keefI may have a thread to help with that..
As detailed at some length in my #ducksOrNotDucks thread (!!!) Wikipedia is really inconsistent! It doesn't agree even between linked pages.
I decided to go with the taxonomy on the Anseriformes page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anseriformes#Systematics - somewhat arbitrarily, to be honest, but it made more sense to me than any of the others.
What is a duck?
Keef's Law of Ducks v1.0:
Something is a duck, if at least one of the following applies:
1. It's a member of the four tribes of Anatinae (Tadornini - shelducks, Mergini - sea ducks, Aythyini - diving ducks, Anatini - dabbling ducks)
2. It's called a duck.
#ducksOrNotDucks /18
** DUCK-INDUCED MENTAL BREAKDOWN ENDS **
Of course there's always the whistling ducks. Always.
They're not ducks. Except they're called ducks. But they're not, by that rule.
Nor are a few other more obscure birds which are called "ducks" that I've never heard of.
So I think I need to modify the rules a bit, for myself, at least.
#ducksOrNotDucks /17
So why is this interesting?
Well, it gives the cleanest view of "Duck vs Not Duck" that I've seen anywhere.
If you simply say all "Anatinae" (as defined on this page) are ducks, and anything else is not a duck, this kinda works.
So: mallards, tufted ducks, teal, eiders are all ducks. We can all agree that, right?
Also: mergansers, shelduck and Egyptian geese (yes I know but it's not a goose) are ducks.
The true geese and swans (Anserinae) are *not ducks*.
#ducksOrNotDucks /16
There's one more reference shoehorned in without context - Gonzalez et. al (2009).
Right! Now we're getting somewhere.
These people did gene sequencing and created a Bayesian inference tree on the results.
The tree they came up with *almost* matches the one in the Wikipedia page - I can see the page author has had to add a few bits they were missing, but I think this must be the true source.
hooray!
#ducksOrNotDucks /15
It also says:
"The systematics... is better resolved following the genetic analysis by Buckner et al. (2018)"
OK let's look at that.
These folks did come up with the four tribes. But their assignments don't match exactly what the Wikipedia page has. In fact, it looks like this is more like the Anatidae page itself which was so confusing.
It is quite recent.. but..
#ducksOrNotDucks /14
It says: "The list below follows the AviList, which has accepted these revisions".
OK, let's look at that.
Well, it seems the AviList was pretty much started to try to resolve the mess that is Anatidae amongst all the various organisations that use bird taxonomies!
Maybe this will help.
Oh. No.
The AviList doesn't have "subfamilies" or "tribes" at all as far as I can see. These didn't come from there.
#ducksOrNotDucks /13
Appendix: there's more. Sorry.
If you go *up* a level in Wikipedia, to the order "Anseriformes", there's yet another different hierarchy of families, subfamilies and tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anseriformes#Systematics
Interestingly, this is the first one that actually makes sense!!
This has the subfamily Anatinae ("true ducks") split into 4 tribes: shelducks, sea ducks, diving ducks and dabbling ducks.
Where did this come from though?
Time to check the references..
#ducksOrNotDucks /12