Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rabo3 (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 30 December 2011 (→‎Intermediate solution: wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Birds
General information
Main project page talk
Naming and capitalization
 → Article requests
 → Spoken Article requests talk
 → Photo requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project portal talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Featured topics talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Country lists talk
Bird articles by size talk
Hot articles talk
Popular pages talk
Task forces
Domestic pigeon task force talk
Poultry task force talk
edit · changes

Birds for identification (134)

The juveniles have a blackish bill, and the mask is smaller, less distinct. Here the mask appears fully developed. Two races, the nominate, and jagoensis are the races usually implicated in the various introductions outside of their natural range. Race jagoensis is the paler, less barred ventrally, and without the usually evident pinkish belly patch of most other races (including the nominate). My take is that this is an adult jagoensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was puzzled because the unreferenced description in the Wiki article says it has "reddish stripe along the centre of the belly". Perhaps, this is for only one of the subspecies? 12:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There are about 17 usually recognized races. Most have varying degrees of pinkness/redness ventrally, some a diffuse more extensive wash over the entire venter, some localized to a belly patch. A few races don't have any redness ventrally, however, most do.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: image description enhanced on Commons and shown in gallery on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, an adult bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you guessed it. This is a juvenile alba yarrellii.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: image description enhanced on Commons and shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a Red-billed Hornbill. MeegsC | Talk 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Tockus erythrorhynchus -Gambia -nest -8.jpg on Commons. Shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The birds in Africa belong to the nominate subspecies rudis. MeegsC | Talk 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File details of Pied Kingfisher enhanced. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Brown Babbler. MeegsC | Talk 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Turdoides plebejus -Gambia-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this one's a Grey-headed Gull. MeegsC | Talk 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus -Gambia -flying-8.jpg on Commons. File details amended. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 22:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-tailed Glossy Starling. MeegsC | Talk 21:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now at File:Lamprotornis caudatus -Gambia-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. A Cattle Egret. MeegsC | Talk 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Bubulcus ibis -Gambia -frog in beak-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (135)

Well, something in the back of my mind tells me to check immature plumages of H. vocifer, which I will do tonight.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is what I figured. Third-year Haliaeetus vocifer.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File details on Commons enhanced. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. The powder-blue mantle separates it from malimbica. The location excludes senegaloides. The blackish postocular wedge makes it race cyanoleuca. The incipient duskiness of the lower mandible makes it a young adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Orange-crowned Warbler is now Oreothlypis celata. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, I would really need to search the database of the zoo for some of these. I can't find one. Ornika, presuming it is a place, which is not sure, gives me zilch. In any case, this particular owl is doable - Pulsatrix perspicillata. The one on the right is what is called in late mesoptile plumage - more or less corresponds to late, late juvenile/subadult.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Ornika website, which indicates that it is an annual bird show of some sort in Bad Schönborn, Germany. The date of the photographs would show that the photographer visited there on 1 Nov 2011, the last day of the show. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the entire site (all the links) - no list of the owl taxa involved in the show. It seems more a promotion site for the show itself rather than any sort of presentation of the birds from a scientific standpoint. No help.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spectacled Owl moved to File:Pulsatrix perspicillata -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Show in gallery on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It either is, or is related (some of these taxa are slowly being peeled off as good species) to Athene noctua.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little Owl moved to File:Athene noctua -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The genus constitutes no problem, it is a Glaucidium. I really would need a leg-up from the database on this one - many resemble each other. I see this more a new world Glaucidium, than an old world one.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is Eurasian Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum; see here (not all of the photos there are from Ornika). The subspecies in the photographs is not specified. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Glaucidium passerinum -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt about the genus, or the species. Aegolius funereus. On gross morphology I tend to think it the nearctic race richardsoni.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The poster says that they have a feature on the Northern Tundra. Boreal Owl moved to File:Aegolius funereus -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black-crowned Night Heron. Maias (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Bendž|Ť 08:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the copyright licence for this image? Not uploaded to Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look like that, so I have indicated this possibility in the image description on commons. If anyone has any sourced information on the pair-bonding or greeting behaviour of Great Egrets, it would be an interesting addition to the en Wiki aritle. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four articles (one unreviewed) at GAN

