Talk:Hummingbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hummingbird article.
Article policies
WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Hummingbird 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. Please do not substitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Hummingbird as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or Hebrew language Wikipedias.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.


Contents

[edit] How many races are there?

Does anyone know how many species of Hummingbirds there are?

[edit] verifye befour you change it please

I don't appreciate the change on the text on my image: humm7.jpg. For your information that is NOT red dye in my feeder, so next time have the courtesy to ask before assuming. Thank you. I am changing my info. back. (I resigned back on because I forgot Wiki thinks HughesNet users are hackers) Magialuna 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 14:04 Jul 08, 2007 (UTC)

Since the article goes to great pains to suggest that red dye is inappropriate, you'll understand why it's then a odd to show a picture of a feeder filled with red liquid. If the nectar is not dyed, could we include something in the caption to explain the discrepancy? Joyous! | Talk 15:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)ya i agree, and you dont have to get so defensive, FOR YOUR INFORMATION!!!!!163.248.220.54 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discontinuity

The section on making nectar mentions that honey is a bad ingredent because it spoils too easily; however, the WP entry on honey mentions that honey does not spoil (at least in its liquid form). Teleolurian 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

-- that's only true of honey that has not been diluted with water. 68.167.250.15 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)CJC

[edit] Citizen Bird

On a lark, I picked up an old (copyright 1897, third edition from 1907) children's book "Citizen Bird" for a couple of bucks at a used bookstore. It's got about a hundred of these engravings showing various North American birds; while modern (color) photographs might be ultimately preferable, I can put more of these up if desired. --Brion 21:10 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

The book can also be gotten online from the Library of Congress website: [1] but the scan quality isn't so hot (grayscale 115 dpi with crappy contrast, 2-bit 50% threshold at 300dpi, or 2-bit diffusion at 300dpi). --Brion 23:20 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Hummingbirds in garages

I've just added a paragraph on how hummingbirds sometimes become trapped in garages. It may seem a bit random and/or out of place. I was motivated to do it because earlier today it happened in my garage, and the first thing I did when trying to understand the bird's apparently strange behavior (why it didn't simply fly out the wide-open door) was look up this article. There was no information about this phenomenon in the article, so I used Google to find it elsewhere.

I thought it was interesting and useful information that possibly deserved to be mentioned in Wikipedia's article. I'm not sure whether I added it in the most appropriate place, or whether it's really worth having in the article at all, so I leave it to the other users to decide.

By the way, I did eventually manage to free the (very tired, but hopefully otherwise OK) hummingbird from my garage. :)

Fusion 01:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] how to make hummingbird nectar

We have a screened in porch overlooking a small forest behind our house in the Hudson Valley in NY. Today a hummingbird came up to the screen pausing in front of where my wife was sitting. It hovered, then did a half lap from the porch to an empty feeder we have back there. I came here looking for an article like "How to Make Nectar." I'll add some good links I found once I learn how to edit pages here.

The article states that boiling the water will purify it, but hummingbirds.net, which is cited in the article for another fact, says "It's not necessary to boil the water. The microorganisms that cause fermentation don't come from the water; they are transported to the feeder on hummingbird bills." It also mentions the fact that the feeder does not provide all the essential nutrients, but provide the fuel that helps the hummingbird catch insects for those nutrients. I think this shold be mentioned in the feeder section. Many people may not know that they eat insects, and some commercial mixes claim that the sugar\water mix is not enough. PrometheusX303 20:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the merits of adding a small amount of tartaric acid to homemade nectar as a way to keep the nectar from spoiling or fermenting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.24.145 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A pic not used

There is a pic I posted belize40.jpg that would be approritate for this page if some one wants to use it Belizian 19:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning feeders with bleach?

I'm an avid hummingbird watcher and I've read recently that they don't recommend using bleach, even a weak solution, to clean the feeders. My local bird store told me to use a solution of white vinegar and water to clean the feeders and it works and is much less toxic. I know in nursing, we have patients clean reusable medical devices like nebulizers with white vinegar. Does anyone know about this? If the bleach is left in the article, I think it needs to be emphasized that the solution needs to be a weak solution. maltmomma June 30, 2005 17:11 (UTC)

[edit] How fast?

