Talk:Dodo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

comment

I've found a large text on the net which, in some aspects, contains much more exact facts than the current wikipedia article (including exactly quoted diaries of the captains of the ships arriving to Mauritius at the time the Dodo lived). Some "thruths" from the wikipedia article then appear as oversimplifications, at best. I give the link to the English text here, somebody with the knowledge of French can take a look at the rest of the whole site:

http://www.palli.ch/~kapeskreyol/dodo/c32.php

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.93.28 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Dodo Tree

It was discovered that the dodos ate the seeds of the tree, and only by passing through the digestive tract of the dodo did the seeds become active and start to grow.

How was this discovered? I'm not saying I don't believe it, I'm just saying I think it would be interesting trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 September 2001 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "deduced" or something like that. The web site where I found the information didn't specify, either. --Pinkunicorn

While dodos may have eaten "dodo tree" fruits, there is no solid evidence they did. Nor is there solid evidence that the dodo was absolutely required for seed germination. You can read more in another discussion here: Talk:Dodo#Calvaria_Tree, or read this: The Widespread Misconception that the Tambalacoque or Calvaria Tree Absolutely Required the Dodo Bird for its Seeds to Germinate. Peter Maas 08:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it did eat the seeds of the Calvaria tree because after the dodo went extinct the trees started to as well. Since then another animal might have started eating the seeds, evolution all that, that's why the tree isn't extinct now. Understand these are all deductions.(notice i like dodos)lol --Hi!! i like dodos (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

actually they had turkeys eating the fruits of the tree and then the tree started sprouting Einstein95 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Used for Food?

I just did a quick google and the first site I found mentioned that the dodo was used extensively by the Portuguese for meat. http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_dodobird.htm

Which is correct. At the same time, I would not be surprised if the article above was the source of information for our own article, so the discrepancy is especially interesting. Danny

I was pretty sure that dodos were eaten... I'm SURE that's what we learnt in school! I'll see what I can find... KJ

I've removed the bit about dodos not being used for food, they obviously were. --Scipius 23:20 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

They were not, they tried to at first but found it very horrible, recent reseacrh has shown that they were not. A program on TV a few years ago showed they were not. -fonzy

fonzy, what was the title of the program? It is difficult to trust a source which can't be viewed. I also saw a program on PBS recently and it claimed the birds were often and easily hunted for food. TV isn't always right: the same program also claimed the Calvaria tree was going extinct, which I have since learned is untrue.

Does anyone know how tall the Dodo was known to grow?

It could have been up to three feet. --Bearbear 15:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Scottish Standard Grade Exam Paper of English in 2003 had an article on Dodos. They said that the Portuguese didn't eat the dodo as its lack of breast muscles made the meat taste disgusting. There were lots of other opinions, but most are covered in the article. Unfortunately, the exam didn't say which newspaper/journal the artical came from. --Bearbear 15:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I forget where I read it, but I recall reading as a child that, regardless of its horrible taste, sailors coming to Mauritus killed and ate the birds anyway, as many had been confined to their ships for great lengths of time and, well, I guess being gross, uncultured swine, in the source's words (as best I can remember them), "...sailors craved fresh meat, regardless of its taste, so spurred on by long stays of maritime service and availability of only pickled meat, the helpless bird was doomed, and was hunted to extinction less than 100 years after its discovery." I am sure I am not remembering the passage correctly, the parts that I can remember, but it would certainly seem to make sense. If you were cooped up on a slow-moving boat at sea with a bunch of jacked-up, restless sailors, with only "pickled" meat to satisfy your instinctual carnivorous desires for months on end, a turtle would look like a feast, let alone a large, plump, slow-moving(?) and witless bird. --Dingno 16:17, 26 June 2006

Currently, major scientific debate on utility of dodos as food. Stay tuned; I'll add refs as they come in (primary research papers, all peer-reviered). Suffice to say it wasn't, in all probability, sailors, who were more likely to hunt for Red Rails, Mauritian Shelducks, Mauritian Ducks, etc. Escaped slaves taking to the hills, now that's another thing entirely. Cuoldn't hunt deers, found it hard to hunt hogs, and would have made use of whatever meat they could get catch. Some of thes epeople managed to avoid recapture for decades; the 1674 report is from one of these guys. Dysmorodrepanis 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

specimens

There are no museum specimens of the dodo still extant today. I presume this is to mean specimens from an original, live dodo, correct? Dysprosia 12:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's right, there are no stuffed birds, so the images of the Dodo are from paintings, not corpses. The last stuffed Dodo was burned because it was getting a bit smelly! jimfbleak 14:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good piece of info to add to the article. Where is this museum, and when? --Menchi (Talk)â 20:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you said it was burned because it was smelling. Are you sure about that? My perception is the goddamn museum burned down. The article is neat. I like how it explain the origin of the expression "As dead as dodo". It seem they may also have uncovered more bones. See link [1]

"The last dodo in England was stuffed by English naturalist John Tradescant. When Tradescant died in 1662, his entire natural history collection was bequeathed to an acquaintance, Elias Ashmole. Because of his irresponsibility, the entire collection’s condition greatly deteriorated, and he donated the bird to Oxford University in 1683, two years after the last living dodo was seen on Mauritius. Even Oxford did not take very good care of the bird, and except for the head and foot saved by a farsighted curator, it was later burned as trash in 1755. Evidently ‘the museum’s board of directors took one look at the dusty, stupid-looking bird and unanimously voted to discard it’." From [2]. Peter Maas\^talk 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've got a photo of a 19th century model of a dodo at User:Imran/photos if anyone wants to include it. --Imran 02:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, it stinks the last one was burnt.(no pun intended) Imran,is that dodo model a real stuffed dodo?!--Hi!! i like dodos (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Extinction date

The two paragraphs beginning "There is some controversy.." and "The last known dodo..." are mutually contradictory. Can anyone provide references for the second paragraph?

The dodo is not the only known animal to be extinct in recorded time. The Great Auk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinguinus became extinct in the mid 19th century. It also became extinct becasue of humans, it was a prized pet and good eating. 13. apr. 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torvaldur (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Linnaeus' naming

When Linnaeus assigned a genus and species to the Dodo, was that the first genus and species given to an an extinct animal? --Wetman 09:38, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

Calvaria Tree

The discussion of the Calvaria tree is pretty isolated in the article -- easy to miss since I couldn't remember the name though it is something that I often hear about in association with the Dodo. Maybe it should go in its own section instead of "Family Raphidae". Actually, now that I say that it doesn't make much sense where it is now since it has little to do with the family of the species. The paragraph which discusses it over uses the verb "discover". It seems likely that many of the uses are suboptimal (maybe "theorized", "proposed", or "deduced" would be good alternatives). In any case, this page: http://home.conceptsfa.nl/~pmaas/rea/dodobird.htm (old version) http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/dodobird.htm (new version) (see the section titled "Food") claims that the theory that the birds were needed for the seeds has been disproven, though it doesn't offer a lot of evidence to back up the assertion.

Also, that site has a lot of other Dodo pictures, a picture of the tree, and the burned head of the last stuffed bird.

