Talk:Pitta

Copyvio?

rollbacked recent addition since no attempt to wikify or rm redundant info, also looks like copyright violation. jimfbleak 14:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Move from Pitta (bird)

I moved this page from Pitta (bird) to Pitta as it was the primary usage, all other uses on dab page were redlinks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pitta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• My greatest concern is the phylogeny section, which seems outdated: The high-impact genomic study of Prum et al. 2015 is not discussed (see the supplement of the paper for details on relationships of pittas).

• The paper by Prum is actually a year older than Selvatti's and anyway came to the same conclusion as to the pittas vis-a-vi their position in relation to the broadbills. I have added it, but continue to place more emphasis on the more recent paper that shed light on the evolutionary history of the suboscines instead of the whole of Aves (but that Prum paper was a good read)

• Ah right, I misread that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ten years later it was placed in the thrush family – in which genus?

• I don't know, source doesn't say.

• Not a critical problem in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tyranni or suboscines – the synonyms should be given at first mention. Anyways, I would think about using only one of these terms rather than both simultaneously in the article to improve readability.

• Fixed I think

• The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the other suboscine birds – does this indicate that they are no longer regarded as their closest relatives? But this seems still to be the case?

• I'm not sure it does indicate that.

Then, what about "The family's closest relatives are assumed to be the other suboscine birds? I'm not sure what "have for a long time assumed to be" wants to indicate in this case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• they were assumed, for a long time, and are now known to be. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• green broadbills in the genera – maybe better "of the genera"?

• replaced

• syrinx – link to Greek Mythology makes little sense, is there a better article?

• fixed

• an oscine bird – as with Tyranni/suboscine birds, I would think about deciding for one term, and not use "passeri" in some parts of the article "oscine bird" in others.

• Fixed

• Since the publication of the handbook, further splits have occurred – it does not become clear if the black-crowned pitta is among those that have been splitted.

• Clarified

• Erythropitta, originally included six species (but see below) – You state "but see below", but I can't find where I have to look.

• removed, covered by the species splits section

• reaching up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) in Taiwan but at much lower levels in Japan. – some grammatical inconsistency.

• Fixed

• parachuting down back down – are both downs needed?

• Fixed

• with smaller species laying smaller eggs – in relation to body size, I assume? Should be stated.

• Fixed

• 73% of the parental visits of fairy pittas, 63% in rainbow pittas, up to 79% in Gurney's pittas – "of" or "in"?

• Fixed

• Otherwise a very nice piece of work. Good to read a bird article again. Thank you. Also did a copy edit for minor stuff I felt confident to resolve immediately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, should have addressed the points. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fixes. One of the question might still require action (see above), but that does not keep me from promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Pittidae Swainson, 1831

The taxobox currently (13 Jan 2019) lists the "authority" for the family Pittidae as Swainson, 1831. This agrees that given by Bock in his book on family names but I am confident that Bock is incorrect and suspect that the authority should be Bonaparte 1850.

Bock published a book on family names in 1994. It is available online as a single 48MB download:

• Bock, Walter J. (1994). History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. Number 222. New York: American Museum of Natural History. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

On page 147 Bock gives the authority for the family Pittidae as "Swainson, 1831" and on page 262 gives the reference without specifying a page number:

• Swainson, William John; Richardson, J. (1831). Fauna boreali-americana, or, The zoology of the northern parts of British America. Vol. Part 2. The Birds. London: J. Murray.

Swainson subscribed to the weird quinarian system. He mentions Pitta on several occasions but doesn't mention Pittidae. On page 172 he has Pittæ but it doesn't appear to indicate a family. On googling I came across a extremely critical (damning) review of Bock's book by Storrs L. Olson:

• Olson, Storrs L. (1995). "Reviewed Work: History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 222 by W. J. Bock" (PDF). The Auk. 112 (2): 539–546. JSTOR 4088759.

On page 544 of the review Storrs writes:

An extraordinary number of blunders came to light in analyzing just the family-group names that Bock attributes to Swainson in the Fauna Boreali-Arnericana (cited as 1831, with the actual date of publication 1832). At least 12 of the supposed family-group names that Bock derives from Swainson (1831) are not family-group names either in formation or intent, the following being clearly based on generic plurals that have no validity whatever as family-group names (Swainson's spelling and page number are in parentheses): Dasycephalinae (Dasycephalae, p. 171), Maluridae ("part of the Maluri of M. Temminck," p. 157), Ocypteridae (Ocypteri, p. 130), Oidemiinae (Oidemiae, pp. 438, 449), Pittidae (Pittae, p. 172) ...

