Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 38

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Kurt Shaped Box in topic Could I just get your two cents on something?
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Bee Eaters

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone check the Species ID on this photo? i want to transfer it to commons, but i think the identification is wrong.. They are saying it is a Chestnut Headed Bee Eaters but when i look up other photos of that species, this does not look like it.. Image is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/sankaracs/3518405398/ Thanks. --Ltshears (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

These are Little Green Bee-eaters (Merops orientalis). Aviceda talk 18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! MeegsC | Talk 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Aviceda, MeegsC , Thank you for Iding them for me. I have moved them to commons here File:Little Green Bee Eaters 015.jpg --Ltshears (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Laughing Gull genus?

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Can someone come to my rescue with Gull taxonomy? Recently we changed Lauging Gull to the new Leucophaeus genera but it is repeating being edited back to Larus....I think the person concerned has left a note on the 'discussion' page of the species. Any help gratefully received. Aviceda talk 02:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I only see one change in the history. The edit summary was, "Edited out Leucophaeus back to Larus. All lists show this species to still be a member of genus Larus." However, the AOU's North and South American check-lists have it in Leucophaeus. I think that's a pretty good reason to change it. I'll put it back to Leucophaeus, citing those two lists. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jerry, sorry I 'fixed' Franklin's Gull (for the same reason)at the weekend and got the two species mixed-up, I think it was probably user Ken02554 (just an IP address then and no 'talk' page as yet) would like to try and explain the changes in a sensible manner to prevent it happening ad infinitum. Aviceda talk 05:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess the other thing is ensuring the genus articles and other checklists all have its binomial correct too. I'd have a look but have a largish personal backlog :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a brief note on its talk. I (think) I checked and/or started the involved genera & species articles some time ago and unless someone changed things back they should be fine. But I certainly didn't go through all the various lists (List of birds of Canada and alike). I note that someone added a "vague" tag to Larus, but I don't know how else it could be written - considering that no single date exists; e.g. articles that formed the basis for the changes were published, changes were implemented by various authorities, and some, notably Hydrocoloeus, were already used to some extent before this. Lots of different dates. • Rabo³ • 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you give a rough date range, such as "until the 1990s" or "until the first years of the 20th century" or some such? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Most between 2005-07, but some later and some earlier. As said, lots of different dates. • Rabo³ • 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I gave it a shot. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Problem is we're simply faster and better than all the checklists. Parus has been "corrected" back to the old order too. But in both these cases, I think it is all tooo sensible to follow the splitting approach (at least widely), to get rid of these overly lcarge wastebaskets.
I'm not sure we're supposed to be faster or better than the checklists, though. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb: if molecular ML support is >90% and no material evidence (morphology, ecology, distribution, fossils) SERIOUSLY contradicts, it is well justified. MP? I would not trust it even if it's 99%, but anything above 95% is usually pretty reliable too. Especially if ML agrees, it is bound to be good.
Anything with Bremer support/decay index of 1-2 and <70 ML/<80 MP support is perhaps better drawn as polytomy for the time being. It means that the 2 supposed clades of a node are already absent in the best-but-one/two tree(s).
It is funny that at the genus level, the conservatives are pushing harder, while at higher ranks the radical "progressives" are very eager. Probably has to do with the different amount of publicity "one genus no 5 genera" and "BIRD TREE OF LIFE ALL SHOOK UP !!!!111" get ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

GA

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Alpine Chough joins Ruff at GAN. Things very slow there now it's summer. I'm tempted to withdraw Ruff and take it straight to FAC. Any views? jimfbleak (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think ruff came together really well, and I think that removing and placing at FAC is a good idea. Note that things are slow at FAC too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would not recommend going straight to FAC, as it could leave too much work on the FAC reviewers. I have seen a B class article at FAC with a multitude of examples of bad writing, and it was a bit of a gob to get it sorted out. Further, if it is at GAN, why not leave it there. There is no guarantee that FAC would be any quicker, and it might fail and you would have to go back to GAN again. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, it is only summer in the northern hemisphere. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thinks I with a runny nose and tissues. I guess a prudent thing is to try and review other GA and FA nominations, which I generally try to do as much as I can to help out etc. I jsut remarked as I thought Ruff had come together really well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of commented reference alerts