Greater Scaup is at GAN and unreviewed. I have edited it otherwise I'd be tempted to review it myself....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, Cas. Titchwell Marsh is now through GA, I'd be grateful for any suggestions or copy-editing before it goes to FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. I'll have a second look at yours again soonish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually at FAC now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update

Several articles for folks to look at now. 4 at FAC....all suggestions welcomed I'm sure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (136)

Black Kite, very worn tail.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite moved to File:Milvus migrans -India -flying-8 (1).jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Race suratensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not juvenile, second summer I'd say, ssp L. a. argenteus Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Whoops, this is a duplicate of File:Larus argentatus -Eastbourne, East Sussex, England-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adult basic (non-breeding). MeegsC | Talk 17:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons file details enhanced. Selected for the infobox on en Wiki species article. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks right to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Myiarchus magnirostris.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Galapagos Flycatcher moved to File:Myiarchus magnirostris -near Darwin Lake, Isabela, Galapagos, Ecuador-8.jpg on Commons. Is it possible to identify this as a male or a female. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not from a photo. There is some distinction possible that is age-related (this is an adult) because the wing coverts tend to be rufous-tipped in juveniles.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox on the species page shows two birds, one is greyish and one is brownish. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that it is a question of the "freshness" of the plumage, the browner one being fresher. They are both the same species, and they are both adult. There are also probably some differences due to the not equal photography techniques, the lighting, and possibly different adjustments made for the saturation in post-processing - the greyer one looks to have the ventral yellow particularly washed out. However, I can not exclude the possibility that though the species is considered monotypic, that there might not be slight differences of these birds as they are present on the single islands in the Galapagos.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Since the infobox is not designed to illustrate this sort of colour variation or possible artefact, I have replace the two images in the species page infobox with a cropped version of Bird 1367. Snowman (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question more suited to somebody familiar with the convoluted meanders of domestic poultry. Personally, I would not know where to start.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, it is an adult race anatum. There seems to be some confusion as to stated ranges of the various races in NA. Both tundrius and anatum range in Nova Scotia, and both winter farther south in the New World. Morphologically adult tundrius have a cleaner breast and though they do have a very broad moustachial, it does not coalesce totally into the helmet that we see in this bird, typical of anatum.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peregrine Falcon, subspecies details added to Commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy for consideration

We currently have a confusing situation where the Wallcreeper is in its own family on its species page but also with the nuthatches on the page Sittidae. Are there many modern treatments that support this lumping? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a judgment call. It has been considered a subfamily under Sittidae, however, most things point to it being sufficiently different to merit its own family (behavior, morphology, etc.). The arguments for it being a family, in only my opinion, would seem well posited. An aside. It would seem that other bird groups of this general lineage have constituted phylogenetic conundrums. There is the problem of the phylogenetic relations of genus Salpornis, now generally associated to Certhiidae, but by many more closely related to Tichodromidae.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the Ground Tit had been found yet another home. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A total brain fart. You saw my post before I realized the total inanity of my mentioning the Ground Tit, which has nothing to do with the present discussion.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion back in January. I thought I had fixed all the Wallcreeper-sits-in-Sittidae problems - are there some left? SP-KP (talk) Update: I removed Tichodroma from the list of genera. Was that the only thing that was wrong, or are there other things that need fixing? (other than a merge of Sitta and Sittidae, which I had flagged up, but the flag subsequently got removed for staleness) SP-KP (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Update again: I've reinstated the merge request. SP-KP (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can uncontroversially be merged. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Help please

I'm in the middle of reviewing Greater Scaup at GAN, but I'm going away for a few days, and unlikely to be able to continue. It's the editor's first attempt, so I'd like to keep things moving. Two requests

  • The taxonomy section was there before Hayden started, and he cannot sourced the two sentences regarding relationship with Lesser and Tufted Duck, and the fossil scaup sp. Can anyone help?
  • Is there a better link for the feather tract than scapular?

