Well about one definition for "hawk" is all those in Accipitridae family
except the eagles? And the Osprey and the Secretarybird and vultures.
I would say yes, but only on the basis that it is a shortening for a
long list. If it was for all the birds worldwide, it would be a longer
list. I also note the name of the classic 2 volume set by Brown & Amadon
is "Eagles, Hawks and Falcons of the World" and note that Hollands' book
is "Eagles, Hawks and Falcons of Australia". That is so close (as in not
even changing the sequence, that I strongly suspect a bit of a copying
happening there, maybe not intentionally. After all there are already
many books called "Birds of Prey..." Not good to issue a book with an
identical title as a prior one. You could I suppose also equally say
"Osprey, Hawks and Falcons" (probably more correct as the Osprey is more
distinct from hawks than are the eagles) or "Harriers, Hawks and
Falcons" or "Kites, Hawks and Falcons". We have 6 Australian species
with common group name of kite and zero Australian species with common
group name of hawk.
Either title could mean the same range of birds, in which case eagles
are just another group of hawk, which is not wrong. The fact is though
that eagles are better known as a group to average people and people
seem to associate with them. (Many countries have used eagles as their
symbol but few have used hawks). So eagles in the name is thus better
able to sell the book. And that is what matters in terms of choosing the
title.
Philip
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Shute
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2011 1:42 PM
To: 'Philip Veerman';
Subject: RE: What is a hawk?
Yes, I should have said "and maybe White-bellied Sea-eagle". And does
this mean that one definition for "hawk" is all those in Accipitridae
family except the eagles?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Veerman
> Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2011 1:32 PM
> To: Peter Shute;
> Subject: What is a hawk?
>
> I would say yes to your question. As to list all the group names in a
> title would be too long. Also raises the aspect (and I'm not expert on
> this) that the Red Goshawk, Black-breasted Buzzard and Square-tailed
> Kite are probably more closely related to each other and not actually
> closely related to real goshawks, buzzards and kites. They are
> probably convergent with those groups. (And that is even ignoring for
> now that Americans use the word "buzzard" for new world vultures (that
> are closer
> related to storks) and use the word "hawk" for buzzards (Buteo).
>
> The only other point is that sea-eagles are regarded as over
> grown kites
> (and thus hawks), rather that true eagles. I don't know the exact
> diagnosis of why that is the case other than that true eagles
> have fully
> feathered legs and sea-eagles don't but there probably are more
> technical anatomical and chemical reasons than that.
>
> Philip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> On Behalf Of Peter Shute
> Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2011 8:27 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] What's a hawk?
>
>
> I'm reading "Eagles, Hawks and Falcons" by David Hollands, and I'm
> wondering about the title. It covers all Australian diurnal raptors,
> but he doesn't specify which species he has classified as an
> eagle, a hawk,
> or a falcon, or even discuss the matter.
>
> If "falcons" covers the family Falconidae, and "eagles" covers Little
> and Wedge-tailed Eagles, and White-bellied Sea-Eagle, does that mean
> everything else is a hawk?
>
> Peter Shute
>
> =
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3375 - Release Date: 01/12/11
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
