Conflicting terminology for wing measurements in ornithology and aerodynamics

Auk

Volumn 121, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 973-976

  Stiles, F Gary ^a,b   Altshuler, Douglas L ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA   (Colombia)

^b ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c California Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

WING;

EID: 3242669054     PISSN: 00048038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/4090335     Document Type: Note

References (19)

1. ALTSHULER, D. L. 2001. Ecophysiology of hummingbird flight along elevational gradients: An integrated approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
2. BALDWIN, S. L., H. C. OBERHOLSER, AND L. G. WORLEY. 1931. Measurements of birds. Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, no. 2.
3. CHAI, P., AND R. DUDLEY. 1995. Limits to vertebrate locomoter energetics suggested by hummingbirds hovering in heliox. Nature 377:722-725.
4. DIAL, K. P., A. A. BIEWENER, B. W. TOBALSKE, AND D. R. WARRICK. 1997. Mechanical power output of bird flight. Nature 390:67-70.
5. DICKINSON, M. H., F.-O. LEHMANN, AND S. P. SANE. 1999. Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight. Science 284:1954-1960.
6. ELLINGTON, C. P. 1984a. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. II. Morphological parameters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 305:17-40.
7. ELLINGTON, C. P. 1984b. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. V. A vortex theory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 305:115-144.
8. NORBERG, U. M. 1995. How a long tail and changes in mass and wing shape affect the cost for flight in animals. Functional Ecology 9:48-54.
9. PARKES, K. C. 1988. Review of: Identification Guide to North American Passerines. Auk 105:599-601.
10. PETTINGILL, O. S., JR. 1985. Ornithology in Laboratory and Field, 5th ed. Academic Press, New York.
11. PROCTOR, N. S., AND P. J. LYNCH. 1993. Manual of Ornithology: Avian Form and Function. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
12. RAYNER, J. M. V. 1979a. Vortex theory of animal flight. Part 1. Vortex wake of a hovering animal. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 91:697-730.
13. RAYNER, J. M. V. 1979b. Vortex theory of animal flight. Part 2. The forward flight of birds. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 91:731-763.
14. RIDGWAY, R. 1901. The birds of North and Middle America. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, no. 50, part 1.
15. SPEDDING, G. R., M. ROSÉN, AND A. HEDENSTRÖM. 2003. A family of vortex wakes generated by a Thrush Nightingale in free flight in a wind tunnel over its entire natural range of flight speeds. Journal of Experimental Biology 206:2313-2344.
16. STILES, F. G. 1995. Behavioral, ecological and morphological correlates of foraging for small arthropods by the humingbirds of a tropical wet forest. Condor 97:853-878.
17. TOBALSKE, B. W., T. L. HEDRICK, K. P. DIAL, AND A. A. BIEWENER. 2003. Comparative power curves in bird flight. Nature 421:363-366.
18. WEIS-FOGH, T. 1973. Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals, including novel mechanisms for lift production. Journal of Experimental Biology 59:169-230.
19. WINKER, K. 1998. Suggestions for measuring external characters of birds. Ornitologia Neotropical 9:23-30.