I've updated the link posted above. The previous one was an old version, the new one the current page. Peter Maas 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

About the evidence: it is indeed not cited well on that page. I will do that soon. For the evidence that the theory of Stanley Temple has been rebutted, I would suggest you reading: http://www.botany.org/PlantScienceBulletin/psb-2004-50-4.php#Dodo Citation of link/article: Herhey, D.R. 2004. The Widespread Misconception that the Tambalacoque or Calvaria Tree Absolutely Required the Dodo Bird for its Seeds to Germinate. Plant Science Bulletin (a publication of the Botanical Society of America, Inc.) Vol. 50, Nr. 4, pp. 105-109. I hope this helps, if not you will find other sources in the article references, etc. Peter Maas 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A page wikipedia article on this tree can be seen at: Tambalacoque. Peter Maas 08:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the linked disproval. It is not very objective either, in several of the examples Temple actually elaborated. (i remember seedgermination, comparing it with mauritian opportunitys for bird and that he describes the thickness of trees(the 'not easy' estimation of their age..) All in all now i think temple exagerated (the decline of trees) and underestimated the germination capacity but was possibly still quitte right in associating the two species. I guess it's the climate thing, people are not supposed to think of disappearing species as essential for an ecotope.80.57.243.16 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

speculation

I moved the following from the article - IMHO speculation doesn't belong into the article, and I cannot believe it anyway. andy 12:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But is the dodo actually extinct? Although it no longer lives on Mauritius, there are a number of smaller islands around this one and some of these are yet to be explored by humans. Although unlikely as the dodo couldn't fly or (probably) swim, it may be that the dodo or some relatives of it live here. After all, something similar happened to the coelacanth...

HP Reference

The little blip about the "Diricawl" is amusing and seems to fit nicely in this article, because the original article has an encyclopedic feel to it, someone could almost be fooled into thinking they were reading a wizarding article on here. ;) Morhange 20:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

largest animal

I added "It was due to it being the largest animal on the then uninhabited island of Mauritius, thus the master of the territory." to the article but it was reverted. Maybe theres a better way to say it, but its important to say that the dodo was the largest animal, ie top of the food chain on Mauritius (no humans, or any other larger animals) - thats why it could nest on the ground, had no predators etc. Astrokey44 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have had the courtesy to explain my rollback. The previous version implied cause-and-effect, which is speculative. Some animals, eg the phalaropes are very tame despite contact with humans. Apologies for my lazy rollback, I'm happy with the current version. jimfbleak 06:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't not at the top of the food chain -- it ate only fruit. However, it's true it didn't have predators -- there was nothing there that could threaten a thirty pound bird with a beak like a claw hammer. In fact, historical records show that the dodo was not as defenseless as we think -- the records say that people to had to be careful when catching them -- they bit awfully hard. Dora Nichov 10:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone's changed the extinction dates to the 1990s....... CFLeon 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone has also added "Hi mr Carr!!!" at the end of the first paragraph! Fayefox 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reason of Extinction

According to this trustworthy article: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Dodo/dodo.html?dinos 81.165.40.190 21:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC) define: trustworthy. ? If very well informed counts, the dutch historical material (its been 30+ years i saw it, dont ask for refs) says they were eaten by bunches , ships went there to provision ,and that it contributed to the extinction.(also dutch folklore had it they tasted nice). I think it was noticed rats (and pigs and other european animals) killed the rest or remain. In these early journals . This is however not in this "trustworthy" article, actually quitte the opossite, it suggest hunting played only a minor part. Considering the impact of rats, pigs etc. that killed off so many pelagics is one thing, but deforestation seems sooo improbable a reason this article becomes actually "untrustworthy". 80.57.243.16 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read a text that stated that monkeys and pigs were the primary reason for the dodo's extinction, and that humans played a relatively minor role.This book said that monkeys and pigs would squash or devour dodo eggs. If this is in deed the case, a vast majority of the article needs rewriting. However, I'm not an expert on the subject, so if someone could back me up or correct me my possibly incorrect idea, that'd be great.

Eenyminy (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

numbers

are there sources depicting the number of dodos at differnet dates until it became extinct ? Amoruso 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. That quantative data wasn't collected back in those days, particularly by sailors. It was more "there were many greate fowlles on the islands" or "a sailor spoke to me of seeing many score of birds, but we saw none ourselves". Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Dumb as a dodo"

Should it be added that the dodo has been (probably unfairly) stereotyped as being unintelligent? Funnyhat 05:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC) It is also in the dutch journals. We cannot judge as to how stupid they really were, since many animals that evolved seperate from humans behave extremely stupid and naive. However the examples proof they were not to smart. They would (often sitting on a low branch) not move when aproached by provisioning sailors. As i understand it , when they could have been well aware of the danger since dodo blood etc. would be abound. They also made a stupid impression because they couldnt hardly anything at all, not fly, not run, just sit on their branches and get killed. I think the myth of the dodo's stupidity is directly related to its size and nutritional efficiency, probably you will find a folklore of stupidity around every larger pelagic species, certainly when it is edible, or even 'nice'(a valuable provision);)

fascinatingly thus i think the name: walghvogel in dutch may related to a behavioural habit or pattern in the bird, certain kinds of head and neck movements perhaps, that with birds typically cartooneskly illustrate 'walging', a regular spitting of some kind, or some such. Maybe though they just looked extremely disgusting when slaughtered, or it is about the smell. That was bad since it was compared to whaleoil. The fact they still largely provisioned on it suggest that dutch sailors liked fat meat, and perhaps they had a way to counter the smell, (i think they smoked dodos, but skinning comes to mind) and no , you can't deforest mauritius through smoking dodos. Apparently the dutch really minded the dodo (food) died out, they noticed both the rats and the slow reproduction rate when the dodo still existed. Didnt they release pigs or goats after that? i dont know, maybe it was another island. 80.57.243.16 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Island species often lose their fear of predators because anti-predator behaviour carries a cost (missed feeding opportunities), plus the fact that without selection pressure neutral behaviour like predator recognition is subject to drift. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I expect part of the reason for "dumb as a dodo" is the alliteration. "Dumb as a doorknob" also used to be popular, and for the same reason. --Michael K. Smith 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the slang French word 'dodo', meaning bedtime, or sleeping, is there anything in relation with the dodo bird (I don't think so, but it might). Androo123 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Phylogeny

Please consider the notes on phylogeny at Rodrigues Solitaire and compare Johnson & Clayton (2000) (see Pigeon article) - at least cyt b cannot resolve the relationships of the Indoaustralian lineage properly. So the phylogeny proposed in the much-touted "Flight of the Dodo" paper must be taken with so much salt that it nearly becomes unpalatable, unfortunately. See e.g. their placement of "Gallicolumba beccari" (sic), which is almost certainly wrong. At any rate, here to copy'n'paste is the citation:

• Shapiro, Beth; Sibthorpe, Dean; Rambaut, Andrew; Austin, Jeremy; Wragg, Graham M.; Bininda-Emonds, Olaf R. P.; Lee, Patricia L. M. & Cooper, Alan (2002): Flight of the Dodo. Science 295: 1683. doi:10.1126/science.295.5560.1683 (HTML abstract) Supplementary information

