-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
why do seagulls stand on one leg? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter gak63
- Start date
Katy Penland
Well-known member
Hi, gak! A warm welcome to you from all of us on staff here at BirdForum!
Standing on one leg is typical resting behavior for birds. In cold weather, they'll tuck one leg up under their feathers, then switch legs after a while to let the "standing" leg get warm.
By the way, did you know there's no such thing as a "seagull"?
Not many people outside the birding world know this, but thought I'd mention it. :t:
Standing on one leg is typical resting behavior for birds. In cold weather, they'll tuck one leg up under their feathers, then switch legs after a while to let the "standing" leg get warm.
By the way, did you know there's no such thing as a "seagull"?
Not many people outside the birding world know this, but thought I'd mention it. :t:
samuel walker
It's OK to be a little blue........
The best theory for one legged standing I came accross was here on BF.A learned member knew that a great deal of bird body heat was lost through the legs and that by tucking one leg and foot up a sizable amount of energy can be saved.It made sense to me.
Sam
Sam
Crowquette
Active member
Hi gak, and welcome!
On a humorous note, I would have to say that seagulls stand on one leg "because they can". Just nice they can keep their balance that way.
Smiles and warm welcome to you!
Carol (Crowquette)
On a humorous note, I would have to say that seagulls stand on one leg "because they can".
Just nice they can keep their balance that way. Smiles and warm welcome to you!
Carol (Crowquette)
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
Gahhhh ... of course there is such a thing as a "seagull". It's a generic term and perfectly acceptable as such. It makes no attempt to identify which particular gull we are talking about (Silver Gull, Herring Gull, etc.), it's simply a generic term.
Why not just say "gull"? Now there is room for argument with this next bit, but to my mind "seagull" is a bit more specific - "gull" means all gulls, but "seagull" (at least to my ears) means "typical sort of gulls" - i.e., average-sized common ones. (Roughly pigeon sized, maybe a little larger.) As it happens, in my part of the world ther is only one species that fits that description (the Silver Gull) and the other gulls you normally see are not "seagulls" - i.e., Pacific Gull and Kelp Gull are more brightly coloured and much larger. But I understand that other parts of the world have many more "normal sized" gulls to choose from.
OK, OK, I'm being pedantic. But so were you Katy - so now we are even!
Why not just say "gull"? Now there is room for argument with this next bit, but to my mind "seagull" is a bit more specific - "gull" means all gulls, but "seagull" (at least to my ears) means "typical sort of gulls" - i.e., average-sized common ones. (Roughly pigeon sized, maybe a little larger.) As it happens, in my part of the world ther is only one species that fits that description (the Silver Gull) and the other gulls you normally see are not "seagulls" - i.e., Pacific Gull and Kelp Gull are more brightly coloured and much larger. But I understand that other parts of the world have many more "normal sized" gulls to choose from.
OK, OK, I'm being pedantic. But so were you Katy - so now we are even!
christineredgate
Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th
hi,welcome to BF.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Dang, Jurek beat me to it!
Katy Penland
Well-known member
Show me one single field guide in the world that lists "seagulls" as a section, family or chapter heading. And "seagull" is acceptable to whom? No ornithologist I've ever read or heard or known uses this term. No birder I know uses this term. Just because people use "generic terms" doesn't mean they or their terms are correct.Tannin said:
My point exactly.
Say, what? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. A gull is a gull is a gull. That you've decided to compartmentalize gulls into "typical" (whatever that means) or "averaged-sized common ones" or "brightly colored" etc., etc., etc., is irrelevant.
And how is a Pacific Gull not a "seagull"? Is the Pacific not an ocean? Are not all gulls found near bodies of salt water, i.e., seas, whether inland or oceanic? Grammatically speaking, then, even the term "seagull" is redundant.
Well, I didn't start out being pedantic but since you insisted...OK, OK, I'm being pedantic. But so were you Katy - so now we are even!
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
Simply, Katy, because we live in the real world. Real world people use all sorts of terms that specialists in a particular field (like you and me) don't use. It's not me that has "decided to compartmentalise gulls", it's people out there in the real world. It's a perfectly natural and normal thing to do. People see the normal common, light-coloured seabirds and call them 'seagulls". Show the average non-birdwatcher a Pacific Gull or a Kelp Gull and it won't occur to them to call it a "seagull" - it's far too big, it's a completely different colour, it doesn't wheel around in vast flocks the moment you open a bag of bread rolls, and in any case it's not all that familiar.
Point one out to them and say "what's that?" and they'll say something like "I dunno. Is it an albatross?" And that's not as silly as it sounds - it does look a bit like an albatross, and it doesn't look much like an ordinary seagull.
There are all sorts of technically correct terms that pertain to parts of the human body. I can't remember what most of them are, not being a doctor (let alone spell them!) but when I do go to the doctor and say "Doc, I've got a lump under my arm" he doesn't say "Dont be silly, Mr Wilson, there is no such thing as a lump or an arm, it's a mild sub-cutaneous contusion located on the ventral surface of your upper forelimb". Instead he says "let me have a look at it".
(Usually, after a few moments, he adds "nothing to worry about, leave it alone and it will go away, that will be 48 dollars." - but that's an entirely different issue!)
Point one out to them and say "what's that?" and they'll say something like "I dunno. Is it an albatross?" And that's not as silly as it sounds - it does look a bit like an albatross, and it doesn't look much like an ordinary seagull.
There are all sorts of technically correct terms that pertain to parts of the human body. I can't remember what most of them are, not being a doctor (let alone spell them!) but when I do go to the doctor and say "Doc, I've got a lump under my arm" he doesn't say "Dont be silly, Mr Wilson, there is no such thing as a lump or an arm, it's a mild sub-cutaneous contusion located on the ventral surface of your upper forelimb". Instead he says "let me have a look at it".
(Usually, after a few moments, he adds "nothing to worry about, leave it alone and it will go away, that will be 48 dollars." - but that's an entirely different issue!)
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Of course if we take DNA analysis seriously, there's no significant difference between most of the large white-headed Larus "species" - not enough to really call them all species, anyway, so they should be lumped into one species. For which the scientific name with priority is Larus marinus . . . 'Sea Gull'
cavan wood
Well-known member
jurek said:Hello to birdforum,
Nobody yet, nobody yet, nobody yet said this???
Because if they raise the other leg, they fall down !
Ah man! That was going to be my line.
Cheers,
Scott
cavan wood
Well-known member
Tannin said:
Non-birding Canadians call everthing that looks like a gull (from terns to great black-backed gulls) "sea gulls". They find me very annoying when I suggest that they just call them gulls, so I've learned to just take a look, tell them it's nothing to worry about and charge them $48. Unfortunately, no-one has paid up.
Cheers,
Scott
