggerated, but they are the largest in the animal kingdom: the largest measured eyball was 18 cm (7 in.) in diameter, with a possible maximum of 20 cm (8 in.) for the largest females. Anshelm '77 00:16, 13 October 2005‎‎ (UTC)

Predators

What are ostrich predators? Please write them below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.243.121 (talk • contribs)

Lions, leopards, cheetahs, the like. but they're hard to catch because of their speed and strong kicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.230.72.211 (talk • contribs) 211.72.108.3 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid

Can the ostrich be hybridized with any other ratite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.253.19 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 June 2006‎‎‎ (UTC)‎

weight correction

The article says the eggs can weigh 1.3kg, then goes on to say the average weight is 1.4kg. This needs to be corrected if anyone is familiar with egg mass.

--Victoria h 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on a couple of studies on domesticated birds I found on the web, the average ostrich egg weighs 1.44 kg (3 lb 2¾ oz), with dimensions of 155 × 128 mm (6.10 × 5.04 in). The heaviest egg was 2.35 kg (5 lb 3 oz), layed on a Chinese ostrich farm. I don't know it's dimensions, but with typical proportions they should have been 182 × 151 mm (7.17 × 5.94 in). An egg of 2.222 kg (4 lb 14.38 oz) from a Polish farm measured 190 × 140 mm (7.48 × 5.51 in). The lightest weight I've seen was 755 g (1 lb 10.63 oz), suggesting dimensions of 125 × 103 mm (4.92 × 4.06 in) --Anshelm '77 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

German featured article

If de:Ostrich can be a featured article, how many edits would it take to make the English version the same? What's the category for users who have en-1 and de-1 userboxes? Xaxafrad 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw a Project Echo tag on another talk page (Liberalism, for the curious). I've added it here, and now I'll look for more candidates.... Xaxafrad 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

I just removed the section on evolution (removed text appears below). The paragraph implies that there is some particularly significant similarity between ostriches and velociraptors, which simply isn't the case. Now I think about it, I suppose there might be a case for comparing ostriches to a much broader group of birdlike dinosaurs (the problem is, velociraptor is very specific, and ostriches more closely resemble other (non-carnivorous) birdlike dinosaurs), but I don't feel qualified to write that, so I'll leave it to someone else. I removed the section because it seems to me that as it stands all but the first line is misleading and therefore worse than useless. --Tremolo 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed text: Evolution

The ostrich is the largest member of the extant ratites.

The ostrich resemble velociraptors, though their ancestral phylogenetic homologies are probably too difficult to match or even locate. Another possibility is that their phenotypic similarities (i.e. quick running, shape of body) are a result of convergent evolutionary inheritances that were advantageous for their environments, that did not arise from the same branch point in phylogenetics or from horizontal gene transfer.

Subspecies

If someone knows how the subspecies differ, please add that information as well. AxelBoldt 20:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The ostriches in Arabia and South-East Asia were hunted to extinction by the middle of the 20th century."

Er... are we sure that isn't southwest Asia? I may be wrong, but I've never heard of a Vietnamese ostrich. I assume it's an error, but without any definitive knowledge either way, I'm loath to change it. 129.2.211.72 05:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed so. But you might be interested to hear that there actually may have been Vietnamese ostriches (albeit only in the far north of that country). There was the Asian Ostrich which ranged all over Asia north of the Himalayas and the Caucasus and down southeastwards all over China, and it may have been a subspecies of the African Ostrich (the bones are more similar to those of the present bird than to any other fossil ostriches). It was well known to early humans, as ostrich cavepaintings and motifs on pottery from prehistoric China indicate. This bird went extinct some time in the Early Holocene (i.e. in the millennia following the end of the last ice age). Dysmorodrepanis 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Top Speed

All this talk about a bird that runs and no mention of a top speed? :( Roffler 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Head burying