So who should we cite as the authority for Pittidae? The earliest mention that I can find by googling is:

• Bonaparte, Charles Lucian (1850). Conspectus Generum Avium (in Latin). Vol. Volume 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 253. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

In his book on Pittidae (1893-5 edition) Elliot lists earlier publications and the first where Pittidae is mentioned is Bonaparte 1850:

• Elliot, Daniel Giraud (1893–1895). A monograph of the Pittidæ, or family of ant-thrushes. London: B. Quaritch. p. vii.

Elliot points out that Bonaparte includes genera in the family Pittidae that are no longer considered as members of the family.

So Swainson is clearly wrong. I think we should credit Bonaparte - but this is partly original research. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think if most other sources give Swainson we should too in the taxobox, but include a discussion in the text to indicate that this is disputed by Olson and others and note who is cited as the earliest author. I welcome other suggestions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe the following could be inserted in place of the statement attributing the family to Vieillot:

• Credit for the naming of the pittas as a distinct family, Pittidae, has been given to William Swainson in his 1831 book Fauna boreali-americana, or, The zoology of the northern parts of British America. The attribution was made by Walter Bock in a study of the history of bird names. Storrs Olson has strongly disputed Bock's claims, noting

An extraordinary number of blunders came to light in analyzing just the family-group names that Bock attributes to Swainson in the Fauna Boreali-Arnericana (cited as 1831, with the actual date of publication 1832). At least 12 of the supposed family-group names that Bock derives from Swainson (1831) are not family-group names either in formation or intent, the following being clearly based on generic plurals that have no validity whatever as family-group names (Swainson's spelling and page number are in parentheses): Dasycephalinae (Dasycephalae, p. 171), Maluridae ("part of the Maluri of M. Temminck," p. 157), Ocypteridae (Ocypteri, p. 130), Oidemiinae (Oidemiae, pp. 438, 449), Pittidae (Pittae, p. 172) ...

• I confess to being at a slight loss in how to include Bonaparte without it constituting OR, other than to note that he was an early user of the name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

See - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=36 Pinging @Dyanega: Shyamal (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to explain the situation in a footnote. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

My take is that is better, but "see text" allows context and attribution (if it must say anything at all, which is an option). cygnis insignis 11:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with the text and solution Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Without knowing a few more details, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with attributing all of these names to Swainson under the ICZN. Names like "Pittae" or "Oidemiae" can be perfectly fine so long as they comply with the provisions of Article 11.7 of the Code. Note in particular Articles 11.7.1.2, 11.7.1.3, and especially 11.7.2, and the given examples - and also note that compliance withe mandatory rules of the ICZN within Wikipedia does not necessarily constitute OR, when the rules can be cited as a reputable source. It is one thing to SUPPOSE that Bock is wrong, but unless you can back it up by citing the relevant Articles, then it IS a matter of OR. Note also that as Shyamal pointed out, so long as the name was demonstrably supra-generic when coined, it automatically extends to all ranks from tribe to superfamily under the Principle of Coordination.

11.7. Family-group names.

11.7.1. A family-group name when first published must meet all the following criteria. It must:

11.7.1.1. be a noun in the nominative plural formed from the stem of an available generic name [Art. 29] (indicated either by express reference to the generic name or by inference from its stem, but for family-group names proposed after 1999 see Article 16.2); the generic name must be a name then used as valid in the new family-group taxon [Arts. 63, 64] (use of the stem alone in forming the name is accepted as evidence that the author used the generic name as valid in the new family-group taxon unless there is evidence to the contrary);

Examples. The name ERYCIINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (originally spelled ERYCINAE) is available because it was published for a family-group taxon that included the genus Erycia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. The name TRICHOCERIDAE Rondani, 1841 is available, although proposed without explicit mention of Trichocera Meigen, 1803, because it was published in a classification of the families of the Diptera of Europe with reference to Meigen and with a clear statement of Rondani's basic principle of forming all family names on the name of an included genus. PINNIDAE Leach, 1819 included not only Modiola Lamarck, 1801 and Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758, but also, by inference from the stem, Pinna Linnaeus, 1758, for which it was obviously founded; it is available.

The name "Macromydae" of Robineau-Desvoidy (1830) is not available because, although a formal latinized group name (not a vernacular), it was a descriptive term for a group of genera that did not include Macromya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, a genus placed in context in a different and distant division of the family Tachinidae.