In conclusion, cyt b should be avoided for determining the interrelationships of the Indoaustralian group (for some reason, it gives crystal-clear resolution of the columbine and zenaidine lineages, however) Dysmorodrepanis 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Last surviving specimen

In his book A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson claims that the last surviving Dodo specimen was kept at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, until a caretaker mistakenly assumed it was rubbish and put it on a bonfire (it was apparently rescued, but not before it was seriously damaged). Is anyone able to verify this? If so, should it feature in the article? It would be a fairly pertinent symbol of mankind's regard for the species. Legis 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is true! Sadly enough. Parts of that specimen can still be seen at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, namely the head and foot [3]. First it was part of the John Tradescant collection and its museum. Later is was passed on to the Ashmole Museum in 1659. In 1755, it was examined and, presumably under Ashmole's statute number 8, ordered for destruction. The instruction was obeyed, but not to the letter as parts still survive. The statute also ordered that it had to substituted, but as the bird was extinct that was not possible anymore. The parts were passed from the Ashmole museum to the Oxford museum (source: Errol Fuller's book "Extinct Birds"). Peter Maas 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting snippet and could make a good 'Did You Know' item. - Ballista 16:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard too it was in some kind of Museum (or zoo), but how whould a guy think a bird, with feathers, be rubbish? Maybe he was a dodo too! See Dumb as a dodo Androo123 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dodo Clones

Are there any scientists thinking in doing this with the remaining soft tissue? -Pedro 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Cloning of mammals from living cells happens only by accident (it takes several 100 attempts to produce a viable embryo on average, and nobody knows why; although there are some rather good ideas as to why, if they were correct it would mean that cloning could never become a "mature" technology at all! Disruption of developmental gradients and/or genomic imprinting are the keywords here). Cloning of birds is technically impossible at present and will most likely remain so for quite some time. Cloning of extinct animals of which no cells have been preserved in liquid nitrogen is likewise impossible at present, and as far as any scientist can tell, it will always remain impossible because the genetic information is simply gone, "extinction IS forever". It is as if you try to recreate a book after all people that have ever so much as heard of it are dead, all specimens of the book have been burned, and all forests and whatever one possibly could make paper from has been destroyed. Yes, it is that extreme. Forget cloning of extinct animals or mammals and especially birds in general and play in the lottery or try to get killed by a lightning strike, your odds are far better. Dysmorodrepanis 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Dysmorodrepanis said, I too don't think any scientist is currently thinking of attempting to clone a dodo. With current technology this is not possible. Scientists that tried to clone the extinct Thylacine or Tasmanian Tiger have failed, because the DNA was too degraded. It would be impossible to order the "pieces of this broken puzzle". However, other scientists have continued the projects, but I don't think they can succeed either. QWith birds it would even be more difficult, as they lay eggs. Simply, we don't have the technology at this moment to do it. But I would never say never, who knows, maybe in a very far future. Peter Maas\^talk 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly link

Why is this link, to a 4x4 vehicle, in this article?

^ Steve Miller (September 25th, 2006). First The Dodo, Now Full-Size SUVs. Brand Week. Retrieved on 2006-09-26.

This article is about the extinct bird, the Dodo, not cars.

It is not in the External links section, but in the reference section. The article (which is linked) is used by someone as a reference for: The Dodo's significance as one of the best-known extinct animals and its singular appearance has led to its use in literature and popular culture to symbolize a concept or object that will or has become out of date, expressed in the expression "dead as a dodo". Peter Maas\^talk 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we're stuck with it then, popular culture it is! :-)

It seems it is. Peter Maas\^talk 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Do you think there is a better example? Actually, if we wait a while, articles will start to appear saying that 4x4s (SUVs) are 'as dead as dodos'as their sales are collapsing. Then we could put that link in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.57.241 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Maybe a well-known dictionary, a site with phrases, etc. Or for example http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dodo. Peter Maas\^talk 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ja, dankje wel, Peter. I've just registered so I now have a name! meicmeic

Vandalism

Some idiot vandalized the page. Looks to me, however, that as I was in the middle of writing up my rant at being thwarted from fulfilling the thirst for knowledge, the Anti-Vandalism bot dealt with my unexpressed complaints. Due to this swift and decisive maintenance, I really have no reason for posting here anymore...However this experience begs the question: how many times has the Dodo article been vandalized? -- BaiginLong 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• A lot, lately -- I think it may be a Stephen Colbert thing again. Ben-w 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular name

Why does the article currently give its popular name as "Mauritius Dodo"? I've never heard it called that, just dodo. --Yath 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The common name "Mauritius Dodo" derives from the time that it was thought that the neighbouring island Réunion had also a dodo species, the "Réunion Dodo", "White Dodo" or "Réunion Solitaire". Now it is considered that there has been only one dodo species, namely on Mauritius, so calling this bird just dodo will not result into confusion anymore. A relative of the dodo lives on the island Rodrigues, the Rodrigues Solitaire. The dodo of Réunion is now mostly considered to be the Réunion Sacred Ibis. Peter Maas\^talk 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's not really a common name, then? --Yath 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it is. A species can have more than one common name. Peter Maas\^talk 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of how many common names a species can have. --Yath 03:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New Dodo Remains found

You guys might find this article useful. --144.51.42.5 11:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone wrote in that the Dodo was found in a cave in the Indian Ocean (?). I changed it to Mauritius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.115.186 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat ORry

Although there are scattered reports of mass killings of dodos for provisioning of ships, archaeological investigations have hitherto found scant evidence of human predation on these birds

This is mostly OR but isn't the above missing the point. If people only caught the birds when they want them to take on ships then would it be likely most of the bones would have been discarded into the sea? Personally I don't know if anyone would hunt the dodo even for ships given their apparent poor taste and toughness when there were apparently better options available but that's a different matter (and Americans eat turkey so...) Nil Einne 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Google description

When one searches on Google for "dodo", the first result is this Wikipedia page. The page description, however, is in very bad form: "Encyclopedia article explains how they all died, and use in popular culture." "how they all died" is a really terrible way of describing extinction, and there's much more in this article than just how they became extinct and their use in popular culture. Is it possible to change the page's description for Google? I propose something like "Features information about the extinct bird species of the dodo." Taylor 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Amusing" referencing

"It is commonly believed that the Malay sailors held the bird in high regard and killed them only to make head dressings used in religious ceremonies.[17] However, when humans first arrived on Mauritius[...]" So either they lived in more places than Mauritius, or Malay sailors aren't humans :) ~~Anonymous Coward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.36.168 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not say that, it says they did not often kill them but they brought animals that plundered the dodo nests, and they destroyed the forests where the birds made their homes.--Patrick 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is written above is correct. This reference about the head dressings is untrue. As a project for a high school philosophy class we were required to do some editing on wikipedia. One addition had to be true and one false, but believable. I added this sentence as a false but believable fact. The book that it cites does not actually exist. After my project ended I tried to take this off the page but after I deleted it it was added back! Please take this sentence off; it was created by me and is not true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.244.78 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Also I would appreciate it if you would tell your philosophy teacher to find an assignment that does not involve vandalizing Wikipedia. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Old paintings