If you see anything else that could be improved, feel free. Thanks in advance, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In re: scapular. There is only one manner to not get sucked into all of the cross-meanings if you wish to consider a feather tract. That way is obligatorily the use of the specific scientific name for the structure(s). If considering only the feather tract(s) that would involve also the scapular contour feathers, you have to use the term pteryla alaris (pl. pterylae). I don't know if this particular feature of bird anatomy has been treated on the wiki. If it has not, then someone should provide a section on bird pterylography wherein the various pterylae are defined.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that using the Latin expression is the only way to achieve clarity. As far as I am aware, in human anatomy there is always an English version for Latin names. The word "scapular" does not appear on the "Feather" article. It would be better if the question avoided jargon like "feather tract". I have no idea what the question is referring to. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. If anything, it would be better to refer to a diagram of the external morphology of a feathered bird, and in this context, i.e., in the context of a normal birder scapular (or shoulder) means something. There is no strict topographical homology of the scapular blade (of mammals) and what is the analogue in birds which is a rather thin bone projecting back under the mantle and onto the back of the bird. From just the topographical viewpoint the position of the human scapula is more analogous for position to the humerocoracoid articulation in birds. This is in my viewpoint just too much precise detail for the scope of the wiki vis-a-vis the information that might be normally sought by the casual investigators of birds.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that detailed comparative anatomy and detailed bird anatomy are well within the scope of the Wiki, providing the information is verifiable and reliable. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the proper context, but here we seem to have been dealing with a rather more generalized discussion about Greater Scaup. In this more restricted context, it would serve as a distraction.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was referring to the Wiki in general. Snowman (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at some of the text of the article and I think that there are too many ambiguities and some unusual gamma for me to unscramble the text without reading the references. I think that this needs a lot of work to get it to GA. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? Snowman, what do you mean by "unusual gamma" in your comment? Can you clarify please? MeegsC | Talk 15:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, a typo. Should have said "grammar". Snowman (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at the article and giving the nominator a few things to do while the reviewer is away for a few days. I think that the reviewer will need to be proactive and has a lot of work to do here. I think that the new user has done well to get the article to about "B" class.Snowman (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added teh material about its closest relations - they came from a phylogeny paper on Aythini. Will see what has happened. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Need Of Revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanahjampea_Blue_Flycatcher

The reason is that the title caption contemplates the split species Tanahjampea Blue Flycatcher, and therefore the split taxonomy is erroneous - should be Cyornis djampeanus, also known as the Sulawesi Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis omissus djampeanus). The common name in the taxbox also needs looking at - Blue Flycatcher, not Blue-flycatcher. If wishing to specify the split species djampeanus in the taxbox the citation is Cyornis djampeanus (E. Hartert, 1896).Steve Pryor (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no corresponding page for Sulawesi Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis omissus). Also if we are using the IOC indications for the English Common Names, then all of the Cyornis stubs need to be revised to carry the form "Blue Flycatcher", and no longer Blue-flycatcher.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Psittacula paper

Kundu S; C.G. Jones, R.P. Prys-Jones, J.J. Groombridge (2012). "The evolution of the Indian Ocean parrots (Psittaciformes): Extinction, adaptive radiation and eustacy". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 62: 296–305. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.025. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 72 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - rather interesting but odd in its usage of P. calthorpe (Layard's Parakeet) rather than P. calthropae. Or has Wikipedia got it wrong ? Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In re: calthorp/calthropae. No, it is not the wiki that has it wrong. The wiki is following the prevailing usage as proposed by Zoonomen. This is one of those questions involving prevailing usage, the opinable original intention of the first namer, subsequent spellings, and other considerations as well. The point of contention is well explained on Zoonomen in the link for this taxon. It is essentially a position taken on a point of order, and the contention of zoonomen is not that calthorp might not be right, but that until such time as somebody actually publishes an exhaustive examination of the entire question and from this argumentation makes a sound proposal, one way or the other, that the position of zoonomen is to call it calthropae.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The known spelling variants including those discussed on Zoonomen do not include calthorpe and coming from an NHM curator one would expect there must be more to this spelling. Shyamal (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exception appreciated, and you are right! I think I will download the paper, and see if he has an e-mail. I will just ask him. Alternatively, I am about to order this book: http://www.avespress.com/books/
It could have further information. However, I seem to recall the name of this corresponding author from other discussions on the fine points of taxonomy, and maybe he would be best to contact: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/staff-directory/zoology/r-prys-jones/index.htmlSteve Pryor (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English name synonym formatting