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

A discussion is taking place on User_talk:Dysmorodrepanis#Ipomoea_pes-caprae about Dysmorodrepanis' commented out references which appear on some bird articles. I have found them useful but Viriditas has other views. This might be something worth wider discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been another discussion here... Looks like a few editors are tag-teaming him/her! MeegsC | Talk 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What is tag-teaming? I have not heard of this in UK English. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Tag-teaming is a sports (wrestling?) term. Sorry! It's a holdover from uni days. MeegsC | Talk 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that the wrestling analogy is out-of-context, because several senior editors with the same independently derived ideas are likely to have something to say that is worth listening to. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
By tag-teaming, I mean that they've split the discussion over a number of pages, thereby making it unlikely that anyone will read all the messages; I've found three separate discussions so far. That's not really fair to anyone interested in the topic; it should all have been presented in one place. Just my thoughts, I know... MeegsC | Talk 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of two current discussion areas, which presumably are in different places to get a wider opinion and this section seems to be more of a signpost to the other discussion areas an not a discussion on the topic. The two discussion areas that I am aware of are interlinked, so there is no reason why anyone should miss any of the discussion. Where is the third discussion area? Snowman (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some archived discussion from this talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_27#Bot_for_mining_references. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's Rhea

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The caption for the infobox has been removed twice, and I would be grateful for comments on the need for a caption for the image of the Darwin's Rhea in Pategonia. Also I feel that this particular image that I brought to commons from flickr is best shown at 300px to see the fine details in the image, but the default image size has been returned twice. Comments on the talk page Talk:Darwin's Rhea and not necessarily here please. Snowman (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Atlas of Australian Birds GA reassessment

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Atlas of Australian Birds has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 22:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the Aussies have a copy of either atlas? My guess is that a lot of the questioned facts can be sourced to one or the other of those... MeegsC | Talk 08:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have the old one (1984), I'm not sure how to lookup and include the required citations....can anyone advise? Aviceda talk 10:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you check the statistics quoted in the "first Atlas" section (particularly the ones that have been questioned by the reviewer) and let us know if any are incorrect (or not included in the atlas, which means we'll have to source them elsewhere). If you can verify information, I'll add the in-line citations. MeegsC | Talk 11:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Meegs, found all the references in "The First Atlas", they all seem correct, #1 on p.xv, #2 on p.xvi, #3 on p.xvii, #4 on p.xxvi, #5 on p.xxvi .Aviceda talk 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Aviceda. I've added the in-line cites for the first atlas. Does anybody have access to the second edition? This article is likely to be delisted if we can't provide sources! MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Have added cites for second atlas. Maias (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Headings

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The main WP Bird page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles under a subheading "Article sections" indicates some headings that may be used in varying combinations. It does not spell out if there is a recommendation to use the headings is any particular sequence or not. I am wondering if there is it implies that article subheadings should be used in the sequence given or not. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not spell it out because several editors object to mandating this kind of thing. They are suggestions, but may not work for every species, and the editor working on an article has the choice to ignore them. Personally I think they are a useful outline (based on HBW) but I object to creating too many rules for no reason. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I presume that it is would improve consistency of pages and ease of readability if this pattern of headings was used if it was relatively easy to establish for an article of any particular bird species or taxa. I am not entirely sure that "the editor working on an article has the choice to ignore them" or the bird pages could end up all having a different style. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess it could be reworded to reflect that uniformity looks good, so that there should be a good reason not to use them? The subsections can be a little different, eg. birds with an elaborate courtship display might have a dedicated subsection in behaviour whereas others don't. Ditto birds for which more is known about evolution and systematics vs others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As before, I disagree that consistency or uniformity is a good thing. In particular, I don't think it improves readability. If the article is long enough that some topics aren't obvious, then it should have a table of contents, which makes topics easy to to find. Furthermore, I think we'd have difficulty reaching a consensus on this. I almost always put taxonomy last (except for possibly a bare minimum in the lead), and others here put it first. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry. We all have our opinions on how to layout articles, what citation method to use, what image to put where. But there is already enough rule creep in Wikipedia, with more and more people attempting to impose their particular view on how things should be done. No need to add to it here. Let the people working on the particular articles work out how they want to lay things out. If they want to follow the suggestions, more power to them, if not, ditto. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What if two or more editors were working on the same article? Snowman (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Easy. If there is a difference then they discuss it in the talk page and compromise. We all have preferences, but we aren't inflexible about them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That sounds a bit like inventing the wheel over and over again. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Strengthen COMMONNAME Hesperian 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, are you asking us something? Naming conventions for bird nomenclature have always been a sticky wicket even for those that are directly involved in determining the nomenclature. I have yet to see on the Wiki that there has been a consensus choice on any one authority having a hegemonic valence for bird nomenclature on the Wiki.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What he is pointing out is the reignition of a vexed debate and the fact that the two respective guidelines can be at odds in certain situations. This is more of an issue with plant and fungus articles (which are at scientific rather than common names), but feasibly can allude to bird articles eg Blackbird (most common) vs European Blackbird. Ditto Common Raven vs Raven etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, some of the people in that debate would like to see more common names used for plant articles instead of the present standard of scientific names. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Australasian or Horsfield's Bushlark?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This species seem to be going through an 'edit-war', it was recently moved to comply with the latest IOC checklist but seems to have returned to it's former taxa, How do we deal with this? Aviceda talk 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if there was an edit war unless I was counted on both sides of it! This was related to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_37#Mirafra_moves essentially the IOC prefers "Bush Lark" rather than "Bushlark" and so if we do the move, we need to move all the rest as well. Shyamal (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruff

