• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Old Postcard with Two angry birds (2 Viewers)

Hi samlehman,

A warm welcome to BirdForum from all the Moderators and Admin. Glad to have you on board :t:

I am afraid I can't answer your question but I am sure someone will be along soon who can.
 
Agreed, baby owls are also a possibility. I should have said bird-of-prey nestlings rather than just hawks.
 
Hi,
they looks like Turkey Vulture chicks for me!

Best guess yet. Fits with the fact that TVs, unlike most other birds of prey, tend to nest on the ground in caves & such like places as per the postcard. Black Vulture has similar nesting habits & is another possibility.
 
Best guess yet. Fits with the fact that TVs, unlike most other birds of prey, tend to nest on the ground in caves & such like places as per the postcard. Black Vulture has similar nesting habits & is another possibility.

Hi,
it's right about the nesting habits of Black Vulture, but they are definitely not Black Vulture chicks!
Cheers
Peter.
 
Hi,
it's right about the nesting habits of Black Vulture, but they are definitely not Black Vulture chicks!

Why do you say that? Because they don’t look like Black Vulture chicks or is there some other reason? Personally, I’ve never seen a vulture chick of any kind, though I’ve seen plenty of nestling hawks & owls.
 
Hi Fugl,
the first picture shows Turkey Vulture chicks and the second pic. a Black V. chick.
Cheers
Peter.
 

Attachments

  • MapleKnollFarmsTurkeyVultureChicks.jpg
    MapleKnollFarmsTurkeyVultureChicks.jpg
    93.7 KB · Views: 79
  • Black Vulture Chick (Coragyps atratus).1.jpg
    Black Vulture Chick (Coragyps atratus).1.jpg
    201.4 KB · Views: 78
Hi Fugl,
the first picture shows Turkey Vulture chicks and the second pic. a Black V. chick.

Interesting photos. So I take it what you’re mainly going by in the ID of the postcard chicks is the whiteness of the down?.

I’m struck by the very thick legs of the TV chick in the photo you posted--almost like a gamebird’s or chicken’s.
 
Hi Fugl,
the first picture shows Turkey Vulture chicks and the second pic. a Black V. chick.
Cheers
Peter.

A couple of points.

Is that a photo of a new world Black Vulture or an old world Black Vulture?

Second, vultures are now treated as being in the stork family, so they are not really birds of prey and one would not expect them to share traits with hawks or other true birds of prey.

Best,
Jim
 
. . .vultures are now treated as being in the stork family, so they are not really birds of prey and one would not expect them to share traits with hawks or other true birds of prey.

Actually, that's yesterday's news. The latest research places the new world vultures back with the birds of prey again or at least in their general vicinity. And it is precisely because they share many traits with the “true” birds of prey that the NW vultures were classified with the latter to begin with (and as just stated are so again).

See (e.g.) this: http://myfundi.co.za/e/Reclassification_of_Ciconiiformes_and_Pelecaniformes

Peter of course can speak for himself, but I’d be very surprised if he wasn’t aware of the distinction between the two species of “Black Vulture”.
 
Last edited:
Second, vultures are now treated as being in the stork family, so they are not really birds of prey and one would not expect them to share traits with hawks or other true birds of prey.

Best,
Jim Moore

Really old news, Jim, like 2006 and before. Just goes to show the perils of info from the net.

"It should be pointed out that the widespread classification of birds published by Charles Sibley and colleagues (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990; Sibley and Monroe, 1990), rests on the severely criticized and now abandoned DNA-DNA hybridization method (Cracraft, 1987; Houde, 1987; Sarich et al., 1989). Furthermore, the trees were constructed from these questionable, phenetic data by using highly subjective methods (Cracraft, 1987; Houde, 1987; Sarich et al., 1989). These shortcomings have resulted in a well-deserved scepticism of Sibley’s classification, although some of the results have been confirmed by other methods. Furthermore, the controversial DNA-DNA hybridization studies undeniably have sparked a considerably research interest in avian systematics."
 
Last edited:
Hi,
of course, thank you very much fugl. I wasn't thinking so far, when I'm talking about Turkey V. and Black V., somebody coult get confused between B. V. and Eurasian B. V. also known as Monk Vulture or Cinereous Vulture, but here a pic. from a Eurasian Black Vulture, found in ARKive.
Cheers
Peter.
 

Attachments

  • photo (1).jpg
    photo (1).jpg
    59.9 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
Peter of course can speak for himself, but I’d be very surprised if he wasn’t aware of the distinction between the two species of “Black Vulture”.

Of course Peter is aware of that. Not sure why you are distorting my simple question to suggest I was implying otherwise. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a confusion here--with you referencing New World Vultures and Peter Old. There's no indication in the original post or photo of where it was taken, so a confusion would have been understandable.

Actually, that's yesterday's news. The latest research places the new world vultures back with the birds of prey again or at least in their general vicinity. And it is precisely because they share many traits with the “true” birds of prey that the NW vultures were classified with the latter to begin with (and as just stated are so again).

See (e.g.) this: http://myfundi.co.za/e/Reclassification_of_Ciconiiformes_and_Pelecaniformes

Thanks for the info about the current taxonomic status of vultures. I know you keep up on such things, so was initially surprised to see you making such comments. Strange that it has changed so quickly. Of course, in another ten years, it may change back, or in some different direction. The rapidity of changes in recent years is dizzying. In any event, seems odd to refer to a bird (such as a Turkey V.) that rarely kills anything as a "bird of prey".

Jim
 
Last edited:
To my eyes ( thats not saying much ) the birds in the photo look like either Eur. Eagle Owls or Gt. Horned Owls - Bubo anyway.

Thanks for the info about the current taxonomic status of vultures. I know you keep up on such things, so was initially surprised to see you making such comments. Strange that it has changed so quickly. Of course, in another ten years, it may change back, or in some different direction. In any event, seems odd to refer to a bird (such as a Turkey V.) that rarely kills anything as a "bird of prey".

Jim

If you think it's strange that 'New World' Vultures are related / not related / related to 'Old World' Vultures just have a look where falcons are now placed :eek!:

Chris
 
Of course Peter is aware of that. Not sure why you are distorting my simple question to suggest I was implying otherwise. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a confusion here--with you referencing New World Vultures and Peter Old. There's no indication in the original post or photo of where it was taken, so a confusion would have been understandable.

Hi Jim,
nobody should get annoyed! I like to discuss about our wonderful hobby and also to improve my poor English knowledge. Sometimes I misunderstand something!
When anything was wrong from my site, than sorry for it!
Cheers
Peter.
 
To my eyes ( thats not saying much ) the birds in the photo look like either Eur. Eagle Owls or Gt. Horned Owls - Bubo anyway.



If you think it's strange that 'New World' Vultures are related / not related / related to 'Old World' Vultures just have a look where falcons are now placed :eek!:

Chris

Hi Chris,
they are definitely not Bubo-chick's.
Cheers
Peter.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top