Do you really need citation for the fact that burying an ostrich's head in the ground will suffocate it? This seems like a given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.116.28.142 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

text illegible (small) in distribution map graphic

In the "taxobox" graphic showing present-day range on map, the names of subspecies are too small/unclear to be legible without enlarging image. I have not a lot of Wikipedia experience and no experience editing nature articles so I did not want to boldly make a size change since the taxobox width might be standard. I did look at the Birds project page and the example of the taxobox there did not include such tiny text as on this page. but perhaps this is an issue that needs to be discussed at a level higher than that of an article. Maybe it is considered OK to have to open graphics in a separate window in order to see text on charts etc? but i just thought I would point this out. Wichienmaat 03:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I upped the image size, it's a bit more legible now. The problem being the width affects the length which affects the box size which can throw off the arrangement of pictures in the article itself. The article is pretty picture-heavy and it's hard to get them all to line up nicely, but it seems to be OK as is. That being said, if others feel like changing it further, I'm happy to see their ideas. WLU 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Species Status

If the current consensus is that the Somali Ostrich is a distinct species, Why does the article not reflect this? There is a short mention of the concept, but other than that, the article treats them both as one (example: the Taxobox mentions Struthio camelus but not Struthio molybdophanes). The Taxobox should go to Genus level, but not species level (rather, mentioning both species underneath instead). - 01:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Froot Loops

Is the trivia on a box of breakfast cereal [1] really considered to be a valid citation? -Dayv 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

Struthio

If 'struthio camelus' means camel-sparrow, then struthio means sparrow? I find this weird since all 'struthio' words refer to the ostrich (struthiomimus, the ostrich-shaped dinosaur, and struthiolaria, the ostrich-foot mollusc) 23:26, 10 August 2007 ‎‎‎(UTC)‎

Reproduction

Isn't it true that the ostrich is one of the rare birds with a penis? If so, that should be put in the reproduction section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.38.130 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we should add that in as well because it is true. Ostrich's are one of the rare birds out there that have a penis. I also know that Ostrich penises are used as an aphrodisiac and also heard that Ostrich's can have sexual intercourse up to 10 times a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.136.74.16 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone know whether otrich eggs are the longest hatching eggs out of all birds? I am having trouble finding this out. Please leave a comment on my talk page if you know. Stabernathy 95 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Ostrich Feathers in Industry

Under the section "Ostriches and Humans" I would like to see added:

OSTRICH FEATHER DUSTERS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physche (talk • contribs) 05:56:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

In addition to the function of the Ostrich feather in clothing, costumes, decorations etc., it might be noted that one of the most useful contributions of the Ostrich feather to industry is its use in feather dusters. The original South African Ostrich Feather Dusters were invented in Johannesburg, South Africa by missionary, broom factory manager, Harry S. Beckner in 1903.

The first Ostrich Feather Dusters were wound on broom handles using the foot powered kick winder and the same wire used to attach broom straw. Ostrich feathers were sorted for quality, color and length before being wound in three layers to the handle. The first layer was wound with the feathers curving inward to hide the head of the handle. The second two layers were wound curving outward to give it a full figure and its trademark flower shape.

The First Ostrich Feather Duster Company in the United States was formed in 1913 by Harry S. Beckner and his brother George Beckner in Athol Massachusetts and has survived till this day as the Beckner Feather Duster Company under the care of George Beckner's great granddaughter, Margret Fish Rempher. Today the largest manufacturer of Ostrich Feather Dusters is Texas Feathers (TxF)which is located in Arlington Texas.

Young apprentices still use the manual kick winder to learn the trade of building the hand crafted Ostrich Feather Duster. However, to expedite the manufacturing process, factories now allow veteran craftsman to use electric powered winders to build the duster. Building an Ostrich feather duster can be a dangerous. The wire is under tension that is strong enough to sever a finger if it were to get caught between the handle and the wire.

The Ostrich feather is unique in its durability, softness and flexibility which accounts for the success of the Ostrich feather duster over the last 100 years. Because the feather does not zipper together it is prone to developing a static charge which actually attracts and holds dust which can then be shaken out or washed off. Because of its similar makeup to human hair, care of the ostrich feather requires only an occasional shampoo and towel or air dry.

Physche 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would they raise others' young?

