Other than the fact that we call them different things, is there a biological difference between eagles and hawks? What makes the divide?
In general usage there is no objective difference at all, it’s purely convention.
Some ornithologists try to restrict “hawk” to just the members of the goshawk subfamily and “eagle” to just the golden eagl;e but they are in a minority and there usage does not map onto the usage of the last 500 years, so they can go and get stuffed.
The reality is simply that it is a convention, so a hawk is what we call a hawk and an eagle is what we call an eagle. There is certainly no evolutionary basis, since many of the eagles are more closely related to hawks than to other eagles. In general, hawks are smaller than eagles, however the largest hawks are *much *larger than the smallest eagles so that isn’t a reliable guide.
Anecdote relating to the arbitrariness of the name: when I lived in Hong Kong I worked for a company called in Chinese 太平洋鷹, but in English, ‘Pacific Hawk’.
Before I arrived as a native English speaker in the marketing department, because they wanted to internationalize, they’d commissioned someone to do some publicity artwork, which was on all the brochures and business cards. The artist was Chinese, and the character 鷹 means “large bird of prey”.
Thus the ‘Pacific Hawk’ they displayed to the international market was actually an American bald eagle.
Which was a double shame as the offices were way up in a skyscraper, and I used to be able to look out of the window straight into the eyes of the magnificent black kites that hovered on the thermals sweeping up the building.
on a purely physical basis, there is supposed to be a size and feature difference between the two. unfortunately, conventional naming is more prevalent than any scientific classification so some eaqles are small while some hawks/flacons are big.
slotting species in the right location seems to be in a state of flux as some species are being transfered to different genus. it turns out these birds belong to genus that aren’t even closely related. but most are found in family accipitridae and the biggest genus there is aquila.
This may be of interest. (Usual caveat on taking Wikipedia as the last word.) Like rabbits vs. hares and ducks vs. geese, there is a distinction of sorts, with the two names applied to some species among closely related forms so that neither is a true taxon but an abstract group of some related species, the other name being applied to the other species.
From the Wikipedia article:
In other words, while the assertions in previous posts are correct, there is a semi-reasonable if taxonomically incorrect line drawn between eagles and hawks, roughly on the bases of size and flight characteristics. But it runs through the middle of one major subfamily and groups with its half of that major subfamily a number of outlying subfamilies.
No, this is completely and utterly incorrect.
There is not “supposed” to be any size difference nor has there been any size difference for 500 years at least.
No, this is completely and utterly incorrect.
Even if there were an evolutionary classification then the smallest eagles would *still *be much smaller than the largest hawks.
No, this is completely and utterly incorrect.
By far the largest genus within the Accipitridae (note capitalisation) is Falco (note italicisation). There are 40 odd species with the Genus Falco, compared with about 10 in the the Genus Aquila.
mac_bolan, we went through this last week. GQ is the forum for questions with factual answers. If you just want to babble about topics that you clearly have no knowledge of, please choose another forum.
Thanks you.
ummm… did i say i was talking about eagles? eagles, whether or not capitalized. if you want to correct me, be more precise than me.
you’re welcomes.
Well, no. Wikipedia isn’t reliable at the best of times, and when the section you are relying on contains labels like “who” and “which” you can pretty much conclude that it is nonsense, as it is in this case.
As I have already pointed out, the smallest eagles, members of the same genus as the Golden Eagle, are much smaller than *many *large hawks. We aren’t talking about outliers here. At a guess 20% of eagles are smaller than 20% of hawks. That is one hell of an overlap.
In terms of the flight characteristics, that simply makes no sense at all. Both eagles and hawks have all sorts of flight patterns. The Wikipedia claim that eagles have faster and more direct flight patterns than hawks is simply bizarre. Most eagles spend hours at a time aloft. flying seemingly aimlessly. I can’t think of a bird with a less direct flight than the average eagle. In contrast many hawks are sit-and-wait predators that only ever fly directly from branch to branch or from branch to prey.
WTF are you on about now?
You said that the genus *Aquila *is the biggest genus in the family Accipitridae.
That statement is bullshit.
It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about eagles or spiny anteaters, a statement that that the genus *Aquila *is the biggest genus in the family Accipitridae is bullshit.
I have seen a variety of statements in various general references over the years that claim that hawks are smaller than eagles. It sounds like** Blake **has provided the SD on the subject. And it isn’t all that surprising to see the dissemination of inaccurate information outside of scientific journals.
Hawks live in Atlanta and eagles live in Philadelphia 
Falcons live in Atlanta. Hawks live in Seattle.
The Hawks also live in Atlanta.
Geez…in MY day you only had to remember the NFL and MLB teams for major cities…what’s next, HOCKEY?!
Hawks have more dark meat.
This is all really interesting stuff. I’m glad that my confusion is at least founded in actual confusing data and not just me being an idiot.
We’re not in disagreement. I gladly concede there’s a substantioal size range overlap in the vernacular groupings – in fact, I’m surprised to see it’s as low as 20%. I noted the overall tendency (“While the terms overlap, ‘eagle’ tends to be applied to the larger species, ‘hawk’ to the smaller”); you zeroed in on the fact that there is a large overlap in usage – and we’re in agreement that ‘eagle’ and ‘hawk’ are only slightly more systematically meaningful than ‘varmint’.
As for the flight characteristics, I foolishly reproduced Wiki weirdness, and thanks for setting me and others straight.
Which one has the best eyes?
Depends on if you live in Iowa or not.