Did any of the creators of the old paintings used in this article actually observe living dodos, or were the paintings based on other accounts? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll be interested in this: I just added a link (in the External links section) to an online copy of Strickland's The Dodo and its Kindred, a book that attempts to reconstruct the appearance and habits (and flavor...) of the dodo from sailors' notes. It's a wonderful, rare book & includes a number of interesting plates, including illustrations of the dodo remains in the B.M. [oop!] Ashmolean Museum collection with an artist's reconstruction of what fresher remains may have been like.--MaryBowser (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Should be used as reference if the article is ever expanded. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture Cleaning

There is much irrelevant and useless trivia in here. Who cares if Big Bird was in a movie about Dodo birds, or if there was something about them in GTA3? Seriously, after the first three points there is really nothing of value. The main importance of the Dodo in popular culture is as a symbol of extinction (its position on the coat of arms of Mauritius is also important). That it got referenced by some poem or television show is utterly relevant--and all of this stuff should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.5 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the section is useless trivia. I deleted some of it and will have a longer look at it later on. Trevor GH5 (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say the Alice In Wonderland appearance is quite notable, maybe the most notable appearance of the dodo in pop culture. Why did it have to go? Funkynusayri (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

In the etymology section its written that "Some ascribe it to the Portuguese word dodoor...". Portuguese is my native language and I have never heard that word. I am sure you won't find it in any portuguese dictionary, there are very few words in portuguese with double "o", none with similar construction.

A quick google search and I found this:

'There are two speculations on where the name for the dodo came from. The more accepted source is the Dutch word "dodoor" which mean "sluggard." This word describes both the dodo's looks and appearance. The other speculation is that the name comes from the Portuguese word "doudo" which, meaning foolish or simple. (Strickland and Melville, 1848)'

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Raphus_cucullatus.html

'Dutch word "dodoor" which means sluggard and Portuguese word "doudo" meaning foolish or simple, are thought to be the origin of the word Dodo.'

http://dimdima.com/ecology/ecology_common/show_ecology.asp?q_cat=Lost+For+Ever&q_aid=91&q_title=Dead+as+a+Dodo

200.169.27.44 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Original drawing by Roland Savery from 1626

Can be found here, and is obviously in the public domain: [4] It is less washed out and seems to be more anatomically accurate (shape of the beak) than the painting by Jan Savery, which is based on it. Should we replace it? It's kind of odd to have an image with the caption saying it is based on another image, why not have the original image in instead then? Funkynusayri (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Switched them. An argument for using the other image could be that it is more famous, but that doesn't hide the fact that it is less accurate, since it's kind of a third hand restoration or what you could call it. It might be more fitting in a pop culture section due to how famous it apparently is. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• I was wondering why the caption to the Savery image notes "two left feet and that the bird is obese from captivity." It seems like the caption holds very little merit but is has persisted through many versions. Any reason for this? Matt9310 (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Might very well be original research, but it does seem like the feet are identical. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

what is the exact meaning of the phrase "as dead as dodo"

Does it only mean somebody or some person is dead

or it may mean that somthing is missed or disappeared?

Thanks!--Ffnone (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) i am r god person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.72.245 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"

More seriously, it just means that something is absolutely, totally, thoroughly dead. Of course "dead" itself has a number of different meanings besides dead, and this can refer to many of them. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And as such, the "dead" in "as dead as a dodo" may refer to "cessation of all bodily functions for a very long time," "a particular group or population having no living members what so ever," or, more rarely, having achieved a failure in some venture that is on par with Black Tuesday.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of a stuffed Dodo

I was interested to read that the last stuffed dodo was discarded in 1755. I've got a scan of a postcard I've recently put up for sale. It's a photograph of a stuffed dodo. The dodo was in the African Museum on the Ile d'Aix, France. I'm not sure how old the postcard is, but definately less than 100 years old. The title of the postcard is "Dodo (Scopus ineptus)" If anyone would like a scan of the card I would be glad to forward it.

77.198.231.62 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Angela Knutsen

The image is likely a reconstruction of a dodo rather than an actual dodo, created with plaster and feathers from other birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can be hard to tell a reconstructed specimen from a real stuffed mount

I checked the description given by the muséum and they say that it is a stuffed specimen! I'm sorry I haven't been able to work out how to post an image. 77.202.52.14 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Angela

Angela, is the postcard colourful or black-n-white? And what is the problem to scan it? After scanning, it can be uploaded from there. Krasss (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The scanned postcard

I'm still trying to upload the picture, it's on Wikepedia somewhere, but I can't get it onto this page! The postcard is sepia and judging from the quality of card used and the telephone number given by the publisher, dates between 1918 and 1939 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjiknut (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is deed a reconstructed 'specimen', there are many of these in various museums. The only real mounted specimen is the one that has been destroyed. No others had been preserved. If it did, it would be world news and attrackt many visitors in that museum. Peter Maas\^talk 09:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the postcard shows a reconstruction of the dodo as scientists thought it would be, fat, etc. Now they think it look different, see for example the difference in a new and an old reconstruction at: [5]. Peter Maas\^talk 10:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

This section is getting to be overshadow the actual information about poor old Raphus cucullatus -- I propose breaking it off as we did with Giant squid / Giant squid in culture. Any objections? Ben-w 01:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

None from me... it's been nearly 4 weeks now, split away... Tomer^talk 07:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed a great deal of trivia from this section; who cares if there was a Big Bird movie about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.5 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an old Porky Pig cartoon that prominently features a "do-do" bird. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding the popular internet company Dodo, I'm not entirely sure as to wether its relevant, but it might be if its in References in Popular culture, any opinions?? LethalHobo 17:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AN org called Dodo

http://dodo.org/fr Is a registered association in finalnd that does exactly what the article talls about - its notable and supports nature conservation. I think it shoudl be added, page is locked so I have not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The only link to the bird is the name of the organization, no more. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Caps?

Why does the article refer to this animal as the Dodo? We don't say the Duck, or the Penguin, so why capitalize dodo? 142.217.16.115 20:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Individual species are capped in wikipedia, so duck, but Tufted Duck, penguin but King Penguin - Dodo is a single species jimfbleak 06:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So the Dodo is an individual species of what? The do? Was there a Podo, a Fodo, Modo......? Using "Penguin" as an example, surely "dodo" should only be capitalised if there were (for example) a Tufted Dodo or a King Dodo....? Just a thought.... I do notice now, however, dodo is written in lower case letters. Frognsausage (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency annoys me, so I have submitted edits to make the lower case form standard.91.111.7.27 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Other Dodo expressions

Thought it would be interesting for the article to mention this other historical reference to the dodo:

–noun, plural -dos, -does. 1. any of several clumsy, flightless, extinct birds of the genera Raphus and Pezophaps, related to pigeons but about the size of a turkey, formerly inhabiting the islands of Mauritius, Réunion, and Rodriguez. 2. Slang . a dull-witted, slow-reacting person.

