Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bird ID

Who am I?

It's that time again. I don't have a book of Southern African birds with me. It is clearly a greenbul of some description though. Any thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know Birds of Southern Africa by Sinclair et al. is searchable at Amazon? I searched it and think that picture is an (African) Yellow-bellied Green/Bulbul, Chlorocichla flaviventris, but you can check for yourself. —JerryFriedman 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that, but it is good to know. I agree with your suggestion too. I'll add it to the article and modify the Commons page accordingly. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More bird stub types

I neglected to mention this sooner, sorry, but yet more birds-by-order types have been proposed, and the passerines are getting huger by the instant: I've proposed re-splitting, here. Since some of these taxons have no corresponding "permcat" at present, there's no immediate precedent on whether to use "common" or Latin names for these. Please comment on these as you see fit. Alai 07:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And again! The blessing/curse of Polbot, part #57... Type is hugely larger still, I've updated the proposal with a much longer list of viable-looking by-family subtypes. Alai 07:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-sorted these enough that nothing's currently "officially oversized", but I won't claim that things are optimally organised just yet. Before I start to contemplate whether Category:Passerida stubs, Category:Corvida stubs and the like are indicated, could domain-knowledgeable people have a look as they stand currently? Alai 23:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Article-less genera

Currently, I noticed that the genus Hylocichla redirects to Wood Thrush, the only species in that genus. Do separate articles still need to be made for genera where there is only one species? (I think Xanthomyza's only species is the Regent Honeyeater) Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirection of monotypic genera to their constituent species is our standard practice here. Good spot on Regent Honeyeater - please go ahead and create the redirect. SP-KP 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Polbot is currently going through and adding species articles that she didn't create to genus articles that she did create (which weren't there before), and changing monotypic genus articles into redirects to the species articles. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization debate at main WP:MOS

There is currently a debate underway at the main wikipedia manual of style regarding whether common names of animals should carry an initial capital letter (horse or Horse) when used in the body of the text. As the outcome may affect your project, if anyone would like to contribute to the debate, with either view, please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common names of animals. Thanks for your time. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, not this shit again. Thanks for the heads up though Uther, I'm glad someone is keeping an eye on MOS. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again..

this would require some input from use here.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Animals project proposal

This was accidentally placed on the main project page. I've moved it here. Sheep81 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

Jungle Babbler

Turdoides striata or Turdoides striatus? Current Jungle Babbler article uses the latter, but I just merged a Polbot stub of the former. Both spellings appear in google searches, not sure which is correct myself. - MPF 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Always check the Redlist link for this: striata. Citation is in Ptarmigan article. Dysmorodrepanis
I'd trust Zoonomen too. Is that wise? —JerryFriedman 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure! They have - in this particular case - the same source as the IUCN, and in general, if in doubt Zoonomen's the place to go. Good for type species too, if there are upcoming splits. But they haven't made babblers yet. Dysmorodrepanis 08:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the uncertainty I've put the synonym in the taxobox as such. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, sources vary on this. ITIS, for example, says T. striatus while Zoonomen says T. striata. The difference, of course, is in whether the generic epithet is inherently masculine or feminine. It appears, to me, that Turdoides is a fifth declension feminine singular noun like spes, res, species, rabies, etc. This would mean that the adjective striatus, itself a first declension adjective in -us would be striata in the feminine singular. So, I'd favour T. striata. It's odd, however, that ITIS wouldn't even mention the variance; it's usually pretty good in that regard. It would be cool for someone to track down Dumont's original paper from 1823 to see what he had to say about it. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably nothing if I know my old-time descriptions. In any case, the gender-agreement rule was not firmly in place then... Lagopus, for that matter, was indeed treated as feminine in the original description. I think in the present case it hinges on the relation of "-oides" to "Turdus".
Note I was mistaken - there is not only this one source I mentioned, but another one by the same authors: "Gender agreement of avian species names", Bulletin of the British Ornithology Club 122: 257–282. Which one applies can be checked via the citations used in the IUCN Redlist.
I remember seeing a part of one of these papers online as scanned PDF some time ago, but I can't find it anymore, and as it was not complete I didn't save it either. Dysmorodrepanis 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A nice paper for Sabine's Sunbird (and any other seabird buff)

I found doi:10.1007/s10336-007-0185-6 which is way cool. It's not published yet, so either you guys might check it out, or I'll get it some time and mail it to you. It's so nice to have a seabird that smells of citrus instead of the more usual old-fish-and-maybe-stomach-oil... and especially as they seem to sniff their perfumed crests as a social display. How cute is that? Dysmorodrepanis 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Peregrine Falcon

Hi, sifting through the papers (namely "Raptors at Risk") I have found a problem: regarding mtDNA, the Peregrine and the Barbary Falcon are indistinguishable. Wink et al. support merging them. However, later it turned out that for example the Saker Falcon ist not monophyletic regarding mtDNA, which is obviously the result of hybridization. A similar effect is present in the Barbary Falcon, but the latter is also very very close to the Peregrine (the Saker is altogether more distant, only some populations have hybridized with Peregrine/Barbary-ancestors in the past). The most consistent scenario would be that the Barbary is a side branch of the very same radiation that produced the Peregrine subspecies, and phylogenetically it is not more distant than any of them. Altogether, all Peregrines and the Barbaries are derived from an ancestor that must have lived no later than the Early-Mid Pleistocene boundary[*]! (That is to say, the entire group is barely older than modern human's direct ancestors.)

