Top 10 Smallest Birds in the World ? (2 Viewers)

[ALI123XYZ]

Hi all,

(Update: Please See Below To Read Full Post)

Thanks

 

[Andy Hurley]

Link goes nowhere

 

[ALI123XYZ]

Link goes nowhere

Seems like a technical error. I am posting it here again:


I just visited this page on ten smallest birds in the world and found that it is just a incorrect list.

I mean, are they really "TOP 10" smallest birds? To the best of my knowledge, worlds 10 smallest birds should be all in sizes of "8 cm and less", i.e fully grown adults not more than "8 cm". That said, i am trying to make authentic list of top 25 smallest birds (or more with your help) in the world. Please help me in finding tiniest gems in avian world...

Add your own bird species which are at least "8 cm and less". Please do not include species which are above 8 cm in full body length. And also check the order and authenticity of the below list.


Species ---------------------- Length -------------------------- ??

1. Bee Hummingbird -------- 5–6 cm (2.0–2.4 in) --------- Smallest Living Bird

2. Vervain Hummingbird ---- 6 cm (2.4 in) --------- Second Smallest Bird ?

3. Snowcap Hummingbird -------- 6.5 cm --------- Third Smallest Bird ?

4. Short-tailed Pygmy Tyrant ---------- 6.5 cm ------- Fourth Smallest Bird ?

5. Black-capped Pygmy Tyrant ------- 6.5 cm ------- Fifth Smallest Bird ?

6. Tufted Coquette -------- 6.6 cm ------- Sixth Smallest Bird ?

7. Frilled Coquette --------- 6.5-7 cm ------- Seventh Smallest Bird ?

8. Fire-breasted Flowerpecker -------- under 7 cm ---- Eighth Smallest Bird ?

9. Festive Coquette -------- 7 cm ------- Ninth Smallest Bird ?

10. Short-crested Coquette -------- 7 cm ------- Tenth Smallest Bird ?

11. Black-crested Coquette -------- 7 cm ---------------- ? ?

12. Spangled Coquette -------- 7 cm ---------------- ? ?

13. Gorgeted Woodstar -------- 7 cm ---------------- ? ?

14. Short-tailed Woodstar ------- 7 cm ---------------- ? ?

15. White-crested Coquette ------- 7 cm ---------------- ? ?

16. Bumblebee Hummingbird -------- 7-7.5 cm ---------------- ? ?
(Atthis heloisa)

17. Little Woodstar -------- 7.8 cm ---------------- ? ?

18. Rufous-crested Coquette ------- 7.5-8 cm ---------------- ? ?

19. Visayan Miniature Babbler ------ 8 cm ---------------- ? ?

20. Mindanao Miniature Babbler ------ 8 cm ---------------- ? ?

21. Rifleman (bird) ------ 8 cm ---------------- ? ?

22. Pygmy Flowerpecker ------ 8 cm ---------------- ? ?

23. Dot-eared Coquette ------- 8 cm ---------------- ? ?

24. ? ?

25. ? ?


More.......... ???

 

[Kratter]

I think mass (weight) is a much better approximation of "size." By mass, the smallest few dozens of species would all be hummingbirds. The smallest non-hummingbird probably weighs in at 4 g or so (Short-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant, I think).

Andy

 

[fugl]

I agree with Kratter: weight is a much better criterion of size than "length".

 

[ALI123XYZ]

@ Kratter & fugl

I am not an expert ornithologist but does this mean that one bird with a body length of 15 cm + and having mass (weight) only 3.5 g or so should be considered smaller than a bird which is only 6.5 cm with a weight of 4 g or so, in this case, Short-tailed Pygmy Tyrant ?

 

[fugl]

@ Kratter & fugl

I am not an expert ornithologist but does this mean that one bird with a body length of 15 cm + and having mass (weight) only 3.5 g or so should be considered smaller than a bird which is only 6.5 cm with a weight of 4 g or so, in this case, Short-tailed Pygmy Tyrant ?

Yes, I think so.

How have you been measuring length, BTW? Do you include the tail? If so, what about birds with very long tails? Ditto for the beak. And, of course, feathers and beaks themselves weigh something.

 

[Steve Lister]

Maybe you need three lists, for smallest, shortest and lightest, to keep everyone happy.

Steve

 

[Zheljko]

Just place the two birds together and see which seems smaller.

 

[dantheman]

Um, you don't measure the size of things by weight normally, do you? Clothes, shoes, coins, rooms, whatever, size refers to distance dimensions, surely?