I've just created redirects for all the English name synonyms of Rufous-tailed Robin and included them all in the first paragraph as I believe we're supposed to as per WP:MOS. The end result looks horrible ... does anyone have any ideas for a better way of including them in the article? SP-KP (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, you shouldn't self-reference articles, which means none of those alternate names should be wikilinked. In addition, I think it's perfectly acceptable to only list the generally recognized alternate names (i.e. those found in field guides, etc.) in the lead paragraph. Other lesser-known alternate names (regional, archaic, etc.) can be put into another paragraph lower down in the article. MeegsC | Talk 17:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, I'm an idiot - I added the wikilinks as a shortcut to checking which names were already present as redirects and forgot to undo them. Having read the guidance on redirects in a bit more detail I think your suggestion is a good one, and that's what I'll do, although it should still be in the lead section. SP-KP (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do as MeegsC does, maybe the few most common names in lead and then the others in the taxonomy and naming section below Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked pages

The following are locked (IOC changes):

Resolved

Shyamal (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Falcon

This is in danger of losing its FA status. A couple of us have had a go at the text, but the references are a problem in that many are lacking page numbers. If you can fix the any of these, please help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious think to do is notify the editors who worked on it and got it to FA. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, several of the main contributors appear not to be active now. The others are likely to read this page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

navbox for Threskiornithidae

I am thinking about making a navobox for the family Threskiornithidae, because the American White Ibis is at FAC. Is the genus and species listing on the Wiki family page out-of-date or controversial? Snowman (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date if we are intentioned on following the IOC. I also wonder which authority is being followed when I see Thaumatibis. By the way, 35 species. My guess is somebody did not add the extinct Reunion Ibis to the total after adding it to the list.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If intending to conform to the IOC: African Sacred Ibis (Threskiornis aethiopicus); Malagasy Sacred Ibis (Threskiornis bernieri); †Reunion Ibis (Threskiornis solitarius); Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis moluccus); Red-naped Ibis (Pseudibis papillosa); Giant Ibis (Pseudibis gigantea); Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon); Sao Tome Ibis (Bostrychia bocagei); Bare-faced Ibis (Phimosus infuscatus); Madagascar Ibis (Lophotibis cristata); Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia).Steve Pryor (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please confirm spelling of Threskiornis molucca or Threskiornis moluccus. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christidis & Boles (2008, p.113) discuss this and go for molucca. Maias (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the rationale of the C & B, but can not read: David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.114.), because I don't have the paper. I would expect, however, that the David & Gosselin, published subsequent to the C & B, has very valid reasons for perorating "moluccus".Steve Pryor (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Jamaican Ibis or Clubbed-wing Ibis (Xenicibis xympithecus)? Where does this go in the list? Snowman (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It went extinct too far back, more than 10,000 years ago. By the way, I am in favor of bird lists that list all taxa, extinct, and extant, but not at this stage of the game. I am not in favor of adding piecemeal extinct species, but rather rolling out a list that has all definable good taxa after somebody does a gargantuan review, and it would be gargantuan since a lot of these extinct taxa are described only in very obscure papers and do not get out generally speaking into mainstream ornithology. By the way, about to be published: http://www.nhbs.com/extinct_birds_tefno_181964.htmlSteve Pryor (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here for a good summary. There is strong evidence spoonbills are nested within old world ibises and teh new world ibises are the outgroup. I was reading about this the other day when buffing some spoonbill articles. The evidence looks convincing to me but then I am a layperson. I'd be keen to hear from Kim, Sabines Sunbird and others about their views.Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the introduction of that website; "This set of web pages contains a guess at what the avian part of the tree of life might look like." Is this WP:RS? Snowman (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't proposing using the website itself, but it does mention three peer-reviewed articles which support various bits of the phylogeny laid out if you read it. Hence the best thing would be to buff the family article and review all the evidence and compare with IOC, AOU, C&B etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Snowman's question about the website, I'd look at it as a one man Wikipedia. You wouldn't want to cite it but it is a good place to get a handle on the most up to date stuff and links to the journal articles that he uses. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki does not even have a page on Eudociminae yet. Using a 2010 reference, the Wiki family page says; "... and hence casts doubt on the arrangement of the family into ibis and spoonbill subfamilies[5]". The navbox reflects the state of the Wiki articles. If the Wiki articles are updated to reflect any alternative and current widely accepted taxonomy, then I would definitely need to update the navbox to reflect the updated Wiki. Until then, I might just add "Traditional listing" at the head of the navbox, as has been put in some other navboxes. Is this a reasonable option at this juncture? Snowman (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess traditional is easiest for the time being. I note their are several studies indicating the new arrangement. I have read Chesser 2010, but Krattinger 2010 is a thesis which I haven't access to. I have emailed the author to ask for a copy to read. (see here and scan down to "Krattinger". I am warming to ibises as I see so many tame ones around Sydney. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox now rolled out. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burung Matamerah