[*] I assume a mtDNA sequence divergence of about 1% per 1 - 1.5 million years which is about as reasonable as anyone can guess - amniotes which take 1 year to sexual maturity have around 2% per million years, but falcons don't become sexually mature til 2 or 3 years old.

But that's only one half of the problem. A taxon can be of as recent an ancestry as some relatives, but if it is reproductively distinctly more isolated than the others, it would be appropriate to consider it a species. Monophyly is not a criterion that ought to be used 100% strictly (I think) because cladistic analyses assume that all lineage divergences happen instantaneously and sympatrically due to limitiations in the methodology (lineages have a width of 1, and of course, there is no way yet to integrate GIS data with phylogenetic data in a cladogram).

Thus the case for merging or splitting is unresolvable to me at present. I will continue to search for newer data, but if anyone knows some publication, I'd be glad to consult that. I have Birds of the Western Palearctic and HBW, but both are also older works. In the end, it's a "total evidence" question, and will probably boil down to biogeography and behavior (selective mating) making the decision. The mtDNA data is hopelessly confounded, and nDNA can't be hoped to give useful information at all.

In any case, I'll go over the subspecies of the Peregrine these days, because the morph kreyenborgi is missing and there's a nice paper discussing that semi-leucistic variant. Dysmorodrepanis 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In India, F. p. calidus is found in winter to overlap the range of the resident F. p. peregrinator. The two are not known to hybridize. Neither actual nor potentially interbreeding and yet they are not considered separate species even in the the most recent treatment of the birds of South Asia by Pamela C. Rasmussen and many of Wink's work are acknowledged in this work. There appear to be forces beyond science that are involved in the recognition of full-species status ! Shyamal 02:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The "because I say so" nature of such decisions has been known for a LONG time, AFAIK. Circeus 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
True, in fact I was once looking for an article on the mihi itch - unfortunately do not have the required references for the creation of that one ! Shyamal 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd go further than agree with what you suggested at the end, Dysmodrepanis. If they're sympatric but don't interbreed, they're separate species, regardless of anything else. And not just because I said so. The article claims they share breeding range and don't interbreed, but citations would be nice. I'm at least going to change the smug POV tone. —JerryFriedman 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I have rounded up the information I need. Hybridization is possible technically (no postzygotic isolation, i.e. once mating occurs the offspring are viable) but very rare in the wild. The HBW uses a one-species approach, and that's what worries me - the two-species approach is clearly on the defensive, so it needs some authority - ideally some ornithological society's ruling - to stand.
Nonetheless, here's may take on it: some 750000 years ago (very roughly), something happened. "Very roughly" includes the beginning of the Günz/Nebraskan glaciation, which seems a better candidate than anything else. The ancestral "pereginish" Falcon was then distributed in N America and W Europe (probably - its closest living relative seems to be the Mexican Falcon). It was pushed S, but the aridlands of N Africa and the Middle East, which became desert by that time, were a barrier, though northern and southern (African) populations could still be linked along the Atlantic coast and possibly via India and East Africa. Same thing for the Indian population itself, only the linkage was along SE Asia.
But the Barbary Falcon shows clear adaptations - and indeed, osteological adaptations which speak of a considerable degree of separation - which are nonetheless very clearly related to a life in an semiarid habitat lacking many trees.
So a scenario that would explain all the data would go like this:
Parapatric isolation of an aridland-adapting offshoot of the main ancestral stock towards the start of the Würm glaciation, and as this progresses, allopatry and semi-desert habitat adaptations. As the climate becomes warmer and wetter again, expansion of surrounding Peregrines to contact. Very limited but present gene flow (if it happened, it likely stuck, as the gene flow barriers are prezygotic). Next ice age comes, again complete allopatry. Next interglacial comes, again parapatry and limited gene flow.
And that's it. Think of the Peregine distribution as an expanding and contracting donut with the Barbary in the middle, either in or out of contact depending on the global precipitation regime.
As suggested by the slightly polyphyletic mtDNA pattern of the (few) Barbaries analyzed to date, this "limited but present gene flow" period occurred probably at least twice (Aftonian I and II or Aftonian I and Yarmouth I interglacials?). More thorough sampling would be necessary.
This seems to me a highly interesting case. Whether the Barbary hangs around in a yo-yo-like incipient species state since it first evolved or whether it decidedly evolves towards speciation or devolves towards subspecies status could be told by the absence or presence of more recent mtDNA introgression around the contact zone (luckily, this all happened so recently that we don't have to take tectonics into account) - the present data is not really introgression but more like incomplete lineage sorting.
I can't think of any other way to deal with the data. All the primary data I have was published by people (Wink, Helbig and Vaurie) which I usually consider well reliable as regards their data, even if I might not agree with their conclusions. The data seems good and true, all of it, and this means the evolutionary/phylogenetic hypothesis must be fit to accomodate all of it too.
This is not 100% definite, I have to check out some fossil record stuff. But I think it's a pretty good working model, as it would allow for exactly the results (and the discrepancy) the morphological and molecular studies have produced, and even tentatively provides a time and place that agrees with the molecular timeframe. If it agrees with what fossil record there is, I need to check. Dysmorodrepanis 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's an original reconstruction, I think you have an interesting paper!
Needs fossil data, which we haven't, to make for a good paper. It's basically what comes to mind trying to integrate the data. I suppose that both lines of evidence are correct (I see no reason why they shouldn't) and they need to go together somehow. I have done the work needed to start now (see Falcon... soooo many synonyms...) and I'll add the references and the obligatory pinch of salt. Luckily, most sources are online for free - Vaurie's study makes an interesting read, it's from pre-molecular times, but he manages to round up a case that is interesting. If it weren't for the molecular data, I'd guess a split is a given... it's not some puny adaptation thing like Gloger's Rule, but actual qualitative morphological differences. And these require reproductive isolation; stronger shoulders and an elongated middle toe don't just drop out of the skies. Dysmorodrepanis 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The most recent authority I've found with the Web for the Barbary Falcon as a separate species is Short, Horne, and Muringo-Gichuki, An Annotated Check-list of the Birds of East Africa (Los Angeles, 1990), quoted in van Perlo, Birds of Eastern Africa. Unless you count field guides, in which case searching Amazon for "Falco pelegrinoides" will find you a good number. Is this enough to say, "Some authorities consider…"? —JerryFriedman 02:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Totally, in my book. It'll get interesting to choose the wording, to get the point across just right; this case is far trickier than most. Dysmorodrepanis 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
BWP (1998) has, literally, "Some authorities (e.g. Brown and Amadon 1968) consider pelegrinoides and babylonicus as races of F. peregrinus, but here treated as a separate species following Vaurie (Vaurie 1965), Stepanyan (Stepanyan 1969a), and Voous (Voous 1977)." And then the molecular data came in and everyone threw away their caution - ah, bad old days! (I have the impression that everybody is now glad that the issue is "settled". The unease probably remains with field researchers, but nobody's gonna touch what burned generations of ornithologists without due caution...). The problem - any argument for or against species status can be countered with another for the opposite treatment. Dysmorodrepanis 05:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bird lists