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm going to take this to FAC early next week, so any comments would be welcome jimfbleak (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article rot

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Peregrine Falcon seems to be accumulating bulleted "trivia" mainly in the culture section and is beginning to drift from the FA state. Shyamal (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(returning from the article with bloody hand) that's sorted now! A query - the sources have that dreadful {{aut}} template which I normally remove on sight - is it acceptable in an FA, or can I chop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)
Wonder if it may not be a better option to put a well-referenced blanket statement that it is a popular bird that is widely used as a symbol etc. Otherwise these factoids which arguably are valid, will come back in a less acceptable form. Shyamal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:BirdTalk

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems to have a problem with the "todo" section having a fixed link across articles. Shyamal (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (29)

Latest comment: 15 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion
The first set of just hatched chicks are I believe the avocets or stilts mentioned, the second and third are the Elegant Terns. Apart from anything else the nests make the difference between the two types of bird obvious. The Flickr user has been slightly careless in the labeling - the annotation used in the original image of File:Thalasseus_elegans_-Port_of_San_Diego_-eggs_and_chicks-8.jpg was a copy paste from the set description mentioning that there were bnirds other than terns, which I guess he/she assumed was enough to distinguish them from the terns. It should be noted that identifying a species when dealing with just hatched chicks is pretty much impossible unless you are an expert, so we need to trust the photographer that the nests were associated with the adults. Given that the colony was mostly Elegant Terns one can safetly assume that the tern chicks were indeed Elegant Tern chicks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Chick 293 has got a black tip on its beak, which is not seen in 291. I wonder if there are three types of chicks. I agree that the captions could be better, and so I have asked the flickr photographer for more details, and I am awaiting a reply from them. Snowman (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean not seen in 292? I'm not sure that is spectacularly relevant. But obviously I can't really say. Both 292 and 293 are some kind of tern and on balance they are probably the most common kind. The user makes no mention at all of Royal Terns. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
293 has got a black (or dark) tip to its beak. The captions also mention "avocets and a black-necked stilt". Snowman (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Please clarify. 291 is probably the stilts. The nest is grasses and reeds, they have all over grey long bills. 292 and 293 are the terns, they have scrape nests, orange bills of a different shape to 291. There is a very slight difference in the shading of the tip of the bill between 292 and 293, but I don't think this matters. It certainly doesn't make 293 closer to 291. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
291 do look much different to the other chicks. 292 and 293 differ slightly. 292 have a dark tip on their beaks, which I thought might be significant for species identification. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The bill tip is not very clear in either photo, but even the lighter one (293) looks discoloured, just not to the extent of 292. Moreover this is where the egg tooth would be, thus making the area likely to change quickly so I would be reluctant to read too much into this. Bill colour changes in terns as adults, could easily happen to chicks too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I consulted BNA which stated that the colour of the bills of hatchlings were variable, and that the tips of the bills of juveniles were sometimes dusky. The variability of the bills of young terns (their plumage is also highly variable) suggests that neither are diagnostic. In essence we need to trust the uploader that they were in a colony of Elegant Terns. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
These ones have got black tips to their beaks. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a skimmer. Different family. Thei chicks look like this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone else has uploaded these with completely different species; see commons and File:Himantopus mexicanus Chicken.jpg and File:Himantopus mexicanus Eggs.jpg. Snowman (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The first one is wrong wrong wrong. Even as downy chicks the bills of stilts are much much longer. I cannot comment on the second image, I looked at BNA and the eggs of the two species seem similarish. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Pale-headed Rosella Platycercus adscitusAviceda talk 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a recent addition to commons. Can you confirm the subspecies? Snowman (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Geographically, Atherton Tablelands is norht of hybrid zone between the two subspecies. The blue is supposed to be only on the lower part of the cheek in the northern subspecies adscitus, and absent in the southern palliceps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Snow, have uploaded a 'palliceps' (see your commons talk-page) Aviceda talk 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Your new one is this one; File:Pale-headed Rosella kob02.JPG. It is a great photograph. For this particular species, I find my book illustrations confusing. Snowman (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably Burchell's Coucal (Centropus burchelli)Aviceda talk 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
confirm Tom's ID. The only other Coucals ranging here are grillii, and the australis race of Ceuthmochares.--Steve Pryor (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Centropus superciliosus -Hluhluwe -South Africa-8.jpg on commons. The top of its head looks darker than the White-browed Coucal shown in the article infobox probably because it is a different subspecies. I have used "Centropus superciliosus" as indicated in linked article, but does the article need updating and should I have named the file "Centropus burchelli"? Snowman (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Snow, yes, it should be relabeled. The Percy Fitzpat has split the bird from superciliosus sensu largo, and the IOC has followed suit (and this usually means that when the Howard & Moore 4° Ed. comes out, that they will confirm the split more formally). In the interim, and since there still seems to be confusion out there in taxonomy-land, you can label it either Centropus burchelli, or Centropus superciliosus burchelli and do a bit of disambiguation explaining why.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Bad name file listed for deletion, so its link above will change colour to red when it is deleted. Renamed to File:Centropus burchelli -Hluhluwe -South Africa-8.jpg. It is the first photograph of its type on the wiki. On what page should it be shown? Snowman (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Natal_Francolin Francolinus natalensis (or Pternistis natalensis?)Aviceda talk 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Kori Bustard (Ardeotis kori) Aviceda talk 10:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That looks very weird! Maybe an immature hybrid with an eastern?? Those scapulars look v. weird on a crimson...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks more like a hybrid (Eastern x Crimson?) to me. Aviceda talk 05:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a hybrid, but I am not sure which taxa have interbred. The location is not given in the file description. I will remove it from the wiki article permanently or perhaps until its pedigree is established. Snowman (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have left the wiki photographer a polite notice. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Australian Magpie and Ruff flying together at FAC jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