Resolved

We seem to have accidentally acquired a Malay version of the Asian Glossy Starling page which will need to be deleted. Maias (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (137)

Juveniles of all races have "frosting" on the covert feathers and the tips of the primaries up to six months of age, after which they lose the feature and appear as do the adults.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a sub-adult? Snowman (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not with the white tips that Steve mentioned. In fact, I'mnot aware of any easily-discernable plumages of Osprey other than juv. and adult. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With good reason. It is not a Kite. First glance impression tells me to look at plumages of Prairie Falcon. Will do so with more time.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Prairie Falcon, Saker is another possibility. I'm afraid I'm not up on telling these two apart. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For captive birds there is the possibility of a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Prairie Falcon. Separated from Saker by, among other things, the typically dark axillaries, and underwing coverts.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prairie Falcon moved to File:Falco mexicanus -Avian Conservation Center, near Charleston, South Carolina, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox image on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not hybrids. They look like slightly grubby adult American White Ibises. MeegsC | Talk 18:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked pages II

  • Looks like both the IOC and the SACC committee of the AOU have ruled on this species. The IOC English name is Urrao Antpitta, and we have no other bird species using the scientific name as the lead in. Regarding the scientific name, the South American Committee of the AOU currently standardizes on Grallaria urraoensis. My preference is to standardize with SACC (and IOC).

SACC reasoning from web site: 14c. A new species of Grallaria has been described from Colombia in two separate papers with competing names: Grallaria fenwickorum (Barrera et al. 2010) and Grallaria urraoensis (Carantón-Ayala, D, & K. Certuche-Cubillos 2010). SACC proposal passed to recognize new species. SACC proposal passed to use urraoensis as the name for the new species.

Further evidence: Recommendation by majority: Because of the problems with the description by Barrera et al. and, in particular, the failure to comply with the requirements of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the name ‘fenwickorum’ is not available. This situation is not problematic because there is already another name available for this bird. Therefore, I recommend the committee to adopt the scientific name proposed by Carantón & Certuche for the new species: Grallaria urraoensis.

Regarding the English Name both Barrera et al. and Carantón & Certuche proposed English names based on the corresponding scientific names: Fenwick’s Antpitta and Urrao Antpitta. The former may not be appropriate given the invalidity of the name 'fenwickorum'. Urrao Antpitta has the advantage of being parallel to the scientific, which will facilitate communication between people that use English names and people that use Latin names, and also highlights the only known area of occurrence of the species, may promote additional local conservation efforts.

Alternate minority argument(but supports move of english name):Watching all of this from the sidelines in the end it appeared to me that both camps in this debate had not necessarily acted in the most intelligent ways. All that aside one aspect that concerns me is the inherent politicization of the issue, so much so that a vote here by this committee is perhaps seen from the public as taking a political stand of sorts. I really regret that this is going on. As much as we are all trying to be unbiased and unemotional in this issue, the reality is that it is naturally emotional at this point, to some extent, and probably more than any one of us would like it to be. I will keep it brief because all that there is to say about this topic has been said already. The description of fenwickorum is not the best, and is clumsy and leaves much to be desired but in my consideration the name is available. I think an opinion from the ICZN would be good here, to see if availability is indeed true for this name. I think it is, and as such the name has priority and priority does trump everything to paraphrase Kevin. Having said that, the English name Urrao Antpitta would be good to use for various reasons, including trying to come to some balance in this unfortunate situation.

