Jump to content

Talk:Rook (bird)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refs needed

[edit]

This excellent article needs references. Properly sourced it would be suitable for WP:FAC. --Theo (Talk) 00:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some good close-up photographs of rooks for the english taxbox on the other language wikis. (I am not sure how to bring them into the Endlish version). Snowman 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collective name?

[edit]

Whats a gathering of rooks called? Highlandlord 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A flock - most other names eg murder, parliament etc are literary conceits with no real currency. jimfbleak 06:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but its little info and it doesn't hurt right? Highlandlord 05:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well a murder is a group of crows, not rooks. And I have heard of groupings of rooks being called a parliament before. BethEnd 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty curious about this. There's a Neil Gaiman/Sandman story called "A Parliament of Rooks" that suggests rooks have a pretty peculiar behavior; namely, a kind of "trial" that they subject one bird to, with either an apparent not-guilty verdict (bird lives) or guilty (rest of the birds kill the one on trial). If this is completely false it should probably be noted as both a "popular media" bit + clarification.
As an avid Sandman fan, I've been curious about this myself. According to the story, all the rooks in a parliament gather around one rook who tells the others a story. If the story is liked, all the birds fly away as one; if it's disliked, the storyteller is killed. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I had the exact same question. I looked up rook after reading "A Parliament of Rooks." 65.43.147.44 07:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a considerable amount of people look up 'rook' after reading "A Parliament of Rooks". Is there anybody that knows any truth behind this story? If so, I concur that it should be included under "popular media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.194.169 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, pretty sure, without checking, that the collective noun for a gathering of rooks is a "Gathering"! Gaiman's ref was to the parliament they hold, which may result in the death of a bird (which is documented in some other species, maybe rooks). Parliament is the collective noun for owls, as well. Didn't they have QI in 2006? cygnis insignis 19:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True or false (for Brittons mainly)

[edit]

In the UK and Ireland Crows are black (not like east of aproximate longitude 10 East, where crows are partly grey and easier to distinguish from Rooks). I once heard that "In England a lonley Rook is a Crow, but 100 Crows together are Rooks !" There seems to be something in that statement, Rooks are more social (and also more urban). But anyone that have heared the expression (or something like it) ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rook (bird)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


A topic eminently worthy of GA status! Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a genus page. In Britain, it would be the carrion crow but on the continent it could be the hooded crow and in Asia it might be something else again, so "crows" seems best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a genus page; the genus page is at Corvus. I've made a fix - what do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am happy with that. It seems a rather pointless page, but I suppose it keeps the list of species off the actual genus page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any information about the taxonomy?
Added some. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "except for the hind neck, mantle, scapulars, back, rump, upper tail coverts and underparts, which are brownish-black" A bit jargon-y
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collective nouns for rooks include building, parliament, clamour and storytelling.[1][2] Their colonial nesting behaviour gave rise to the term rookery.[3]" Does this belong in the description section?
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the north of its range the species has a tendency to move south during autumn though more southern populations are apt to range sporadically also." Could this be rephrased?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the whole of the paragraph starting "In urban sites" cited to the article about the training?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the diet section is really more about feeding than diet; though Feeding and diet would also be a suitable title.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • filched is a lovely word, but I fear a little informal.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that seem to delight in the autumn gales" Again, I love it, but I fear it would be remiss for me to ignore it...
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has several variants, used in different situations" I'd like to hear more! (Though won't demand it for GAC purposes.)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this same test, rooks showed they understood to pick a stone that was in a shape that rolled easily" This could be neater - the next paragraph, too.
Done. Actually, the "Intelligence" section was in place before I expanded the article, so I left it alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to look into references and images, but, from a first read, this looks great. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy enough with the pictures, though I wonder whether there might be a slightly stronger one for the lead. (And I'm not sure if the graph is actually adding anything.)
Changed and removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Palomar Audubon Society a reliable source? New Zealand Birds?
If a bird society has made a list of collective names for birds, I doubt they have made them up. I removed the second source which had about 12 collective names. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we perhaps have The Free Dictionary replaced with a more traditional dictionary?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you check your C. Bird source? I think you've copied the title wrong. (Great name for an ornithologist...)
The referencing of the Intelligence section was a complete mess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you check the Froude source? And I wonder if we have anything more recent we could draw upon?
I like it, and the information is very uncontroversial, but I will remove it if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object too much to the use of the source, but could I ask you to format it like a magazine reference? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to format a magazine reference, but I have added a "chapter" parameter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few tweaks. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting on the Greenwood source is a bit off.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the sourcing looks OK, but I'd like to do some spotchecking. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; a couple of spotchecks reveal nothing to worry about. Happy to promote. Great stuff! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

