Talk:Raven

Distinction between crows and ravens

Every time I read these two sentences in the article my brain short circuits.

"There is no consistent distinction between crows and ravens. Names are assigned to different species chiefly based on their size."

I'm currently doing comparative study within the genus and I've never seen any referrence that would support the first sentence. The second sentence seems to be based on an existing scientific premiss but in this usage is incomplete, so it's misleading.

I'm only a student in the subject so I could be completely wrong about the veracity, but shouldn't statements like this which purport to represent a fact also list a citation to support it? Billybareblu (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is stating that the species called "ravens" have no more specific taxonomic connection than with other species in the genus. That is to say, just because two species are both have common names that include "raven" does not mean they are more closely related to each other than they are to other species with "crow" in the common name. And whether or not a species' common name includes "crow" or "raven" is little more than chance without firm criteria. Typically the term "raven" is used for larger species, especially if there's a couple of species that have overlapping territories; in those cases the larger bird will be called a raven, even though it's not actually more closely related to a common raven (the species for which the term "Raven" first arose in English) than to the other birds in the area.

The Australian raven is the classic example, as it wound up being called a raven because it's larger than the little crow, but in reality it's closely related to the little crow and more distant to the common raven, despite the common name giving the opposite (and incorrect) impression. oknazevad (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what I meant when I asked if it should necessarily include a citation. I think those two sentences should be expanded to include clarification that the terms "raven" and "crow" are being used here as common names and not proper taxonomic names such as Corvus corvus which is genetically distint as a species. Also that a citation be added to clarify that. As it is, I think it's likely unclear to the average reader. I'm studying the genus right now and it even threw me off.

The article page for "crow" expresses a similar explanation, but in much clearer terms:

"This article is about (*)bird species with the word "crow" in their common name...

A crow (pronounced /ˈkroʊ/) is a bird of the genus Corvus, or more broadly, a synonym for all of Corvus. The word "crow" is used as part of the common name of many species. The related term "raven" is not linked scientifically to any certain trait but is rather a general grouping for larger-sized species of Corvus."

I think for the average reader this is a much easier explanation to understand, and I suggest that a rewording in similar terms for the raven article would be an improvement Also, I think that a citation to support this premise as a fact should be added.

• this is a clearer example for the raven page but I would tweak it slightly to something like: various species of bird with the word "raven" in their common name.

Billybareblu (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can think of a clearer wording, feel free to drop it here and I'll gladly take a look. oknazevad (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)