Comments

• Not sure what the convention is in WP articles, but see the change I made here. My view is that articles should avoid switching between "it" and "they", and chose one form of pronoun and stick to it, otherwise it gets confusing. I did some searches for "they" and while some of the use is justified, some of them can be rephrased to say "it" instead.

Good point -I usually stick to singular in these sort of articles unless the discussion involves a pair or group of birds. Hence I'll convert any I can to singular if/when I find them...unless they sound really odd singular Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the size not be summarised in the lead section? Currently the lead only says "large bird" and "long red legs". Detailed information on the reproductive cycle is in the lead, but not the size of the adult birds.

good point. was wondering what else should go there - stats in lede added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "north to Estonia" could be slightly confusing for someone who doesn't understand distribution terminology. I'm guessing it means that Estonia is the northernmost place in Europe. Ditto for "east to southern Kazakhstan". Is there a reason only the northern and eastern limits are given in the lead? What are the western and southern limits?
• "It was reclassified [...] two years later" - you don't give a year after which this event took place two years later. You need either 1758 or 1760 in there somewhere.

gah, trying to wax too lyrical..1760 added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The etymology doesn't appear to have been unpacked fully (it would be normal here to give dates for when stork was first recorded as an English word). You say ciconia is the Latin word for "stork", but then go on to say that stork is derived from Old English. What is needed here is more detail on whether ciconia was the word used by Romans to refer to what we think were storks, or whether the Latin word ciconia was later assigned to be the Latin for stork. I fear that referring to an elementary Latin dictionary won't give the answer here. What I would be interested in is examples of storks being mentioned in historical records and other languages, particularly in Latin sources. There are hints of this in the 'cultural associations' section (with the Egyptian and Hebrew references). Is it at all possible to give some more of the names used for this stork in the areas it is known to have inhabited in historical times? Possibly this is more for the stork article, but I thought I'd mention it here anyway.

This is a good point. I think the profile of the stork in Roman times (Aesop's fables and possible depictions) make it pretty clear that what they referred to as Ciconia was this species (and the greeks Pelargos). I have not seen this sourced though, but the refs seem to make it pretty clear that there was no confusion about this. I find the barrier between ancient cultural signifiance and etymology can be trick to navigate, with material that can be slotted into either..and it becomes a matter of flow as to the best place. I'll sleep on this as it is very late here and I need to get to sleep... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update - have added the first appearances from the 10th century - interestingly the Erfurt Glossary has "storc = ciconia" in it. I think this might actually be a freetext online somewhere which'd be cool to link to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck on finding easy-to-point-to examples of references to (white) storks in Roman and Greek texts? For example, what are the works of Horace and Ovid that are referred to here? Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Updated: 07:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clear things up, how is the distinction/balance made between this article and the stork article? Sometimes in the article you refer to "stork" and at other times to "White Stork" - has the article been thoroughly checked to make sure the uses of "stork" refer to all storks, and that the uses of "White Stork" refer just to this species?

just about all mythical storks in Europe, Middle east and Nth Africa refer to this species - the Margolis ref actually states that, which is very convenient. I have to be mindful of which sources used "stork" meaning shortened name of "White Stork" vs family Ciconiidae. I am hoping the context is clear throughout the article which storks I am meaning when "White" is omitted. Let me know if you feel some are ambiguous (gonna be hard for me as I have read this so many damn times.... :p . Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of wording that is non-ambiguous is "Like all storks, it has long legs" and "As with other storks, the wings are long and broad". Here are the ones I thought might be ambiguous:

• "A carnivore, the stork eats..." (from the lead)

hmmm, okay, not sure that it is abolutely necessary but agree at a stretch could be ambiguous so clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Conservation and reintroduction programs across Europe have resulted in storks resuming breeding in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden" (from the lead)

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Storks fly with their necks outstretched." (image caption)

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Upon hatching, the young stork is partly covered"

not thrilled about that one, but will concede that as it begins a para, benefits from being stamped as the species. Part of me feels the context is such as to make this pretty obvious Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Young storks adopt adult plumage by their second summer"

I was musing on changing it to "young birds adopt adult plumage by their second summer" - do you seriously think anyone reading this would presume that by using the word "bird" here I was meaning class Aves?

