Talk:Raphinae

Classifications of the dodo

Many classification of the dodo have been found, including many groups named before Raphinae. I am wondering if this page requires renaming, especially in light of new research (Parish, 2013) who found that the dodo and solitaire are:

Order Columbiformes

Suborder Columbae

Family Columbiformes

Subfamily Gourinae

Tribe Raphini

In his book "The Dodologist's Miscellany" (site here), Parish lists all the previous classifications of the dodo. The archive url for the classification section is here. The names are as follows:

Species:

Struthio cucullatus Linnaeus, 1758

Raphus cucullatus (L.) Brisson, 1760

Didus ineptus Linnaeus, 1766

Cygnus cucullatus (L.) Bomare, 1768

Didvs ineptus (L.) Scopoli, 1777 [sic]

Didus solitarius Gmelin, 1788

Didus nazarensis Gmelin, 1788

Didus apteryx Groningano, 1822

Didus broeckei Schlegel, 1854

Didus herberti Schlegel, 1854

Didus borbonicus Schlegel, 1854

Raphus borbonicus (S.) Gilliard, 1958

Suprageneric clades:

Family Inepti Illiger, 1811

Family Didiadae Swainson, 1836

Family Dididae Swainson, 1837

Subfamily Didinae Gray, 1840

Suborder Didi Bonaparte, 1857

Family Raphidae Oudemans, 1917

Subfamily Raphinae Hackisaka, 1953

Tribe Raphini Verheyen, 1957

Tribe Pezophabini Verheyen, 1957

The article is also outdated, the first mention of the dodo as a columbine was Hoeven, in 1830. IJReid (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what it really comes down to is whether anyone else has accepted his classification scheme? It could certainly be mentioned, but we shouldn't change the scope of an article based on a single authors opinion, if other researchers don't agree. I'd take a look at this review: http://darrennaish.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/naish-2014-review-of-parish-dodo-and-solitaire-book-in-jvp.pdf As Naish notes, it is an interesting hypothesis, but should be submitted as a standalone paper for peer review. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Funnily, I notified Julian Hume about the painting in Denmark on the right here[1] two years ago, and he hadn't heard of it. I noticed the white Dodo by chance when I visited the museum. He said he would make a note of it, so I wonder whether Parish got it from him? It's the exact link I sent Hume, and there's no mention of the Dodo on the picture in the museum website, and it was apparently never figured in Dodo literature before. Or maybe he just found the file I uploaded to Commons![2] FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh, along with several Commons images, he also used this image on the right in a version I heavily retouched for Wikipedia: https://archive.org/stream/parishdodomisc4a#page/n5/mode/2up FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I have come across another possible problem with the article, this website, which is quite modern, uses Raphinae in a wide sense to encompass all non-columbines or non-peristerines. The website also lists Phabini, Raphini, Treronini, Turturini, and Ptilinopini as tribes in the family, which would completely change the scope of the article. IJReid (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, all that matters is what classification is most widely accepted, not the fact that it has been proposed. It is all about consensus. Websites aren't peer reviewed science either. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Boyd's website follow Pereira et al. 2007 and Shaphiro et al. 2002. Burmeister (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

He bases his conclusions on it, but those genetic studies did not propose any new taxon names. Furthermore, Microgoura was not included in the genetic studies, so his basis for placing it in the same clade is only based on morphology. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• But yeah, once/if his idea is accepted by other sources, there should be little problem in just moving the article to Raphini (and redirecting Raphinae to Gourinae). The clade will still contain the same two taxa, Linnean ranks are arbitrary anyway. It is pretty much just a name change. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-GAN comments

• You list several invalid species in the taxonomy section, you should make clear that they are not accepted today. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• "The didines are often separated as a distinct family Raphidae" Why use the invalid name here?
• "In 1996, Beck named Raphinae, in this case used for a subfamily of insects." Yu don't make it clear why the family was later renamed. The name was already used for the dodo birds.

I removed the info on the insect subfamily. It has no real meaning in this article, and if anywhere, it should be added to the insect family page. IJReid (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, will add more comments soon. You could put the insect stuff in a note, maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One question, where will the note go? IJReid (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps after the bolded: " and the dodo and solitaire are now placed in their own subfamily, Raphinae, in the family Columbidae." FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Four paragraphs is perhaps a bit much for the lead of an article this size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed the unneeded paragraph on divergence, the extinction and classification are more important for this article. IJReid (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Many of the skeletal features that distinguish the dodo and the Rodrigues solitaire, its closest relative," Most of the description section is written with the dodo as focus.
• Furthermore, the description doesn't really describe the physical features of each bird, but goes into specific details about features that are important for taxonomy. There should be a general description of each bird.
• There should be a behaviour section as well.
• The quote under extinction seems a bit out of place since none other are used, perhaps the details aren't that important, maybe better as a short summary? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps the last paragraph under Extinction of the dodo should be removed, so the two sections are more balanced in size?

Classification change

Given that Raphinae is now considered to contain many extant groupings, should this page be moved to Didines in order to preserve the page while acknowledging the taxonomy update?Geekgecko (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Something needs to change, given the lead section currently directly contradicts the phylogeny section. We probably need someone with access to journals to determine if Raphinae is the valid name for what Soares et al. 2016 calls the "Indo-Pacific clade" or a branch within that clade, and if Didines is the valid name for the clade containing only Raphus cucullatus and Pezophaps solitaria. Esoteric bearcat (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

But what are we talking about here, the proposals by Parish? I'm not sure they have been accepted by anyone else. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 05:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review and will start the process in the next day or two. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

First reading

In general, this article is well-written and laid out. A few points I noted:

• "The Rodriguez Solitaire survived more recently than its relative." - Surviving is a state rather than an event so this sentence needs expressing differently.

Done. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Both birds became extinct from human hunting and the introduction of mammal that eat the birds and their eggs." - I guess you mean the chicks rather than adult birds? Would "as a result of" be better than "from"?

Fixed. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Solitaire" and "Dodo" are capitalised in some places and not in others.

Corrected. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "... so these findings still need to be independently verified." - Which findings do you mean?

Specified. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "... when a land bridge between Nazareth or St. Branton banks and Mautitius formed." - I expect you mean Mauritius, but where are these other places?

Linked and explained. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Pennaceous feather" - please explain.

Done. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "cancellous bone" - ditto.

Done. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "neognath bird" - ditto.

Done. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• First you state that male Rodrigues solitaires are bigger than females and then you you state that the largest specimens may not have been male after all. Maybe you should shuffle the order of the sentences round a bit. How can "they" be sure there was a large degree of sexual dimorphism if they do not even know which specimens are male and which female?

Fixed. There are differences in the two types of specimens. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Since Mauritius receives more rainfall and has less seasonal variation than Rodrigues, which would have affected the availability of resources on the island, the dodo would have less reason to evolve aggressive territorial behaviour." - This sentence is a bit long and convoluted.

Simplified. IJReid (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have the list of references in alphabetical order.

Done. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Well-written:

The article looks to comply with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover the main aspects of the subject.

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article's history shows that it is stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The images used in the article serve a relevant illustrative purpose, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reviewing this article, I believe that it satisfies the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)