User talk:Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki/Archive070101-071119

Talk page archive 2005-2006

Domestic pig#Needs Attention

Replied to your post at Domestic pig#Needs Attention.

:)

--Alf 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-replied. Dysmorodrepanis 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-re-replied. --Alf 07:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ecdysozoa: Thanks

At last, I have met another biologist here, who is also sceptical about Ecdysozoa. It was rather hard to persuade Jefffire that to question this odd grouping is not just a POV by an old-fashioned Russian biologist. By the way, how many zoologists (if you know any, and for all I see, I suspect you do know some of them) support the Ecdysozoa hypothesis in your "intellectual environment"? Alexei Kouprianov 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is general agreement that it provides a good concept to start with and is an important breath of fresh air - but that the monophyly of the group (or the content of the Ecdysozoa as a monophyletic group) has not been established to satisfaction.

What can one say? The morphological characters uniting the Ecdysozoa (as originally proposed) are not autapomorphies. The molecular characters are, but then, there are other molecular analyses that indicate non-monophyly or even paraphyly of the "traditional" Ecdysozoa.

Personally, I would be very cautious about trying to get back the old Articulata... vertebrates, after all, are kind of segmented too so segmentation in itself is apparently a synapomorphic thing.

I think I will (over the next half-year or so) try to revie more current literature. But I sometimes fear that horizontal gene transfer might have played a bigger role in the issue than suspected, and biology is only now really getting a hold of that concept. What we know is that the metazoan radiation started (probably) in the late Vendian/Ediacaran, and the creatures that were around at that time still make good "targets" for HGT, soft-skinned and with no discrete reproductive organs one can discern (what if they reproduced asexually such as by budding or division? Every single body cell subject to viable HGT could theoretically give rise to a new "species", possibly even one with drastically altered bauplan).

Especially as regards nematodes - there is no reason (IIRC) to rule out yet that they are all descended from a parasitic ancestor; in fact this would explain much of the problems we have in placing them. Morphologically, nematodes stand apart from all other Metazoa, but is this indicative of their evolutionary relationship, or a consequence of their evolutionary path? Maybe in the future we can tell. At present, I think to consider the Ecdysozoa more than an interesting hypothesis with quite some merit to it would be premature. But it's not my primary research topic.

FWIW, as regards "things that took strange twists and turns in their evolution", they're finally going to sequence Trichoplax! This is very much about time, and I have been waiting for it for 10 years (my professor told me when I asked him, "but nobody does Trichoplax, leaving me very dismayed). Many insights will come from that project, I am certain - not so much as to where they go in the evolutionary tree, but as regards how a simplification in bauplan boils down genomically. That their ancestors were less simple animals I think is universally accepted. And the latter might also hold true for nematodes. Dysmorodrepanis 15:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

European Magpie

No big deal, but I notice that this article has the US spelling of "behavior", which seems a bit odd if this bird is split from the NAm forms. Would you object to changing to the spelling standard in Europe? Jimfbleak.talk.10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Melospiza melodia

Hi Dysmorodrepanis; I have uploaded a new picture of Melospiza melodia, Image:Melospiza_melodia_31766.JPG, that may be better than my earlier Image:Melospiza_melodia_01450t.JPG. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Will see where to put it in the article! It is very informative. Dysmorodrepanis 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bird page update ?

Hi ! I am sure you have seen the Livezey paper [1]. Wonder if bird can do with some updates. Shyamal 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently the discussion of Livezey/Zusi rages on the Dinosaur Mailing List. But I'm collecting all papers I can come up with in my sandbox, and I think this will be the project to work on during the next months. The scope of the update is massive. While the basic structure is being increaingly fleshed out (The Coronaves internal structure seems one of the more consistent proposals), there is still much work to do on the internal structure of the apparent clades before anything definitive can be said. For the time being, I am putting together the information in the orders' pages (see for example Flamingo or New World vulture - especially the source code of the latter page). Near passerine needs an overhaul, but that's probably where I'll start as this is the only probable clade that is fairly well resolvable both internally and in its relation to other "higher landbirds". But take a look at that page, which I just gave a preliminary makeover so that it is acceptable - you'll see just how much information must be worked into the thing. It has really started last year; the thing to do for this year is to review it all for WP so that by the end of 2007, WP is hopefully the most comprehensive open-source source on Neornithine evolution available anywhere. Dysmorodrepanis 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

new species

Hi. Thank you for fixing and expanding the articles which I created about the new species. Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Always most welcome; keep up the good work! (I am currently adding notes of caution to the Antpitta and Tapaculos as regards their family assignment. Check in 1 hour or so, when I should have the family articles done. But don't do it without your favorite cordial, you have been warned ;-) ) Dysmorodrepanis 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Inca Dove stuff

Boy, does that article need some expansion. Before that, please take a look at the argument I've made in favor of re-reverting to Columbina on Talk:Inca Dove. I won't re-revert until we've come to a final consensus, but I've simply followed the AOU / SACC lead on this, and, well, they're the authorities on the matter, not I. Thoughts? -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 09:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts were added to the Talk page. Dysmorodrepanis 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stitchbird

Hey mate. Do you know if any family name is in the works for the Hihi? I mean, the page is kind of wierd at the moment, the family is 'monotypic' and the cat is still honeyeater. It looks kind half finished. (As a boastful aside, Stitchbirds are one of my study species for my PhD! I hope I can get a photo of them doing the face to face breeding for the page!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it is half finished - the research, that is. I have also catted it in Corvida to reflect that it should be classified as a distinct monotypic family, but left it in the Meliphagidae cat because that's where field guides etc will keep it (the categories are good for handling such cases of controversy and/or latest science). As families fall under ICZN fules, the taxobox will have to await formal publication of a name. New paper on wattlebird's out now IIRC, so tomorrow I'll look into the matter and see what I can draw from this and the other stuff we collected on the Passeriformes talk page. At least I'll add some info to make it less confusing.

