Talk:Argentavis

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds Low‑importance Argentavis 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't know the policy regarding the language of references, and since the only reference I found regarding physics of this species is in Spanish, I just included it. I understand that it won't be useful to everyone, but I feel it's better than nothing. Tjunier 16:43, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

• There's no policy against it. Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

I made a separate page for Teratornithidae and linked pages 'Teratorn' and 'Teratorns' there. --Mikoyan21 22:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070702/sc_afp/ussciencebirds. Ling.Nut 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a rehash of Campbell & Tonni (1983). Dysmorodrepanis 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/largest-pterosaurs. I would add it but I don't know how to do a citation. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass: 70 kg (140–240 lb)" doesn't make sense. David Bofinger (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the section on pterosaurs as the largest flyers ever, changing it from a reference to Questzalcoatlus, to a reference of the entire azhdarchid group, naming a two of the bigger ones. I removed the remark about Pteranodon being the largest before their discovery, as I think it is of no interest to the readers of this specific page. I also removed the reference to Peter Wellnhofer (sp?) work, as the linked items on azhdarchids and species already contain many references. Jalwikip (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the mention of pterosaurs even in this article. It is rather pointless. The person who created the article probably just used it as an excuse to write about pterosaurs.

The article seems to be a bit self-contradictory on this: it says that the bird was not suited for active hunting and probably preferred scavenging, and in the very next sentence it says the contrary. This should be clarified. Kolorado (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was suited for hunting, yikes! You'd better watch out for this guy. Perhaps it COULD hunt by lifting animals off of the ground, carrying them to a place and kill it and eat it. With wings the size on this bird, it could hunt like this for small HORSES!Dinotitan (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the first question: I think it means others of the family.

Next: Reminds me of the Haast's eagle, in a way.

Entirely unrelated whatsoever: Does anyone recognize "a simple question of weight ratios" from Monty Python? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not a question of where he grips it!" Steamboat28 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Description section of this article is messy, inadequate, and just doesn't make much sense. It's just starts with a description of a damage humerus, which probably belongs in the "Size" section, and then has 2 sentences describing the shape of the bird. The rest of the article seems to have decent information, it just needs to be compiled together to make a clean, concise, and readable description section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.110.197 (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-newly-declared-seabird-species-may-be-the-largest-to-ever-live/2014/07/07/0940783c-05e4-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html

Not sure how to edit these pages, or validate the info.