Greetings. I am thinking about creating a template to help the bird list articles like this one: List of California birds. The use of the template would be that we could have the bird-family heading descriptions in one place so that they can all be consistent and changed easily. A single template could house the whole thing in the form {{birdlistheadings |family=Procellariidae |area=Chile |count=36}}. I think area and count would be optional; they would produce "there are 75 species worldwide and 36 species which occur in Chile", if desired. What do you think? -- Basar (talk · contribs) 00:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor, since there are some minor improvements that could be made in the descriptions of the families. And I'd be in favour of a setting for British spelling and one for American. —JerryFriedman 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Different spellings? Never thought of that. I guess it wouldn't be too hard to implement the feature, so sure. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Might be harder than you think - you'd have to set up numerous individual cases, remembering differences in spelling like 'Brünnich's Guillemot' (UK Eng) / 'Thick-billed Murre' (US Eng). Even more difficult would be settings for different authorities - the family that "there are 75 species worldwide and 36 species which occur in Chile" according to the authority used for the Chilean national list, might have to be changed to "there are 67 species worldwide and 12 species which occur in South Africa" according to the authority used in South Africa, or "there are 78 species worldwide and 9 species which occur in Russia" according to the authority used in Russia; all for the same family. Precisely because of this problem, I've generally been getting rid of these statements in the lists I've been editing (particularly as they're not derived from the HBW listing that WP:Birds has generally chosen to adopt). - MPF 09:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Also the US names used throughout by Avibase, the usual source of these lists may refer to a different species (eg Common Scoter is not on any autogenerated list, but Black Scoter is; similarly the Avibase name refers to the Am ssp, even when it isn't that form (White-winged instead of Velvet Scoter). Jimfbleak 09:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we can get around these issues. For one, the template would only have the heading and text directly below the heading, not any individual species. That indeed would make it quite complex. The sentence that gives the numbers of species for different areas is indeed a bit complex to implement, but it wouldn't be too hard. I don't suppose we could just agree on a standard world-wide number for each family of birds could we? That would make it a lot more standardized and less error prone, but I could make it so that the world-world wide number could be specified in each line like {{birdlistheadings |family=Procellariidae |area1=world-wide |count1=102 |area2=Chile |count2=36}} which would produce "there are 102 world-wide species and 36 Chile species". -- Basar (talk · contribs) 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Since nobody seems to be willing to fix that awkward referencing situation on WP and looking through the markup code, I found no quick fix myself and besides I'm in the mood for some falcon stuff, I had this idea:
The problem with all referencing done by the < ref > is twofold: first, it creates a lot of overhead in the maintext source that is unhelpful to inexperienced editors and really does not need to be there. Also, it results in reference lists that are very chaotic and that makes it unnecessarily protracted in much-referenced articles to check whether a source has been added already, and where. Also, if one doesn't use plugins, the whole article needs to be edited if one wants to check the reference for spelling mistakes and formatting, and it is often very nice to have the possibility for true "footnotes", i.e. explanatory comments (for example when I have a molecular phylogeny paper, it often needs to be remarked that the molecular clock model is uncalibrated and unreliable and way so, but that's simply too long to put it in the maintext)

Thus, how about this:
< ref > as is commonly done, but do not cite the whole reference there, rather a Harvard citation. Use "Footnotes" and "References" sections. Cite references in a neat alphabetic list in the latter.

This might seem a bit complicated, but I think to the casual reader, it is not so much necessary to know the exact details of a source, but more that a source exists and can be checked if need be. Whereas to the professional or expert, a well-sorted reference section is indispensable, and if done like this, it can be used, edited and messed around with (copy/pasting references for other articles becomes more easy) at leisure. References are moreover easily found, because people now don't use a standard format - I and others try to pack as much info in there as can be found, whereas many simply copy/paste from PubMed which has a somewhat more reduced format, and others only give first author et al in a very brief citation itself, so searching the < ref > notes is not necessarily a guarantee to find a reference - an alphabetical list, on the other hand, ought to be.