Since it had two left sided feet it was considered "gauche", stupid, dim-witted which would of contributed to its extincsion (in popular culture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.208 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and dodos had one right foot and one left foot: the fact that a famous specimen was stuffed and mounted with two left feet had absolutely nothing to do with its extinction, popular culture or not.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, it did not have two left feet. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dried ? Head and Leg - Or plaster cast

Dried head and leg of a dodo

I think the recent addition of the picture the "Dried Head and Leg" from Brighton might be plaster casts - could someone who knows check this. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

The Oxford University Museum of Natural History owns the only remaining tissue specimen, so it would be very unlikely the Brighton museum owns an original. The object in this photograph shows scratches revealing the white plaster. I am quite sure it is a plaster cast. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A picture of the actual head and foot would be nicer, but so far theis is pretty cool. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I read in the book "Extinct Birds" by Errol Fuller that the dried leg has been lost, any other confirmation of this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't got the book, if I (somehow) get to the Brighton Museum anytime, I'd be able to check...but my chances of getting there anytime soon are very, very, small. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 16:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears much of the soft tissue of the originals has been lost due to dissection and decay, so the casts probably show the initial state of those remnants more accurately these days[6] FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Return of the Dodo

According to a recent UK TV programme there is a possibility that the Dodo bird could be cloned and returned to Mauritious. Any other information available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• [7] - But cloning of Birds is still impossible. Krasss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

If we really want to start this discussion...it might, but it ain't happening anytime soon, and until we see the dodos waddling around we probably shouldn't add it to the article. Case closed. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why souldn't birds be clonable? And even if there is an attempt, or considerations of attempting, clone a dodo, it would be notable for the article, whether it is successful or not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly I haven't yet heard of anything (at least where I am) of dodos being cloned. When someone tries to, I'll think about it. Crimsonraptor (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dodo meaning Nap

The word 'dodo' is used in Mauritian Creole to mean a 'nap' ("I'm going to have a dodo"). This is probably local slang refferencing the birds extinction. I know this because my Grandfather is Mauritian.The word 'dodo' is used in Mauritian Creole to mean a 'nap' ("I'm going to have a dodo"). This is probably local slang refferencing the birds extinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.80.191 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the veritability of the above. I know this because my Grandfather is Mauritian and speaks the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.80.191 (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's more widespread than Mauritius, see for instance http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=224036 and http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Think-Daily-Nap-Time-Should-Be-Mandatory/80678 If Dodo as Nap is notable it could be added to Dodo (disambiguation), but not here. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

'Vindicated' does not mean eradicated, and the references are wrong

In the same year in which George Clarke started to publish his reports, the newly vindicated bird was featured as a character in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. With the popularity of the book, the dodo became a well-known and easily recognizable icon of extinction.[40]

[40]^ Mayell, Hillary (2002-02-28). "Extinct Dodo Related to Pigeons, DNA Shows". National Geographic News. Retrieved 2009-01-19.

First, this reference has nothing to do with either George Clarke or Lewis Carroll's book. No other reference is made to George Clarke in the article. The references in this article are horrible.

Second, George Clarke studied the species' extinction. I don't see how he could have ever 'vindicated' the bird, because that word literally means justified.

Unfortunately, this article cannot be edited by me, and the people who can are incompetent. Way to entirely miss the point of Wikipedia and ensure an article's poor quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.87.232 (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You could always register an account and help out. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that part, but I'm sure the reference is to the fact that it was widely believed that dodos were just legendary creatures not long before that, and that the animal was scientifically "vindicated" later, as in it was considered a valid taxon. It surely isn't referring to eradication, since that would hardly qualify as a "recent" event even at the time. So please try to think a little before complaining, and shut your mouth if you can't be polite. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Expression should be included?

Anyone heard "Dumb as a Dodo" maybe its an irish thing....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.31.136 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions "dead as a dodo," is that what you mean? I've never heard "dumb as a dodo." Where else have you heard this? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just one link here http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0227_0228_dodo_2.html there are more, i thought everyone would have known it but as i said maybe its an irish thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.31.136 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.251.153 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumb as a dodo? Birds are supposed to be pretty smart..... 24.243.10.243 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)(SoulNekoCat)

Movie reference in this article.

In "Follow That Bird," Big Bird is NOT painted blue to match his dodo family. He is painted blue by his captors to hide his identity.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

I think Lewis Carroll's nickname was dodo, and maybe that was why he included it in the book? Apparently his real name was Dodgson, and he spoke with a stammer. Of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.25.242 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

YOU GUYS FORGOT ICE AGE!!!!!! (SoulNekoCat)24.243.10.243 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New Data Shows Smaller Dodo

Two new studies show that the dodo had a smaller weight than the average of 20 kg quoted in the current Wikipedia article. One study finds that the average weight was 10.2 kg. The second study states the average weight was between 9.5 - 18 kg. Paragraph 1 and the first paragraph under the "Description" heading should be updated with this information. Delwinelder (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a citation, both should be there, since it is really impossible to be sure without complete specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed Dutch acronym....

...for the Dutch East India Company. It was pedantic to add it. Only Dutch-speaking specialists are likely to know this and it is confusing for even well-informed readers. PainMan (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Dodos Disappeared 4200 Years Ago Following a Severe Drought

[8] A recent study by paleontologist Hanneke Meijer of the Museum of Natural History in Washington suggests that the disappearance of a vast majority of dodos is due to a severe drought that has hit Mauritius 4200 years ago. May be we should add it to the article. Kingroyos (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange, I can not find anything about this at the source, the Museum of Natural History in Washington. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lamarckism

In its introduction, the article reads "The species lost the ability to fly because on Mauritius food was abundant and mammalian predators were absent". Isn't that a Lamarckian, hence invalid, perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odros (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No. If it was a Lamarckian perspective, otherwise the statement would have said "individuals" and not "species."--Mr Fink (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this article need?

To become better? Most undisputed info about the bird is now in the article, and very little is known about it apart from the old descriptions, so I have added many of those, since they are in the public domain. All important images of the bird, that is images thought to be based on live or stuffed specimens, and not simply copies of older images, have been included in the article. With the sources I have gathered, the article could go much further into the histories of the different specimens, paintings, theories and so on, but not much more can be said about the bird's biology. There's probably a lot to write about popular culture, but I'm less interested in that. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The cultural significance section should probably mention Gogo Dodo, I can add that if no one else has by the time I finish copyediting. ʝunglejill 18:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned at one point, but someone went and exterminated most of the pop section. If you can find a nice way to put it in, feel free to do it! It should probably be mentioned that he is based on the original black and white dodo that turned up in a classic Porky Pig cartoon, which might even be a more notable appearance. I have nothing against pop culture sections, but some people have an aversion towards them, and pretty much blank them on sight. But I think it would be appropriate to expand the one here, due to the cultural significance of the dodo. There is a good overview in "Dodo - From Extinction to Icon" by Errol Fuller. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I think a substantial cultural significance section is definitely justified in this case, considering the disproportionate public recognition of the dodo.

