Talk:Spix's macaw

Image

It would be good to see a photograph of a Spix's macaw. Snowman 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a pic on the German Wikipedia, but don't know how to incorporate it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spix-Ara

It is grate to see an image on the page now. Snowman 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now that we have a photo of an adult, shouldn't we replace the illustration in the taxobox? It seems a bit too idealised, and was probably based on a stuffed specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Extinct?

Can it be proven that this Macaw is extinct in the wild? WebYoungProgrammer^{Msg me} 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You can not prove that all swans are white, until you find a black one. Snowman (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that these are flocking birds native to a restricted area, I think that you can do all but prove that they are EW. --Cynops3 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about more of a proven reference that states the extinction status of the Spix Macaw. -- WebYoungProgrammer^{Msg me} 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It states on the IUCN page that the last known wild macaw died in 2000. --Cynops3 (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian government agency IBAMA has stated that it has become extinct in wild after observing the only known specimen living in its natural habitat for more than a decade. See: "The Last Spix's Macaw Cyanopsitta Spixii Disappears from the Wild". http://www.worldtwitch.com/cyanopsitta.htm. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

why waste time on wondering whether it is extinct in the wild. even if there are some its still too few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.198.156 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read today that a re-introduction program from Schöneiche in Germany is showing encouraging signs of success. It is a highly sophisticated program which includes genetic testing for pairing and artificial insemination - one to observe - one to be a model. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:8003:28DB:8C42:79F6 (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

She lives! After 15 years, Ararinhas Azuis, The Spix's Macaw, were found in Nature again: http://veja.abril.com.br/ciencia/ararinha-azul-e-vista-na-natureza-apos-15-anos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.158.199.119 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems again that it may in fact be extinct; there are multiple news articles on the topic that have been released in the past day, though some sound vague about it. - Pythasis 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation vs. Copying

The article includes text copied from cited resources. This is against Wikipedia guidelines as it is a violation of citation rules and might be a violation of copyright laws. Would the original contributor please fix the problem? Evren Güldoğan (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to fix it; but I had to revise the sections too. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Blue macaw.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Blue macaw.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blue macaw.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision of chronologies and table data

I apologize to the community for my "bold" editing of this page. This article had inaccurate numbers as well as substantial gaps in the History and Conservation chronologies, copied text from copyrighted sources, and composition issues (big paragraphs, out of sequence information, etc). I inserted substantial information as well as reorganized existing content. The net result is better, but as either a historical or scientific essay, it's still weak.

An overarching theme associated with this bird is its extraordinary scarcity both in the wild and in aviculture. That theme isn't apparent from reading the article.

Keeping that table up to date is an intractable problem - it's going to change every few months, and we won't necessarily know until there's some press release that tells us, which may be months later. It'll be inaccurate more often than it's accurate. Do we really want to keep this kind of detail? I suggest we reduce the table to a single count of birds held at each organization/location.

This bird is one of only 5 all blue parrots (including Glaucous Macaw (extinct), Hyacinth Macaw, Lear's Macaw, Newton's Parakeet (extinct)); its "non-natural" color is a substantial part of the reason it was coveted by collectors and hunted to extinction. I attempted to add this information to the Description section, and another editor deleted it. It seems relevant to me, because the two other remaining blue parrots are also endangered, and for the same reason. Where does this information belong?

Additional information missing: lifespan, whether it talks, its temperament in aviculture.

Sbalfour (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

deleting two unsourced/dubious statements

Two unsourced and editorializing statements have appeared in the text of section Captive Population, with a combined total of 6 annotations:

• In recent years[when?], in Al Wabra, birds have reached sexual maturity at the age of 4–5 which is considered normal[according to whom?] and good semen quality and egg laying has been observed as early as 4 years of age.[citation needed]

• Currently efforts are ongoing to teach the Spix's parent to parent raise chicks and hopefully[editorializing] parent raising will become the norm in the future[when?].[citation needed]

I didn't add these (though 90+% of the article is mine), and can only find a blog entry essentially duplicating the inserted text to support the claims. It'd be nice if they were true, and a worthy addition to the article, but until some editor can cite them properly, I'm going to delete them. Sbalfour (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

scholarship issue: how did Spix acquire the holotype specimen?