The SACC (don't know about the IOC) has taken some heat for "choosing sides" in this quite nasty disagreement. I think Wikipedia might do well to stay out of the fray until such time as greater agreement is reached. MeegsC | Talk 19:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a move proposal for the name change to Grallaria fenwickorum, and I think any new change should also go through this process, given the controversy (which those of us who worked on the introduction of the article wanted to do more than hint at).
My former reasons for preferring Grallaria fenwickorum are now invalid, and I don't think that name keeps us out of the fray. I'm almost tempted to suggest a neutral title along the lines Snowman suggested before—maybe "Colombian antpitta described in 2010" or some such. Aside from that sort of thing, we have two scientific names and three common names to choose from. As they say at the SACC, proposal needed.
Meegs, where could I see that heat the IOC has taken? Is it anything the article needs? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, I don't know about the IOC. I have several friends on the SACC, (and others in various neotropical communities and organizations) and have just heard "through the grapevine" as it were. MeegsC | Talk 23:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If IOC calls the bird Urrao Antipitta (and it does, see http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-antbirds.html), then why is this up for discussion? The page should be called Urrao Antpitta. Case closed. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meegs, thanks for answering the question I meant to ask as well as the one I did ask. :-)
Natureguy, I don't think it's quite "case closed"—we did leave ourselves the option of differing from the IOC when there was good reason, and given the controversy, this might be such a time. On the other hand, I like your suggestion because it avoids the technical question about valid types and the possibility that we'd have to change the article if the ICZN rules on the scientific name (as well liking the consistency with our policy). I suppose we would have to change it if a different consensus on the common name appears, but at the moment I don't know of any sign of such a consensus. Not that I would, I suppose. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice mess. I think that the SACC is incorrect. I read the Grallaria fenwickorum article, and I think there is nothing wrong with it as far as the code goes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I think that the question is not so much the taxonomical probity of the epithet. I read a lot about this two or three years ago, and there were many questions raised about the two investigators involved with the description as fenwickorum. Notably, there was a question of the proprietary rights to the knowledge accumulated by them, under contract at the time with ProAves Colombia, and from which they deliberately concealed the discovery for their own personal edification, and then, there was a question of their collecting specimens for which they had no permits from Colombian authorities. Given these conditions, I can personally see that to allow them to have a pass on the entire situation could possibly stimulate others to act as "loose cannons" for their own personal aggrandizement. For many reasons, good ecological reasons, scientific investigations, especially regarding species the demographics of which is unknown, must be controlled.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, except that the guys who deliberately concealed were the not the ones that named it fenwickorum; that at was the ProAves name. MeegsC | Talk 14:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and went through the entire convoluted affair anew. The entire thing should have been accomodated by an airing of mutual grievances between the first-namers (intending the real ones, Caranton & Certuche), and ProAves, and this in spite of what I consider ProAve's most founded objection, that of deliberately collecting and killing one specimen, and (sic) another by mistake. Yes, you are right, fenwickorum was ProAves idea, and I do remember that when I first read about this sordid affair that I was in favor of urraoensis, not fenwickorum. The position of the SACC should now be the final nail in the coffin as far as the naming of the taxon, and the authorship of the discovery. ProAves, an enormous force for the good of bird conservation in Colombia, comes out with egg on their face. They would be best advised in the future to review any and all out-contracted work that they allow on their bird reserves. People must know what is expected of them, and in this case the contracts appear to have left much to the imagination.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but the CODE does not have to say ANYTHING about the ethics concerning how the individual was collected and the dirty games played other than to not to name a bird knowingly that someone else is doing that (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&booksection=appendixA). And as such, we cannot bend the rules about naming in order to rectify foul play. And based on what you write here,if fenwickorum was ProAves idea, it should affect the authorship, not the species name. They seem to realize that already when they write" However, in this instance, the authors and Fundación ProAves de Colombia have agreed that it would not be appropriate for Fundación ProAves de Colombia to be treated as an author of the name fenwickorum for purposes of the Code." As far as I am concerned, that settles it. Unless there are good reasons concerning inappropriate application of the CODE, the name is valid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading more about the case, if anything, both sides violated some ethical rules. Not that it changes anything about priority. The flimsy reasons used by the SACC won't hold up at the ICZN as a photograph is valid holotype. Maybe both sides could agree to retract their publications while admitting their ethics violations after which they together, in order of actual contributions, write a new article and get it published in an independent journal, such as Condor. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we take this discussion to the iczn discussion list. I have the feeling it does not get settled until the commissioners themselves have weighted in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that following IOC, as WikiProject Birds has decided to do, is the best way to go. It should indemnify wikipedia of any bias. IF IOC decides to change, then so can we. Why make this more complicated than it is? (On a related note, wikipedia seemed to have no problem adopting the name "Gunnison Grouse", which is a politically charged name used by no taxonomic authorities in North America. Why is this different?) Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We have chosen to use the IOC as the end-all source for English names, with caveat that we can divert is needed (See African Grey Parrot for an example).
  2. We have NOT chosen to use the IOC as the end-all source for taxonomy.
  3. The issue at hand is a nomenclatorial issue, namely what name is the valid name for the valid species. The species by itself is valid. The IOC acknoledges so much when the state that "Newly described species with unsettled nomenclature and propriety".
  4. The SACC choice of the name is based on a lot of politics, conflict of interest and questionable interpretation of the information.
  5. We could decide that we accept the IOC English name regardless of the scientific name, and go with that.
  6. However, we cannot decide at this stage which scientific name to use because of the unresolved holotype discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if we use a common name as the title of the article as usual, we don't have to decide which scientific name to go with. We can give both in the lead sentence.
Incidentally, I don't know enough about the ICZN to comment on the SACC's decision, but otherwise I completely agree that there's plenty of blame to go around. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few things should be noted:
1) Whether the ICZN ethical code was breached is purely an ethical matter. It is only a recommendation and a scientific description can't be invalidated because of it.
2) You can't just retract a scientific description. If it fulfills the ICZN requirements it is valid, regardless of later opinion and wishes of the author. This compares to the widespread (in earlier decades) attemps of unjustified emendations by original author of scientific name; after they realized they made some mistake in the original description.
3) If we assumed this was somehow possible, The Condor has already been pulled into this mess and another venue would probably be recommendable. The problem is that this matter ended up being so widely discussed that you would be hard pressed to find any relevant journal where the usual editors have not already been involved somehow, or are close acquaintances of people that have been involved. Regardless of what other people might think is right, the pro fenwickorum camp (only talking about the overall ethical behavior, not judgement of validity of the description) is a minority among Neotropical ornithologists.
4) Overall the SACC hasn't taken much heat for "choosing sides", at least not among Neotropical ornithologists. Disregarding people directly or indirectly associated with ProAves, the relatively few people that have voiced their strong discontent are birders with little Neotropical experiance. Wrong or right, their opinion just doesn't carry a lot of weight among pro Neotropical ornithologists; just like my opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight at the auto mechanic just because I changed the tire a few times. In any case SACC, or at least several of the members, were pulled into this: First Cadena, then Stiles, and finally Remsen (incl. the older ABC article that included a number of lies that were never retracted). Since this is a large percentage of the SACC membership with major knowledge of Colombian birds, in hindsight their best choice might have been to only choose an English name, while including both the proposed scientific names in the list. It would be difficult to justify not listing anything. As already said below, I'm not entirely convinced the arguments that are supposed to invalidate fenwickorum hold. • Rabo³ • 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate solution