Good luck with the stitchbirds! I'm gonna try and get a photo for Meller's Duck on Sunday. Last time I tried, they were not cooperative. Gonna talk the guys at the lab and at the zoo into letting me do some sequencing of these one day... Keep up the good work! Dysmorodrepanis 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories in your sandbox

Could you please remove the categories from User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox7? I am working on cleaning up categories for North American animals, and this sandbox page is very distracting. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that should have been entirely deleted long ago! Thanks for informing me, it's gone now. Dysmorodrepanis 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bird Feature Article

Hello! I'm trying to raise Bird to feature article status from its present good article classification. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated............Thanks..Pmeleski 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest: don't. By the end of 2007, the phylogeny & evolution section will look WAY different from today for all the new knowledge. I'd rather see to that the groundwork gets set, i.e. the anatomy articles and behavior, conservation, ecology (+ reproduction) sections get cleaned up and linked to GOOD articles on the topic (a lot of the detailed "see main article"s are fairly stubby or lacking at present). As regards behavior and anatomy, e.g. the stuff on the avian brain is for some 80-90% either redlinked or totally obsolete as we had major scientific breakthroughs since 2000 (we can only now seriously try to understand it). Basically, much of the good stuff about birds would be Original Research as of now. In 12 months or so, it'll gonna look way different.

(To be REALLY honest, I'd not call this article Good at present. B-class for the most part, really. The scientific view on birds is undergoing a major shift at present, mainly for much missing info coming in as we discuss it.

In any case, I'll be on a field trip the next weeks (totally unbird stuff) and see where it's at when I get back, and throw in my 2 cents. (Don't be discouraged, be bold! It's just I wouldn't do it because as far as I know mayself, I could forget doing much else for the next year or so ;-) ). Thanks for the kind notice! Dysmorodrepanis 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Raises eyebrow* I'm anticipating some radical new stuff taxonomically, but I wasn't aware that everything else was going to change too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PS its about time you archived your talk page! It takes too long for my rubbish connection to load it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's basically that we have enough to start putting it all together. EG we know that there's something about Cypselomorphae, but how do they group with doves? Resolving interordinal relationships should be possible fairly robustly by simply joining together the extant order-level studies. Tommy Tyrberg is working on Ornithothoraces phylogeny. If you check out the bird brain anatomy page, you'll get slaughtered by redlinks, etc. Gonna do the archive before I leave, thx! Dysmorodrepanis 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

Hi Dys,

I know that you are leaving for a trip soon, but you seem to be our go-to guy when it comes to fossil birds. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team is planning to send Archaeopteryx to FAC soon, and, quite frankly, this article is a bit of a mess. I do understand that you are incredibly busy now, but when you do have an opportunity, could you give the article a quick glance to see what we're missing? Since this is the only article we've extensively reworked which overlaps into the WikiProject Birds area, comments from someone more familiar with fossil avians or avians in general is crucial. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, there is one important bit to add: the Dinosaur Mailing List archives (-> Google) have a discussion of Mayr's preliminary analysis of the latest specimen ("...with theropod features..." was the paper's title; it's on the Archie article IIRC) + erratum for the cladistics fans here to fillet.

Much uncertainty, and if there's one person to ask for input, I'd say it's Tommy Tyrberg. Suffice to say that at present, I'd love to see each specimen remarked upon its peculiarities separately (to be honest, we don't know if they're all one single species, and the odds are slightly against - they grew up, most likely, like "reptiles", i.e. in bouts, tho). Mayr of Senckenberg too has possibly seen more of Archie than most ppl. and I'd try and contact him for input. He might be busy with cool stuff tho.

What seems parsimonious - but just that - is that some specimens don't seem to line up with either Confuciusornis or modern birds; the former because some Archies have got a distinct, more enatniornithine-like (don't quote me on that) evolutionary trajectory, the latter because Confuciusornis are just too derived aerodynamically ro compare well. Keep your eyes peeled for Tyrberg's, Marjanovic's next, & Mayr's last papers featuring Archie; read with the necessary pinch of salt (see how quality of analyses varies even with one single main author) and draw your own conclusions!

That being said, I entirely trust the dino crew. Good folks they have, and of course, when I'll be back and see sth contradicted by some paper, I'll gladly add the ref. Dysmorodrepanis 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

White-chested White-eye

Hello I have a little problem whith this statement:

EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna

The EFBC Act listed Zosterops albogularis as extinct since 2000. But Birdlife is knowing of least two confirmated sightings in 2003 and 2005. So how can a goverment body say that this bird is extinct? --Melly42 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The EPBC listing is a legal framework incorporating political considerations whereas BirdLife's is more purely scientific and has no legal standing - I think that the EPBC listing came about in 2000 because of the lack of verified sightings, and it means simply that conservation measures specifically for this species won't be eligible for Federal funding (e.g. via the DEWR). It might be dealt with in the article by changing conservation status to PE and remarking that due to the EPBC listing, the taxon is currently "legally" extinct but that "scientifically", it is presumed to be not entirely gone.

This issue sometimes pops up, such in the case of the Tasmanian Tiger: there was quite some discussion whether it should be reclassified as Extinct - not because of the suppposed sightings themselves, but because the nature reserve set aside for it based on these sightings (which harbours much of the remaining Tasmanian woodland ecosystem + associted threatened species) was specifically maintained as a TasTiger reserve, and classing this as EX would mean that the reserve would lose its protection status too. Dysmorodrepanis 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bunyip

I liked your contribution at bunyip. I was going to try to include those points myself. Do you think the link Aboriginal mythology might be better further down? Perhaps where you differentiate between the folk and indigenous myths. Regards, Fred 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Change as it pleases you. Dysmorodrepanis 00:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Input invited

Hi. I'm planning to spend a bit of time in the next couple of weeks or so trying to improve Slender-billed Curlew, with the aim of bringing it up to GA status. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated at the article's talk page. Thanks SP-KP 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

bird evolution

I take it you're back from your field trip, hope it was fun (or at least tolerable). I'm sure you noticed that we ignored your advice and went ahead and took on bird. As part of it I split out bird evolution today so that I can hack down and reorganise the section in the main article (a task I am not looking forward to). It's just the old section at the moment, but I'll try and work on it, and since you're our best taxonomist/evolutionist I thought I'd better flag it up. Incidenatlly, have you see this paper ...