There is another advantage: as information becomes more well-referenced, this approach would prevent the "array of numbers" problem (see the Casualties list at Operation Arrowhead Ripper and check out the source code... UGLY! No way inexperienced users could edit that without breaking it) - a single < ref > would be enough, because the sources themselves would only be pointed at therein.

What do you think? If it's OK, I'll try this in Peregrine Falcon so you can check out how it looks like. (If it's bad, it can be easily reverted simply by copying the sources into the tags. No information is lost). Dysmorodrepanis 09:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it more at Aplomado Falcon :-) I think it works, and I tried to make it more consistent. Did you really mean to mix <ref> and author-year in-line references, though? I made some of them author-year, but maybe I should gone the other way.
By the way, I barely managed to add two eeeevile "aut" tags. Looking at that list of caps-and-small-caps author names makes me want to read anything else. At least I didn't have to add any ampersands. —JerryFriedman 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try it on Cyanoramphus if you like. I'm thinking of expanding that genus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Mannikin

Anyone an expert on this bird? The categories need a good cleaning, as I'm not so sure all those "birds of..." categories are suitable. Categories should be important things: not just any (or all) things somewhat related to the subject. If the bird has a small population in a country (or countries), then I don't think the category needs to be there. RobJ1981 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A better solution would be that adopted for European species, where Birds of Europe is the only accepted geographical category. However, I don't think there has been any agreement or discussion to do that for Birds of Africa. Jimfbleak 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Move request

Bay Owl should be Bay owl as it is a genus not species, and the Congo Bay-owl needs to move to Congo Bay Owl. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done these, but there's nothing to stop you doing moves yourself, it's not an admin thing, Jimfbleak 06:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression non-admins couldn't move things when the target already exists, even as a redirect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops -you're right of course, because it effectively involves deletion. Jimfbleak 09:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bird genera without articles

I've been knocking out stubs for some of these, but I wonder if there is any criterion for validity. For example, Melaniparus does not have a ITIS entry, and is not treated as a fully accepted genus on the tit page. Jimfbleak 10:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Melaniparus? Make that a subgenus of Parus (see for example Hierofalco and Lanner Falcon for taxobox stuff) of uncertain validity, if you will. Uncertain because I think I remember from here that the traditional assignment of species to the Melaniparus group is not 100% kosher and/or resolved and/or researched, and if so, it would depend on the type species. What seems clear is that there's a clade of "dark typical tits" which roughly corresponds to Melaniparus, but at present the experts seem very reluctant to split Parus even more. Dysmorodrepanis 10:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Melaniparus was just an example, I'm not actually planning to do it. The list of genera is in any case incomplete, I've recently written several hummer genus stub articles which are not in the list, but are on ITIS, eg Elvira - presumably some of these at least were not picked up because there is an article at Elvira. Jimfbleak 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed - I created the list of articleless genera in a pretty unintelligent way, without checking each of the c.1900 bluelinks at the "list of genera" page. A fun job for somebody on a rainy day! SP-KP 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If we seriously want to do it, there might be enough people here who'd be willing to check, say, 50 each. And we might be able to start by eliminating those that have been created recently. —JerryFriedman 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, let's give it a try. Place your name against a letter. Then visit List of bird genera and check the articles starting with that letter. When you've checked for any hidden missing genera, add these to the "To Do" section below in the form [[Elvira (genus)|Elvira]], and then mark the letter here as complete. I'll take the obvious letter S.

No, use the form [[Elvira (bird)|Elvira]] by all means! A genus name is available once per kingdom, not one for life as a whole: Morus.
No need to change what has been done already - if the botany or protist crew finds it to collide with their genus names, they'll fix it, as we would were it the other way around (see history of Allenia. But in general a form of [[genusname (class)|genusname]] is best. Dysmorodrepanis 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do that from now on. —JerryFriedman 02:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean right now! :-) I vandalized your suggestion above, by the way. —JerryFriedman 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And when we've done that

there's this! Jimfbleak 05:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done (i.e., cleaned up) Dysmorodrepanis 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Stubs take a little longer when you try to add a sentence or two about what the species have in common, as well as the etymology. (These genus articles are the right places for etymology, I think.) But one way or the other, it'll get done. —JerryFriedman 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe things just take me longer than they take you, or my idea of "long" is different from yours. —JerryFriedman 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Mmcannis is busy adding lots of cats to bird articles based on locations - but formatting them so they turn up on the category pages organised by type, so Red Fan-parrots are listed under F and Red-crowned Parakeets coming under P. I asked if there was a reason at Wikiproject Categories and was told it was the projects call to make which way we wanted it. Personally I prefer them to be alphabetical, so that Cassin's Auklet is found at C not A. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'd look for Cassin's Auklet under A, as in an index. This does create a problem with Fan-parrots, I admit, but the last place I'd look for Red Fan-parrot would be under R. —JerryFriedman 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

We need to do a clean out of the old nominations in the Collaboration of the Month; it's supposed to happen after three months. I suggest that any nomination that doesn't have a vote in the last month come the next choice 9end of the month) gets cleaned out and we nominate some new articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Can I interest anybody in making Brachypteryx, Heinrichia, Turdidae, and Muscicapidae consistent on what family these birds are in (or whether we don't know)? —JerryFriedman 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have "the" reference for it and if nobody else does, I take a shot at it.
The entire Old World warblers need that kind of review too. I started when I revised them, but didn't get very far. Dysmorodrepanis 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Hawaiian honeycreepers finches?

