Talk:Maroon-bellied parakeet

Merging with Maroon-bellied conure

I just merged this page with the one on Maroon-bellied conure, which referenced the conure from the perspective of a pet owner. I know nothing of these birds, but the information was basically identical on both pages. However, neither page had adequate citations, so I added a request for citations as well. Mukk ^{» Talk «} 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In merging, you lost many of the names and implied that all of them apply to all the subspecies (half are specific to one subspecies). I fixed it. I removed the sentence about flying when startled and pooping afterwards; it describes most birds, rather than this species. I removed "They are often noted as being very similar in appearance to the green-cheeked conure."; between the 3-4 subspecies of maroon-belly and 5 subspecies of green-cheeked, some are quite similar and some aren't, and I think the note that they may be conspecific will suffice. I also removed the request for citations: the single reference to Juniper & Parr is perfectly adequate for everything except the general statements of behavior at the end. (J&P and Forshaw are the two basic parrot references. J&P notes 12 references specifically for this species - but I didn't read those, so I didn't cite them.) "curious, intelligent birds, and may learn to open cage doors" applies to most parrots. For talking and volume, I'll look for a reference tomorrow (most of my bird books are currently in the room where my birds are sleeping). Brucemoko 06:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this. Honestly, I just changed the name bit because having a list of alternate names at the beginning of an article was unencyclopedic and contrary to Wikipedia style conventions. I figured that having the names inline would work just as well as having them placed as a list, and more inline with the style of other articles. As a side note, have you created links from the pages of those common names leading back to this page?

The rest of the information, honestly, I lifted directly from the other page and incorporated into your text. Some of it seemed a bit general and arbitrary, which is why I left the references request -- so that the information could be verified (as I know next to nothing about parrots). Thank you for dealing with that. Mukk ^{» Talk «} 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation for voice provided. Yes, the list of alternate names at the top is against the style convention. It's also accurate and useful. You *could* write:

The Maroon-bellied Conure, Pyrrhura frontalis, is also known as the Maroon-bellied Parakeet, Reddish-bellied Conure/Parakeet, Brown-eared Conure/Parakeet, or Scaly-breasted Conure/Parakeet. The chiripepe subspecies is also known as Azara's Conure/Parakeet, the devillei subspecies is also known as the Blaze-winged Conure/Parakeet or Bronze-winged Conure/Parakeet. The kriegi or frontalis subspecies are also known as Krieg's Conure/Parakeet.

Which is also accurate - just not as useful. If you compare the two, the bullet list is easy to understand, and the text list isn't. The suggested style works fine for one or two alternate names - not for 15. And yes, I put all the other common names in the list and linked to this article. Which is another reason to have the alternate names prominent - the majority of references will likely come from one of the alternate names. If you were looking for "Bronze-winged Parakeet", you'd be likely to give up and assume a crossed link before getting to that name in the text list. Brucemoko 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, a lot of articles have a "Subspecies" section and then do something like this:

* Azara's Conure/Parakeet, P. f. chiripepe

* Blaze-winged Conure/Parakeet, P. f. devillei

* Krieg's Conure/Parakeet, P. f. kriegi, P. f. frontalis

I know I'm just being nitpicky now, but it just seems really off. :P Mukk ^{» Talk «} 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This page has a subspecies section, too. But it doesn't help much for common names, because eight of them apply to all the subspecies (two more if you include the older "red-bellied", which I didn't, figuring "reddish" was close enough). If you can come up with a better presentation, go for it. But my definition of "better" weighs accurate and easily understood far higher than following a style convention which doesn't fit this case. IMO a better way to resolve the problem might be to file the article under the latin name rather than the common name. Then all the common names are equal and people coming in from other names wouldn't think it's a bad link. There would be no more fighting over whether Elizabeth should properly be called "Betty" as her parents do, "Liz" as her friends do, or "Beth" as her business associates do. But I think too many people have too much invested in the current system for the recommendation to be changed. Brucemoko 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with this merge. Hybridization in itself is not a good argument for considering them a single species. Many species hybridize; what is important is extend of this (if following the standard Biological Species Concept), i.e. if they are reproductively isolated. For example, two species may be able to produce hybrids (e.g. Lions X Tigers = Liger or Zebra X another equid = zebroid), but the offspring isn't fertile (although there actually are exceptions). This is the case in many species. The hybridization between Pyrrhura frontalis and P. devillei is very limited, and in the considerable periods I have spend in the field in the supposed "hybrid zone", I have seen very few that definitely could be classed as hybrids. This is also why all main authorities consider them separate species, notably the South American Classification Committee (and thereby also AOU), Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos (which maintain the Brazilian bird-list, incl. taxonomical changes), and the four main World check-lists; Sibley & Monroe, Howard & Moore, Gill & Wright, and Clements. In my opinion following taxonomical changes based on a single book should be discouraged. Otherwide, it could easily become a complete taxonomical mess here on Wiki (for an extreme case, compare the taxonomy used in Rasmussen & Anderton's Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide with that of any of the major lists).Rabo3 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

primaries

The primaries are particular feathers on the wing (the outer long flight feathers - see Remiges. It's not the same as "The primary colors". I changed that back and made "primaries" a link to Remiges. Brucemoko 06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I misunderstood it to mean general coloration. Thanks for adding a link -- it'll make it easier to understand now. Mukk ^{» Talk «} 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

move request

I would recommend this page is moved to Maroon-bellied Parakeet, with this (Maroon-bellied Conure) becomming a redirect page. Maroon-bellied Parakeet is the name used by all major authorities that I know of, notably the South American Classification Committee (and therefore also AOU), Sibley & Monroe, Clements and Howard & Moore. It is also the name used in the recently published BIRDS OF THE WORLD Recommended English Names by Gill & Wright. Having spend considerable times in the field where it occurs, I have yet to hear anyone referring to it as a conure in these regions. This term is, as far as I know, strictly used in aviculture. I have seen the argument used that it, as well as other members of the genus Pyrrhura, are conures, but not parakeets (and it would therefore be wrong to call them parakeets), but this is wrong, as both groups as typically defined (see conure and parakeet) are polyphyletic.Rabo3 06:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Maroon-bellied Conure to Maroon-bellied Parakeet as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)