Are Owls Raptors? (1 Viewer)

[flible]

well the question is are owls raptors? thanks

 

[grebefeet9]

owls are in the order strigiformes, while hawks, falcons, etc. are in the order falconiformes. therefore, owls are not technically raptors. however, they are basically the "night shift" for the falconiformes, and fill the same roles, so they are still birds of prey.

 

[borealowl47]

Yes,

Raptor

Bird of prey

 

[fugl]

well the question is are owls raptors? thanks

This subject's already been exhaustively debated on BF: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=191568&highlight=The+Grey+Heron+can+it+be+called

 

[Alexjh1]

I'd say it's more or less a matter of semantics (in my oppinion anyway)

If you are using raptor as a biological category then no - the owls aren't really related to eagles and so on (but apparently, neither are falcons according to some recent research which supposedly puts them as related to parrots instead).

I'd personally go with the idea of the term "raptor" being descriptive of a specific range of ecological niches - ie. birds which hunt for prey or live primarily on carrion. Admittedly that loose a definition would throw up things like Palm Nut Vulture being excluded and Marabou Stork included.

But as a final answer, it probably just basically depends on the context...

 

[King Edward]

One of the key features of raptors (including owls) is that they have 'raptorial' talons which they use to seize and kill their prey. This is not the case for other predatory species, such as storks and herons, which primarily use their beaks for catching prey.

 

[fugl]

"Raptor" is just a modern synonym for "bird of prey", so if it's a bird of prey (however defined) it's also a raptor.

See the earlier thread (post #4) which rides off in all directions at once on this subject.

 

[The Hairy Highlander]

This subject's already been exhaustively debated on BF: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=191568&highlight=The+Grey+Heron+can+it+be+called

And so it begins...again!

 

[Tiraya]

I'm not so much a user of this term but to take things literally:

A bird of prey = A prey-eating bird (i.e. all birds except herbivores/seed-eaters).

And as raptor is conspecific to bird of prey then the same applies, but for good measure lets keep the word raptor for those oversized scaly things on Jurassic Park.

Case closed.

 

[csanchez7]

I'm not so much a user of this term but to take things literally:

A bird of prey = A prey-eating bird (i.e. all birds except herbivores/seed-eaters).

And as raptor is conspecific to bird of prey then the same applies, but for good measure lets keep the word raptor for those oversized scaly things on Jurassic Park.

Case closed.

Not to be the devil's advocate here, but that would mean all insect-eating passerines such as European Robins, warblers, etc would also be birds of prey...

And dinosaurian raptors seemed to have generally not been 'scaly', instead having proto-feathers and sometimes even elaborate plumes...

Carlos

 

[King Edward]

A bird of prey = A prey-eating bird (i.e. all birds except herbivores/seed-eaters).

No, but Robins etc. are still predators (a fact often overlooked, especially by advocates of 'predator control', but let's not go there). Seed-eaters could (should?) also be classified as predators, on the basis that they're killing and eating whole organisms ('seed predation' is a common ecological term).