That seems anti-evolutionary. Any possible motives? 66.65.136.117 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Male ostriches rear the eggs laid by the females in his own harem, all of which he mated with. Where did you hear about this?--Mr Fink 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ostrich (6 votes) wins collaboration for October 2007

Nominated September 3, 2007;

Support:

1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Jude. 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Shyamal 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 08:16, 18 September 2007 (EST)
5. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

We don't have any featured or GAs for Africa, and this is the biggest bird and a famous one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Kea fans, but I have to switch my vote to Ostrich. We just did a parrot article in the last month, we do need to expand our global coverage, and the Ostrich is one of the most famous birds. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree -Emu is Featured, so a ratites featured topic?...oh dear that opens up a taxonomic can of worms doesn't it.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Sabine, Rufous, and Cas Firsfron of Ronchester 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional extra eggs

W. R. Ogilvie-Grant (1921) Guide to the gallery of birds. Pat 1. British Museum. (2nd Edn) (available on www.archive.org) says this about Ostrich egg laying: "The hens belonging to one male lay their eggs in the same nest, which is a shallow excavation dug in the sand. As many as thirty eggs are sometimes deposited in the pit, and many more are dropped around which are said to serve as food for the newly-hatched young. The contents of an egg are equal to about two dozen hen's eggs." Nutritional eggs are seen in frogs for instance - the Bromeliad frogs - perhaps there is some newer material supporting or denying this old idea. Shyamal (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brain size

I wonder what's the brain size of an ostrich. I heard Jack Hanna on Larry King say "as small as a grain of sand", which cannot possibly be true! Snapple caps say "smaller than their eye", which sounds plausible considering their small head with huge eyes :) -- and they look so smart with those huge intelligent eyes :)

Having visited 'Ostrich World', a nature park which specifies in ostriches, I have found that an ostrich's brain is the size of a pea. However I do not have any evidence to back this up. jammi_f 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching an episode of Dirty Jobs where he went to an ostrich farm. There, the farmer claimed that their brains were the size of walnuts. Of course, I did not fact check this, but thought I'd throw it out there. It was the second episode of the second season, "Ostrich Farmer," if anyone cares. CharacterZero | Speak 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of eggs a year

Anyone have a reliable source for the number of eggs laid a year? Various random sites on the web say anywhere from 10-100 which seems like quite a range. -Ravedave (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer: The reason for reports of such variability in egg production is the nutrition the birds, their environment and management. Domesticated ostrich when nutritionally supported, maintained under good management systems and in the correct environment, genetically are proven to have a capacity to lay in excess of 80 eggs per season and in some cases producing in excess of 100 eggs. Currently the average on the large commercial farms is around 60 eggs/hen per season. There are a number of studies reporting this. One available on line can be found at [2]. In the wild the hens will lay until there are sufficient eggs in the nest to incubate, hatch and rear. Hegaldi (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not the relatively smallest egg

Actually, the smallest bird egg in relation to the female's size is that of the Emperor Penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) at 1.4 % (egg c. 400 g/14 oz, female c. 28 kg/62 lb), whereas the Ostrich's figure is said to be 1.7 % (egg 1.44 kg/3 lb 3 oz on average, suggesting a 85 kg/187 lb average for the female). The Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) also has the Ostrich beat at 1.5 %.

I'm not absolutely sure, where Cassowaries (Casuariidae) stand on this... Based on scarce bits of information, the egg of the Southern Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius) is c. 7 % larger (140 x 90 mm/5.51 x 3.54 in) than an Emu's egg (135 x 90 mm/5.31 x 3.54 in), the bird itself being c. 19 % heavier (65 kg/143 lb versus 54 kg/120 lb max. weight). Anshelm '77

Update: I found an average of 580 g (20½ oz) for Southern Cassowary egg, 1.23 % of an average female of 47 kg (104 lb). Admittedly poor sources, but the figures are consistent with the ranges from more reliable sources. Also, for the Emperor Penguin I found an average egg weight of 440 g (15½ oz, Lynch 1997), 1.49 % of an average 29.5 kg (65 lb, Dunning 2nd ed 2007) female. Northern Cassowary may have relatively smaller eggs still, but I didn't find any info; the eggs of Dwarf Cassowary are relatively larger. So one of the two large cassowaries appears to be the recordholder, or at least they have relatively smaller eggs than the species this record is usually credited with. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Surviving eggs

Under "Reproduction" we have this: "The survival rate is low for the eggs. with an average of one per nest surviving." It should be clarified if that means only that many hatch, or if that many reach adulthood. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Range