• Ericson PGP, Anderson CL, Britton T, Elzanowski A, Johansson US, Kallersjo M, Ohlson JI, Parsons TJ, Zuccon D, Mayr G (2006)"Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils" Biology Letters 2(4): 543-547

and the related bun fights, I mean, replies? Quite interesting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wandering Jew

I split the Wandering Jew pages up like you suggested. Double check if you want to, but I think I did it correctly. Dark jedi requiem 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks aplenty! (see here) Dysmorodrepanis 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Passerines

Did you ever know that you're my hero? and ev'rything I would like to be? I can fly higher than an eagle, 'cause you are the wind beneath my wings. Seriously though, amazing work. Looks like we have some more family pages to create and write. I did one of the finches today, and I'll hunt down some info on the Hyliotidae tomorrow. I saw one of those in Uganda and the guide book stated that it was an oddball lumped in with the warblers for no particularly good reason. Nice to get a little resolution on that. Nice little bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I just noticed that Sylvia is a babbler. That is funny beyond words. Oh those crazy taxonomists. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Or the other way around (the way I like it better, reciprocal monophyly after all) - that most warblers aren't warblers, but that the "true" fulvettas (Fulvetta) are also among the truest of warblers?

I wonder what will come from decent sampling of the Turdidae and Muscicapidae... Many thanks for the Przewalski-finch BTW! Dysmorodrepanis 16:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is no such thing as a laughingthrush anymore it seems.... for the time being. When I'm through with that article, you'll see why :) Dysmorodrepanis 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Without wading through the papers (I'm at qwork at the mo) did the research support splitting out the chats into the Muscicapidae? It always struck me as somewhat odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See last paper I added on Passerine talk page! Let me put it this way, without having seen the primary ref:

"Yes... but the Muscicapidae could be Sylviidae (paraphyly galore) and Timaliidae (low sampling density) combined..." would be a nice way to put it. ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 22:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyliotidae

Do you have a paper that uses this name? I have Fuchs (2006) which talks about the deep split but I can't find a ref on the name. He doesn't propose it in the paper as far as I can see. Maybe we have a Stitchbird like situation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, and I have changed it accordingly on Passerine. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 39 (2006) 186–197 (see Old World warbler: Fuchs et al 2006) is the one and only paper this far and does not propose the name. So copy/paste from stitchbird. Dysmorodrepanis 04:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm suprised he didn't name it there and then. Nothing like the imortality that comes from naming a family. Looks like a strong contendor for a family to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sylviidae

I suggest that the page be moved to Sylviidae and Old World warbler. No disagreements here, tomorrow's Anzac Day so I should get extra time to work on some of those families. Are you a syop, can you do the move? If not it can be proposed at WP:BIRD and Jim or Cas can do it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, but take your time with the families as it suits you. I will sort out the parrotbills and white-eyes first, which look like a certain and a highly probable merge. Dysmorodrepanis 02:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The trick is finding out info on them beyond taxonomy. On the plus side in that respect is that for my birthday next month I'm getting HBW 11 (hopefully) which covers the Old World warblers and flycatchers. I wish I had 10 with me (its back in England) which had the wrens and the Donacobius (as well as the Palmchat, Silky flycathers and their ilk). And I gleefully wait for 13, which has the berrypeckers which are mysterious little shits. I wonder how they'll be able to wreit anything on them at all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fulvetta

Hi, do you have a copy of the Pasquet paper ? Shyamal 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would love to have a soft copy. Sorry, unable to mail you. Shyamal 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice the commented part. I thought it was perhaps a failure on my part to leave my contact info. The new systematics info that you are adding and compiling is really setting the wikipedia articles apart from all available books. Thanks. Shyamal 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But didn't the paper arrive? I sent it, tell me is something happened to it so I can try again! Dysmorodrepanis 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. No it didnt. Hope you entered the mail id right. The same prefix on yahoo dot com should also work. Thanks in advance. Will ack when I receive it. Shyamal 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what went wrong. Sent to Yahoo account together with a nice surprise (if you don't already know that one) I found. Dysmorodrepanis 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Recd. Need to spend some time on it. I get a unhappy feeling when they report trees that are sensitive to the outgroup ! And let me know if you need help with the clade template. It really makes this kind of information more easy to see with much less words. Shyamal 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clade template? Where is it? (I mean, what's its Wikipedia address?) Dysmorodrepanis 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Clade but link that is quite unhelpful ! See my comments on my talk page under experiment or on the Talk:Bird page. Shyamal 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK! Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis 06:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to wedding

Hi Dysmorodrepanis, I have opened a small conversation about your recent edit to the wedding article. You opinion would be very welcome. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In line references

It would be even better if you would do more in-line references. Snowman 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean < ref > tags. It is a common misconception that "inline refs" is the same as "< ref > tags". "Inline refs" means merely that you cite refs in the inline text and not dump them uncited at the end. I already inline refs - in a more proper way, actually, than the tag does. If I'd submit a life sci paper that is formatted a la ref tags, it would get bounced right back to me; no journal would accept a humble-jumble bibliography that is not porperly cited with author names and pub dates in the inline text.

I don't use < ref > tags because a) it messes up readability and editability of the code beyond belief (a 1-line sentence, which is probably the average, gets torn to pieces if you add 4 lines of tagged refs inside it), so that the article will de facto become off-limits to inexperienced editors lest they break something (I have seen this time and again - tagged refs tend to get "swallowed up" in such edits), b) they are MUCH harder to handle when copyediting, c) the way they are cited in the outpout article defies every convention used at least in life sciences in that they're jumbled all over the place in the bibliography´, and d) one has always to edit the whole when adding refs article to see if it is formatted right which is a major pain in >30k articles and becomes sheer hell in >60k articles. In a nutshell, it's a tradeoff - either I don't use ref tags, or I only correct orthography and punctuation.

I try to reference the articles I do - which are almost exclusively scientific - so that they are usable for the amateur as well as the professional, and professionals want decent reference lists that may for example be copy/pasted as a coherent whole, which one does not get with the tag. (Actually, the tag produces footnotes, such as used in social sciences for annotations and comments on sources. But even they assemble the references in a properly sorted bibliography at the very end).