I can't find the text in "Travels in Brazil" that sources Juniper's claim in "Spix's Macaw: The Race to Save the World's Rarest Bird" page 19, where he says that Spix shot a magnificent blue bird on the bank of the Rio Sao Francisco. I have another source that says Spix acquired his specimen (the holotype) from an anonymous donor after he returned to Germany. Spix did indeed collect (presumably shot) a collection of birds while staying in Joazeiro in April 1819, but was the Spix's Macaw among them?? I'm still translating the German looking for the exact text. (Juniper has already made one verified factual error: Spix and Martius arrived and stayed in Joazeiro in April, 1819, not May.) Sbalfour (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

amorphous sections Conservation and threats, Threats; History; Captive Population

Re: Snowman's comments on the article in Sainsf's Talk page. Well, these sections are a collection of facts. I've renamed the Threats section (there can't be any threats if there aren't any birds left in the wild) to Extinction in the Wild and moved the section under History. I intended History to be the birds history in the wild, and Conservation to be the bird's history in captivity (actions by conservationists, organizations and governments). Captive population is current status, and History in captivity (like an Epilogue to History section). I'm open to suggestions; sainsf wants a more narrative style, instead of a littany of facts. I agree. What else? Sbalfour (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think most of my comments have been addressed, so I don't repeat them here. I believe the three sections are much better now, but I would like to know Snowman's opinion. It is not mandatory, but I would recommend more addition of details in Diet and Description. I feel these are vital sections and should be expanded a bit more. But that is if relevant data is available. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few comments after a quick read through: Snowman (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Distribution and habitat. Repetition of range in 2nd and 4th paragraph. Repetition of last wild birds range in 1st and 5th paragraph. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• History. I do not see the point of the German language line. 6th paragraph has more repetition of last birds range seen in the paragraph above twice. Repetition of Sick in 5th paragraph here and 1st paragraph of History section. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Repetition of the low numbers in captivity in "Health and reproduction" section and "Captive population", but with some unexplained contradiction with explanation of trapping for the pet trade explained earlier. "Parrots choose their own mates, so the best genetic pairings may not be possible" has an apparent contradiction by the use of artificial insemination explained in the next section. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Aviculture. "Most of his birds died of poisoning in the 1970s." The poisoning event sounds highly signification, so I would like to hear more about that. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• General. I think that the recommended max number of paragraphs for the introduction is four. Who was/is Nigel Collar? I might be wrong, but I think Tony Juniper went out to study the Spix Macaw and his role and views might be reasonably explained better. Did he find the last wild Spix Macaw? Sometimes the bird is called just "Spix" in the article, but I think that it would be better to say Spix Macaw. I think that the article is still a bit nebulous with paragraphs appearing to have several repetitions producing for me lack of focus in paragraphs leading me to have to go back to compare what the other sections said. I found the chronological history somewhat difficult to follow because is is spread out over several sections and for me this compounded the amorphous effect of nebulous sections. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Captive population counts are significantly out of date

According to the Al Wabra Facebook page for Spix's Macaw, as of the end of 2015 breeding season, there are now 110 birds in the captive breeding program, up from 84 listed in the article captive population table. That would also mean there are at least 123 birds known or presumed to be alive, including birds in the hands of private owners not participating in the ICMBio breeding program. I'm also not sure that the pop counts were updated to account for the death of Presley in June, 2014. Another elderly Spix at Al Wabra may also have died in the last two years, but Al Wabra hasn't publicly commented on it. Counts for Spix's held in private hands were last enumerated in 2012, and are likely higher now.Sbalfour (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Update on Images

Two individuals of Spix's Macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii) in captivity at Jurong Bird Park in Singapore

Two individuals of Spix's Macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii) in captivity at Jurong Bird Park in Singapore (cropped version))

I've brightened the main photo being used in the infobox so that the bird is now more visible, and I've also uploaded two more photos of this species to Wikimedia Commons. One of them I have added to the article under the "Captive Population" heading. Putting thumbnails of them here for editors' consideration in case others decide they would be useful elsewhere in the article. GeoEvan (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Should the "In Popular Culture" section be in chronological order?, because it currently isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsDaBunnyYT (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Captive population: Institutions / Locations

A 2020 Audubon article says that ACTP currently has more than 150 birds, after acquiring Qatar's collection. --zandperl (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Back

Spix's macaw is actually back to the wild. 2402:4000:2081:847A:F1B7:9671:4A23:5C3B (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Except that, until the IUCN officially updates its conservation status, it can't be changed from "extinct in the wild" yet.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Popular Culture- Adding the "Norwegian Blue" Episode

Hello! I was just wondering, in the article for the Dead Parrot Sketch it says that the "Norwegian Blue" parrot is actually a Spix's Macaw, however here in the Popular Culture section of the Spix's Macaw article it does not include this popular culture reference. Should we add it in the Popular Culture section here, or should we talk about deleting that it's "actually a Spix's Macaw" from the original article (Dead Parrot Sketch)? 2603:6000:B6F0:8BF0:8EB:A1D2:3DD4:728E (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

2022 batch released into the wild

I cant seem to find a proper source citing the 2022 batch which was released in the wild. I did however find this source citing "In 2022, 52 of the captive-raised birds were released into the wild." https://www.birdnote.org/listen/shows/return-extinct-little-blue-macaw

Any other sources on this, which are reputable, should be included as a citation. 80.112.177.234 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)