I was thinking that "young birds" could be either White Storks or Ciconia or Ciconiidae. I also wasn't suggesting you change everything, as "White Stork" is itself repetitive and using the term "White Stork" might lead some people to think that the sentence in question applies only to White Storks and not to other storks (i.e. if the behaviour in question is found in all storks, or more storks than just White Storks, that is something the reader should be told). I'm just pointing out that terms like "stork" and "young bird" have the potential to be ambiguous in a species article. Two of the questions I ask myself when reading an article about a species are: (1) What makes this species different from other species in the genus; and (2) What does it have in common with other species and also with the wider family. i.e. All storks do this, but only White Storks do this. That may require a different article construction, though, to one that just says what a White Stork is and what it does. If you think the differences between species should be covered in the genus and family articles, then no problem, but then most of the genus and family contextual material here needs to be either removed or clearly distinguished from the species information, and possibly a line included explicitly directing the reader to the genus and family articles for the context. Ciconia seems to do a fairly good job on the similarities and differences within the genus. If this is all too much at once, I'm happy to withdraw it here and defer to discussion elsewhere, but as someone who reads such articles wanting to get an idea of the differences between species and the things they have in common, I thought it was worth raising. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah ok. I guess one can say that the point of a description (and behaviour) sections is to describe the bird - naturally there will be some attributes that are applicable to the whole genus or family for that matter. Fact is, this species has been studied alot more closely that other storks, so many facts in hte latter may be poorly known if at all. My point is that some context (i.e. info on genus or family is needed, but sparingly. 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I go into this more below (the comment that includes mention of the Black Stork). You say here that this species has been studied a lot more closely than other storks. Is there a reason this is not stated in the article? Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good point. I need to recheck the source which says this before adding, but on balance I think it is a good point to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pelicans also behave differently, soaring in orderly, synchronised flocks rather than in disorganised groups of individuals as the stork does"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "A flock foraging in Turkey. Storks avoid areas overgrown with tall grass and shrub." (image caption)

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "A small population of storks winters in India"

ok. I'll pay that. done. I did conisder just removing the "of storks" here... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The stork's preferred feeding grounds are..."

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "stork populations declined after the 1986 nuclear accident"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The storks have also been reported foraging in rubbish dumps in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Africa"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The stork breeds in greater numbers in areas with open grasslands"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The stork is a rare visitor to the British Isles"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "A study published in 2005 found that the Podhale region in the uplands of southern Poland had seen an influx of storks"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Storks arriving in Poznań province in western Poland in spring to breed did so some 10 days earlier in the last twenty years of the 20th century than at the end of the 19th century"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although not many storks passed through Rossitten itself, the observatory coordinated the large-scale ringing of the species throughout Germany and elsewhere in Europe" (did they ring all storks, just White Storks, or lots of birds as well as storks?)
• "about 100,000, mainly juvenile, storks were ringed"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Migrating White Storks use the uplift of air thermals to reduce the effort of long-distance flying" (do other storks not use air thermals?)

possibly, but this article is talking about this species which was studied here. text reflects the source, which is about WS. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "There, the storks spend the winter in savanna from Kenya" (change 'the' to 'these'?)

--> they - pronoun fine here Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The eastern route is by far the more important with 530,000 storks using it annually"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The flocks of migrating raptors, storks and Great White Pelicans can stretch for"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Juvenile storks set off on their first southward migration"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "An experiment with young birds raised in captivity in Kaliningrad and released in the absence of wild storks" (the young birds and the wild storks are both White Storks, yes?)
• "For many storks the shortest route would take them over the Mediterranean Sea"

--> For many, the shortest route would take them.. (given the white storks are implied by being directly mentioned in previous sentence, we can just leave any descriptor out) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "groups of storks spiral upwards"

--> Thus, flocks spiral upwards (as with previous) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "A young bird ringed at the nest in Denmark" (presumably a stork, and presumably a White Stork?)

er, yes. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs)

• "flocks of storks sit out the adverse weather on the ground, standing and facing into the wind"

--> flocks (of White Storks) sit out the adverse weather... (I am really tempted to leave out bracketed bit as I feel the meaning is obvious, but up to you...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Young breeding storks are often restricted to peripheral nests, while older storks"

Now I feel the meaning is obvious in this sentence if the context is noticed by looking at the previous sentence. The previous sentence is specifically talking about White Storks (as is this one). I have made the intervening punctuation a semicolon so it is pretty clear to me the sentences are intimately linked and hence referring to WS. If I made them both "White Storks" it'd sound laboured methinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The stork has also been noted for tool use by squeezing moss in the beak to drip water into the mouths of their chicks"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The adult stork's main sound is noisy bill-clattering"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Here a stork quickly throws its head backwards"

I think the context is pretty crystal clear that it is a White Stork. The term "stork" just denotes the agent rather than generic "stork" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Storks wintering in western India have been observed to follow..."

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wintering storks in India sometimes forage along with Woolly-necked Stork" (this is a prime example of where "White Stork" is clearly intended, and there is little reason to omit the "White" bit. Also insert 'the' before Woolly-necked Stork.)