This might be a bigger problem than the shortwings. We list Drepanididae as a separate family and Fringillidae doesn't contain them, but all the drepanidid genera I looked at have Fringillidae in the taxobox. I realize this is a controversial topic, but can we make it consistent? I'd be happy with "Drepanididae or Fringillidae" in the taxoboxes. —JerryFriedman 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Similiarly we list the fantails, monarch flycatchers and drongos as subfamilies of the Dicruridae but the newer articles have them as three seperate familes (something the new HBW treatement supports, btw.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I might have refs for both; I should at least for the former. In any case, the Jønsson & Fjeldså supertree is as good as it gets and it should allow me to find the papers we need here. The 'creepers are (I think) resolved as a subfamily in the Fringillidae now. Dysmorodrepanis 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List of outstanding letters

Sorry guys, I'll try and finish C soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Linnean vagaries...

Hmmm... we run Paleognathae and Neognathae as superorders, which is the way it was traditionally done and how everybody who doesn't know that galliforms + anseriforms stand apart does it. Would it not be more logical to adopt the scheme of Galloanserae - there is, after all, still space for an infraclass below Neornithes?

I wouldn't take it as far as use "parvclasses" which is theoretically possible and in any case, we will inevitably have to use unranked taxa when the Neoaves are picked apart which may be this year or never. But at present, only one unranked taxon is allowed per Linnean rank - and only Linné's original "large" ranks, so no unranked_infraclassis - which kind of defeats the purpose of the system (to make taxonomic levels as dense as need be). The dino folks are running into all sorts of problems, their theropod taxoboxes are quite inconsistent indeed.

So I suggest we rack the -gnaths up to infraclass, allowing for superorders Galloanserae and Neoaves, because these, as far as anyone can tell, are good and true. A simple explanation, about how they were traditionally placed as superorders but with the Galloanseres being recognized widely this is impractical, and it showing that Linnean ranks do not represent fixed "levels" in evolution, would be as much of an addition to the article texts as is needed.

Thus, the occasional reader would also learn an important thing or two about taxonomy; many still think that an order of birds is the equivalent of an order of, say, insects. But it's not; Linné simply counted through the diversity of life from the species on upwards. Dysmorodrepanis 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the above verging on original research? Shouldn't we be looking for whatever consensus is emerging in recent literature and apply that (and if there isn't one, then we wait until there is?) SP-KP 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
"Isn't the above verging on original research" - nope, see here for example (the original reference for the change). Basically, whether people call it "superorder" or "infraclass" depends on whether they're ignorant of Galloanseres or not.
It is unusual though, yes. Mainly because most who recognize Galloanseres try to avoid Linnean ranks at all.
Wikipedia does use the Linnean system. The present arrangement is inconsistent. We cannot make a proper taxobox for Mirandornithes, Cypselomorphae and Daedalornithes if somebody does these articles (the second should get a fairly high priority and I'm presently collecting sources for all of them), because they would need 2 consecutive "unranked"s if Neoaves cannot be ranked as superorder.
That is the situation. What to do with it?
I know it would be weird. But Wikipedia is basically the only major work that combines Linnean ranks and PhyloCode. I don't think that's bad - but it certainly leads to peculiar consequences. Dysmorodrepanis 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We could make Galloanserae a cohort, but then we're gonna run into the same problem again with the diatrymas, as neognaths is beginning to be accepted to be ((Gastornithiformes + Anseriformes) Galliformes) Neoaves. As opposed to Neoaves, which may or may not be resolved to consensus in the next 2 years or so, there is pretty little basal stuff between paleognaths, Neoaves and Galloanserae. The list in Fossil birds is >99% complete for that period in bird evolution, and Gansus, Ambiortus and the Yanornithiformes are the closest anyone gets. And neither of these is likely to be Neornithes, and of these, all known taxa can be unequivocally placed into paleognaths, Galloanseres or Neoaves. And given the ruckus a tentative assignment would cause (it's a potential career-maker or -breaker... the Chatterjee effect if you will), a fossil that would change that would need to be exceptionally complete. Dysmorodrepanis 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
My head hurts. I thik you're going to need to explain it to me with pictures! :-) SP-KP 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dysmo, you say "I know it's weird" as if someone had criticized it as weird, but I doubt there are many here who know what you're talking about. I sure don't.
From what little I can tell, I wonder what the problem is with taxoboxes for those genera you mentioned. Can't we just do the best we can with acceptable taxa and explain in the article what's missing?
We use PhyloCode? —JerryFriedman 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the dino folks try not to go against it in their extensive use of the unranked_ field. Which is totally fine with me. Dysmorodrepanis 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As regards the inconsistency, compare Fowl and Neognath. The equivalent to "Clade Galloanserae" would be "Clade Neoaves". Which in turn almost certainly contains, e.g., a "Clade Mirandornithes" - flamingos and grebes (see flamingo). We cannot use "unranked_superordo" twice consecutively in the taxobox, and Mirandornithes has not received IIRC a Linnean rank - and probably never will. So Fowl and Neoaves need a Linnean rank. I would go with the more familiar "superorder" rather than "cohort" or "section" or whatnot; these are not generally used for birds.
It's weird because it's a technical restriction of WP suggesting for a rather uncommon ranking. But since ranking above family is arbitrary as long as the sequence is correct, it is, well, arbitrary. E.g., you won't find a paper just so arguing that cohort is correct vs superorder, without some major new insight into phylogeny requiring that. Dysmorodrepanis 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Morphometrics info box

