Talk:Viti Levu giant pigeon

Reconstruction

What is so wrong about the reconstruction? After all, didn't they say the pigeon was closely related to the Gouras, and that all known relatives of goura pigeons had elaborate crests, right?--Mr Fink 14:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Color pattern is conjectural. It is not known whether this bird had a crest; probably it didn't. It is not believed to be closely related to Goura. The wings were quite small. The bill was wide for a pigeon, and extremely high. And so on, and so on. Little is known about how this bird looked, but it was in all probability halfway between a Ducula pigeon and a dodo. All the more unfortunate since the original description, which contains images of the actual specimens and some speculation on how the bird lifed, what it ate and by what it was eaten, is linked in the article, because the technical quality is really good :( This reconstruction of the entirely unrelated Sylviornis probably comes closer in overall shape (save for the crest and the missing tail) to what the giant pigeon looked like... (that is not to say it should be used as a model). Dysmorodrepanis 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why was Sylviornis a megapode?

Wrong question. Correct question would be for example: "Then why doesn't Sylviornis look like a megapode?"

Two answers,

a) Because it is no megapode but a sylvornithid.

b) Because of parallel evolution. See also Foster's rule and what might tentatively be called "Olson's Rule" - patterns of flightlessness in bird orders such as rails vs megapodes. Pigeons are intermediate between these two in acquiring flightlessness, but the present bird was closer to megapodes (i.e. gigantism by massive size increase, not by reduction of already-waek flying apparatus. Its wings were proportionally small, but not vestigial as in some Gallicolumba). As regards color, the giant pigeon was certainly not straw-brown, but it's a reasonable guess for Sylviornis (because that was not a pigeon). Color, however, is only plumage-deep.

To rephrase the question: "Then how can we tell that Sylviornis was a megapode relative?"

Because its skeleton (the part that's not simply weird) is galliform. Dysmorodrepanis 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be good enough for Darren Naish, to restore this animal as a giant crowned pigeon: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/02/giant_club-winged_pigeons.php I see no reason to go against the advice of a staunch zoologist like Mr Naish. He makes a point that the bill should be deep, like a dodo. I think it would be best to base the new drawing on Darren's drawing, as I couldnt acess the paper. Piatnitskysaurus (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The paper can be read here for free: http://adelaide.academia.edu/TrevorWorthy/Papers/608663/A_giant_flightless_pigeon_gen._et_sp._nov._and_a_new_species_of_Ducula_Aves_Columbidae_from_Quaternary_deposits_in_Fiji FunkMonk (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How does this reconstruction look? [1]--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's much better, it seems to match what there is left of the bird, and is also on par with published reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This book: http://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Birds-Poyser-Monographs-Julian/dp/140815725X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1378888580&sr=8-3&keywords=extinct+birds illustrates this creature looking much like a very large crowned pigeon, and the illustrator is probably the leading extinct bird illustrator of our generation. That is 2 strikes against your theory, Dysmorodrepanis. Admittedly, it is abit more thick and chicken-y looking, but it is drawn with a crest. The bill is nothing like Sylviornis, only the tip was very wide and high, this is the premaxilla drawn in the paper.However, there would have been the maxilla and nasals, constituiting a more pigeon-like beak, but more robust, like a dodo. Also, the book says that it was second only to the dodo, in size. Piatnitskysaurus (talk)5:52, 11 Sept 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.188.204 (talk)

Merge?

Set up merge request. Reason: monotypic genus should have one page for genus and species under the most "popular" title rather than 2 half-redundant stubs as per bird pages SOP. Dysmorodrepanis 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)