Talk:Hoatzin

Comments

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)

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)

-> I removed the line in the introduction of the section dealing with taxonomy that stated that the hoazin is on the oldest extant avian lineage (or something to that effect). This is evidently not true, as the extant paleognaths, galloanserae and even the group containing the pigeons represent "deeper" splits with respect to the split that separated the Opisthocomidae from the rest of the extant avians.

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)

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)

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)

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)

-> Although juvenile hoatzins do indeed retain claws on their two fingers, its present taxonomical position does not support a closer relation between the hoatzin and Archaeopteryx than between other (extant) birds and Archaeopteryx.

The "evolutionary link" is that they're both birds. Clawed hands are not unique to hoatzins at all, everything from chicken to ostriches have vestigial claws on their wings, they're just hidden by feathers. Hoatzins are just some of the few birds that use them for a purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hoatzin (5 votes) June-July 2008

Nominated May 20 2008;

Support:

1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Shyamal (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
5. jimfbleak (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Oddball species that has a lot of taxonomic info but is also a behavioural oddity. We don't have many South American species. Bonus; the family text from the Handbook of the Birds of the World is available as a excerpt online for free! [1]! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Good one to do, from non-anglophone area, unique and loads of evolution/taxonomy. etc.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• One of my favorites. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving the description

I'm moving the description section above the taxonomy description. It makes good sense in an encyclopedic article to describe the thing itself before moving into a detailed debate about one aspect of it. -Fenevad (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm..that's one way of looking at it and it is good of you to be bold that's true. However just about all substantial bird articles established an order of subheadings with taxonomy first. The lead should be a summary of the article's salient points so there will be some mention there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix

Did anyone noticed a resemblance to the mythological bird known as Phoenix? I think it should be noticed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.7.107.177 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a Phoenix more than them chickens. The young having wing claws is interesting aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.189.99 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see similarities to the Pheonix? Kugelfisch002 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Systematics

An IP editor added this comment, replacing a paragraph in the taxonomy section:

Molecular studies, backed by anotomical and palaeontological evidence, strongly suggest that the Hoatzin belongs to the family Musophagidae. An experienced Wikipedia editor may perhaps wish to add a reference to a paper entitled "Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin) resolved using mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences", authored by JM Hughes and AJ Baker here.

Anyone want to look into this and update the article? —innotata 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anyone know if the 'h' is pronounced or silent? I'd assume it's pronounced since hoatzin comes from a native language rather than Portuguese, Spanish, or French, but wiktionary doesn't have any more information than that.

I'd think specifying pronunciation would be helpful for this article since the bird's range is in countries where Romance languages (with a silent 'h') predominate. 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

it appears nahuatl in which case the 'h' should be silent. it would be "wat' zeen" i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What happens to the claws?

That this bird has claws on its wings as a juvenile is to me endlessly fascinating. How could it "lose" them as it grows? Do they fall off? Is the wing different in any other way to modern birds? I'd like to see some X-rays of the part of the wing containing the claws, as a juvenile and an adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.125.28 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article in the New Yorker

I came across this in the New Yorker, which may be useful.

• Crair, Ben (2022-07-15). "The Bizarre Bird That's Breaking the Tree of Life". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2022-07-20. Darwin thought that family trees could explain evolution. The hoatzin suggests otherwise.

Peaceray (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)