Would others consider a standardized morphometrics infobox useful for the bird articles with tarsus, wing, length, tail, bill and weights with sections for races and subsections marking gender if required. Shyamal 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about bird photographs

I've got a lot of good photos of common North American Midwestern US birds, and some others from Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Ecuador, which I'm happy to submit to Wikipedia for free use since my focus is education and conservation. I noticed last week that the Wikipedia photo for the Le Conte's Sparrow entry is pretty grainy and distant, without a larger photo available. I submitted LESP-Erickson, and don't know how, or if, to add it or substitute it on the Le Conte's Sparrow page. Suggestions? Also, I'm not very knowledgeable about technical matters, so if my photos like this one might be useful, I'd need some step-by-step instructions for what to do. (I hope this is the right place to ask this.) Laura Erickson 14:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Laura, when you upload a file (upload file in the sidebar, make sure you choose the GFDL-self licence. The format for putting images on a page is [[image:imagename|left|250px|thumb|caption]] (the alignment and size are adjustable. That should get you started, Jimfbleak 15:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Your uploading, including the license, looks great. However, lots of people outside North America don't know the four-letter codes. (Heck, I don't know most of them either.) In the future, it's better to use the full scientific name. You can use underlines for spaces, or the computer will convert them to underlines automatically.
The picture already at Le Conte's Sparrow is so poor and yours is so good—what did you do, tranquilizer-dart the poor bird? :-) —that you should just replace the one that's there.
  • Go to the article (you can click on the link I made in the above paragraph) and edit it.
  • Look for the line near the top that says "| image = LeconteSparrow23.jpg" (without the quotation marks. Replace "LeconteSparrow23.jpg" with the name of your image, LESP-Erickson.jpg.
  • Optional: Add a line below it that says "| image_caption = 'Whatever you want in the caption'". I don't know whether there's much to say in the caption other than "Adult", though.
  • Preview the page to make sure everything worked. Save.
These instructions are different from Jim's above because this picture should go in the taxobox (the box at the top right of an article that summarizes the classification). In general, if there's only one picture at an article, it should go in the taxobox, and the same if one is clearly the best. If there's already a picture in the taxobox and you're putting your picture somewhere else, use the code that Jim gave above. (It's much easier to read if you edit the page, and then you can copy and paste it.) And remember that you can edit other articles to look at how they did what they did, then cancel (or make any improvements you want while you're at it). —JerryFriedman 23:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List of years in birding and ornithology

I've just added List of years in birding and ornithology to the "pages requested" section. Please see the few existing pages for layout. Thank you.

Also, I suggest that year links in birding articles link to one of the above, and not the general year, as happens in other genres - so 2005 not 2005

Signing for bot archival. Shyamal 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More id requests

Unidentified Kenyan bird1.JPG

I decided this picture might be identifiable. Anyone care to take a shot? Sweetwaters Game Reserve, central Kenya, I think it was savanna habitat.

JMK tells me it's a Winding Cisticola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryFriedman (talkcontribs) 20:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that...I looked it up in the HBW that covers cisticolas. Several cisticolas look like it but that is the only one found in that part of Kenya. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, User:JMK has been correcting some of my identifications of African birds. The discussion is at his Commons talk page. The ones he was least sure of, so I'd like someone to review them, are below

JerryFriedman 02:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To do

Arguably correct at the present state of page (if not research - I think I have a paper around); see second-but-last para in "Systematics". Dysmorodrepanis 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I have not found any new paper. Until the fallout of the Arnaiz-Villena et al study has settled and/or the Oriental Bird Club makes a move, the present situation seems as good as any, given that BirdLife still lumps them all into Carpodacus. What could be done is to add a note (or subgenus) to those species in the "Unassigned" part that might be placed in Uragus if it's restored. Dysmorodrepanis 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ammamanopsis, Euodice, Spermestes

Anyone know the source of Ammamanopsis on the list of bird genera? There's nothing like that in Wikipedia, Zoonomen, the IUCN, or Avibase.

No Google hits either, including Books and Scholar. I'm just going to delete it. —JerryFriedman 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reason Euodice and Spermestes are on the list of redlinked bird genera is that we merge them into Lonchura. Any reason we shouldn't just delete them from the list? —JerryFriedman 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Or is Euodice what we do with them? —JerryFriedman 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


two new images have been added to this page, which don't look like Accipiter hawks to me, more like Buteo species. can anyone make a positive ID and move them to the correct page(s). Jimfbleak 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Buteos I agree but I'm not sure what kind, although Red-tail springs to mind. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It certainly does, though I'm not sure I can tell a Red-tail from an Augur Buzzard at that angle (but I'll check my field guides at some point). But if that's a Red-tail, what's the other one? A Rough-legged Hawk? My other thought is to e-mail the photographer and ask whether she can i.d. the birds, and if not, where the pictures were taken. Should I do that?
My other other thought is irrelevant: why do some hawk and hawk-eagle genera have "triorchis" in the name? Doesn't that mean "three testicles"? What the heck? —JerryFriedman 22:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Jim, I spied on your talk page. Given that the pictures were taken near San Francisco, both birds are Red-tails. The one with no red on its tail is an immature with some characteristics of the "light" bird in Sibley and some of the "intermediate" bird. But the adult's tail and the immature's patagial mark (visible in the picture where it's solo) leave no doubt. I think. That means they can just be moved down the page to where Red-tailed Hawk is listed, among other options.
Augur Buzzards have white underparts, including the leg feathers. What was I thinking? —JerryFriedman 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks folks - triorchis -interesting since they don't have any external bits. Jimfbleak 05:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Just a heads up that photographers are becoming entrenched - here anyone want to intervene/suggest a way forward? also any thoughts on the hawk item above Jimfbleak 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential GAs & Fas