Altogether, Wikipedia entirely lacks a satisfying code for citing references. The alternatives are insufficient and inflexible (Harvard template), endanger core principles of WP and do not adhere to scientific "good practice" (< ref > tags), or are entirely unworkable (numbered lists).

There should be a dedicated push for a usable reference format. I find this to be the most significant flaw in WP at the moment, and one that may endanger the entire project. At the least, it is a major detriment to WP's standin in the scientific community. Dysmorodrepanis 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just see if the ref and note templates help. It is used for instance in Decline in amphibian populations. Also you maybe interested in http://www.zotero.org/ if you are a Firefox user. Just passing by. Cheers Shyamal 06:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline in amphibian populations breaks (as usual for numbered notes) if only a single reference is used twice, refs are inserted in the sequence. That's what I meant.

What is needed ASAP is a format that is concise, collectes reference source code in a dedicated section alphabetically (a major drawback of the < ref > tag, as references are a resource in their own right but not if using tagged refs), and ideally gives author and date in-line (so that readers will immediately see whether some information is fishy. Say in molecular biology, if it's basd on a 20-year-old ref). Also, it must allow the same ref to be cited multiple times, and it must be flexible enough to handle any source of Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

If there ís no such format, Wikipedia will end up to be like a very messy paper encyclopedia. Articles will be essentially static and there'll be a dearth of up-to-date information. Try adding a ref to DNA#Alternative_double-helical_structures: this is simply beyond the possibilities of any but the most hardcore users; there is hardly a coherent sentence of output text left. In this case, there are people who built this article and watch it. Should they leave, the article will become an unreadable, uneditable mess soon enough. From this user's point of view, the biggest long-term problem of Wikipedia is not under- but over-referencing. Under-referencing can and will be fixed. There is no possibility ATM to have a load of references AND a conveniently readable, editable article. Dysmorodrepanis 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well put, Dysmorodrepanis. I agree. --Aranae 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mamora's Warbler

Hi. Can you correct the following sentence please:

• "They seem to form thich in turn groups with Tristram's Warbler and the Dartford Warbler (Helbig 2001, Jønsson & Fjeldså 2006)."

I'd do it myself but I don't know what you're trying to say. Thanks. Mwng 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Marmora's Warbler and the Balearic warbler seem to form a form a superspecies which... corrected! Thanks for notifying me... now how the "t" got in there I have no frickin' idea... Dysmorodrepanis 14:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing animals and biology.

• Ah. User:RCP added the animals to Biology page a while back and I recommended that he transfer them to Animals page. Afterwards I seem to have forgotten the whole thing. As far as I am concerned, you can merge them. - Skysmith 16:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairy Warbler

In view of your recent taxonomic changes, could you have a look at this article please. Also, although I've written it with the name above, Fairy Flycatcher is currently its usual name. Should I move it? Jimfbleak.;^{comment here}12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew. Don't move it at present. Either name is awkward... I think "tit" should be in it. But we have "tit-warblers" (Leptopoecile, now Aegithalidae) so if I'd have to have an opinion on the matter, "tit-flycatcher" or "flycatcher-tit" would probably be the best guess.

But as for now, the name stands (it's a monotypic genus, and hence the name falls in the scope of HBW/BirdLife standardization). Awkward maybe, but until the matter has found some consensus outside Wikipedia, we can simply leave it as it stands.

Thanks for the Stenostiridae! I'll go over it and put in whatever additional refs I find later today! Dysmorodrepanis 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No more parvorders?

I noticed you moved up the bird parvorders to infraorder status. Granted, whether some of them are parvorders or infraorders depends upon the taxonomy used as a reference, I was wondering whether the change was made due to anything more than personal preference. I didn't notice anything on WP:BIRD about a change. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The parvorder concept saw little use beyond Sibley & Ahlquist, and their arrangement has been butchered in 2006. See passerine and Talk page. Dysmorodrepanis 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DNA

Thanks for the references, I added them to the article. TimVickers 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the abstracts, but I can't get full-text access. TimVickers 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the first 1980 review could be useful. Thanks. Just click on "e-mail this user" on my homepage. I don't like leaving my address on webpages for the spam harvesters to pick up. TimVickers 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got it now, I can access it from work. E-mail works by going to the user's Userpage and clicking on th "E-mail this user" link under the Wikipedia search bar on the left-hand side of the screen. Thanks again! TimVickers 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Caprimulgiformes

An anonymous user has hacked at the entry's systematics and taxonomy and left the following edit summary added reference; corrected prejudicial, unprofessional, and erroneous assertions. Don't know much about that order, what are your thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rv & add. Anonymous, technically yes, but. Dysmorodrepanis 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Neoepiblemidae

Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I noticed your changes around articles pertaining to Neoepiblemidae. You cite a source via comments in Phoberomys, but would you mind writing out the complete source in a references section somewhere? Perhaps Neoepiblemidae would be most appropriate. The articles need references to begin with, probably McKenna and Bell, 1997, but this is particularly true now that there appears to be some controversy and changes. --Aranae 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dysmorodrepanis 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fulvettas

Hi. Do you have a pdf you could email me of the paper (Pasquet et al (2006): The fulvettas (Alcippe, Timaliidae, Aves): a polyphyletic group. Zoologica Scripta 35: 559–566.). I've been waiting for this article for a while now and I'm hopeful it'll make the polyphyletic Alcippe situation a little clearer. Love what you've done with Old World Warblers and Babblers by the way. Great stuff!! --Deargan 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheres my Megalaima ?

So is the new Capitonidae split mostly geographical or is it another big shock. Would love the reference for this as well. Shyamal 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just working on Megalaimidae... a nice clean split, toucans are closer to the SAm lineages. I'll be done with it in maybe half an hour! Dysmorodrepanis 11:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, look forward to the refs too ! thanks. Shyamal 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref still pending, but I know I have it around; will add later today. There was simply too much confusion, with the new pages not linking to the Barbet article. I have put up a request for a Semnornis page so the fourth subfamily can be done too (there's only that one genus in it).