11.7.1.2. be clearly used as a scientific name to denote a suprageneric taxon and not merely as a plural noun or adjective referring to the members of a genus;

Example. Osten Sacken (1882) published a key to eleven species of the dipteran genus Graptomyza under the heading "Graptomyzae of the Indo-Malayan Archipelago". The word "Graptomyzae" is a plural noun referring only to "the species of the genus Graptomyza"; it is not available as a family-group name.

11.7.1.3. end with a family-group name suffix except as provided in Article 11.7.2; a family-group name of which the family-group name suffix [Art. 29.2] is incorrect is available with its original authorship and date, but with a corrected suffix [Arts. 29, 32.5.3];

Example. Latreille (1802) established a family Tipulariae, based on Tipula Linnaeus, 1758. The suffix -ariae is corrected to -IDAE; TIPULIDAE is attributed to Latreille, not to the author who first corrected the spelling.

11.7.1.4. not be based on certain names applied only to fossils and ending in the suffix -ites, -ytes or -ithes [Art. 20];

11.7.1.5. not be based on a genus-group name that has been suppressed by the Commission [Art. 78].

11.7.2. If a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form.

Example. The mite family name TETRANYCHIDAE is generally attributed to Donnadieu, 1875. He published the name as "Tetranycides", but in view of the general acceptance of TETRANYCHIDAE from 1875 it is to be attributed to his work and date, not to Murray (1877), who first latinized it.

Dyanega (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• So... where to from here? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with the present footnote - it states the facts and avoids adding technical details to the article. Olson's criticism of Bock giving credit to Swainson comes under 11.7.1.2. in the above list - but there is no need to add that to the article. I think Olson is probably correct - but my opinion doesn't count. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Early use of "Pitta"

On page 16 of Murray Bruce's forward to Volume 8 of HBW:

• Bruce, Murray (2003). "Foreword: A brief history of classifying birds" (PDF). In del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Christie, D.A. (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. Volume 8: Broadbills to Tapaculos. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. pp. 11–43. ISBN 978-84-87334-50-4. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Bruce wrote: "The Madras list, from an Edward Buckley, was also incorporated by Derham into Ray’s glossary of foreign bird names and is notable for passerines as the source of the name “pitta”, a local name for “bird”, but subsequently associated with the members of the family Pittidae."

Pitta occurs on p.195 of William Derham's book (BHL is wonderful):

• Ray, John; Derham, William (1713). "Avium Maderaspatanarum". Joannis Raii Synopsis methodica avium (in Latin). London: Impensis Gulielmi Innys. p. 195.

"12. Pica Indica vulgaris: Ponnunky pitta; Gent. Ponnandutty; Maderaspatanesibus : The MADRASS-JAY. Fig 10. Nostrati Picae glandariae affinis est. Linea arcuata albida supra oculos. Alarum tegetes virescunt, Scapis flavescentibus: juxta basin alarum macula coerulea: Remiges & Cauda nigrescunt: Uropygium coeruleo maculatur: inter femora usque ad caudam rubescit."

Now Fig. 10 (foldout 3 pages earlier) doesn't look much like a pitta - but it does have a vague eye stripe.

Abhijit Menon-Sen is this article claims that from the description it is an Indian Pitta Pitta brachyura. The linked article includes a translation of the Latin. "The "Ponnunky Pitta" above is another rendition of "Ponnangi pitta", the Telugu name for the Indian Pitta."

Perhaps some of this should be included (before Linnaeus) in the wiki article. -Aa77zz (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just realized that Shyamal added some of the above to the Indian pitta article yesterday. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The coloured British Library original is quite easy to identify as a pitta, esp. the red vent and the green on the wings, thought the pigments used are quite weak. Shyamal (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Pitts

No edit summary RoxanaTM (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Position of the sapayoa in cladogram

The cladogram in the article is based on Selvatti et al 2017 (note the year of publication) which places the sapoya as basal to the other members of Eurylaimides. This result is not supported by more recent studies.

Selvatti et al write "our final concatenated analysis all recovered Sapayoa as the sister group to all members of Eurylaimides; however, bootstrap support was low in all cases." p. 487

Two more recent and larger studies based on many more loci find that Sapayoa is sister to the Pittidae. The studies are:

• Oliveros, C.H.; et al. (2019). "Earth history and the passerine superradiation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. 116 (16): 7916–7925. doi:10.1073/pnas.1813206116.

• Harvey, M.G.; et al. (2020). "The evolution of a tropical biodiversity hotspot". Science. 370 (6522): 1343–1348. doi:10.1126/science.aaz6970.

The cladogram in the Harvey et al article is impossible to read. Mike Harvey has made available a legible version of the cladogram on his web page here.

I would update the article myself but as this is an FA, I mention it here first. -Aa77zz (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)