I wonder if there is an inconsistency on the page about the range. There is an image of two Ostriches with a caption which indicates the presence of wild Ostriches at the Cape of Good Hope, but the range map in the infobox indicates no Ostriches anywhere near this region. Snowman (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't occur in that area naturally. speednat (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Clawed Wings

What is with the picture if the article doesn't state it? Yes Ostrich have clawed wings but it needs to be stated within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Largest Cell

Sabine's Sunbird has pointed out that the claim under Ostrich#Reproduction that the yolk is the largest single cell is controversial as per this article and that it is hard to find reliable sources on this kind of thing. It would be nice to either reword that claim or find a cite pro or con. --Alastair Rae (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Predators?

Do they have predators aside of humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.2 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Growth rate

According to the article, "At sexual maturity (two to four years), male Ostriches can be from 1.8 to 2.8 metres (5 ft 11 in to 9 ft 2 in) in height,[5] while female Ostriches range from 1.7 to 2 metres (5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 7 in). During the first year of life, chicks grow about 25 centimetres (10 in) per month." This is internally inconsistent. Growth of 10 inches per month for a year would require the ostrich to be at least 10 feet tall by the age of 1 year (or, using the 25 centimetres per month, 3 metres), which is taller than the upper range of adult male height reached at 2 - 4 years. Mwiser (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

References removed

These edits seem to have taken out some references. Is this a worry? I'm not an Ostrich expert so I hesitate before reverting Kahuroa (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the aforementioned edits - the user can always discuss it here. Removing references should be discussed first. Kahuroa (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ostrich an overgrown chick?

Richard Dawkins claims in The Ancestor's Tale that the ostrich is what it looks like, an overgrown chick, similar to the hypothesis that humans are juvenile apes that somehow underwent neoteny. Are there studies that elaborate on this? 66.65.143.97 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At least the straightforward version has been refuted. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uric acid?

You use the word 'urine'. Do you mean 'uric acid'? If so, say so, it's important. If they do excrete urine, it's a difference from all other living birds and reptiles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

This article seems to be extremely popular among bored high school teens who find themselves a little too funny for this world. Would semi-protection be in order? If you look at the last few edits, it is mostly vandalism and subsequent cleanup. Trigaranus (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I put in a(nother) request to have this page semi-protected again. This time, I'm hoping we can have it permanently semi-protected.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not really benefitting from being free-for-all. Technically Struthio should be merged here, and the taxobox/taxonomy bit had become internally inconsistent. I fixed it so it's more streamlined with the rest of the article and would very much support semi-protection. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. Shyamal (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Birds of the World statistics

One or more people editing anonymously have been repeatedly changing the statistics in the Description section, giving references to Birds of the World. We have slightly different statistics, sourced elsewhere. What is the status of Birds of the World as a source? Is this simply a matter of disagreement between experts, or is one version indisputably better? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Incubating female picture

It is doubtful whether this bird is actually incubating. Ideally, a better picture would much more clearly show the eggs and nest arrangement. Brian Bertram (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oviparous

Do we really need to say "Ostriches are oviparous."? All birds are oviparous. We don't feel the need to say they have wings after all. Brian Bertram (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, edited out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Archiving Page

Since we've reached 40 threads on this page, I've set up auto-archiving. I hope no one objects to this. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Considered to be?"

Er... The text saying that the ostrich is "considered" the largest bird. Is there a certain precedent I'm missing? Is there a lesser-known bird that actually IS larger, but the ostrich gets all the credit? Is there a school of thought that uses a different bird-measurement system? Either it is the largest bird or it isn't; I don't think there's room for consideration here. Ergo, I'm removing the ambiguity. Feel free to change it if I'm actually wrong. Nevah 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people insist that a few New Zealand moa survive. In that very unlikely case, the ostrich would not be the largest bird. So "considered" might be an appropriate word. Cranston Lamont 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Has no bearing on the matter, because the moa survival issue is always concerned just with the smaller species. The giant Dinornis were long gone by 1500 AD. Dysmorodrepanis 14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Compare:

Ostrich: "The Ostrich is the largest living species of bird ... Ostriches can be from 2.1 to 2.8 m (6 ft 11 in to 9 ft 2 in) in height, while female Ostriches range from 1.7 to 2 m (5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 7 in) tall."