Regarding other improvements, it may be useful to compare with a FA about an animal. ʝunglejill 19:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to find FA articles about animals described under similar circumstances. The great auk comes close, but even there we have much more knowledge, due to the extinction being even more recent, and many complete specimens having been preserved. And its habitat was less remote, of course. But maybe some more could be written about the history of its classification, which is rather interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

cloned

Several years ago there was a Channel 4 broadcast about the Dodo Bird. Amongst other topics there was discussion about cloning the Dodo Bird and re-introducing it back into Madagascar. It would certainly be a real tourist attraction.AT Kunene (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Only sources I've seen mentioning cloning, state the DNA material is too degraded. But who knows, may be possible in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have copyedited up to the Behaviour and Ecology section. It wasn't easy as the article was quite well written to begin with. I did manage to find a few small mistakes; the rest of my changes are mostly stylistic. junglejill (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, and thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm continuing to copyedit; this requires clarification:

"Wendy Strahm and Anthony Cheke, two experts in Mascarene ecology, claim that while a rare tree, it has germinated since the demise of the Dodo and numbers a few hundred, not 13."

... since the claim that only 13 trees exist is not mentioned elsewhere, and it is unclear who made the claim. I couldn't find further information in the tree's article. I have changed this to

"[...] not 13 as claimed by Temple."

... as seems to be the implication. Is this incorrect? ʝunglejill 02:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, copyedited up to Surviving Remains. ʝunglejill 02:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's right, it was claimed by Temple in 1977. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The only known soft tissue remains - the head and foot - belonged to the last known stuffed dodo [...] Around 1755, the museum's curator or director ordered the pieces discarded [...] No substitute existed for this specimen. Most of it was burned, but the head and right foot were cut off and saved for posterity. This remaining soft tissue has since degraded further [...]"

This is a bit confusing. I figured it should be something like -

The only known soft tissue remains - the head and foot - belonged to the last known stuffed dodo [...] Around 1755, the museum's curator or director ordered the specimen discarded [...] No substitute existed for this specimen. Most of it was burned, but the head and right foot were cut off and saved for posterity. This remaining soft tissue has since degraded further, as the head was dissected in the late 19th century, separating the skin from the skull, and the foot is in a skeletal state. (then supposedly the pieces were discarded?) Do you see the confusion?

• "With the discovery of the first batch of sub-fossil dodo bones in the Mauritian swamp, the Mare aux Songes, and the reports written about them by George Clark, government schoolmaster at Mahébourg, from 1865 on, interest in the bird was rekindled."

1) I take this to mean that George Clark wrote his report in 1865, and from then on interest was rekindled? 2) Is this Clark one of the dozen George Clarks with Wikipedia articles?

• "the last Dodo died a little more than a century after the species' discovery in 1598." - the sentence preceding this one states that the exact date of extinction as uncertain. Does this refer to the last Dodo who died in captivity? If not, I will change it to "this means that the last Dodo died..." or something like that.

• Decided to capitalize Dodo where appropriate, as in great auk.

• Finished copyediting. ʝunglejill 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the Oxford head section, but to recap; there was a stuffed specimen which was decaying in the 1700s, then it was thrown in a fire, but the head and leg were cut off and saved. They were intact until the 19th century, when they were dissected, and because of this, they're now even more wretched.

I don't believe this Clark has a Wikipedia article, but I rephrased the section about him, it was a bit weird. Yes, interest was rekindled due to his report, from 1866, but he found the remains in 1865 (I will write this). It made European naturalists realize they could obtain further bones, other than the few remains in Europe.

The statement about dying a century after its discovery refers to the 1681 date, the one which seems "statistically" plausible. It is in fact not known how many dodos lived in captivity and for how long. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I clarified the statements about the last dodo and the oxford remains. I'll review all the additions to the article later. ʝunglejill 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still expanding sections already copyedited, so some of them might need to be looked over again... FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mare Aux Songes Section

If this is the most important site where remains were found, maybe it should have its own section? I see two other articles refer to it. There might be too little info about it, though. ʝunglejill 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There's not even an article about it for some reason. But there's a four paragraph long part about it within the remains section (I've just expanded it bit). There's not much more about it in the sources, but there is a myth that the swamp was destroyed because the Mauritrius airport was built on top of it, but this is of course not true. But I'm not sure if it's relevant? FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The myth wouldn't be relevant here, but maybe the swamp deserves to have a stub created for it. ʝunglejill 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, could be, I'll look after it when I'm done with this article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I might be able to find some info about why the swamp is so filled with dodos and when they fell in, what it was before, what other animals are in, and so on. But I'll wait until after peer review, whenever that is, because all that info is found in a huge book on Mascarene ecology that I haven't finished (hardly started) reading yet... FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Image request

There are still some important images that the article could use, which I have not been able to locate. First of all, it would be fantastic to have a photo of the actual Oxford dodo head and leg, instead of just the plaster casts we have now. A better picture of the Prague specimen would also be nice. There are also some paintings I have been unable to find good versions of, for example this Savery painting[9], the version there being covered in watermarks, another Savery painting which was basd on the Crocker Gallery sketch, but is now lost, and perhaps a color version of his painting at Musée Saint-Denis in Reims. A better version of "Perseus and Andromeda with a Dodo and seashells" by Gillis d'Hondecoeter would also be cool. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And of course, a photo of the Mare aux Songes could be nice as well. I've found an old map of it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article?

I want a self-congratulatory userbox "this user has copyedited a FA" :D. I've requested a new range map; they have a backlog so it'll probably take a few days. Let me know when you finish adding content, I'll copyedit, add the new range map, add info about Gogo Dodo, and then I think we'll be good to go! ʝunglejill 12:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool! It'll be my first FA too (if it gets through). But I'm currently waiting for a peer review before I know where to expand and improve next... FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder when we can expect that. They seem to have a bit of a backlog. Can you estimate when you'll finish adding material to the article? I'd rather do the final copyedit in one chunk. ʝunglejill 14:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, the truth is that there's probably not much more to write, which isn't just minutiae. The article has been significantly expanded since the GA, and apart from maybe the culture section and some pictures (perhaps just my own obsession), there's nothing essential missing. You can take a look at the GA version here[10], it's a direct link to the culture section, so you can see what a hodgepodge it was. But I think some of the info there could perhaps still be used. But I probably won't go into that, so should we perhaps say I'm done now, and let you get to the copy editing? I can always add more later, when someone peer reviews it. Not knowing much about FAs, I think a problem might be citation style, I think it has to be consistent throughout, not sure if it is... I'll just go on to the Rodrigues Solitaire article while you copy edit and we wait for peer review, to get my extinct bird-fix, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More pictures are definitely your obsession - apart from a picture of the head and foot, I agree that would be cool to have. The foot is probably totally gross!! I'll probably start working on the article monday-ish, so you have until then. :) ʝunglejill 15:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I can cram in the stuff about the swamp I mentioned above in the meantime... FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No pressure! I can wait longer. If it takes more than a couple of days, I have no problem doing an intermediate copyedit. ʝunglejill 16:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, it'll probably only be a few added lines, with none of the existing text being altered. I just made a slightly more radical change, I split the article into more sections, does it appear helpful? FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to make a similar change, but figured you decided on the headings based on Great Auk. I think this way is better, though. "White Dodo" is definitely in a more appropriate place now. And you found the head and foot photo! It is kind of gross. :D ʝunglejill 16:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh* Now I can't think of more to write, but if I really stretched it, I could go into more about the dubious post-1662 sightings, and perhaps a little about why the Dutch were on Mauritius in the first place, and what they did there... But that's perhaps out of the scope for the article? In any case, it's pretty much done. As for the head photo, it's just a plaster cast, the real head is way more gross, take a look:[11] Oh, and here's a fun interactive 3D scan of a head-cast[12], maybe it could be put in the external links section.FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha. I like the pitiful hair stubs sticking out of it. A properly gross image would improve the article, no? I think the 3D scan is cool for an external link. Btw I compared to Great Auk and noticed the lead should say "the dodo was..." instead of "the dodo is...", which was my own correction, so I'm changing that now and I'll do the rest tomorrow. ʝunglejill 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the head is in storage, so there's little chance we'll get a photo. But in some way, the 19th century casts are pretty good, since the actual head and foot are so scrappy today. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Obscure info not found in sources

