Talk:Swan

Type Species

Both the Mute swan and Whooper swan pages claim that their respective subjects are the type species for Cygnus. Presumably one of them is wrong? 199.212.219.8 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Plural?

Is there not a special plural of the word swan? Or is it just 'swans'? Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article Sainsbm (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swan and http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/swan so plural is swans. Perhaps pronounciation should be added also. Ernsts (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomicultural errors

Mytji is wrong with the species and common names on this page. For instance why does a swan called the American whistling swan only live in Britain? The article text and the chart at the bottom of the page do not agree, I think. Surely this is a mistake. Rmhermen 16:32 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Tundra swan

What species name is used for the tundra swan by those who consider it a separate species from Bewick's swan? Vicki Rosenzweig

Those who consider them to be separate species call them C. columbianus and C. bewickii respectively. This was explained in my earlier pedantic and hard-to-read version (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swan&oldid=766947) but was lost in Jimfbleak's otherwise successful improvement. -- Heron

Picture

I think my picture looks nicer than the one placed in the house, does anyone else agrreed it should be resized and changed? Also my picture is a picture for wikipedia, not a public domain image from anotehr site. -fonzy

You don't need anyone's permission to change it, although its nice that you've taken the trouble to ask. The only thing I would say is that 250 pixel width has become semi-standard for pictures in tables, with a link to a larger version if desired.

After all, your picture may also be replaced or editted at some future date-go for it. jimfbleak 05:36 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't spot your house (honestly I didn't!) when I put mine into the taxobox or I would have chosen one which looked less like yours.

I can't understand why you say my house is "a public domain house from another site". It certainly is not from another site, I took the pic myself and it doesn't appear anyewhere else on the internet. I went over to the local park specially to take pictures for Wikipedia.

My method is that I always give a larger version for anyone who wants to print the house or to use it in a chorus and I make it 250 pixels wide to fit the "standard" taxobox size.

Adrian Pingstone 21:53 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We have added a new photo to the wikimedia commons if anyone would like to incorporate it into the article please do so, here is the link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MuteSwanInLakeWaterRipples.jpg Jsu (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dining on swan

".. roast swan is a traditional item at celebratory dinners in certain Oxbridge colleges.. "

Erm... this is Peterhouse in Porterhouse Blue surely and not a reality - I don't think that you can actually dine on Swan m so unless someone provides firm evidence I think this should be removed. IVoteTurkey 15:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is possible to eat swan. Medieval cookbooks fairly stink of roast swan:

For to dihyte a swan. Tak & vndo hym & wasch hym, & do on a spite & enarme hym fayre & roste hym wel; & dysmembre hym on þe beste manere.

In the UK, swan went out of favor when they were protected from extinction by royal edict. Tafinucane 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is illegal to poach swans in the United Kingdom. They are considered the property of the Crown. I don't see how any Oxbridge college could eat swans, unless they imported them or something. Roberdin 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so poaching is out of the question, but what about other methods of cooking? Can they be smoked, or parted out and grilled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.13 (talk) 09:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Un-constructive Joke. Reccomend removal. Sainsbm (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On the myth that all swans in the United Kingdom belong to the queen, see my comment below in the section "Queen's 'ownership'". In Cambridge eating swans is traditionally the prerogative of fellows of St John's College. I have no idea what the situation in Oxford may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

swan ownership

reverted recent edit since no swans other than Mute Swan are owned by the the crown, and only some of those.

For more information about Swan Ownership and Swan Upping

The Monarchy Today - Ceremony and Symbol website has a full page of information about the Queens Swans.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page4952.asp

--Kay L Reed (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This link seems to be dead, but there are many others, here is an example: Does The Queen really own all the swans?JHvW 13:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense etymology

Taken out of the article:

The word "swan" comes to us, unchanged, from the ancient Anglo-Saxon language of England.

So do many hundreds of words...

It is possible that the word swan has its ultimate root even earlier, arising in part from the Celtic Brythonic survival Gwen (meaning "white").

Er, no... compare German Schwan, Dutch zwaan and Old Norse svanr. No need for any Caltic survival whatsoever.

It could be either, and dose it matter any how.