Albatross: "Albatrosses are among the largest of flying birds, and the great albatrosses (genus Diomedea) have the largest wingspans of any extant birds, reaching up to 12 feet." AuthorizeditorA 04:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorizeditorA (talk • contribs)

New material on burying head in sand myth

I have reverted this because I integrated the material into the existing paragraphs and citation format. I also added another citation for the "looks like a mound of earth in the heat haze" because "todayilearned" does not appear to be a reliable source. Since it's still being readded, I've added an allusion to the point as a possible explanation of the head in the sand myth, and made that a repeated reference; but that raises the need to replace that with a reliable source. I hope this version is satisfactory ... and that someone can come up with a scholarly citation :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Read both ways. Does that sound right to you? [3] More opinions please. Dream Focus 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I rewrote it and added a reference to National Geographic. Dream Focus 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question meant, but the explanations need to fit in with the blaming Pliny that begins the section, and with the fact the lying flat is mentioned just a short paragraph above. Both the National Geographic source and the Kruszelnicki source were already being used in the article, so I've made the Nat. Geographic a named ref. and returned the other one to the citation style the article uses. (I don't like this author-cite / separate alphabetical bibliography style myself, but that's what the article uses.) So does it work well now? --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

why big eyes?

I read this article looking for WHY the eyes are so large. Do they see better at night? Does it give them a wider field of vision? What? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a reason "ostrich" is capitalized throughout this article? It's not a proper noun... Huw Powell (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ornitholoical convention treats species names as proper nouns. Thus "The Common Starling is a species found in Europe" versus "Southern Africa has several species of common starling, and one rare species". See this explanation and links to various previous discussions on the subject. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that except in some field note reports and texts aimed at trained specialists - and the intention there is to indicate precisely which species has been observed or is discussed. In an article aimed at a general, wider readership - or in a popular book about different kinds of birds - it seems out of place. Decapitalize! Strausszek (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I just did an informal survey of Wikipedia bird articles and the complete common name of the bird was capitalized throughout. It seems strange to me, but it does appear to be the Wikipedia standard.--Davefoc (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a strange convention, but I respect it. I also appreciate this as a bit of pedantic academia that I can drop into casual conversation for maximum pretentiousness. Silly scientists. --Darsha —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cats

I noticed this edit, clearly GF by both very experienced editors, but it raises a discussion point. For some time, it's been an unofficial practice to consolidate country/state/province cats into larger units, as User:LittleJerry did. For really widespread species, the list can otherwise get to over 100 country cats. However, there is no policy basis for doing this, and User:Yngvadottir was within her rights to revert the change. She suggested that I raised the point here, so that interested editors can express a preference regarding whether to have country cats or larger units. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer widespread species be categorized into regions rather than countries. The Ostrich category section with bloated with too many countries. I think those many be more suited for the subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinos

Should there be a comment on how Ostriches and other ratites are thought to be direct descendants of Dinosaurs, and of the first fossil record? 70.142.36.210 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think ostriches have descended from dinosaurs. More precisely, the velociraptor. I mean have you ever taken a good look at those feet?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.12.250 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

I recently replaced the lead image showing a single male with an image showing both male and female. This has now been replaced with another image and an edit summary stating my previous edit was because it is more "important" to have an image showing sexual dichotomy than a high resolution image. This is not the reasoning behind my edit. I made the edit because I thought the image of 2 ostriches was "better". This is of course a matter of opinion. I felt it was "better" to have a good quality "close up" image that showed sexual dimorphism, rather than a high resolution image of only a male, somewhat in the distance. Being a high definition image does not make an image better per se, it is also whether it is representative of the subject matter. The current image that replaced my edit is an extremely good one and I thank the editor for making this.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead image change from the single bird to the one with both sexes was taken in good spirit, which is why the new image was added to Commons and then to this page. It is always important for people adding photographs to read and understand what the editors are thinking because what photographers think is a good photograph may not be relevant to the article. So, thank you for stating the reason for change in the edit summary. Cheers. :-) -- ~y (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for providing another image that shows both male and female birds, Yathin sk. I was puzzled by your change of image, especially since you gave no reason; I didn't even notice it was a sharper image. Since this article is clearly watched by a lot of experts, I left it to others to either query the change or revert it, but I would urge you to follow your own advice and explain your reasoning in the edit summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I caused any trouble. I should have mentioned the reason in the first change, which to me was obvious but clearly not in retrospect. -- ~y (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Distribution

The section currently contains the following sourced line:

They rarely go above 100 m (330 ft)

While the cited reference is an appropriate reliable source, the claim seems rather weird. I don't have access the source however to figure out what's wrong here.