The Asian barbet page is gonna be beautiful. Dysmorodrepanis 12:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! (except for ref) Now to the African guys... the reason I originally came here. Dysmorodrepanis 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are pretty much reassembling the bird tree. Maybe you should offer your services on www.tolweb.org as well ! The clade diagrams may be helpful additions, let me know if I can help there. Esp. if they need to be done from publications. Shyamal 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was already pondering this. Mh, I think I'll finish my studies first, then move on to TOL. Or http://www.eol.org/ EOL for that matter. (I'll wait and see how this develops :) ). As regards refs, I can get a good many of these, given time (usually a week will do) and as long as someone points me to them... Actually, my Wikipedia work grew out of the need to "do something" with the papers that were collecting on my HDD :D Dysmorodrepanis 12:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I being unreasonable?

I have commented here on Guinea Pig FAC - I am keen for others input, either to support if they think I'm nitpicking or to comment/help out etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd concur with the basic approach - make 2 major sections: GP as the biological entity Cavia porcellus, the other as regards its sundry relationships with humans. Dysmorodrepanis 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanager

Hi Dysmorodrepanis, just seen your makeover on the back of my fiddlings. Are there any layouts or pages you'd prefer I didn't drastically alter? It would save me a lot of effort if I knew beforehand.--Deargan 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it just so happened to coincide. I have added taxoboxes and some blurb to the genus pages you started, categorized them etc. You can check them out and nick the taxobox to adapt to further genera. Dysmorodrepanis 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Spooky! Just seen your contribs list- wow! I was just passing the sleepless hours, halfway through I wished I'd chosen a smaller topic! Good practice though.

I will nick the taxoboxes but feel free to flesh out as many genera as you like, I'm off to bed. Cheers--Deargan 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"I wished I'd chosen a smaller topic!" - yeah, here too, absolutely. My only intention was to add some reference on feather lice of certain tanagers. And only as an annotation for further use... none of the birds in question had articles of a size where it would be worthwhile to add such trivial information! But, well, it's done now :D Dysmorodrepanis 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Loon

Somehow the image Image:Gaviidae Distribuzione.jpg has disappeared from the Loon page. Any idea what happened to it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No ideas? No comment? It looked to me like that was an image you uploaded - was I incorrect? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I have only found it on the Commons. I have no idea at all what happened to it. No deletion log, nothing. Dysmorodrepanis 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bleh. That was a good graphic. Ah well :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching for a Pied Raven ref

Hi Dysmorodrepanis. Common Raven is now at FAC and needs a ref for the following paragraph: "In the Faroe Islands a pied colour-morph of this species occurred among all-black birds; known as the Pied Raven, it eventually disappeared in the mid 20th Century, probably due to selective collection for its unusual plumage." Would you be able to supply a ref for it? The sources at Pied Raven are in German and Danish, languages I don't understand, so I'm not comfortable citing them myself. Kla'quot 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bird skins

Hi, wonder if you might be able to help obtain a free photo of a bird skin or a tray full of them to illustrate the article on ornithology. thanks. Shyamal 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great ! Take your time, I leave you the choice of choosing one. I think there are some images already of mounted specimens. If you can get photographs of calipers being used to measure bird skin morphometrics, that would also be really educational. thanks in advance. Shyamal 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My work at the museum being done when I took the pix, I don't have any of these. BUT I might be able to get some later this summer. Dysmorodrepanis 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PalaeontogrItal89:3

You added this as a comment embedded in one of your edits. What do you mean by this? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Palaeontographia Italica 89 2002 3-36: Recent Advances on Multidisciplinary Research at Rudabánya, Late Miocene (MN9), Hungary: a compendium PDF fulltext. (I know you'll love it ;-) )

These things I do when I am coming across a source that I have no time/leisure to check, or that references or discusses things apart from what I actually need it for (in this case, the avifauna). Dysmorodrepanis 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd probably love it, if I could read it. Ok, it's a comment so that you can possibly later go back and add the reference, and I see that this one is not worthwile to go to a full reference since the link you provide is to a list of references available upon request. Oy. Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot: the fulltext PDF is here. I was on the phone so I had no time to check it out and make sure this list wasn't the one where they had the fulltexts password-protected and you needed to access the list to get the pw. If prehistoric hominoid's the name of your game, you'll find it interesting. Few of the taxa discussed therein are even mentioned on WP. It provides a nice discussion of the habitat and ecological and geographical/geological conditions of the locality too. Dysmorodrepanis 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Passerine

The stuff I've added here is not part of a 'to do' list so if your agreeable I'll shift them all to the relevant talk pages. Deargan 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rectrices source

Hi Dysmorodrepanis:

I'm working on a flight feathers article (tying together several stubs we now have floating around) and would love to get some references to cite for the species and rectrices numbers you provided in the current Rectrices article. Can you help with information on where you found the Ostrich, grouse and domestic pigeon counts? Thanks much! MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

HBW is usual default source (see project page). If you want to check it out, you're welcome; I'll be off a few days and would see to it if nobody else does. Dysmorodrepanis 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I checked HBW, and found a reference for the pigeons, but there's nothing about the numbers in ostriches or grouse. If you come across them somewhere, please feel free to plug them in to Flight feather#Rectrices. Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Butterfly

Hi E ! since you are in a butterfly mood, maybe we should get some of these articles in order. I pulled up butterfly a bit, but there are still some related articles like the one on migration - Butterfly and moth migration that need to be overhauled (not to mention the article name). Thanks for the many fixes on the Indian species lists ! Cheers. Shyamal 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Lepidoptera which feed on Ashes

Nice job, thanks! Are you "caretaking" this article? If so, would you consider one of us (you or me) resequencing the list taxonomically (as it was when I finished the list without the headings), or do you think that the differences between the European and North American taxonomic sequences make that unhelpful? Cheers—GRM 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Caretaking? Oh, not at all ;-). But I found it just interesting to see this. Check out List of Lepidoptera which feed on Brassicas, very few geometrids in there - could well be that they aren't in a good evolutionary position to counter the chemical defenses compared to noctuids.