After reading and writing a lot about this, there are a few questions that remain unanswered in any of the sources I've gathered, and it would be nice if anyone in the know would add it. First, is there a type specimen of the bird, and which specimen is it? Being coined by Linnaeus, I guess not, but an ornithologist at the Zoological Museum in Denmark claimed it was the Copenhagen skull, even though it seems doubtful. I took some photos of the skull, and the little paper attached to it state it's a syntype. A paper mentioning the Prague skull also states it's a syntype.[13] It would also be nice to know what the specimen numbers are for the Oxford and Copenhagen specimens. Another thing, island gigantism seems to be relevant to this bird, but none of the sources I've found mention it. If anyone knows a source where this theory is applied to the Dodo, please fill it in! FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources also seem to contradict each other over what the name Didus nazarenus is attached to, a description, or a combination of the description and some Solitaire bones? If the former, it is a synonym of cucullatus, if the latter, it is a synonym of Pezophaps. On top of that, three different authors are credited for the name in different sources! FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

2nd copyedit

I've had a long day, so no copyedit today. I intend to do it tomorrow, though. I saw we got some feedback, and the editor commented on some phrasing issues. I haven't gone over them yet, will definitely take care of it. And they explain the citations thing; that's good. I heard FA criteria is really strict on those. I see you got blocked. About time someone put you in line. :D ʝunglejill 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahah, yeah, I got blocked by mistake, luckily... As for the peer review, I'm currently doing some citation fixes and such, but should I leave the phrasing issues to you? ~~

Sure! I think you have enough on your hands with the citations. ʝunglejill 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to know that someone's got my back... FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, something came up again, I'm just gonna make some small fixes right now.

• "We call them Oiseaux de Nazaret Birds of Nazareth" from a quote - is this the text, or should one name be pipelinked? ʝunglejill 23:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the French name is in the actual quote. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think I'm also going to rearrange some sections so that every first paragraph is like the section's own lead, and try to summarize more of the article in the lead, so that part will take a few days.
• I want to get the information that the dodo became flightless through evolution into this sentence in the lead: "it is assumed that the Dodo became flightless because of abundant food sources and the absence of predators on Mauritius." Let me know what you think.
• I pretty much every statement in the lead is referenced later in the article, and it would be better to also include the citations there - one for every non-obvious claim. ʝunglejill 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, go nuts. As for citations in the intro, I'll just put them where I think claims are non-obvious, feel free to point out if there are more of such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what would be better, the current quote template, or the one seen here (Dawkins quote)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine#Evolution FunkMonk (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by the common toad article, I added a relevant poem by Hilaire Belloc to the culture section. It is luckily in the public domain in the US, since it was published before 1923. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've now added some alt-image text, so it's pretty much ready to go to FAC after the copyedit. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Heheh, where'd you go? You didn't go and get blocked too, did you? FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead or alive?

The entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphinae says it is an extinct subfamily. Yet this article mentions "Recently, it has been suggested that the group should be dissolved, and the Dodo and Solitaire placed in the existing subfamily Raphinae within the Columbidae". I've changed it to "extinct". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, it was a poorly worded way to suggest that the name itself was already existing, so the scientists did not have to coin a new one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dodo

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dodo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Shapiro2002":

• From Tooth-billed Pigeon: Shapiro, Beth; Sibthorpe, Dean; Rambaut, Andrew; Austin, Jeremy; Wragg, Graham M.; Bininda-Emonds, Olaf R. P.; Lee, Patricia L. M. & Cooper, Alan (2002): Flight of the Dodo. Science 295: 1683. doi:10.1126/science.295.5560.1683 (HTML abstract) Free PDF Supplementary information
• From Rodrigues Solitaire: Shapiro, B.; Sibthorpe, D.; Rambaut, A.; Austin, J.; Wragg, G. M.; Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P.; Lee, P. L. M.; Cooper, A. (2002). "Flight of the Dodo" (PDF). Science. 295 (5560): 1683. doi:10.1126/science.295.5560.1683. PMID 11872833. Supplementary information (HTML abstract) Free PDF Supplementary information

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC

I think this is looking pretty good and within striking distance of FA - if you're confident of the sourcing not being too close or too far then it looks a good shot.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I'll nominate it then. The sources are pretty mixed up and splattered around, so there should be no passages overly similar to them. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Are we in British or American English here? --John (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

British. I'm not sure why there are scattered American spellings, but a lot of people have been copy editing the article over the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. It's a hell of a mess. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some content related changes I didn't like and changed shortly after they were implemented (wikilinks to inappropriate articles, misleading phrasing), but I assumed the copy editors generally knew what they were doing when it came to the prose itself. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am trying to track back and find where so many mistakes were introduced. I found a bunch of them here and I intend to counsel Uploadvirus on some of the problems he introduced to the article. Next time, it would be worth keeping a closer eye on the "copyedits" people are making. --John (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. At that point, I was pretty desperate to get it copy edited in time, after Junglejill disappeared, so I didn't want to annoy Uploadvirus (and potentially chase him away) by changing too many of his edits. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

His edits were dreadful and have caused a lot of work for others (though they were undoubtedly well-intentioned). I haven't been able to find where a lot of the US English spellings were introduced. I don't have much more time to give this. I feel it's important that whoever did this needs to know about ENGVAR so they can avoid doing it on other articles. Any ideas? --John (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see here[14], "metre" was used even before Junglejill copy edited, so I honestly don' have any idea what went on in the mean time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am now happy that all the ENGVAR and OVERLINK problems were introduced in the series of edits I highlighted, and that they have all now been removed. Thanks for your help. --John (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you brought my attention to them, so same to you. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Double negative in the lede?

I happened to read this article for the first time just now, and thought this sentence in the lede was a little odd:

The extinction of the Dodo within only about a century of its discovery called attention to the problem of human involvement in the disappearance of entire species, which until that time had not been unrecognised.

(emphasis mine)

In checking, I see that this sentence was changed only a little bit earlier today, and had previously read:

The extinction of the Dodo within only about a century of its discovery called attention to the problem of human involvement in the disappearance of entire species, a previously unrecognised issue.

The older version makes more sense, and also agrees with content later in the article (as well as avoiding the confusing double negative).

Was this intended to actually be something like "had not been recognised" ?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be "recognised", not sure what happened... FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit, 16 Sept 2012

• Taxonomy and evolution: "The legs of the Dodo were generally more similar to those of terrestrial pigeons than of other birds, both in scale and in skeletal features." As phrased "in scale" would mean relative size, but the link is to scales as on the skin of fish etc. Which is meant? If the latter, "in their scales" would be better. --Stfg (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The scales of the feet are meant, as in on the skin. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, got that. Here comes another ...