I propose we rename the species to Grallaria spec for the time being, with an explanation of the unresolved discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the last half of my final comment on Talk:Grallaria fenwickorum#Proposed move. Evidently I was wrong in the assumption that the scientific name was essentially resolved (this was before some of the issues were revealed, in early 2011), but Grallaria spec could cover several taxa; even more than "Newly discovered antpitta in Colombia" suggested by snowman back in 2010. If this ends up being an exception from the general policy of following IOC for Eng. names (Urrao Antpitta), I would suggest we use the Eng. name proposed by BirdLife International (Antioquia Antpitta). Both the Urrao side and Fenwick's side have made some choices that were less than fortunate, and the only entirely uninvolved group that has made a choice is BirdLife International = Antioquia Antpitta. As you acknowledge in the above, we do not have any fixed rules on scientific names, and no one suggested the page should be moved to Grallaria urraoensis. Any discussion about what scientific name is correct is irrelevant to the article name, though it deserves a mention in the article text – it is already briefly mentioned in the lead. (Can't say I'm entirely convinced about the arguments used to supposedly invalidate the name G. fenwickorum, although few people match Claramunt when it comes to knowledge about the ICZN code.) • Rabo³ • 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think using the BirdLife International name, Antioquia Antpitta, might indeed be the best solution.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

big grey bird of prey in virginia?

My Mom saw it on the ground. Said it was huge and grey. A "hawk". Said not a crow or the like. Not black.TCO (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a male Northern Harrier? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Blackbird

A bit of a problem may be arising here. A "new" editor reinstated edits made by an anon previously which added unsourced material and removed an existing ref from this FA. I reverted the edits again, and left this message. I'm hoping that this can be resolved amicably, but I'd be grateful if someone uninvolved could keep a watching brief on this dispute. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=468606337"