Hummingbirds are really quite zippy little creatures. But how fast can they fly? Not how fast do they beat their wings, every book I've ever looked up on birds has told be that. But how quickly can they get from point A to point B? Fieari 18:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • According to this page, normal flight about 25mph; up to 65kph (40mph) in a courtship dive. (Google search "hummingbird flight speed" Randyoo 02:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. Hm. Now, what section would that go best into this article? Fieari 22:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

not thisarticle - refers only to Ruby-throated Hummingbird jimfbleak 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

I just added a photograph of a flying hummingbird (and moved the one that was there up a bit). Can anyone tell me what hummingbird specifically this is? DirkvdM 12:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] evolution

How do scientists think hummingbirds evolved? Obviously, in order to subsist on a diet of flowers, it helps to be really small, have a narrow beak, and hover, but why did hummingbirds start eating the nectar in the first place? Do scientists have a theory?

many species of bird will take nectar as part of their diet, and species such as New World warblers migrating to the tropics in winter often increase the amount of readily available fruit and nectar in their diet once the breeding season need for harder to obtain protein has reduced. It then becomes a matter of positive feedback, since adaptions which improve access to nectar will lead to an increasing specialisation on that food source. The completely unrelated sunbirds have followed the same evolutionary route. jimfbleak 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was once told that the reason a hummingbird has such fine control over its flight (being able to fly directly up or backwards) is because it's the only bird that can rotate its wings, having shoulder sockets similar to a human's, and that their legs/feet serve no function except grasping, but I didn't see anything in-depth on their anatomy in the article. Any merit to this? Albino Bebop 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hummingbird memory

Thought someone might like to incorporate this research into the wiki article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11697039/?GT1=7850

[edit] Kolibri

Please see Kolibri article. Is this word in any use in English language? Please update hummingbird and/or kolibri articles correspondingly. mikka (t) 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an English word for hummingbird. jimfbleak 05:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed.--Curtis Clark 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific, known reason why these birds are called hummingbirds in Elnglish, while practically all the other European languages use words based on the root kolibri? At least I find this difference interesting. It might be worth one sentence next to the explanation of their English name in the opening. 130.231.89.100 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn it, forgot to sign in again. The above comment is actually by me. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Going for a ride

Do Hummingbirds piggy back on other birds when they migrate? DZ dawniezee@bellsouth.net

No jimfbleak 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban legend?

I heard somewhere that a person was once such an idiot as to put artificial sweetener in a hummingbird feeder (out of a misguided desire to improve the birds' health), and the birds drank the artificial sweetener, which had essentially no calories, and died of starvation with full bellies. Has anyone else heard of this / is this true? Kasreyn 09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

never heard of this, and sounds implausible, but who knows? jimfbleak 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed: MiG-44

"The results of this study were partly used during the development of the 6th generation Russian hovering jetfighter MIG-44."

Removed as it is unsourced and seems unlikely. The study referred to might be useful for a bird-sized UAV, but probably not for a fighter-sized plane, and there does not appear to be a MiG-44, though there is a MiG-MFI Project 1.44. 213.54.17.19, please cite your sources.--QuantumEngineer 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed: Uniqueness of backward flying

Removed reference to humming birds being the ONLY birds which can fly backwards in controlled flight. Significant numbers of small birds can fly backwards as well as vertically. Hummingbirds are often quoted as the only birds to be able to do this but it is fallacious. Ref: www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Acadian_Flycatcher_dtl.html

[edit] Other birds resembling hummingbirds

Where the article states that the hummingbirds are a group exclusive to the Americas, it might do to mention the sunbirds of Africa, which strongly resemble hummingbirds but are considered a different group. When I was in Zambia and Zimbabwe in 2001, I saw birds that looked for all the world like hummingbirds--except that I thought I'd read that hummingbirds lived only in the western hemisphere. Our tour guide told me, yes, Africa does have hummingbirds. Only later when I got home and looked it up did I learn that the guide was mistaken, and that I had apparently seen sunbirds. 72.66.100.68 03:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Convergent evolution produces the apparent similarity, but they're not even closely related, Jimfbleak.talk.07:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. I was suggesting that it might be good to mention several groups of birds, including the Sunbirds of southern Africa, resemble Hummingbirds but are not related. 140.147.160.78 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

