Talk:Bird-of-paradise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Bird-of-paradise is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wonderful and colorful bird[edit]

David Attenborough doesn't seem to suffer from an irrepressible urge to hyphenate everything into oblivion so why do you?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008ZUFLFQ
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00GSCSQUU
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00C7GEUNI

THe bird of paradise is a wonderful and colorful bird! There are 43 species of it! Foundin rainforeset of NEw Guinea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.89 (talkcontribs) 11:57, March 19, 2006

They sure are ... 38 species recognized. If Parotia Helenae, Parotia Berlepschi & Ptiloris Intercedens become full species, it round up to 41 species.
With so many place in West New Guinea (Irian Jaya) still unexplored, hopefully more new species BOP will be found.
The 3 wide-gaped Cnemophilus & Loboparadisaea, most likely out from Paradisaeidae. They placed in their own genus : Cnemophilidae (Satin Birds) in Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World.
MacGregor BOP is a Honeyeater. So he's out too.
In my opinion, Paradisaea raggiana augustaevictoriae (Empress BOP) should became full species also. Someday ... Stavenn 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No legs[edit]

According to Noah's Ark, the bird of paradise was once believed to not have any legs. Is that worth mentioning?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.75.7 (talkcontribs) 03:50, March 31, 2006

i was reading this article, and thought i should mention that some of this article has been vandalized regarding the size and wieghts of birds.

Primitive?[edit]

What characteristics are we talking about when its said "they are anatomically among the most primitive songbirds"?

Relink to plant[edit]

Resolved: Pengo 06:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a referring link at the top of the page to the plant Strelitzia, which is commonly nicknamed the bird of paradise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.83.93 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found the same problem. Fixed now. —Pengo 06:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Argh. I just tripped over the same, coming from Heliconia. I think this ambiguous name is going to need to be fixed by moving Bird of paradise (disambiguation) over Bird of paradise. --Una Smith (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice of requested move[edit]

Requested move: Bird of paradise (disambiguation)Bird of paradise. Please read and contribute to survey here. --Una Smith (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved to either proposed name. A new request may be filed at any time if a different name is still desired. Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Page headings are usually the singular form, so I suggest that "Birds of Paradise" be renamed and moved to "Bird of paradise".. There may be other capitalisation versions to consider. Snowman (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support – no-brainer. I take it back; looks like dueling proposals for disambig name, etc. No opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It was a genuine proposal. I note that it was your first instinct to support. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would support this move except that as near as I can tell Bird of Paradise has a primary topic, which is the plant currently at Strelitzia reginae and to which Bird of paradise currently appropriately redirects. See below for my alternative proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I still oppose the move, but because Bird of paradise has no primary topic and should be a dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear primary topic, and correct capitalisation. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A disambiguation page should be at this page name. --Una Smith (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The collective used by bird books for genus/species is Birds of Paradise.
  • Oppose No idea who wrote the above but I agree. The few encyclopedias I have on animals all used the plural form Birds of Paradise. I cannot find a single instance where the singular form is used instead. --Bardin (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

Rationale: Bird of paradise would be the appropriate title except that it needs to be disambiguated from the primary use of the name, which is the Bird of paradise plant (if you google for "bird of paradise" the clear majority of ghits are for the plant). The word "bird" appropriately disambiguates it from the other uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support alternative per rationale as stated above (it's my suggestion). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. This should be discussed at one centralised place though, which it is, at Talk:Bird of paradise (disambiguation). Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bird of paradise would be a primary page for the birds. Page names are generality in the singular. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't understand the Google stats, but I'd guess it's that there are more plant sites than bird sites. Lots of things can skew Google. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bird family should be at "Bird of paradise" per the standard for WP:BIRD. The plant goes under the scientific name. Please, no more crapping around. Maias (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose my own alternative proposal after being convinced Bird of paradise has no primary topic and should be a dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A disambiguation page should be at this page name. --Una Smith (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reverse should be happening. The ...(bird) redirect should direct here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hybrids[edit]

Well, I think the section on hybrids is kinda biased, it's turning towards the fact that no doubt these are hybrids. It is equally likely some of these are/were real species. Frankyboy5 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that, given the amount of attention hybridisation in birds of paradise has received over many years, that it takes place. It has certainly taken place in captivity. Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence for it, such as "hybrid" specimens deriving from zones of overlap of the supposed parent species. However, it possible that a few of the purported hybrids mentioned are good species (and are mentioned as "presumed" hybrids in the text, following general opinion among bop researchers). Eventually the situation should be sorted out with genetic examination of "hybrid" specimens, and comparison with their supposed parent species. The list in the article is of named birds that are widely considered to be hybrids, even though, with some, there is still some doubt. Maybe I should reword the section lede to reflect this better. Maias (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the section is not saying that there are hybrids with no doubt, it just might need to have more emphasis on the fact that there is doubt on if some of them are actually species and not hybrids. --Skinips (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
OK - I have done some rewording - please feel free to further tweak and improve. Maias (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that any of them are actual species? I don't have access to the book cited or to Fuller's book, but this discussion suggests that Fuller was guilty of not a little wishful thinking. The HBW treatment of the family discusses hybridism but does not even suggest that any of the hybrids are possibly valid species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it very likely that there are no valid species involved and that there has been a degree of wishful thinking in wanting to keep open the possibility. However, until definitive genetic testing of disputed specimens is done, some people will continue to harbour doubts. Frith & Beehler (1998, pp.519-520) say "While one or two undiscovered distinct populations of birds of paradise may remain to be discovered and described, we believe it is unlikely that any would turn out to be from among the list we have determined to be hybrids above. We simply do not believe there are any 'lost' (as distinct from yet-to-be-discovered) birds of paradise. That being said, we do believe the hybridisation phenomenon is worthy of much additional exploration, especially in the few instances where hybrids form a portion of a population." Maias (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. The latest article on the phylogeny of the family suggests rampant hybridism is a possible explanation for the similarity of long separated species, so I agree the phenomenon is of considerable note. Apparently this family is more prone to hybridisation than any other. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed until verified[edit]

When King Mahendra of Nepal was crowned in 1955, it was found that the bird-of-paradise plumes of the Nepali royal crown were in need of replacement. Due to the hunting ban, replacements were eventually procured from a confiscated shipment seized by the United States Customs Service. - I can't find any verification of this that isn't a mirror. Leaving it here until a decent source is found. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Life mag 4 Jun 1956 [1] US sent 97 sets. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, nice one. It doesn't specify the Customs service as a source, but some of the text can be reincorporated. It's a fairly trivial fact but will be useful later as an example when describing non-European trade and prestige associated with. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Blue Bird-of-paradise.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Blue Bird-of-paradise.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blue Bird-of-paradise.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bird-of-paradise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)