Just to be clear: when you say:
“The ‘like ostriches’ part is the ‘read’ text for the ‘written’ text that has, apparently, as extra space”
Does that mean that the ostriches are a Masorete interpolation?

Not necessarily. The Masoretes gave us two things, an older consonantal text and corrections. In some cases its not clear which (if either) reflects the original text, but in this case, the space is almost surely a mistake, presumably the result of a scribal error that somehow became ensconced in the traditional text.

In which case you would have an uncertain animal followed by an utterly guessed animal (although ostriches were thought to abandon their young).

The uncorrected text doesn't make any sense. The corrected text juxtaposes two animals that we frequently find together. So while we don't know for sure what the animals are, we can be pretty sure that the Masoretic correction is valid.

BTW, I've posted some visual examples of how the corrections work here.

Just to be clear: when you say:
“The “like ostriches” part is the “read” text for the “written” text that has, apparently, as extra space”.
Does that mean that the ostriches are a Masorete interpolation?

In which case you would have an uncertain animal followed by an utterly guessed animal (although ostriches were thought to abandon their young).

I know that the following is going a lot further, but as speculation:
We’re not quite sure what tanim are. FROM this verse (if you take the tanim reading) we can deduce that they are known for selfless parenting. FROM other uses we know that they are symbols of destruction. Could it be (and I KNOW this is pushing it) that tanim are in fact pelicans, which were symbols of destruction and selfless parenting.

For a brief thingummy (and old) on pelicans in Judaism http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=162&letter=P&search=pelican

Thank you again for the enlightenment.