--Freetown 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it matters. It not only keeps record of what we call something, but why we call it. Consider the flight of the swan; it matters why we believe in beauty, a song, the pattern of devotion to survival and familial piety. Chuck Failing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.156.192 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Swan picture

could anyone tell me what breed of swan this is? Thanks! Tekana | Talk 14:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a Mute Swan (only white one with red bill) jimfbleak 15:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Swan pictures, there is a picture of a robot in the article instead of a swan. I'm pretty sure that should not be there. Volker00 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Swan linked to Australia?

I'm most interested in where it most likely developed first. Such as Australia. Maybe not?... Questions are... during evolution, when and where did the swan first appear, and how did the two dramatically different colors occur? Why are they only in the few spots of the globe? Anyone know? I like to know these things, because we never really talk about these minor details. If you ask a child what color a swan is, 99% will say White. Although it is probable that the first swans where Black from Australia. (btw, not a racial implication, just an evolutionary one...) Thanks...

The ducks, geese and swans are a very old lineage, one of the earliest flying birds. I'd be surprised if they arose in Australia - five species are northern hemisphere, one Australian, and two S. American (one not in Cygnus. The swans' close relatives, the geese are also mainly N. hemisphere. In the N. hemisphere, all the swans are white!. jimfbleak 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Fried swan is popular polish meal

Limerick post:

"But not everyone is convinced. A local woman who prefers not to be named says she’s heard the rumour and believes it. "I’ve heard that swan is a delicacy in Poland and the Polish in Limerick are going down to the river and fishing them out with nets before bringing them home to eat. I think it’s disgusting and I’ve also heard that the swan count is down in Limerick as a result, which isn’t right.”"

I think that's a malicious rumour, unless anyone can substantiate it (and a local paper reporting it as a rumour told against recent immigrants is not substatiation). I've heard similar stories about Balkan refugees in my own region. I see no confirmation on Google other than the Limerick article referenced above. Also no mention under Polish cuisine. Amcguinn 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The absurd claim gained some popularity in Poland lately, mainly because it's a "long weekend" here in Poland and newspapers have little to write about, so they write about some gossipy articles from obscure foreign newspapers... (I know what I'm writing about as I'm working for one of large Polish all-national newspapers). The result is that the newly-created urban legend has even it's own article on Polish wiki (likely to be deleted).

To make long thing short: no, people do not eat swans here. AAMoF I've never even heard of such case in my whole life. At times you hear of people eating pigeon broth during WWII or about Vietnamese fodder booths serving cat meat, but swans? It's a complete nonsense created by the Limerick Post some week ago. (check the original article). //Halibutt 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Whooper=Hooper?

I freely admit I know not about this - just someone asked me the difference between mute and "hooper" swans - I see no mention of "hooper" swans in this article, though this link lists them as "cygnus ferus", and I see that "whooper" swans are listed as "cygnus cygnus". Any help? Camillus (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whooper is pronounced Hooper - same thing. Cygnus ferus just means wild swan (ie Whooper Swan as opposed to Mute Swan, not sci name. jimfbleak 05:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - but still, shouldn't the article mention something about this - that "whooper" is pronounced "hooper", that they're the same thing? A google for "hooper swan" comes up with plenty of links, so it seems that "hooper swan" is quite commonly used? Remember that perhaps the majority of folks looking up WP (as opposed to editors) are not experts... Camillus (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Queen's 'ownership'

Can anyone explain the Queen's apparent 'ownership' of all swans in the United Kingdom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomGreen (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

No but its true. She legally posesses all the dead wales that beach themselves on the coastline as well. I think we should add the bit about the queen owning swans though. I don't know what the actual law is. I know its an offence to kill one.--86.20.247.36 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/m/muteswan/swans_humans.asp

and the even stranger practice of swan upping --86.20.247.36 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's only mute swans. The Swan Upping article explains it a bit — Jack · talk · 01:02, Thursday, 7 June 2007