tweet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

World's smallest parrot...

Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments5 people in discussion

I buffed Buff-faced Pygmy-parrot for a DYK but need a good ref for it being the smallest parrot. An image would be great too. Am trying to think of more interesting DYKs...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's one on my database [[1]] but you would have to contact the photographer for permission to use it. Aviceda talk 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It might make DYK because of its long toes or the points at the end of its tail feathers, which are characteristics of the genus. Forshaw 2006 gives a length for each species of the genus, but not of each subspecies of each of the six species in the genus. The smallest length mentioned for a pygmy parrot is for the Buff-faced Pygmy-parrot at 8.4 cm in my book. Does this imply that none of the subspecies of the other pygmy parrots are smaller? Snowman (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would seem to be the implication, wouldn't it! I have the idea that pusio, and bruijnii, are more or less a dead heat. In other words, a flat declaration that pusio is absolutely and unequivocally the smallest parrot, might be opinable! Certainly, these are very, very small parrots, barely an inch longer than the smallest bird in absolute - the Bee Hummingbird.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe DYKs?

Will look it up, it is a little big to start off with but not insurmountable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, just noticed that Buff-faced is 8.3cm (Double-eyed is 15cm, Little Lorikeet 15-16.5cm), there can't be too many smaller than that. Aviceda talk 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Found a ref for the buff-faced....rather than Brehm's Tiger Parrot, we could do Psittacella...or should that be at "Tiger-parrot"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not know about the common name for the genus of the "tiger parrots". Without knowing much about the parrot fishes, I do not know if it could be confused with stripy parrot fish. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have left a note at Talk:Psittacella for discussing once we find some sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not do a DYK about the genus of pygmy parrots. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that yet. I guess I am trying to match up - nice image + stub bird article + interesting hook. Can be a challenge. Good thing is with Forshaw's big book virtually any stub is very easily expandable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly support moving Psittacella to the English name Tiger parrot (or Tiger-parrot). I am not very familiar with the DYK format, but the pygmy parrots are interesting for a wide range of reasons; they're the smallest parrots, they feed almost exclusively on fungus and lichen (which means that all attempts of keeping them in captivity have failed miserably with the birds demise after a very short period), they all nest in arboreal termitaria (though that's also the case for many other small to medium parrots), etc. • Rabo³ • 09:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
However, if using total length I would recommend rounding the numbers up or down to integers (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) or at least to halfs (1,5 and similar), as it is questionable to go into further detail such as 8,4 or 8,3. HBW vol. 4 also just use 8 cm for the Buff-faced Pygmy Parrot. For people not familiar with total length, it's usually the result of a scientist stretching out a museum specimen and measuring it. The problem is that skins can stretch/shrink depending on how they were preserved and even when limited to a single skin you'll often find that different scientists gave different numbers (i.e. one "stretched" the specimen more than the other when measuring it). That's also why scientific publications virtually never use total length but only things that are are less prone to changes, e.g. tarsus and wing chord. • Rabo³ • 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, I did not know that. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Amazing info...ok, this one would be interesting too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are no images of any of the pygmy parrots on the wiki yet. Snowman (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I got diverted. I always thought this lil feller the Guaiabero was really cute and had a cool name too. It has a pic and the taxonomic material is interesting. So I have expanded it first. All welcome to hoe in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, and with some nice photos and (I think) we have both subspecies phtographed (need to check that), also some interesting taxonomic dilemmas as to whether it is conspecific with the Eastern Rosella. This should be easy (I was looking thru aussie species but must have clicked past that one assuming it'd be bigger). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that the three photographs on the page all show the same subspecies as far as I can tell from book illustrations. What you might have noticed is that some have more blue on the side of the face and I guess that these are the males, but I did not want to write down this guess in the image descriptions or captions. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I will read up and refresh myself on it. Not seen it often a it occurs too far north for me to have seen it much - not native to my area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Triple decker King Parrot DYK...

I came up with an idea for a double or triple DYK - did you know that the Western Australian King Parrot is not closely related to the Australian, Papuan, or Moluccan King Parrots?

I know it is pretty lame but would provide impetus for expanding the three stubs of WA (=Red-capped Parrot), Papua and Molucca ones, and I am starting to muse on Australian King Parrot for a GA or something. I just took a photo of an immature male in the wild which I will upload - we were in the Blue Mountains last week and feeding birds and these were very friendly, so the article will have adults of both sexes and imm. male as well. Anyway, all help in expandign those articles will be appreciated for a triple-decker DYK...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "Western Australian King Parrot"? What has the Red-capped Parrot got to do with king parrots? The Red Shining-parrot looks similar to a King Parrot. Incidentally what it the proper way of writing "Red Shining-parrot"? Anyway, I agree that the Australian King Parrot page needs some improvement, and it would be interesting to expand the other two king parrots and the genus page - that is four pages. Has anyone got a photograph of a Papuan King Parrot? Snowman (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The Red-capped Parrot (currently a stub) is also known as the King parrot or Wstern Australian King Parrot. Hence my idea of expanding it and stating it is not related to the others for a multpile (but bit lame-sounding) DYK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to have a multiple DYK around these species. I see your point about "king parrots", but using local commons names in the hook could only spread confusion. Surely, there are better hooks than that. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
On thinking about it, I do think the above hook is too lame and so have gone with a less ambitious one at T:TDYK#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_18. What would be great is expanding king parrot now as well - it stands at 1310 B (202 words) readable prose size, and can qualify if it reaches 1500 B. All help in reaching this goal much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would not describe the accepted hook that I suggested on the articles talk page as being less ambitious. I see that "Moluccan King Parrot" is going to be shown as the DYK soon, but I can not find out when. Snowman (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In any case, King parrot is now expanded to a sufficient size as well, so it is a double DYK. If only we had a photo of a Papuan King Parrot now...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have not been able to get a photograph of the Papuan King Parrot for the king parrot page yet. For the Papuan King Parrot article, it would be good to be able to show a set of three photographs of Papuan King Parrots each showing a pair of each of the three subspecies, and also photographs of the the nest, chicks, juveniles, immature forms, and various photographs of them in zoos and in the wild as individuals or in family groups going about their activities. Snowman (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bee-eaters eating rodents, lizards etc