And why is the whole thing weird? I've hardly ever heard of any land based animal being restricted to an altitude of below 100m. More importantly probably 90% of the distribution range shown on the map consists of regions above 100m. So could somebody check the source to see what's actually written there?--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The original edition of the source (Grzimek), wich I can access, doesn't contain that claim.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

North African subspecies conservation status

The text about the North African subspecies (camelus camelus) features the statement, "leading some to consider it Critically Endangered". The given source (http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php) does however not make this claim, indeed it does not appear to mention any subspecies at all. Thiis information has been faithfully copied into North African ostrich too (without any source, which is why I was trying to verify it). Any info on this, or another source?-- Elmidae (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This was because an editor had randomly changed the citation to one that did not support the information. I have now corrected it (see this, with WP:WAYBACK because the page had died since then). 62.107.210.198 (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

About Struthio camelus distribution.svg of Commons

copied from User talk:Begoon

Hi. Can you modify this file or create a new? What happens is that S. c. molybdophanes is recognized as a distinct species. Thank you, --Jr JL (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What requires modification? Did the distribution change? If you're just talking about a text alteration, then tell me precisely what should change - with a source, please. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The image is called "Struthio camelus distribution" but with new classification, it show too to S. molybdophanes. Ref. as species itis, Clemets checklist, Catalogue of Life, IOC, ZooNomen, BirdLife, original publication. --Jr JL (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So, would renaming the image to "Ostrich distribution" solve that issue? It's still in use at Ostrich.

I'm copying this discussion to Talk:Ostrich for more input. Begoon ^talk 08:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Communication

Although there is mention of mating rituals, there seems to be lacking information on the sounds they can produce and the circumstances when they produce a particular type of sound. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"one _or_ two", or "one _of_ two"

From the intro description, first sentence. Is the common ostrich either one _or_ two species of large flightless birds, or is the ostrich either one _of_ two species of large flightless birds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.227.254 (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If I understand, the two possible species would be S. calemus and S. molybdophanes (Somali), yet it appears that recent research would have determined the second to be separate (although still of the same Struthio genus). Thus I have the impression that the author really intended "or" in this case. In either case, it's probably possible to make the paragraph less ambiguous... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Temperature Conversion

When talking about a temperature interval, you cannot convert between Celsius and Fahrenheit by interpreting the interval as a raw temperature and converting it. The interval temperature needs to be multiplied or divided by 9/5. The article mentioned that the Ostrich often lives in environments with a difference of as much as 40 degrees Celsius between day and night. This is equivalent to 72 degrees Fahrenheit, not 100 degrees Fahrenheit. I've changed it accordingly.67.245.69.244 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The conversion from C to F is x 9/5 + 32. Don't leave off the latter term. The template does it correctly. See Fahrenheit#Definition and conversions. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

pursued by a predator or chased by a predator

Jameel the Saluki (talk) wrote: You have recently made a change to the Ostrich article where 'pursued' was changed to 'chased' with the explanation ""pursued" by a predator -> "chased" Use plain English - readability counts". I have done a search on the usage of the terms, and from what I can find they are considered equally plain English and equally readable. What evidence do you have for your claim that chase is more appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and in particular for the context used? Your explanation seems very odd to me.