I thought about a taxonomical resorting too, but I was equivocal about it (most other of these lists were alphabetical, so I stuck to that). Lepidopteran taxonomy is not a stable thing. Maybe one could use superfamilies (which seem fairly stable and are resolved OK as regards phylogeny) as subsections and sort these taxonomically. I'm not sure. Would you think this is advantageous? I have no opinion on the matter, really, and would go with either approach. Dysmorodrepanis 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I only asked because I am fairly new to moths in general. I got interested in this list because my "new" house has a Black Ash tree in it and I wanted to know what to expect—unfortunately, the online database only has records from North America and few of those occur in Europe as well. Taxonomically, I am trying to learn the UK taxo sequence and family names; not sure we "do" superfamilies to any extent over here. My one reservation on resequencing is that UK and US taxo sequences are not the same (e.g. US list skippers after all the other butterflies and we put them at the beginning). Maybe we can just think about it and if one of us decides to "do it" the do so? GRM 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be cool with that. Dysmorodrepanis 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arhopala_eumolphus

Hi, was the verification tag for the female alone ? I would have few reasons to distrust the label information from a museum source like that. The only problem can be taxonomic changes, but the image has a subspecies and location noted. Shyamal 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's for the male/female bit. My literature has no indication on whether this particular critter is sexually dimorphic, and the common name puzzles me. Dysmorodrepanis 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The lycaenids commonly have sexual dimorphism. I checked this particular one here [2]. Incidentally, the image comes from Robert Nash, the curator of entomology at the Ulster museum. Shyamal 16:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Undo

Hi, You undid changes to Satyrinae by Carlosp420 but did not give any reason in article talk page or edit summary. User:Carlosp420 is a lepidopterist and member of WikiProject Lepidoptera. Could you please explain the reason for this? AshLin 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You got me at the wrong moment here ;-) I am presently moving the bits and pieces to the different tribe pages. I'll be done soon (a few hours) and then the content will be essentially the same, but it won't be this long and unwieldy list. Had to get some sleep though before I got to finish it. Some genera appear to be synonms now (their validity is apparently 1968 vintage); thhis will change, but be duly remarked. Check out Elymniini for how it'll look when it's all done. Dysmorodrepanis 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.AshLin 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Uria

Hello, please see [3]. Would you make more clear your statement about "the only known occurrence of the Alcini tribe outside the Atlantic"? Extant Uria are found outside the Atlantic. I'd like to understand what you meant to convey. Thanks, 68.121.161.71 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is more clear now. It is obvious when one looks at a globe. Dysmorodrepanis 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While I pointed this out at the Guillemot page, I see that you did edit identical text on the Uria page, which I had not seen before. At any rate, extant Uria are found "in the temperate to subtropical Pacific", if by this you mean Lompoc. So I'm still in the dark on your intended meaning, sorry. 68.121.161.71 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"At any rate, extant Uria are found "in the temperate to subtropical Pacific", if by this you mean Lompoc" - but, again, take a globe. The distribution of the Alcini is centered on the N Atlantic. U. aalge's Californian distribution is at the limits of its range. Global diversity of alcids is centered on the Alaska-California region OTOH. The fossil record from there is very dense. Had the Alcini radiated in the area, it is highly unlikely to have been missed.

In a nutshell,

• Alcini: Extant Pansubarctic to Panarctic and NE Pacific. Fossil record good Atlantic, very poor Pacific.
• Synthliboramphini: N Pacific to Mexico. No evidence from elsewhere.
• Cepphini: Extant Pansubarctic to Panarctic. Fossil record good Pacific.
• Brachyramphini: N Pacific to Mexico. No evidence from elsewhere.
• Aethiini: N Pacific to Mexico. No evidence from elsewhere.
• Fraterculini: Extant Pansubarctic to Panarctic. Fossil record good Pacific, poor Atlantic.

The Californian Uria are, unlike any other alcids, the ends and not near the center of their spatio-temporal distribution of their tribe.

(I was working mainly from non-US literature, and this generally has the S extent of U. aalge not very precisely delimited. I thought they only went as far as Oregon or so.)

See also discussion and references at Alcidae. Dysmorodrepanis 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm pleased with your additional cleanups. Thanks 68.123.46.213 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for notifying me! Dysmorodrepanis 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Morph and polymorphism merged

Have at it! I already added an example, though, and there are a couple on the Talk page that I could add.

My criterion so far has just been whether the examples are cool and show the breadth of meaning of "polymorphism", but we may have to give some attention to how the examples section is organized (it's time for sub-heads) and what fits in the organization. —JerryFriedman 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna finish some moth stuff and set to the polymorphism article later today. Dysmorodrepanis 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email, hope you received it. Shyamal 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, no :( Dysmorodrepanis 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked I suppose. Anyways, the subject was on the Drepanidae and I just thought you should consider communicating by email with User:Dclees who is an expert on the microlepidoptera. I am not sure if he logs in regularly on wp, but if you write to me, I can mail you his mail id. Or you could consider activating the WP mail on your page. Shyamal 03:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ediacaran biota additions

Hi, just wanted to thank you for your efforts on various Ediacaran organisms! They're much appreciated, as Wikipedia's coverage of these critters is remarkably poor!

I would just take issue with your confident designation of them all to kingdom animalia. This is rather POV and there's no consensus on their true home - better perhaps to use the eukaryote colour (#e0d0b0) for the taxobox and discuss affinities in the text?

Thanks a lot,,

Verisimilus T 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. I simply nicked the taxobox from Ediacaria which was pink. I don't usually do Eukayra incertae sedis, so I actually didn't know there was a dedicated color for these. If I had, I'd probably have used this too.