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion

An IP editor Special:Contributions/88.104.182.17 (also Special:Contributions/88.104.232.60, Special:Contributions/88.104.220.150) suggests so, is there any evidence for this or should it be rolled back ? Shyamal (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainty strikes me as being within the realms of possibility, at least a small skink. But they tend to be specialists of small airborn insects, and vertebrates are quite big. I'll check HBW. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Just found one gecko(?) http://besgroup.talfrynature.com/category/bee-eaters/page/2/ and another Singapore site http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/birds/Merops_viridis.htm "Occasionally, they may eat small lizards and fish" but still no sign of rodents in the diet. Shyamal (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
HBW mentioned that terrestrial prey was unusual but that they do take spiders. Rarely. Three species do take fish however, but again rarely. I think we need a very good source if we want to include this, and that any mention needs to mention that it is at the very least unusual. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the only surviving edit (European). Kingfishers, Bee-eaters and Rollers gives detailed listings, only food taken from ground is arthropods, except for one(!) record of European taking an earthworm jimfbleak (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a mention in HANZAB of the Rainbow Bee-eater taking tadpoles, though it is obviously not a main or preferred food; according to Fry (1984) they are mainly quite narrow specialists in bees and social wasps, taken in flight. Maias (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor 88.104.220.150 added similar to the page on the Common Blackbird, with this edit that I reverted. I wonder if spurious data has been added to more pages. I wonder if it is the same user. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ditto Mistle Thrush; mention of reptile consumption removed with extreme prejudice. Snowman is on the money here. Maias (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Checked this out as well in the monograph. The only mention that I could find for Mistle Thrush in relation to a reptile, is this: "Has been known to attack and kill...and slow worm" Slow Worm = Anguis fragilis - a legless lizard. However, it does not speak of them then ingesting the Slow Worm, only of attacking and killing it.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
These edits are quite clever; I'm sure I've let some go because they are for species I don't know well, but Common Blackbird taking rodents seems to have evaded both my FA research, and my WP:OR in my garden where they are always present. 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone in the same IP range (e.g. 88.104.208.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 88.104.220.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 88.104.235.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and probably a couple more) has been making diet-related edits to gull/skua articles recently - some reasonable helpful, some less so less helpful than the wording previously present. If I had to guess, I'd say that it's someone trying to help but getting their facts wrong on occasion (perhaps by assuming that related birds have similar diets, or something). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
88.104.138.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too, FWIW. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A Blackbird swallowing a small rodent would be like a human swallowing a dog, wouldn't it? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - the only vertebrate I've actually seen them eat is tadpoles! jimfbleak (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me look into this. I do have the Thrush monograph by Clement & Hathway. Annecdotally, my property near Rome, Italy is covered with Turdus merula. I have seen the species obliterate (ingesting) an entire nest of a species of Field Mouse. So, while I would doubt that the species would eat an adult mouse, on at least one occasion they have eaten the young. Unfortunately, I could not photo-document it. I imagine that it is a question of opportunity. New-born field mice are quite small.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Have now had a look. The only mention that I could find regarding T. merula, and opportunistic feeding is: "Also takes household scraps and boiled rice and has been recorded catching small fish, frogs, tadpoles, newts and small lizards; and known to feed on dead mice and human excreta." Op.cit.: Thrushes, Clement & Hathway (2000), P. 356 (species account of T. merula).