[edit] Vocalization

There are some references on the internet about the ability of hummingbirds to imitate sounds, but there is no mention thereof in this article. I hope someone can clarify more on the subject, for it seems incomplete and there is no mention on the singing traits of the species whatsoever. 201.81.180.192 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Appearance

In the section on appearance, the piece that says "The names that admiring naturalists have given to hummingbirds suggest exquisite, fairylike grace and gemlike brilliance" seems a bit off in tone. I don't think that it really fits in with the appearance of the bird, though it could go in a section about the naming of the birds. Would anyone object to the removal of those two sentences? Hey jude, don't let me down 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, it's alittle POV, and like you said off tone. If anyone has a good reason why it should be there, please respond here. Latulla 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hummingbirds and ornithophilous flowers

For anyone watching this page, this article, Hummingbirds and ornithophilous flowers, might need to be merged into this article. It was newly created and showed up on User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hummingbirds

do honeybees chase hummingbirds away?

[edit] Only in the Americas?

I live in Mount Carmel, Israel, and there many Hummingbirds in this area. The article states that Hummingbirds can be found only in the Americas. Is this a mistake?

Are you sure it wasn't a hummingbird moth? Hummingbirds are only found in the Americas, but these buys look spookily like them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teeth

I am thinking of adding the information to this article that hummingbirds are unique birds because they have TEETH!!! Unfortunately, I don't have a reference on hand. Anyone know where I might find one?

No living bird has teeth, so you won't find a ref. Jimfbleak 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hummingbird#Feeders_and_nectar

That section needs a major trim since most of it is a guide as to how the proper use of a feeder, not about the feeder itself (the edit links are broken, and I'm off for a while in a minute). Kwsn(Ni!) 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hummingbird photograph.jpg

Image:Hummingbird photograph.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images in Article

I recently tried to prune off some of the low quality images in what is a rather image heavy article and replace them with some higher quality alternatives. Mbz1 reverted my edits and requested to discuss the change. Hence here we are.

  • First off I don't think we need four images in a one paragraph section on their flight. True their distinctive flight is a key feature of the humming brid but I think we can do with less, and for that matter better, images. I think is quite blurry and the bird is only a small proportion of the actual picture. The quality of to be honest is quite awful - noisy and strong halos where an unsharp mask has attempted to make up for the blurriness of the image. Wikipedia has far higher quality images in and which are both sharp and almost full frame of the bird. Alternatively I've created these edits: which reduce noise and add contrast to the image boosting colors and improving aesthetics (IMO). has nice colours (despite strong noise) and an interesting composition, but is much better suited to the section on "Feeders and nectar" where it has more relevance. Similarly looks somewhat weak in the section on their flight compared to the two high quality alternatives listed. But personally I don't think it's needed in the article at all as the other image illustrates this aspect already.
  • Second I think the article has too many images (particularly low quality ones). Without intending to hurt the photographer's feelings, is significantly inferior in quality to other photos with very poor focus and sharpness. If you really want another in flight shot there's . Similarly has very poor focus and sharpness and IMO shouldn't be on the article. has good sharpness but it is very low resolution and has a bad background. I would almost even suggest to remove based on it's quality vs the quality of other available images. And perhaps replace either (cut off subject, not particularly sharp) or (blurred head) with . Certainly the quality of warrants it's inclusion in the article IMO.

Would appreciate any comments! --Fir0002 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