And only a few of those. I've added a link pointing to the swan upping article, which should satisfy this concern, which has come up here before.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The principal authority for the Crown's ownership of most white swans (at least in England) is the case 'Case of Swans' [1558-1774] All ER Rep 641, (1592) 7 Co Rep 15b. This right is also referred to in the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act 1971 s 1(1)(a). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently her ownership doesn't apply to black swans, although Idon't have a reference212.32.11.115 10:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As above, it's only Mute Swans, other than those owned by the Vintners' Company and the Dyers' Company, and it's detailed on the species page. She does not own the wintering Bewick's and Whooper Swans, and of course doesn't own escaped Black Swans Jimfbleak 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the queen owns all swans in Britain is widely believed, but exaggerated in several respects. The queen's right to ownership of swans is restricted (a) to mute swans, (b) to swans which are not marked as belonging to other owners, (c) to swans on open water. Also this right is exercised only on certain stretches of the Thames and its tributaries. Clearly this is far more limited than commonly believed. In the article I have given a citation to the official royal website for this information. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Swan diet, ethology etc.

Hi everyone. Could someone add some more swan biology? Sadly, I can't do it - I just like to look at them. Regards to all, Notreallydavid 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! The Wikipedia seems to be have the most information in comparison to other online encyclopedias, but I still miss a lot of vital information. For example, how long does it take for the eggs to hatch? How often do they reproduce? What is their life span (How long do they live)? by EPP

All of that very much depends on the species. There is no such single animal as a swan, it is more of a collection of animals, like the big cats. Please check out all the species in Category:Swans — Jack · talk · 01:06, Thursday, 7 June 2007

Swans, can they break your arm?

Can anyone confirm this? Perhaps with a link to proper literature regarding it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.176.234 (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, they can't. Jimfbleak 15:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've heard several people confirm that they can. There's no proof of this, really, but I'm hesitant to call several hundred or maybe even several thousand people liars. 71.215.181.62 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)]
    • Swans can break your arm. See references in article. Oldandfat (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
      • First, I suspect you are on the wrong page. I have never heard the legend with respect to any swan species other than the Mute Swan. If you are suggesting it is true for all the world's swan species, you need to reference them all. Secondly, Mark Cocker, who knows his stuff, says it is a legend (note - he is talking about Mute Swans). You repeat it fact; the Swan UK site suggests that it is theoretically possible, but this is unreliable. That site (which has no references for its info) makes the basic mistake of saying that the Queen owns all the Mute Swans in the UK, so I certainly wouldn't trust it on this more dubious claim. So, at best, it might be worth a mention as a legend on the Mute Swan page. I can't see that it has any place at all on the swan family page. WP:OR also discounts the I've heard... claim . Several million Americans believe in creationism, but that doesn't make them right jimfbleak (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It never ceases to bewilder me that there are people who, apparently quite seriously, use the argument "if lots of people believe something then it must be true". This time we have something even more wild: "I'm hesitant to call several hundred or maybe even several thousand people liars", as though nobody can sincerely believe something which is false. And finally, there are not just hundreds or thousands, but hundreds of millions of people in the world who frequently tell lies.JamesBWatson (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I bet if twenty swans jumped up and down on your arm at the same time, it would break. So, yes swans can break your arm.213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps this article is of help, it is at least a reference: Who, What, Why: How dangerous are swans? JHvW 22:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Systematics is a mess

Cygnus olor is is subgenus Cygnus, but C. cygnus is in subgenus Olor? Something is pretty screwy there. Might it be best to not even bother breaking things down by subgenera? Once you start getting into sub ranks, it often gets hard to find a references that assigns all the taxa (species in this case) in the standard higher taxon (genus) to the non-standard intermediate taxa (subgenera). I'm strongly tempted just to take the subgenera out, but perhaps there is a good reference for this classification.

Also, what's up with "Cygnus (atratus) sumnerensis" (berwickii has the same issue). Presumably, the parenthetical epithet is showing that this can be recognized as either a species or a subspecies. Unless there's some ornithological practice I'm not aware of, this looks very weird. I've never seen a specific epithet in parentheses (unless it's actually a subgenus, in which case it would be capitalized). Don't try and make the scientific name reflect two classifications at the same time (full sp. vs. subsp.). Pick one or the other for the name, and discuss the alternative in the text. 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning sub-genera: Got confused by this, too. Searched the web for independent sources but found almost only pages that either copied WP's information literally and unreflected or did not mention sub-genera. Exception: EP [1] - "Some ornithologists (especially in the United States) place the last four swans (C. columbianus columbianus, C. columbianus jankowskii, C. columbianus bewickii, C. cygnus cygnus, Ernsts) in the genus Olor, reserving Cygnus for the mute swan (C. olor, Ernsts)." - As we see, sub-genera have been promoted to genera here. TOL [2] does not mention sub-genera either.