--Steve Pryor (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Can a Southern Ground-hornbill eat a hare? Snowman (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds a bit dubious to me, though it looks as though the IP tried to remove that claim but was reverted. Na, I don't think that this guy is a sneaky vandal at all... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A baby one certainly, if it found one. Young hares tend to lie motionless when in danger. I'd find the idea of it disabling and adult one and eating it very difficult to swallow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I should add that I reverted the one on the Common Blackbird referring to the IPs edit a good faith edit. Snowman (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
They look strong birds, but I doubt if they would risk a bite from an adult hare. Perhaps articles should indicate if the prey are babies or not. Snowman (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't just the risk of a bite (although I imagine the kick of a hare is worse than its bite) it is the fact that hares are large animals, and very very fast. A hunting specialist might be able to take one, something like a Martial Eagle, but not a omnivorous generalist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
However, "Only the very large ground hornbills are almost entirely carnivorous, using their pickaxelike bills to subdue prey as large as hares, tortoises, snakes, and squirrels." [Kemp, Alan (2003), "Hornbills", in Perrins, Christopher (ed.), The Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds, Firefly Books, p. 388, ISBN 1-55297-777-3]. Unless someone has a reason to doubt that or has a better reference, I'll add it to the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't say how the hornbills catch hares and squirrels. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I am aware that you added hares as food to the article some time ago,
Whereas I'd forgotten. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
and thank you for providing more explanation here. This hornbill is 3 to 4 foot in length and looks strong, but its beak is not hook shaped like meat-eating raptors. Even a vulture has to wait for a large carcass to be opened by a large cat before it can eat. It would be interesting to know how they catch hares without being kicked or bitten, and then how they go about eating it. Do they catch hares in their underground homes? Snowman (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That is the thing, I'm fairly sure that hares don't burrow, only rabbits do. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I too would be interested. I have some suspicions: maybe some African hares aren't as big as European Hares. And though "as large as hares" implies full-grown hares to me, I'm not sure it implies healthy ones. Maybe they only eat sick or injured ones, or those that they get an unexpected opportunity to attack. However, I can easily imagine that a ground-hornbill can cut through a hare's hide even though a vulture can't cut through an antelope's or zebras. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This might not be a useful comment - but here goes. I've seen Great Black-backed Gulls managing to get rabbits and rats (same ballpark, right?) open without much trouble. While gulls' beaks are sharp, they're not exactly in the same league as a bird of prey. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen a Magpie catch a newly fledged sparrow on a flat roof, which escaped when I tapped the window and had a limp afterwards for a while. I have also seen a Magpie in England attacking and incapacitating an apparently healthy six-inch baby rabbit. It was repeatedly stabbing its head with its beak. I do not know what happened after that, as I had to move along the road with the traffic. Snowman (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, those magpies seem to be able to get a fair bit of power behind that beak if they wind back first. That's also how I've seen gulls getting through the skin of small mammals. I once saw a nature documentary where a Great Black-headed Gull was doing that with goose eggs (screw back, beak closed, BANG and through) - the smaller gulls would hang around, waiting for the big beastie to do what they were unable to. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (27)