_________________________________

Let's see the context:
"When being chased by a predator, they have been known to reach speeds in excess of 70 km/h (43 mph)..."
IMO "When being pursued by a predator" is imprecise. Unlike "chase", "pursued" does not suggest such high speed. Besides, according to Google:

"chased by helicopters" 31k books: 301
"pursued by helicopters" 10k books: 223

But helicopters can fly at a very slow speed, so let's take a better example:

"chased by F-16" 3k books: 8
"pursued by F-16" 7k books: 1

My conclusion - you may be right. So if you are absolutely sure, then do whatever you want. Or... I will do it myself. Ok, done.
Regards :-) 85.193.240.37 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - I prefer "pursued" but for no strong reason. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is important to me. Thanks. 85.193.240.37 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I had no opinion either way as to whether chased or pursued should be used. But I didn't want some ideas floating around about the choice between pursue and chase that were not true, becoming urban legend, and then restricting the number of words which could be used in Wikipedia unnecessarily. I would like to comment that in Australian English pursue has the connotation of being more persistent with a goal in mind, than chase. Pursuit is a more frequently used term, and almost used to refer to high speed chases. Chase has a mild connotation of playfulness, fun, and childishness. The lion chased the ostrich is more likely to be used by children for this reason. And pursued more likely to be used by adults, but perhaps depending on the intended meaning. In the particular context of the article neither pursue or chase are more preferable IMO as it is the speed to the ostrich that is the focus of the information. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, it sounds like an expert opinion. I wonder how much of this applies to American English? 85.193.240.37 (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We could always avoid this terminology problem and use the word "hunted". DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, you do realize that hunting is a much broader category than pursuing. 85.193.240.37 (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do. You might want to take a look at my user page and see how many articles I have created on animal behaviour. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Common ostrich. 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/20131022022049/http://www.wildwatch.com/sightings/leopard-kills-ostrich-on-an-open-plain to http://www.wildwatch.com/sightings/leopard-kills-ostrich-on-an-open-plain
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ostrich-association.co.nz/index.cfm/Facts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The first paragraph of the lead reads horribly and makes no sense. It refers to the species S. camelus then immediately talks about both species of Struthio as if they were both the subject of the article, which is clearly not the case. It should read something like:

The common ostrich (Struthio camelus) is one of two species of birds that are referred to as ostriches. The Somali ostrich (S. molybdopanes), formerly a subspecies of the common ostrich, was recognized as a distinct species in 2014. The two species are the only living members of the genus Struthio, which is part of the ratite family.

2001:569:7821:500:18A2:FBE2:63BB:18C6 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Common ostrich → Ostrich – I think Common ostrich should be moved to Ostrich because it already redirects here and seems to be the primary use although other animals called ostriches are not common ostriches. Christiancardenas732 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 14:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I assume it redirects as it is the primary ostrich topic someone will be searching for, however, calling this article by that name will enlarge the scope of the article to talk about all species of ostrich, which this article should not be doing. --Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the concept of 'ostrich' surely includes the Somali ostrich, and 'ostrich' isn't used much to refer to the common species to the exclusion of others. It might make sense to move Struthio to ostrich or create a separate article for the three (two extant) ostrich species. —innotata 00:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support, Ostrich redirects here. Per common name and common sense the topic is "ostrich". If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's an ostrich. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. There's no reason why this move should increase the scope of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: @Rreagan007: Do you think 'ostrich' means the common ostrich to the exclusion of the Somali ostrich? I would argue the term encompasses both species (plus the extinct species). I think making ostrich a new, separate article would make sense instead. —innotata 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Don't look at me, I've got my head in the sand. Like an everyday common kind of common ostrich. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Somebody fix the nonsensical lead already. It says that the "common ostrich (Struthio camelus) is either of two species", which makes no sense. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Done, and I'm ready to make the ostrich page too. —innotata 18:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose moving common ostrich; support Innotata's alternate suggestion of moving Struthio to Ostrich. This way, Ostrich can be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article covering both species without excluding any. This is the solution used at, for instance Gorilla and Orangutan, which are broad concept articles on the genus with coverage of and links to the species articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a little hesitation over whether to call all the extinct species in Struthio ostriches, but that was my original inclination, and I definitely think there should be a broad concept article. Gorillas and orangutans are good analogies, since for some time they were each classified as a single species, which is now acknowledged as mistaken. —innotata 22:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I didn't know they were classified at one time as a single species. Kind of unobservant of the classifiers. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I would suggest that maybe ostrich should redirect to the family rather than the genus? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That might make sense. —innotata 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, support Innotata's alternative suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.