Also, I dropped 2 references as annotations into Ediacaran biota (at the very start of the References section) which contain material you might find interesting. It would need some significant rewrite or possibly a new section ("post-Ediacaran survival of Ediacara fauna" or such), and I just stumbled upon the refs and didn't seek out more information, so I just left them there for ppl who are more into this to work them over. One of the critters, Tullimonstrum gregarium, already has an article, but at present there is hardly any page that links to it. Suffice to say that "worms" and "fronds" are known from at least up to the Carboniferous. Dysmorodrepanis 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

moa-nalos

Have you seen this paper? Bradley C. Livezey (1996) A Phylogenetic Analysis of Geese and Swans (Anseriformes: Anserinae), Including Selected Fossil Species, Systematic Biology 45, No. 4. pp. 415-450 Seems that placing the moa-nalos with Anas might be wrong. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A pure morph analysis; anyone who does this on these is bound to get what he deserves ;-) (I'd bet one could force Chelychelynechen to group with turtles ;-P ). The actual situation is more difficult, as we don't have good mol data either, or rather, the data is partly good, but confounded six ways to Sunday. Dysmorodrepanis 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but I just downloaded it. I'm trying to decide which project to take on after bird is over, and was browsing a family treatment of the Anatidae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I dabbled ;-) with them some time ago, as obvious from the refs... the Livezey ones are among those that I have not seen yet, but IIRC a lot of their conclusions are off. Anatidae don't seem to lend themselves to systematics readily. But they might be missing citations for several of the changes taken around 2000, such as the breakup of the Cairinini.

It might be that some of the Hawai'i subfossils used here are misidents/misassignments. There is one study which does that, and it might be this one. Gonna check that out. Dysmorodrepanis 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor

"Come again? This is not Scansiopteryx. It's a basal oviraptorosaur (or oviraptorid?), and these have been around long enough that 90% of scientists agree that they're sister to either Avialae or Paraves. I'd call that "mainstream opinion"... ...such a statement might clarify things for people who haven't read any of the more recent papers on theropod systematics and evolution, but just one of the G-raptor media reports... "

Ok, but I would phrase this as a discussion of oviraptorosaurs as a whole. As it was, I believe it discussed the position relative to birds of Gigantoraptor specifically, which as far as I know was not included in the paper (correct me if i'm wrong about that). Saying it is mainstream opinion that Gigantoraptor is sister to birds is false. Saying it is mainstream opinion that oviraptorosaurs as a whole are sister to birds is true (unless you're Paul, or Osmolska, or Maryanska... is Barsbold in the avian ovi camp?). Dinoguy2 12:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, you're right. Barsbold? It's an interesting question; he was equivocal about it in 1983, but I have not read anything recent in which he actually takes a stand on that matter. He did believe in 1983 that his oviraptorosaurs were not close to Archie, but that's all he said. Mongolian is such a difficult language... ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wisdom Bird in Progress

That anonymous contributor on Strigogyps and Sophiornithidae got me to thinking... So, is Strigogyps a sophiornithid or a gruid? I can't find much information either way. As such, I've started work on reconstructing Sophiornis proper... Are the legs ok?--Mr Fink 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems correct... the reference situation is very entangled and anon made 1 mistake. OK, so here goers: Alvarenga & Höfling threw the ameghinornithids out of the phorusrhacids, and everyone (including, not except Peters 2007) who looked at them (Mayr twice - ref coming - & Peters) agreed. Strigogyps was traditionally placed with owls, and eventually with the sophiornithids (need ref). BUT rather than synonymize the ameghinornithids with the sophiornithids, Mayr 2005 (which I have not seen) seems to find S. sapea/Aenigmavis not to be an owl but an ameghinornithids.

So the taxonomic treatment of Mayr (2005) is to place the A+A genera into Strigogyps but the systematic treatment is vice versa - Strigogyps into ameghinornithids. Bit puzzling.

We need an article on Strigogyps which discusses the confused history of the taxa. Luckily Peters (2007) is free and has a list of synonyms. The hard thing is, Wikipedia needs to take a decision: Mayr (2005) or Peters (2007) - one, two or three genera, and 2 species or 3? I seriously don't knwo what to advocate.

As regards Sophiornis, I don't have much on this at all. I think there's a paper somewhere where there's a picture of its footbone where the toes attach and it might not have been X-toed. You might want to try Google Scholar, and if you find something, maybe I'll be able to get it. I don't know whether it could turn its head well and had an owl-face already... need to check whether I find anything on the skull being known. Otherwise, default to Berruornis (of which IIRC the head is not known :( )m then to Palaeobyas and Palaeotyto. The latter seem to suggest that the owlish bits of Sophiornis are closer to barn-owls than to true owls... ah, I need to borrow Lambrecht and Olson's books again to say more. The fact that the general placement of owls is unresolved (but seems to be "higher landbirds" and closer to diurnal raptors than DNA-DNA hybridization suggests) does not make things easier. I don't see good evidence recently anymore that ties them to nightjars. Maybe their ultimate ancestor was some mousey thing more or less roller-like in general habitus (but not in color)... but that's just a slightly-educated guess. Dysmorodrepanis 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Like a barn owl or a bay owl?--Mr Fink 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably more like a bay-owl, but even then, not very close.

Mikovsky says in J.Ornithol. 139: 247-261:

The tarsometatarsus is very stout, trochleae are open in distal view, and external hypotarsal ridge is blunt. In these features Palaeobyas

differs from the Tytoninae, and agrees with Sophiornis and Berruornis, which are placed in the family Sophiomithidae (Mourer-

Chauviré 1987, 1994). Hence, Palaeobyas should be removed from the Tytoninae, and placed in the Sophiornithidae.

He does not have a reputation for being overly reliable though. According to his his "Cenozoic Bords of the World 1", the material of Sophiornithidae seems to be limited to foot bones and some additional scraps; nothing of cranial elements is mentioned. If this is correct, an accurate reporduction is impossible save by chance, and even then nobody could tell it's accurate :( Dysmorodrepanis 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now fixed the other pages where it was mentioned. Reinstated the Ameghinornithidae on the Fossil birds page and moved them under Salmilidae where they are at least not totally wrong.