Latest comment: 15 years ago37 comments9 people in discussion
Snow, did the ID under the photo.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Brown-crested Flycatcher uploaded to File:Myiarchus tyrannulus tyrannulus -Venezuela-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As labelled Paradise Tanager....juvenile (with yellow not red rump?) Aviceda talk 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Paradise Tanager uploaded to File:Tangara chilensis -Denver Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem with the ID. Tom, this is an adult. The plate in BofNSA has the throat much too dark. The wing covert patch is often not discernable. The bird is a captive bird, and many times you will find that the pigmentations involved in the yellow and the red is dependant on diet, and therefore it being captive constitutes a problem as the level of carotenoids may be not balanced. There are four races of this bird, and one of which is not illustrated in Robin's book, i.e., chlorocorys. Of these four races only the nominate chilensis has the back and rump totally bright red, the other three have a two-tone job (red -more craniad, then shading into yellow more caudad), there is, however, a difference in the relative consistency of the red component -vs- the yellow component. For this feature, the smallest red component has chlorocorys, then paradisea, and then coelicolor. There is also a difference in the color tone of the covert patch - cobalt blue in paradisea, and more turquoisy-sky blue in the other races. Having said all this, I would not want to hazard a guess on the race of this particular bird, other than saying that it is not the nominate!--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The swingometer points to it being an adult, so image description on commons amended. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The closest I come to is Amazona festiva festiva because of the black beak. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what it is. If it had a bone coloured beak, perhaps it would resemble a Amazona finschi woodi. I think it could be a hybrid that turned out to have a black beak. The only Amazon parrot on the zoo's website is the St Lucia Amazon and that has got a black beak; see Chester Zoo webpage. It is not a St Lucia Amazon. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I have solved it. It is a Lilacine Amazon (Amazona autumnalis lilacina). I think this is a photograph taken in better light of the same parrot, which I have uploaded to commons at File:Amazona autumnalis lilacina -Chester Zoo -upper body-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Amazona autumnalis lilacina -Chester Zoo -6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an African 'Lamprotornis' glossy-starling, but I have no idea which. Aviceda talk 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did the image go? Snowman (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone with a Middle Eastern guide book should conform, but Finsch's Wheatear looks correct. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sabine, this is Oenanthe leucopyga. The adult male finschii has the ventral black on the throat but that terminates at the breast insertion and the rest of the bird ventrally is totally white; the crown white is more extensive and also has a buff wash on the crown that extends on the white of the nape and the mantle; lastly the finschi has a terminal black bar visible on the undertail.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Using the correct identity, I also found it present as File:White-crowned Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucopyga)2.jpg on wiki commons. It turns out to be some tidy-up that needed doing, so I will tag the bad name file for deletion. I recall that it was previously correctly identified by Rabo3. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me like a male Papuan Hornbill. Maias (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the LPZ website where they have a photo of what may well be the same bird. Maias (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I confirmed this ID, under the photo.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This good resolution image of a male Papuan Hornbill uploaded to File:Rhyticeros plicatus -Lincoln Park Zoo-8a.jpg on commons, and linked in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; nice addition to the article. Maias (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if it was the subspecies Panama Amazon. Snowman (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
These are indeed Great Egrets, confirming what the caption says. MeegsC | Talk 12:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ardea alba -chicks and nest -Morro Bay Heron Rookery -8c.jpg on commons with five others in the series, and one shown on wiki article. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
White-bellied Sea-eagle ? Shyamal (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed as per Shyamal.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Haliaeetus leucogaster -Davao City -Philippines-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I just get your two cents on something?