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Montagu's Harrier is known to harass storks foraging for voles"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Stork nestlings do not attack each other"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nesting over successive years, the storks bring more material to line their nests"

again, the context is pretty crystal clear that it is White Storks that are referred to here. I feel that tweaking this to "White Stork" would make it sound laboured and ungainly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "dung brought by the storks during nest construction"

again, as per previous. I do not think there is any ambiguity here, the context is pretty solid and self-referential. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The stork also carries several types of internal parasites"

ok. I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "the last wild stork in Belgium was seen in 1895"

changed to "individual" - follows on from previoius sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, storks have since been reintroduced to many regions"

-->However, the species has since been reintroduced... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "electric poles have been modified with a platform at the top to prevent the stork's large nest form disrupting" (also, form -> from)

done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not listed all the examples in 'Cultural associations' and 'Storks and childbirth', but there are some there as well.

Some of these presumably apply to all storks (or to at least some other storks as well as White Storks), but it's not clear to me which apply to all and which apply to White Storks. The ones that apply to White Storks, you could say "this stork" instead of "the stork". And say "the stork" when referring to storks overall, with the occasional "like all storks" and "as with other storks" thrown in to avoid repetition. Its not easy, but I think the potential for confusion is there, so some care needs to be taken to ensure that things are as clear as they can be. Also, the phrase "young bird" seems to be used as a substitute for "young stork" or "young White Stork", and I'm not entirely sure it is helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence - did you mean "not entirely sure it is helpful"? I'll discuss individual cases above. All above refer to the species (White Stork) rather than family and I am going through them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm positive I saw a stork-like bird in my local park (London, UK). What would it have likely been? (Yeah, I win a prize for going miles off-topic). Actually, I think it was a heron!

Ardea cinerea....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The fossil record section seems a bit short. Is there really no other information related to fossils? Is there no information at all on when the White Stork diverged from other storks in the course of evolution?

There are only a handful of studies published on fossil storks, and most relate to other members of the genus Ciconia or older extinct genera - given the size of this article, this material is better in a genus article I feel... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe provide more of a pointer in this direction, then? Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "the primaries, secondaries, primary coverts, greater upperwing coverts, scapulars, and alula are black" - I learnt a lot about bird wing anatomy there! Maybe a bit too much in one go - is it possible to go a bit slower there?

changed to Its plumage is mainly white with black flight feathers and wing coverts; the black is caused by the pigment melanin — basically saying the same with less jargon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know what pigment causes the red in the beaks and legs? I see carotenoids are mentioned later under feeding, but maybe mention it earlier as well, and make clear if this is the same pigment that accounts for the leg colour? I presume the black colour is just melanin?

• source says legs too, added, also changed one "colour" to "pigment" to reduce repetition. Yes, the black is melanin, added with ref to "Description", since nothing to do with feeding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "10 days earlier in the latter twenty years of the 20th century" - what does "latter twenty years" mean here?

• corrected to last 20 years as per source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Juvenile storks set of on their first southward migration" - of -> off

• Done, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Only skimmed rest of article (will try and finish later), but noticed "white babies where brought by storks" - where -> were; and "in that it is allays the discomfort of" - lose "is"; "big enough to carry and infant" - and -> an; "earth and Heaven" - capitalize Earth (possibly the later sections need another copyedit).

gah! missed by spellchecker..x 4.

• From the lead: "the best known is the story of babies being brought by storks" - being brought to where? Not clear. (Also, should best known be hyphenated - I'm never quite sure of this).

Erm...brought to parents. I would have thought that was obvious. I might reword that one as I think just adding "to parents" sounds odd. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 'Distribution and habitat' section, what does "nominate race" mean?

• I've fixed the link which was lost due to a heading change. That gives you the definition, which doesn't need to go in the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Taxonomy and evolution' section does a good job of covering the differences between subspecies and the similarities between species within Ciconia, but is it possible to say anything about the differences between species within Ciconia? One is larger (Oriental White Stork), but it is not said here whether the Maguari Stork is larger or not (its article says it is). I also read in the Black Stork article that it is "closely related" to the White Stork, but shyer, and that it is often seen "in association with White Storks" - that is something that might be worth bringing out here, maybe? Especially as you say that the closest related storks are the ones in East Asia and South America, where the ranges don't overlap with the White Stork, but you say nothing about how closely related it is to the Black Stork (which is of a similar size, as you say later in the article in the fossil section). I also presume that the White Stork can be seen with the smaller Abdim's Stork when in the right parts of Africa. You already mention the Woolly-necked Stork in this article. Storm's Stork is probably not worth mentioning if the ranges never overlap. Essentially, what I was looking for was a short couple of sentences on which Ciconia species overlap in ranges and which don't, and the variation in size within Ciconia. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added bit for Abdim's Stork Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quibble: "bird species originally described by Linnaeus in his 18th-century work Systema Naturae" - it was only after clicking around the links that I realised that you mean it was first described in the 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae. Is there a reason this detail is hidden in the piped link, and the more vague "18th-century" is used? Was it described in earlier editions but only given its systemic name in the 1758 edition (which was, I believe, the first to use Linnaeus's nomenclature)? The text seems unnecessarily vague here.