As a side note, how lucky we are that it's an European taxon! Any Gondwanan "gruiform" (and that includes phorusrhacids) is presently up for splits... Dysmorodrepanis 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In need of your opinion

Hi. Could you please give your opinion concerning this matter: Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest. (Related to this one: Talk:Rodrigues (island)#Soapbox)

Thanks in advance. Aeons | Talk 07:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tree Warbler

Hi, I've finally got round to dealing with the referencing issues in this article which you raised earlier in the year. Can you look at it and let me know if you're comfortable with the outcome? I didn't include the article in the Auk in the taxonomy paragraph, as I didn't think it was that relevant to the specific point under discussion, but it does look interesting and should be definitely mentioned in the article as an example of research on the genus. SP-KP 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Honeyeater

Just to let you know (to avodid duplicating or losing efforts) that I'm working on a new list of honeyeaters for the article. the current species list misses well over half the species and has some genera missing too. If you want to have a look it is at User:Sabine's Sunbird/making a point. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good! (I was pondering to do it myself yesterday...) Dysmorodrepanis 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not using authoritative source for your list of Apis species

Hi. I'm sorry to get technical about this, but Engel's revision is the definitve work on honey bee CLASSIFICATION. Arias & Sheppard's paper assumed that the named taxa they examined were valid, but they are not, and no one has yet published a newer classification refuting Engel. Furthermore, it is not a paper on classification (taxonomy), but on taxon relationships (phylogeny); it is true they argue in the discussion that nuluensis and nigrocincta should be categorized as species, but no one has yet published such a nomenclatural act. They are ARGUING that genetic divergence is enough to make something a species, but the taxonomic community has yet to agree with this premise. There is no established "cutoff" for the genetic divergence of a species from a subspecies. For the time being, these taxa are all subspecies. Until such a publication raising these taxa to species status appears, the WP article should reflect the accepted classification, otherwise it constitutes "original research". There is nothing wrong with mentioning that Arias & Sheppard believe that these subspecies deserve species status, but the WP article should portray this dispute accurately. Dyanega 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You still accept paraphyletic taxa in Insects? Phew... How does Engel refute McEvoy & Underwood (1988), Kirchner et al. (1996), Otis (1996) for laboriosa and Koeniger et al. (1996) for nuluensis? What makes Engele's classification authoritative? What species concept allows for highly assortative mating and persistent lack of gene flow in species? Dysmorodrepanis 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between taxonomy and phylogeny; it is especially messy when molecular studies try to designate arbitrary levels of genetic differentiation that constitute "species". What a molecular phylogeneticist wishes to call a "species" and what a taxonomist is willing to designate a "species" versus a "subspecies" are, in the case of Apis, different things. That particular issue can be summed up very simply: molecular phylogenetics DOES NOT allow for the category "subspecies" (this is the old "Phylogenetic Species Concept" issue), but taxonomy DOES. Moreover, in terms of "refuting" them, McEvoy, Underwood, Kirchner, Otis, Arias, and Sheppard are NOT taxonomists - there is nothing to "refute", in that sense. As long as the taxa in question are "clades", then it is up the the taxonomists whether to rank those clades as species or subspecies - and Engel chose subspecies for binghami, laboriosa, and nuluensis. If any of them (or anyone else) publishes a taxonomic revision of the genus Apis, THEN we can change the WP entries accordingly. For the time being, Engel's is the most recent revision of the genus, and whether the molecular phylogeneticists agree with it or not, it stands until someone else publishes a newer revision. Changing the classification in WP based on your agreement with Arias & Sheppard's arguments is "original research" on your part (you will also PLEASE note that I have included, in the appropriate spots, Arias & Sheppard's arguments for species status). Note that I am NOT disagreeing with their interpretation, either - laboriosa and nuluensis may both very well be a good species, for example (especially the latter, which is almost certainly a good species, since it can be found sympatrically with cerana!) - but whether or not I agree or disagree, the WP taxonomic hierarchy should reflect the accepted taxonomy of the group. The jury is out on whether taxonomists are going to accept the premise that genetic differentiation is enough, by itself, to make something a species. ESPECIALLY when taxonomy has the category of "subspecies" that can be (and is often) used when there are geographically distinct populations which are presumed capable of interbreeding even if they presently do not (i.e., with a "persistent lack of gene flow" - the species concept that allows for this is the BSC). Maybe it's not true in ornithology, as you say, but insect taxonomists (other than lepidopterists) at least seem to prefer that species have actual visible characteristics that reliably separate them - you can't do a gene sequence on a 200-year-old pinned museum specimen, after all. Dyanega 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing birds and other things

• Go ahead. I have also this list about generic science topics - Skysmith 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Polbot

Have you seen the bird stubs this bot has been creating? It's made a bunch of stubs of your Malagasy warblers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah. Need to go over these. I think about joining FlickrLickr as an evaluator, to get the CC-2.0-BY-SA pics from Flickr Bird Guide up on the Commons, now that the number of bird articles lacking pictures is about to explode... Dysmorodrepanis 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Short-toed Treecreeper

Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I was assessing some previously unassessed bird articles tonight, and discovered this weirdness in the Short-toed Treecreeper article. I'm not sure how to fix it, because I'm assuming you added the bit about the close relationship to North America's Brown Creeper based on the article you cite (which I don't have access to). However, the next sentence no longer makes any sense, since the two don't occupy the same continent. (Here's the diff file, so you can see where the problem is.) I don't want to just revert it, because obviously you put some work into finding the reference, but I'm wondering—is the Common Treecreeper not closely related? Would you mind taking a look to see if you can sort it out? Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh! I'd never have guessed that—which is why, I suppose, molecular research is turning so many things on their heads... Turns out we humans aren't so good at "guessing" after all! :) MeegsC | Talk 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Straw_Poll

This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Beaked whale photo

Hi Dysmorodrepanis, I'm out of town right now so it will take me at least a week to get the picture scanned. I think what I'll do is scan it at the highest resolution I can and e-mail it to you; you can then reduce the resolution as needed. Please let me know if this will be a problem. Sounds like a good book :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Cool! Let me know when you're back. All the best! Dysmorodrepanis 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

painted lady

Hi. The photo Image:Painted Lady - Vanessa cardui - large.JPG was taken in England. I've added that to the image description, but I'm not sure how to change the taxobox at Painted Lady so I'll leave that part to you :) -- Tarquin 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)