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

The issue of Lovebird toenails and how often said toenails should be trimmed. Over at Talk:Lovebird#Toenail_clipping. Thanks muchly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No-one knows Lovebird toenails? :( ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have used references from two general pet parrot care books to amended the article and I have made a new small "Grooming" section currently dedicated to parrot toe nails. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a danger of getting a bit too how-to-y here isn't there? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of that, and I kept with in wiki-guidelines by describing procedures in tutorial style with references. See Bone marrow examination for a more lengthy description of a more complicated procedure. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it not be a good idea to have an article dedicated entirely to hookbills and their care? Either put it at Psittaculture or hookbill (which doesn't need to be a dab page) and deal with the generalities of parrot care in captivity - what they need in their environment, what they need in diet, what they need to not be in their diet (avocado seems to turn up again and again), what environmental enrichment they need, what grooming and care they need, and then common healthcare problems; then a section of broad strokes over the general differences between the groups (lories compared to macaws et al). This could even be part of a larger article on Psittaculture. By creating one centralised article we can have all the standard information, complete and in an agreed non-how-to fashion, in one place. We can then link to this article from all the other parrot articles, with a short summary style paragraph, removing the need to repeat information over and over again and leaving the aviculture sections of parrot articles free for information specific to that species (or group), such as the breeds and morphs, or particular care requirements (lories being hyper messy for example) and suitability for different owners (easy to maintain like a Cockatiel or difficult like a ... well, whatever is a handful). Plus it would make a good DYK?. Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be in provisional agreement to that sort of organisation. There are already some aviculture pages to be found in the aviculture category. There are some points to discuss, such as; the name of the pages. This system could be extended to having pages on the factual aspects of the care eagles, owls, finches, doves, and Kookaburras, and so on in aviculture, but I have few references on these. There could also be pages on gardens that attract wild birds in different parts of the world. I have not heard the term "hookbill" used much. I think that some eagles have more of a hooked bill than some parrots. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I must say that SS's idea sounds like a good one. I don't know if you've noticed User:Tintin Montreal (and his dynamic IP - guess he lost his password at some point)'s edits to various parrot articles over the past few months. He's been adding extensive diet sections (most of which seem to be identical), which are precisely the sort of content that would be perfect for a centralized parrot care article, when spell-checked/formatted/wikified/etc. (not intended as a diss - English seems to be his second language but his info seems sound to me). As it stands, they do tend to somewhat overwhelm the shorter pages (e.g. here at Alexandrine Parakeet). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no doubt some species specific stuff that would remain in each article, but for example it strikes me that the bit on lovebird toenails would apply more broadly throughout the whole of the parrots. Similarly aspects such as diet items that should not be fed to specific parrots probably apply to all parrots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be rolled out soon and people informed. Will "Parrot care" work as the name of this centralized page? Snowman (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of visiting the library on the weekend to get sources. Parrot care or Psittaculture (we could link to [[Psittaculture#Parrot care]]). Wide or narrow? Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess that "Parrot care" would be a sizeable offshoot from "Psittaculture". Have you seen Bird safe, which I have added the occasional illustration to over the months. I think a narrower heading would be better for the purpose of directing people to for details of parrot care. Snowman (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of the Bird-safe article could probably be merged into a new Parrot care (Parrot care in captivity?) article. There's quite a bit of how-to-ish content there that we could probably trim back a bit... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_38&oldid=551754426"