Moved discussion from main project page
  • Red-tailed Black Cockatoo has been nominated for GA status but failed; the main reason (see the article's talk page) being that the prose ain't brilliant; anyone with an aptitude for copyediting could fix this relatively easily, I think. Any volunteers? SP-KP 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, given that there seems to be no one else willing to volunteer, I'd be prepared to give it a shot if there are no objections. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
(See what happens when you have a few days' holiday) - I put quite a bit of work into it and hadn't copyedited it as I felt there were some details on captivity I couldn't find. Also had some more to add on food. I have been heartened by the last days' flurry and reckon we can make a go of FAC in a few weeks with some tweaking. If anyone can find some notes on value in the pet trade and smuggling WRT to the RTBC (cool acronym eh?) that would be helpful. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
PS: Given a few of us are interested - best thing is to start a to-do list on the talk page: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • California Condor is currently up for peer review. I've done quite a bit of work and think it would pass a GA review and possibly FA. If someone wants to help me and take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? There's nothing on the talk page to suggest that this is the case? SP-KP 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There is a link to a peer review in the Bird Assessment Box, along with some notes from JerryFriedman and Casliber. Feel free to make suggestions- I'm currently working on Casliber's, but probably will put it up for FAC around Monday if nothing major pops up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, all the raptors! Peregrine Falcon, Red-tailed hawk and California Condor are all circling toward FA (some more than others but all are shaping up nicely), while Osprey has stalled a bit but still is a fair bit improved....Bald Eagle is a little rough around the edges to have been nominated but should make it through - it needs some refs though so have a look at the FAC and offer some comments. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a new phylogeny study coming up, and it seems we're inching towards a consensus. Unfortunately, this also seems to imply massive rebuilding... Dysmorodrepanis 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's the new study, if you have Blackwell Synergy access: doi:10.1111/j.2007.0908-8857.03971.x Dysmorodrepanis 10:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so for the proposed new classification... nothing dramatic actually, ranks may be subject to dispute (the old Falconiformes vs Accipitriformes issue). But altogether it "fits" nicely... the "odd" Old World vultures - Lammergeier, Palm Vulture, Egyptian Vulture etc always have been "vultures" basically because they're carrion-feeding or related to carrion-feeders, and that's it, so it's good to see them separated. Altogether I think this revision stands good chances to be quickly and generally accepted. Anyway, here goes:
Order Falciformes - if Accipitriformes is preferred, rack all ranks up by one (subfamily becomes family etc)
  • Family Accipitridae - non-falcon diurnal raptors
    • Subfamily Sagittariinae - secretarybird
    • Subfamily Pandioninae - osprey
    • Subfamily Accipitrinae
      • Tribe Elanini - elanine kites
      • Tribe Gypaetini - a group that, when you think it through, makes sense in a "should have though of that before"ish way.
        • Subtribe Gypaetina - "atypical OW vultures". Those carrion-eaters without a naked neck and their relatives
        • Subtribe Pernina - honeybuzzards and allies
      • Tribe Accipitrini
        • Subtribe Circaetina - snake eagles and some other (mainly SE Asian) "strange" eagles
        • Subtribe Gypina - true OW vultures
        • Subtribe Accipitrina the rest, containing infratribes Harpiita (harpy eagles), Aquilita (true eagles), Accipitrita (hawks - all hawks, i.e. including buteos - + milvines and assorted "stuff" like Urotriorchis (just 1 example)
The interrelationships of the Accipitrina are deliberately left open to debate by the authors. Altogether, a nice systematics that ties in nicely with biogeography. I'd have to check whether it fits the fossil record, but I'd say yes - there is nothing really earth-shaking about it except that the eagles are all over the place now, and the massive Accipitrita (which of course is due to the study's limitation and subject to change). Dysmorodrepanis 20:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Screech owl disambiguation required

Professional attention required, I think.

- Vendée (region of France) references a historical royalist faction called the Chouans (screech owls). (So naturally I wanted to link this.)
- Screech owl says

The term screech owl can mean:
The barn owl, the primary British meaning of the term (from its discordant cry which is supposed to be an evil omen)
Any of various small American owls of the genus Otus, allied to the Scops owls – especially the Eastern Screech Owl of North America

- Barn owl (Tyto alba) makes no mention of these birds ever being called "screech owls".
- Otus redirects to Scops owl. Scops owl says "Scops owls belong to the genus Otus of owls", and lists several dozen species. Does this mean that "Scops owls belong to Otus, and there are other species of Otus as well", or does it mean that the terms "Scops owl" and "Otus" are synonymous?
- Eastern Screech Owl gives the genus and species as Megascops asio, in contradiction to Screech owl, which says that they are Otus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I took care of the disambiguation. It turned out to be the Tawny Owl, not a screech owl in any sense.
Thanks for bringing the other problems up here. Barn Owl should certainly mention the unofficial name "screech owl"; I'll do it when I get the chance. The other ones will be solved when somebody makes a command decision on whether we should split Megascops off Scops Otus. Any takers? —JerryFriedman 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jerry, Jimfbleak 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Gimme til Saturday to check out my literature on the Otus/Megascops issue, then I'll be able to say whether I can do it. Dysmorodrepanis 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


I posted a to-do list on the talk page. I have also cleared out old nominations from the collaboration of the month page (that hadn't gotten any votes lately), so we can nominate some new articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Birds of Ecuador ID

Who am I x 3!