Agree however that mass could be a good indicator of size, as it eliminates variable tail and bill lengths ... but you can't really go there.

 

[fugl]

Um, you don't measure the size of things by weight normally, do you? Clothes, shoes, coins, rooms, whatever, size refers to distance dimensions, surely?

Agree however that mass could be a good indicator of size, as it eliminates variable tail and bill lengths ... but you can't really go there.

Weight a good "indicator" of size, meaning what exactly, that heavy things tend to be "big" in linear dimensions as well--length, depth, width? But in that case why privilege length? Why isn't the "smallest" bird the "narrowest" or "shallowest" rather than the "shortest"?

But in fact with irregular objects such as birds with long spindly projections of varying lengths sticking out in all directions--bills, feathers, wings, legs--weight's the only way to go.

 

[ALI123XYZ]

Yes, I think so.

How have you been measuring length, BTW? Do you include the tail? If so, what about birds with very long tails? Ditto for the beak. And, of course, feathers and beaks themselves weigh something.

Yes, you should know that tails and beaks are in fact body parts of the birds i.e attached to their bodies, no matter how short or long tails/beaks are.

And same is the case with weight, you cannot weigh a bird without their beaks and tails. After all, its the whole weight of a bird that counts.

 

[ALI123XYZ]

Maybe you need three lists, for smallest, shortest and lightest, to keep everyone happy.

Steve

Yes, i think so. And you are most welcome to contribute your findings!

 

[ALI123XYZ]

Just place the two birds together and see which seems smaller.

This is not the way one measures a length of a bird, as there are some rules and factors in ornithology. You can do that only for a casual measurement but that is not a final and solid method.

 

[ALI123XYZ]

Um, you don't measure the size of things by weight normally, do you? Clothes, shoes, coins, rooms, whatever, size refers to distance dimensions, surely?

Agree however that mass could be a good indicator of size, as it eliminates variable tail and bill lengths ... but you can't really go there.

Agree with you as smallest and lightest are two different things. But figuring out how scientists come to conclusions on records of smallest organisms i.e on basis of length or weight ?

 

[ALI123XYZ]

Weight a good "indicator" of size, meaning what exactly, that heavy things tend to be "big" in linear dimensions as well--length, depth, width? But in that case why privilege length? Why isn't the "smallest" bird the "narrowest" or "shallowest" rather than the "shortest"?

But in fact with irregular objects such as birds with long spindly projections of varying lengths sticking out in all directions--bills, feathers, wings, legs--weight's the only way to go.

If weight is the only way to go then why a Vervain Hummingbird, 6 cm, (2–2.4 g) is considered second smallest bird in the world, when their are more lightest species, for example, Frilled Coquette, 6.5 to 7 cm, (2.1 g) ?

 

[fugl]

If weight is the only way to go then why a Vervain Hummingbird, 6 cm, (2–2.4 g) is considered second smallest bird in the world, when their are more lightest species, for example, Frilled Coquette, 6.5 to 7 cm, (2.1 g) ?

"The only way to go" is an expression meaning "the best way to go" which (IMHO, of course) weight is in this case.

 

[fugl]

Yes, you should know that tails and beaks are in fact body parts of the birds i.e attached to their bodies, no matter how short or long tails/beaks are.

And same is the case with weight, you cannot weigh a bird without their beaks and tails. After all, its the whole weight of a bird that counts.

But then you get what most people– certainly most sensible people – consider anomalous results, magpies "bigger" than crows and kestrels "smaller" than widowbirds..

 

[James Lowther]

really the smallest birds are those with the lowest volume....

 

[ovenbird43]

If weight is the only way to go then why a Vervain Hummingbird, 6 cm, (2–2.4 g) is considered second smallest bird in the world, when their are more lightest species, for example, Frilled Coquette, 6.5 to 7 cm, (2.1 g) ?

I suppose whoever made that particular list didn't use weight then.

I agree that weight (e.g. body mass) is a preferable measure of body size, and is the standard used for most purposes in ornithology. Consider two hypothetical birds of equal length - one that is robust and chesty like a pigeon, the other has a long, thin beak and tail. The latter therefore has considerably less body mass over that length.

It's not just scientists either who prefer body mass as an overall judge of body size: consider two people of equal height, one skinny and the other a body-builder. Nobody would say those two people are the same size just because they are same height. And if the skinny person was taller, but 50 kg lighter than the body-builder? Most people would still call the latter "bigger".