Re quibble - no reason and corrected. Re interspecific relationships and comparisons within the genus - need to update the Black Stork article as the latest genetics suggest its placement WRT others is uncertain. We need sources which actually compare storks. I will look and see what I can find. One thing I am mindful of is the size of the article so am trying to focus on more noteworthy things. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you manage to find some sources on this. About the Black Stork, even if they are genetically not as closely related as other Ciconia species, the "in association with" bit intrigues me. That is a technical term, but I've been unable to find a definition of it, and am not sure what degree of association is implied here. While looking at a White Stork bibliography that appears to be generated from some database of journal articles (the older ones of which use the older taxonomy, of course), I noticed 'Foraging association of White Stork Ciconia ciconia with Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra' (which you already have in the article). I guess what you are looking for is something like this, but for the White Stork. I also spotted a few journal articles on White Storks that are not included in this article (though you seem to have included most of them, as would be expected). Obviously you can't include everything, but would it be worth me putting them on the talk page to see if you or others think they can be used (I've put some material there already)? Also, if I may ask, what is the general argument for using one journal article but not another one? I presume the reason for not using a journal article would be either that it has been superseded by later articles, or that it has been subsumed into an overview article/chapter/book on the White Stork that you use instead to source the relevant bit of information? Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been musing on this as this crops up when we do broad articles like this. I will answer on your talk page as this FAC is getting pretty long and my examples will cover other articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS; yeah, pop any you find or want to ask about over there on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Cannot find any reference to Black Storks being found with White Storks, and have removed that from the lead of the Black Stork article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May have more comments later. Overall, looks very impressive and well-written. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Additional comments: 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• candida...avis longis invisa colubris would need a translation. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added, would translation be better as footnote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would need to be clear that it is Latin. "white...a bird of long snakes" does not make sense to me, so could it have a longer explanation in a footnote. Is that the correct way to use an ellipsis? Snowman (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current source for the Virgil quote is the Ciconia entry in "Royds, Thomas Fletcher (1914). The beasts, birds, and bees of Virgil; a naturalist's handbook to the Georgics, which is a source dating from 1914. That looks to be an excellent source for this sort of thing, but if you want more detail, have a look at the source I pointed to on the article talk page: Thomas, Richard F. 1988. Vergil's "White Bird" and the Alexandrian reference (G. 2. 319-20). Classical Philology 83(3): 214-217. That goes into more detail on Virgil, and is from 1988, so is more recent (it appears to have been published to rebut a 1986 paper claiming that Virgil's 'white bird' was some sort of eagle). The latter stages of that paper get into a rather involved philological argument about recovery of meaning in poetry, but would be of interest to a reader wanting to read more about this. Do note the comments made about Virgil's lack of precision in identifying animals, as he was after all writing poetry, not writing a natural history treatise like Pliny's Naturalis Historiæ (which has an arguably more relevant mention of storks). Thomas (1988) in fact gives several examples of storks mentioned in Latin texts, concluding that the vernal (spring) return of the stork was proverbial in Roman times (or as he puts it, in 'the Latin tradition'). As far as the Latin translation goes, it should be possible to find a modern translation of Virgil's Georgics and source a translation to that. For example, the MIT Georgics translation is:

"Best sow your vineyards when in blushing Spring
Comes the white bird long-bodied snakes abhor"
Georgics translation at the The Internet Classics Archive

Comparing that to the current truncated Latin quote and the added-in translation shows obvious problems. You could also ask for help from Wikipedians familiar with Latin texts and other aspects of classical philology. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just read through the GA review in more detail, noting here for other reviewers that it is worth reading the GA review closely, as some good points were raised and addressed there and as Casliber points out, the article was gone over in some detail. That GA review, along with the review here (including Sasata's work on the sources), and the fact that this article is well-supported by the relevant WikiProject (not essential, but nice to know) is one of the reasons I'm leaning towards support. Will take one final look after the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx - I've been having internet access problems and a busy weekend, and will add the Thomas material when I get a chance. Also looking for a black stork/white stork association mention and well-studied not on white storks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added 1988 Thomas + maybe just better to keep it simple and list it as "white bird" rather than the latin bit, the phrase is notable as others have referred it thus Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]