• Taxonomy and evolution: "Throughout the 19th century, several species were classified as congeneric with the Dodo, including the Rodrigues Solitaire and the Réunion Solitaire, as Didus solitarius and Raphus solitarius, respectively." That puzzles me, because Didus and Raphus are different genera. (I'm changing the link to pipe from Congener#Biology, by the way.) --Stfg (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty confusing. Both species have the species name solitarius, yet they were assigned to the same genus as the Dodo by different authors, one who used the earlier name Raphus, and the other used Didus. This means that, if this classification was valid, they would both be Raphus solitarius today (though one would have to be renamed, I believe)... Either they didn't know of each other's work, or maybe they just didn't care, 19th century scientists were a bit large when it came to nomenclatural priority. The Rodrigues bird was placed in its own genus the same year the Reunion bird was placed in Raphus (1848, so they were never actually part of the same genus at the same time), don't know if that has anything to do with it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehe. Before I change any words, let's see if I understand. Sounds as if one author considered Dodo to be a Didus and called the Solitaire Didus solitarius, which another considered the Dodo a Raphus and called the Solitaire Raphus solitarius. Is that it? --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, both names refer to the Dodo specifically, but one (Raphus) was coined before the other. For whatever reason, some authors continued using the name Didus, though the former name had priority. Sometimes 19th century scientists didn't use names simply because they didn't like them... In this case, Didus actually means Dodo, so it is somewhat understandable (but improper) that they would prefer that over the older name, which apparently means bustard... FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I've tried a clarifying parenthesis, as I think readers could be confused by this. How is it? --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's a simple way to put it! FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Extinction: "Anthony Cheke pointed out that by this time, some descriptions specifically use the names "Dodo" and "Dodaers" when referring to the Red Rail ...". Does Cheke say more precisely by which time? It seems quite important when narrowing down the date of extinction to within a decade or two. --Stfg (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"By this time": post 1662. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• 17th century specimens: "It has been suggested that this might be the remains of the bird that Hamon L'Estrange saw in London." A bit weaselly. Did MacGregor suggest this? (His citation is the other side of a quotation). Likewise the next sentence: "It is a commonly held belief ..." --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is actually from the previous citation, Hume 2006. So the cite should probably be moved to after. But it is not Hume who made the suggestion, it is something that has been proposed around the 19th/early 20th century. Can't be proven, of course, and not that important. As for "commonly held belief", that's mainly because most sources (even up in this millennium) give this story. Should probably be reworded in some way. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that it wasn't Hume who suggested it. It's a valid secondary source. I'm moving it as you suggested, and trying "Many sources state ..." for the other one. --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the 1662 sentence should be worded a bit differently, now it seems that it includes the 1662 description? Instead of "some descriptions from 1662 on", it should maybe be "some descriptions after 1662", or something like that. Also "The only extant remains of Dodos taken to Europe" was changed to "The only extant Dodo remains taken to Europe", but this seems to give the impression that only remains, and not whole/live Dodos, were taken to Europe? FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right on both of those. Done. --Stfg (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I propose to capitalise the "white" in "white Dodo", because the expression is being used as the name for an alleged species (even if erroneous), not to refer to a Dodo that is white. I can do this in a separate, dedicated edit in case you or the FAC reviewers want to change it back. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources aren't consistent on this, so I think you can just do whatever you find most appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

On second thoughts, the 1600s depictions only depict Dodos that are white, that they showed a "White Dodo" species is only a 19th century interpretation, so those should maybe be left without capitalisation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm coming round to that way of looking at it, too. --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• The White Dodo: "Cheke suggested to one of the authors, Francois Moutou, that the fossils might have been Réunion Solitaire, as published in 1995." What exactly was published in 1995: that it might have been, that it was, or that Cheke suggested it? --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like an earlier copyedit has mashed this up. Cheke made the suggestion, and Moutou subsequently (in 1995) published a paper that connected the two birds. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. I've found your original version, which was much better, and restored it. Please don't edit the article while the GOCEinuse tag is on. We had an edit conflict when you moved that citation. --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed when the conflict happened. Didn't notice this comment until now, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

New source

Joylon C. Parish (2012). "The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History" ISBN 9780253000996 (see [15]) Sasata (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the preview, and there doesn't seem to be any "new" info, more like a review of stuff that is already present in this article. But if anything useful is found, feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Verification

Some of the in-line references to book sources to not permit easy verification, which might not be consistent with WP:MOS nor FA status. Examples: Snowman (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• 1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Fuller 2002, pp. 13–153. (page range too large) Snowman (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• 2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Cheke & Hume 2008, pp. 22–115. (page range too large) Snowman (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• 3. ^ Lydekker 1891. (no page number) Snowman (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• 4. ^ Quammen 1996, p. [page needed]. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• 5. ^ Oudemans 1917, pp. 1–140. (page range too large) Snowman (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The page ranges are too large according to what? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could someone else please chime in here? Where does the MOS state a page range can be "too large"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• I believe a FAR nomination would be in vain, but I've made the changes anyway, so the poor FAR folks won't have to waste their time on this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation consistency

I've added new sources since the citation style was converted in this article, but I have not formatted them accordingly. I am not too fond of the present style and find it frustrating, but if anyone could convert the remaining citations, I would be grateful. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

copyedit request

In the "Cultural significance" section:
It is also use as a watermark on all Mauritian rupee banknotes.
86.161.251.139 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. Oda Mari (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo in "Behavior and Ecology" section

In section "Behavior and Ecology", second paragraph, we can read: "The preferred habitat of the sodo is unknown..."

Sodo is most likely a typo for Dodo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.187.88.183 (talk • contribs)

I think it has been fixed for now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dodo extinction

Although Dodo expert Julian Hume believes that deforestation was a major factor, he also cites Portuguese rats as having a great effect on population loss. http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/earth-environment/portuguese-rats-exterminated-the-dodo/

Rats are already mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edmond de Sélys Longchamps

The article about him spells his name "Edmond", but this article and Réunion Ibis (the only other articles to refer to him), spell it "Edmund". Colonies Chris (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change, I'm not sure who spelled it that way. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Last remaining inline refs

I need help; I have converted the last remaining inline refs into Template:cite (see my edit here), however three references do not hyperlink to their sources further down the page. I'm not sure how to generate the "<a href>" tag on the source that the reference links to while using Template:Cite doi. If you know how to fix it, thanks. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The technique is known as Shortened footnotes. For the linking to work, there were two groups of necessary fixes: (i) the various cite doi templates need to contain something to enable shortnote linking - these four edits; (ii) with {{sfn}}, when there are more than four authors, you need to put exactly four into the {{sfn}}, see these three edits. Two problems remain, because I cannot match up two of the short notes with any of the full citations: these are Lozoya & Valledor 2003, and Ah Fong et al. 1996. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, so each template needed to be edited and the "ref = harv" added. Then use the correct call to Template:sfn inline, i.e. "sfn | LastName1 | LastName2 | etc | Year | Page" as usual. Tried it out myself, both problems mentioned above are now resolved. All references now link to their source, all citations linking 100%. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)