Therefore there should either be added a comment saying that this confusing systematics is alright. Or - which may be better - we should follow your proposal and remove sub-genera unless someone finds yet another independent source.

Ernsts (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It still looks very strange, suggesting whooper swans C. cygnus should be Olor and mute swans C. olor should be Cygnus and if true should have a comment on how this makes sense --Rumping (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The same point caught my eye, but I was able to find several technical sources confirming the counter-intuitive subgenus divisions (some predating WP):

• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=irOaBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT300&lpg=PT300&dq=cygnus+subgenus&source=bl&ots=I5zfj-3Owm&sig=0c1XprtAPXvAmNmGNIf4pzIrCVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw9MX6n5rWAhVFAsAKHU8oB_wQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&q=cygnus%20subgenus&f=false
• http://www.avibirds.com/html/ducks/Whooper_Swan.html#.WbUBK8iGOUk
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1ktTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1208&lpg=PA1208&dq=cygnus+subgenus+journal&source=bl&ots=aiFty24Pf0&sig=Ux4LUBi3bLresVAwF6FLtTIk3Fc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAs7uKo5rWAhUEK8AKHaIEBiEQ6AEISDAD#v=onepage&q&f=false

I agree that we do need some kind of explanation – which I imagine is due in some way to the history of the scientific nomenclature, but I can find no material on this. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

removed statement

The Australian Black Swan (Cygnus atratus) has been noted for swimming with only one leg, the other leg being rotated over the body and tucked under its furled wings. Cygnets do this from a young age.

Uncited and, frankly, so what? I think a lot of ducks and geese do this. Seems to be a bit overprecise. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy

You guys really missed this one. They can live 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Source?99.237.42.98 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Unlikely. You would have to prove it is exclusively pairing with male swans and only excitable by male swans, otherwise it is bisexuality. Transgender behavior is like not even specific, a lot of life forms on the planet shows transgender behavior since the definition covers any flux in precise "having intercourse with the opposite sex in order to mate" position. Replacing it with the term "bisexuality" for the time being. 99.237.42.98 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There would appear to be some unintentional equivocation here. Swans exhibiting homosexual behavior is not inconsistent with swans exhibiting heterosexual behavior; that is, "homosexual behavior" is not strictly equivalent to "homosexuality" as such. That said, I would agree that "transgender behavior" is far too vague. In fact, Bagemihl (or, perhaps, just his proselytizer here at wikipedia) does not seem to have a clear understanding of the concept (cf. the confusion between intersex and transgender in American_Bison). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.180.162 (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A peer-review reference would be of use. Simply because a thing is written in a book hardly makes it a fact worth repeating. More likely "transgender" is a projection of humanity onto animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.249.150 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Monogamous? - report of exception

According to the article, section Behavior, Swans are monogamous, with a few exceptions. A recent news article on the BBC News web site reported a case of swan divorce.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/8477351.stm

If anyone can use this news report to work it into the article or to provide another citation for the other citation, I think it would improve the article. I would do it myself, but lack the time.--TGC55 (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They are still monogamous, as opposed to being polygamous (one male or female with multiple mates), polyamarous (multiple males and females) or promiscuous. Divorce occurs in all monogamous species, the rate varying by species. Some birds are seasonally monogamous (only one partner each year, but different partners every year), others have long term bonds that can survive decades (like albatrosses or these swans. But that they divorce doesn't stop them being a monogamous species (or group). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but in our development, we have at least 16 swans living on our lake...my interest is in the couple that has resided here for the past two years, and has nested, yet to no avail...yet, the male swan seems to rule the lake, constantly puffing up and chasing off the other swan....it's continuous, not only during mating/nesting season.. I acutally know little about them, but am very curious watching them when I play golf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantingsbyme (talk • contribs) 03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