But was Pelagornis really larger? wingspan for Argentavis estimated 7m according to this Wiki, pelagornis 6.4 according to paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/02/1320297111.abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnotosov (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Argentavis is disputed [1] the wingspan is estimated from one wing bone, from one specimen. If appears that P. sandersi only has one specimen as well, and the size is also not exactly known. To say that one species is definitely larger than the other based upon what is known of them is a step too far. I think the most we can say is that they are of comparable sizes. Also wing span is not everything, if they had different habitats, diets etc., they may have been different shapes. Martin451 08:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, probably best to edit this article to reflect the uncertainty about the size (now it says a 7 meter bird has a smaller wingspan than one with a 6,4 meter wingspan :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnotosov (talk • contribs) 11:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. sandersi's page mentions the wingspan being "from 6.4 meters to 7.3 meters." I rewrote that sentence in the article to better reflect that it's an estimation, and not a magic varying wingspan. I also rewrote the sentence in Argentavis' article about it being largest flyer #2 to reflect the uncertainty of P. sandersi's wingspan.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayr et al. (2010) originally put forth the argument of Ksepka (2014) that Argentavis at 7m+ is overestimated, and did so with greater detail, the crux of the matter is that Pelagornis sandersi has a humerus almost twice as long as that of Argentavis and based on Teratornis merriami the skeletal length of each wing of the known Argentavis specimen would not be greater than ~1.8m for a total skeletal wingspan of ~4m, compare that with ~4.5m (2.1m each wing) in the reasonably more complete Pelagornis chilensis and ~5.2m (almost 2.5m each wing) in Pelagornis sandersi, Ksepka (2014) 6.1-7.4m range reflects the difference in the estimated length of the primary feathers, the upper range being the only one based on what could be considered the closest living analogues (Procellariiformes) and a conservative one at that. The only way Argentavis could beat Pelagornis in wingspan is if it had longer primaries, and I mean way longer primaries, each almost as long as the whole skeletal wing. Ksepka (2014) estimate of 5-6m for Argentavis seems more reasonable than the old estimates. Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the original article (Campbell & Tonni, 1983) Argentavis wing span estimates calculations ranged from 5.7 to 8.3 metres. Latter value seemed like an overestimation and later estimations have been in 6 to 7 metres. However, Teratorns had relatively shorter humeri than modern seabirds. [www.prehistoriclife.xyz/extinct-giants/images/6705_246_96-argentavis-magnificens.jpg This picture] compares humerus of Argentavis (a) with skeletal wings of Californian Condor (b), Merriami's Teratorn (c) and Wandering Albatross (d). As one can see, Teratorn humerus is much shorter than Albatross humerus, even though skeletal wing span is nearly the same - and most likely, Teratorn had longer primary feathers. As I understand, raptors have longer primaries than seabirds like albatross. Argentavis primaries were estimated as 1.5 to 1.8 metres long, likely Pelagornis didn't have as long primary feathers. Given that Merriami's Teratorn likely had wingspan of about 3.5 metres, 5 metre wingspan for Argentavis seems very puny given how enormously massive it was compared to Merriami's Teratorn. Even Aiolornis probably had wingspan of 5 metres and it was much smaller than Argentavis! Anyway, wing span debate aside, it is clear that Argentavis was much heavier than P. sanders, so 'largest flying bird' is somewhat of a misnomer even if it did have longer wing span. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The estimate of 1.8m for the skeletal wing is already based on Teratornis merriami, I recommend you to read Ksepka (2014) if possible, he used some equations to get 5m but he does look at the relative length of the primaries in vultures, and at 33-36% of wing length, those of Argentavis would be up to 1m, resulting in his upper end estimate of 6.1m, much longer primaries are just not realistic, specially since they grow with negative allometry. I agree on the weight though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article twice to figure out when this bird lived, without success. The info may be in there somewhere, but should be put in the first section. --Bep (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother trying to look at the top of the taxobox at the upper righthand corner of the page, where it says "Temporal range: Late Miocene, 8–6Ma"? Or even bother trying to read the second sentence of the article, which is, as follows: "A. magnificens, sometimes called the giant teratorn, is an extinct species known from three sites from the late Miocene of central and northwestern Argentina, where a good sample of fossils have been obtained."?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my questions only because *you* feel it is stupid. OK, I see the temporal range mentioned in the taxo box. I would probably also noticed the reference to Miocene in the lead text if I had not mistaken it for a geographical location in Argentina (making this more clear could be something to consider). --Bep (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Miocene" is the name of the time period. Anyone remotely interested in paleontology ought to be already intimately familiar with all the names of the major time periods. How clearer do you want it to be?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm remotely interested in palentology, but know nothing about these time period terms. You could prefix it with "time period" - saying it is from Miocene of central and northwestern Argentina may mislead us not intimimately familiar with these terms to believe this bird is from a place in Argentina called Miocene. Not a big thing now that I know that the info I asked for is actually threre; my main point about my second posting was to point out the bad form of deleting other people's questions. --Bep (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Miocene" is already linked, and the temporal range is already stated in the taxobox: unless we're putting in the specific radiodating age, any further clarification is redundant. As for my deletion, it's a habit I developed after having to deal with other editors who routinely misuse and abuse talkpages for use as forum threads, free advertising, and promotion of gossip and inanity.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a another version of this article in other languages but is not connected with this one and I don't know how to merge it. I leave the link here in case someone can merge them. Here the wikidata Clunhair (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Argentavis-Magnificens.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMAL S2E6, Argentavis is depicted centrally for about 6 minutes of the 22m episode. They are drawn to be more condor- or vulture-like in appearance even than in the article photo. Drsruli (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]