[edit]

This is the text that I would like to include in the article in the "Inteligence" section. Another editor is repeatedly removing some of this information thereby making the article less comprehensive. Does anyone else have views as to whether this content should be included? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Although outside of captivity rooks have not shown probable tool-use, in captivity, when confronted with problems, they have been documented as one of several species of birds capable of using tools as well as modifying them to meet their needs.[4] Captive rooks have shown the ability to use and understand puzzles; in the Trap-Tube Problem, rooks learned how to pull their reward out of the tube while avoiding a trap on one side.[5][6] Rooks learned that if they push a stone off a ledge into a tube, they will get food. The rooks then discovered they could find and bring a stone and carry it to the tube if no stone was there already. They also used sticks and wire, and figured out how to bend a wire into a hook to reach an item.[7] Rooks also understood the notion of water levels. When given stones and a tube full of water with a reward floating, they not only understood that they needed to use the stones to raise the water level, but also the best stone to use.[8] Rooks show the ability to work together to receive a reward; though having no preference for working as a group compared to working alone.[9] and also seem to possess an elementary notion of gravity.[10]"

I'm not fresh with the reading on corvids outside my area of bias, but this paper's abtract mentions the relevance of chimps, who are thought to not 'understand' how the trap works due to lack of "a priori theoretical concepts (such as gravity) to mediate their use of tools"

  • Povinelli, Daniel (2003). "The trap-tube problem (James E. Reaux)". Folk Physics for Apes. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198572190.

"Recently, Seed et al. (2006) tested eight rooks (Corvus frugileus} with a modified version of the trap tube, the two-trap tube task. " and that half the test subjects "rapidly mastered the problem and transferred the solution to a visually and conceptually similar task" (which apes are not so good at)

  • Martin-Ordas, Gema; Call, Josep; Colmenares, Fernando (9 January 2008). "Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks". Animal Cognition. 11 (3): 423–430. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0132-1.

Shall I keep going? cygnis insignis 19:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I need to deep dive the literature, for a comparison of how they rate with other smart birds, Gisella Kaplan is a leading researcher. Birds tend to outperform mammals, so they are a good comparative test subject and I think this species is one of the best studied, great apes are only quite intelligent for mammals (humans have other advantages that skew measures of intelligence, not sure if they have been compared to corvids). I have a strange story about magpies, and another about crows, but that is pers comm and irrelevant here :-) cygnis insignis 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired and about to sleep, but my thinking is veering keep. Need to read it properly tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Collective Nouns for Birds". Palomar Audubon Society. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  2. ^ "Collective Nouns for Birds". New Zealand Birds. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  3. ^ "Rookery". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
  4. ^ Bird, Christopher D.; Emery, Nathan J. (2009). "Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool-using rooks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (25): 10370–10375. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901008106. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2700937. PMID 19478068.
  5. ^ Seed, Amanda M.; Tebbich, Sabine; Emery, Nathan J.; Clayton, Nicola S. (2006). "Investigating Physical Cognition in Rooks, Corvus frugilegus". Current Biology. 16 (7): 697–701. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.066. PMID 16581516. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  6. ^ Tebbich, Sabine; Seed, Amanda M.; Emery, Nathan J.; Clayton, Nicola S. (2007). "Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem". Animal Cognition. 10 (2): 225–231. doi:10.1007/s10071-006-0061-4. PMID 17171360.
  7. ^ Morelle, Rebecca (May 26, 2009). "Rooks reveal remarkable tool-use". BBC News. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
  8. ^ Bird, Christopher D.; Emery, Nathan J. (2009). "Rooks Use Stones to Raise the Water Level to Reach a Floating Worm". Current Biology. 19 (16): 1410–1414. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.033. PMID 19664926.
  9. ^ Bugnyar, T. (2008). "Animal Cognition: Rooks Team up to Solve a Problem". Current Biology. 18 (12): R530 – R532. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.057. PMID 18579099.
  10. ^ Bird, Christopher D.; Emery, Nathan J. (2010). "Rooks perceive support relations similar to six-month-old babies". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 277 (1678): 147–151. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1456. ISSN 0962-8452. PMC 2842627. PMID 19812083.


[edit]

Just added a link to educational article with a video about Rook. I think would be very interesting for kids (video) and adults — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.barkan (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rook_(bird)&oldid=1193710809"