.....I am curious about reference [5], which is cited in discussion of genetic testing of offspring to confirm extra-pair matings. The article referenced is regarding an endoparasite... And unless there is a reference to swans within that paper (which should be referenced dirctly here, rather than via the Schistosoma mansoni paper), the reference and any information relating to it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.98.247 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read the referenced article, it really has very little to do with swans. It mentions some bird related studies in its introduction, but it doesn't specifically say whether any of those bird-studies have anything to do with modern genetic techniques; based on one of the reviews that it references and that I picked at semi random ("Breeding success and mate retention in birds: a meta-analysis"), they just seem to be old-fashioned studies of observing the birds in the wild. I'll remove the offending reference, of course keeping mention that divorces do happen. 77.163.143.28 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Culinary uses

Surprised there's no section on culinary uses? Roast swan was a medieval delicacy, it's worth a mention.176.25.151.40 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's only Mute Swan Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Swans in India?

Sanskrit "haṁsaḥ", while often translated as "swan", is related to Latin "anser" (goose), all from the Indo-European *ĝhans- 'goose'. It is not from ie. *su̯en- 'to sound', the origin of both the word "swan" and the Sanskrit verbal root svan- 'to sound, roar, rattle'. As far as I know, there is no pre-colonial depiction of Sarasvati with a bird that is definitely as swan (and not more likely a goose). There are geese in India, but despite having lived there for two years I never came across a swan, except for Cygnus olor in some parks, and their ancestors were brought in by the British. I therefore assume that all the swans in Hindu mythology are inventions of 19th-century indologists who didn't know their biology. So, if there is an indigenous species of the genus Cygnus in India, please ürove me wrong by stating which one it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.4.87 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sanskrit is the language of the people of Bharat, and Bharat historically encompassed lands beyond present day India and Pakistan, including areas of Afghanistan and the Pamirs as also areas of Tibet. The wiki article on Hamsa, does speak of areas of Bharat as defined above, being the winter migratory habitat of the Mute Swan ( Cygnus Olor). The fact that Sanskrit texts ( refer to the text in the Swan article) speak of identifying the Swan as disctinct from the Crane, clearly indicate this is no invention of " 19th century indologists who didn't know their biology". Clearly, such bigoted attitudes and opinion have no place here or in any forum to do with learning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.55.67 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Exhaustive?

Dear Writer,

Your article seems to have the intention to be "exhaustive". But there is no "exhaust". More important is the "part" these animals have in "the animal world". But I guess you have "no concern".

Obliged.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding your question to relate to the Swan's Ecological niche? I'm not sure what you mean by "no concern". ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your earnest and open reply. What I was addressing is that animals has relations with other animals and we, as humans, should now. But it appears that we know nothing about their interrelation and should "close our mouth".

With the expression "no concern" I tried to formulate that you are probably bypassing important matters.

No harms intended! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.136.48 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

make page: whooper

whooper
/ˈhuːpə,ˈwuːpə/
noun
a large migratory swan with a black and yellow bill and a loud trumpeting call, breeding in northern Eurasia and Greenland.

Oxford Languages

This page already exists as Whooper swan. It's possible that there should be a redirect at Whooper. I'm in North America so I don't have a feel for how common this usage is. Dan Bloch (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Heartwarming sight

Today I saw a nesting female mute swan being fed by a male swan (or that's what it looked like to me anyway). He was biting off bits of vegetation and then putting it where she could reach it without having to stop sitting on the eggs! Anyone seen this before?  Tewdar  20:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Group of Swans

The last sentence of §Taxonomy states the following:

> A group of swans is called a bevy^{[citation needed]} or a wedge.^{[20]}

However, elsewhere in the article, groups of swans are referred to as flocks. For example, in the last sentence of §Behaviour (emphasis mine):

> The ... congregate in large _flocks_ in the wintering grounds.^{[31]}

Which is correct?
(Or if they're both correct, which is more correct? (Or are they equally correct?))
If one is more correct than the other, should the usage of the less correct one be replaced with the correct one?

~~ Kotnen (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Bevy" and "wedge" are obscure terms enjoyed by some people. They aren't used by ornithologists or birdwatchers. "Flock" is a more general word which can apply to a group of any species of bird. It's more appropriate in most circumstances. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)