    • I just wonder how could have more relevence in "feeders and nectar", if it does not show a feeder, but shows a bird aproaching the flowers?
      I believe that all pictures with birds aproaching flowers are very beautiful, show dinamic of flight very well as well as different technique in aproaching different flowers and should stay.
      I agree that and could be replacd. I believe that images and should stay because they show different and very nice colors of hummingbirds. I agree that should be included in the article. Thanks--Mbz1 11:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • I've just replaced with not because the head is blured (it is not) but because other image shows a very, very common, yet very hard to catch on film behavior. The quality of the picture is not very good because it is a digital copy of a film picture, but in my opinion the article will benefit from the image. I believe it is good to remeber that a value of the image is much more important than an image quality simply because Wikipedia is encyclopedia and is not professional photographers photo forum. Thanks.--Mbz1 13:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
        • What are you talking about? clearly shows where the bird gets it's food from! And yes they might be beautiful etc but they are not the best suited images for that section. The alternatives I've suggested are far superior in quality and composition to illustrate their flight. The page has way too many photos - and it's not your private gallery. The fact has a different colouration than the other birds does not warrant it's inclusion in the article. It is not a significant variation and if we included all the different types of hummingbirds on the article it would move from unwieldy to ridiculous. Unless you have any more specific objections I'll go ahead with replacing the flight images with the alternatives I've provided. --Fir0002 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm talking that your authority is not nearly enough for me to agree with the images removal.I'm also talking that before few more people tell me that images you suggested are better for the article, please, do not remove the images from the article.--Mbz1 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I agree with Fir0002's changes; the article needs to have some more content added before it can sustain this many images. In the meantime some need to go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many pictures in the article; some need to go in a gallery, on the Commons page, or in the articles for the genera and species. My suggestion would be one beautiful picture for the taxobox and the rest pictures that illustrate specific points. For instance, I think the remarkable picture of the hummingbird sticking out its tongue should go next to where the tongue is mentioned. (I'm going to put it there, and I'm going to edit out the mention of difficulty of photographing it, which reads like either bragging or justification for including the picture, as in WP:POINT.) However, I think the text needs only one picture of a hummingbird at flowers; the rest can go in a gallery. In fact, I'm going to be bold and put them in a gallery so people can see how it looks. This may not end up as the final image arrangement, but it's a possibility to consider.
And yes, given a choice of images with equal illustrative value, we want the sharp, high-resolution ones. They're easier to look at and more informative. On the other hand, for me, some of the ones Fir002 criticized are quite sharp enough. If you can count the feathers, I have no complaint, just as a can't tell a good recording from an audiophile recording. —JerryFriedman 04:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please notice that hummingbirds and flowers images show different aproach to flowers in other words aerodynamics of flight. I do not think they should be replaced by 2 pictures fir0002 wants them to be replaced, first of all because they provide more information (all 4 show different technique and combined together could give a reader an idea of how hummingbirds fly) and second of all because I like the composition with flowers better. The wings in the image are blurry. is nice and could find a place in the article.--Mbz1 04:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I used the picture of the female because I think the article needs a picture of a plain-plumaged female hummer and because I was tired of pictures facing to the left, out of the article (though maybe the Anna's could go on the right.
I'm sorry, but I got carried away and fixed a lot of word things while rearranging the words and pictures. I know it's inconvenient, but please don't revert. Instead, reverse any of my changes individually if you feel it necessary. One consolation is that you won't be working any harder than I was.
I did notice the different positions of the hummingbirds with the flowers, but they overload that section of the article. The variety is still available in the gallery.—JerryFriedman 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, a lot still needs to be done. The scientific sections need to be expanded, the how-to sections need to be reduced (that's not what WP is for), and a lot of things need citations. Among other things. But maybe this can wait till we settle on an organization and on the illustrations. —JerryFriedman 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

is the below photo a possible usable image in this article?

Omniii (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Omniii

[edit] Hummingbird cuisine?

Does anyone know if hummingbirds can be or have been eaten? I bet they are succulent. Couldn't find any infos on the world wide web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.39.217 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from disgust at the idea of eating such a beautiful species (stick to duck mate - that's good). I imagine it would be not just bony and not very filling, but the fast moving muscles involved would be rather bitter in taste - consider game meat, but 20 times that. Possibly an aquired one, but definitely not instantly likable. I guess it would be quite lean, given the metabolism of hummingbird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.66 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I find pheasant a beautiful species, but also delicious. I understand they're small, but I just imagine they're delicious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.144.174 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Figure of eight flapping

Watched a tv program recently on hummingbirds. They are the only species that flap their wings in a figure of eight - rather, they point their wings one way on the downstroke, then twist them before the upstroke. This should probably be mentioned in the aerodynamics of flight bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.66 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)