I found this spectacular image on Flickr to illustrate the concept of clay licks, but I don't have a birds of Ecuador book handy. There are clearly three kinds of parrot present, a macaw, an amazon and a smaller parakeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The parakeet might be a Dusky-headed Parakeet, the amazon a Mealy Parrot Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The conure - Dusky-headed seems good, the head and the blue primary bases are a giveaway. The macaw - Chestnut-fronted Macaw as Red-bellied has a recognizably yellow face skin and the other similar spp are allopatric. The amazon - the toughest. Amazona ochrocephala nattereri and Amazona farinosa farinosa (=chapmani) are candidates. The dusting on the back and nape might be real or might be due to dusting with clay (see the macaw heads), and apart from that the coloration of the two is all but identical. But the size would support Mealy. A. o. nattereri has a smaller wing than C-f Macaw, with no overlap and weighs about the same as the macaw. The amazons seem to have wings about the same size as the macaws but are bulkier (= heavier) overall. Dysmorodrepanis 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The three amazons are all Yellow-crowned. Things worth noticing are size (compared to macaws + parakeets), exact tail-pattern (clearly visible on amazon in center), broadness of eye-ring, size of yellow crown-patch (in amazon on right), tiny red shoulder-spot (amazon on right), essential lack of powdery effect (the amazon on the left appears slightly paler-headed and the one on the right appears slightly paler overall, but not in the "powdery way" you typically see in Mealy; of course some Mealy lack this effect entirely, but it would be unusual to see it on three), etc. If there should be any doubts, drop me a note on my talk page and I can specify further.Rabo3 08:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Parrot ID needed...

What the hell sort of Amazon am I?

It's an Amazon parrot - but what species? Anyone know? Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazona aestiva Rabo3 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much. Info added to article... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The (messy) Pyrrhura picta complex

I just noticed that the WikiProject Birds/Article requests/Species include requests for a range of species from the P. picta complex. Being fairly new to wiki, just a two questions before I start pages on these:

1) Any standardized taxonomy here on wiki or do people just follow whatever they find most appropriate in the specific cases? The split of the P. picta complex, as initially proposed (for ref. see Joseph, L., 2002, on Pyrrhura page), is widely disregarded by Neotropical Ornithologists, as there really were too many loose ends. This has been somewhat dealt with by Ribas et al., 2006 (again see Pyrrhura for full ref.), which doesn't solve the matter entirely, but still manage better than the earlier "lets split everything" approach. Before just editing away and following the specific taxonomy I prefer, I'd rather ask what others think:

  • Use the "old" taxonomy, where all (amazonum, snethlageae, etc) are considered subspecies of P. picta - updated that page with appropriate info on taxonomy, variations, etc + redirects.
  • Split everything (as suggested Joseph, 2002).
  • The "intermediate" approach (which I certainly favour, also based on my own field experiance with these taxa), i.e. following Ribas et al., 2006, where it was recommended that snethlageae should be considered a subspecies of P. amazonum and peruviana a subspecies of P. roseifrons (with the added splitting of lucianii, caeruleiceps and subandina, which weren't sampled by Ribas et al., and therefore cannot, based on currently published data, be associtiated with any other taxa).

2) If following the second or third approach as described above, what to do about Pyrrhura roseifrons? Only a single English name has ever been attributed to this taxon: Red-crowned Parakeet. Unfortunately this name is currently used for the Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae article (a species which, in its native range, widely is referred to as the Red-crowned Parakeet). Perhaps moving C. novaezelandiae to the Red-fronted Parakeet would be the best approach (this name already redirects to the C. novaezelandiae article), as this is the name used by the major World lists which recognize it as a distinct species (Clements, Gill & Wright and Howard & Moore). This would leave Red-crowned Parakeet available for the P. roseifrons article. Any input on this and the earlier matter would be appreciated. Rabo3 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome. We tend to use a standard taxonomy, Handbook of the Birds of the World, for species, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. We have numerous splits amd taxonomic decisions not recognised by HBW (at least their online list, the books vary somewhat from this) so you should cover all the taxonomic viewpoints even if you plumb for one.
I don't think Red-crowned Parakeet should be moved. Red-crown is the common name for the species in New Zealand (and the most common name for the species) and the Kiwis are already smarting from having Orange-fronted Parakeet moved to the unlovely Malherbe's Parakeet on account of a New World parakeet by the same name. While there isn't priority in common names the red-crown of New Zealand got there first. I'd suggest creating an article at Red-crowned Parakeet (New World) or sumsuch. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll follow the suggestions on the Red-crowned Parakeet, though refrain from following the taxonomy used in HBW for this complex, as it, regardless of view on species limits, is highly out-dated - no-one follow the subspecific limits belived correct back then, and P. picta (sensu stricto) would be paraphyletic (though some of the bootstrap values and sampling presented are problematic) if including several of the taxa previously considered subspecies of it. HBW's online list for families not yet include in that work essentially follow Clements, which also has its clear weaknesses. Anyhow, I'll deal with the various pages for the P. picta complex over the next few days, but make sure to write them in ways where they easily can be modified if any new taxonomical info comes to light. Rabo3 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)