Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 45

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Snowmanradio in topic Birds for identification (42)
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held. This is to debate the removal of the passage permitting individual WikiProject and other naming conventions to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 02:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (39)

Latest comment: 15 years ago31 comments5 people in discussion
Yes, I agree. Obviously not anything related to species carbo in view of the extremely stubby bill and the lack of an accentuated nail. Not sulcirostris, in view of the color of both lateral mandibulae and tomia (would be greyish in sulcirostris). So, this is, as you have indicated, melanoleucos - race brevirostris, which is known for its' extreme polymorphism. This is the so-called white-throated form. The other photo, in view of the overall brownness of the plumage would appear to be a non-adult bird of this species.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ardeotis kori. Snow, I saw your note and will try and look at the parrots tomorrow.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Kori Bustard uploaded to File:Ardeotis kori -Cheyenne Mountain Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, also as to race. P. gulielmi fantiensis. As to the sex, we will just have to take his word for it. The adults are not sexually dimorphic.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Red/orange looks like the P. g. gulielmi to me, and I think that the red/orange on its head is too dark for P. g. fantiensis. If you were looking at the species page, I have just fixed a bit of a mess-up there. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snow. I never vet bird photos using derived fora (such as is the Wiki, no disrespect intended). I always go to the books first, and then confirm using my extensive photodatabase. Reasons it is not the nominate. The culottes are orange, and not red (the nominate). The red forehead shades into orange approaching the crown and nape (stays red in the nominate). Lastly, and perhaps the clincher, is that the nominate tends to have the breast and belly contour feathers with a heart with a dark shading (tending to blackish), and, the black subocularly and postocularly is much more evident (not so in this bird).Steve Pryor (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The image description does say P. g. fantiensis, but from what I can glean from the illustrations and text in Foreshaw 2006, I think this is P. g. gulielmi. I have left a message with User Rabo3 to request his opinion. Snowman (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
www.wingscc.com has some information. It says "definite orange not orange / red". Snowman (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Snow, I haven't changed my mind on this. I do not have the Forshaw. I use a combination of the Juniper & Parr, the HBW, and the regional bird guides treating the various races. The description of the nominate race(adult bird) from J & P: Forehead and forecrown bright red; lores and chin blackish; cheeks, hind-crown and nape dark grass-green with scattered feathers showing blackish centres. Mantle feathers and scapulars black with broad green margins giving scalloped appearance; rump and uppertail-coverts bright yellowish-green. Wing-coverts black with dark green margin; leading edge of wings from carpal joint to base of primaries bright red. Primaries and secondaries black. Underwing-coverts dark green and blackish. Underparts dark green with scattered feathers showing black central band; thighs bright red. Tail black.

Geographical Variation: P.g.fantiensis: Smaller than nominate. Forehead, leading edge of wing and thighs orange or orange-red (but not red) and more extensive, in at least some birds. Underparts paler green with fewer black markings.

The relative plate shows the nominate with the red cap, totally red, extending to the crown and forenape, much more black behind and under the eye, the culottes redder, and the contour feathers of the breast, flank and belly with blackish centres, and where green a darker green. The fantiensis shows a bird superimposable to the bird in object. Forehead initially red, then shading into orange and yellowish on edges, less black in the face, paler green ventrally with much less black at the centre of the contour feathers, and with orangish and just a hint of red in the culottes.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can quote bits of Forshaw 2006: "gulielmi - forecrown, thighs, bend of wing, and carpal edge orange-red" and the illustration shows red on the front of the head turning to orange over the crown. The "fantiensis - fore-crown orange instead of orange-red" and the illustration has a much yellow-er/orange fore-crown and a yellow/orange eye-ring. It does not mention anything about darker chest feathers. The illustration in Foreshaw 2006 of a fantiensis looks like Bird 395. Is the J & P from 1998? What year is the HBW? It is as if what is called the Lessor Jardine in USA is not a fantiensis. Of course, there is a lot more than what is said in books, so I am just raising a question rather than giving an definitive answer. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Snow, no problem about raising questions. Always raise question when not convinced of an ID. I do! The HBW parrot section was published in 1997. However, for this question its usefullness is in my estimation approximately nothing! To wit: "Descriptive notes (of nominate): Green on head, underparts and rump, with forehead, crown, thighs and leading edge of wing orange red, back and wings brownish black-edged green (now that makes our mind do mental gymnastics, doesn't it!), flight-feathers and tail brownish black. Race massaicus (the plate shows this race with a much more extensive reddish crown spot than the Juniper & Parr) paler, with smaller bill; fantiensis replaces orange red with orange, and overall smaller". The race fantiensis in the HBW is not represented on the plate.

I looked also at the Borrow & Demey, Birds of Western Africa; the Stevenson & Fanshawe, Birds of East Africa; and the Sinclair & Ryan, Birds of Africa, South of the Sahara. None of these volumes surprisingly (would have expected something at least from the Sinclair & Ryan) were of any help!

The only other reference to which we might avail ourselves is the on-line Parrot Lexicon, here: [1]

Personally, I still think this fantiensis if for no other reason than the paleness of the plumage ventrally and the lack of more of a blackish component on the head, however, I do admit, that it is open to interpretation. The sources at our disposal do not seem to be in all cases inequivocal!--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is puzzling. I have looked at the Lexixon of Parrots and William Jardine's description and coloured illustration of 1849 of his parrot from the Congo. Presumably, Forshaw knew about the 1997 and 1998 books when he wrote his 2006 book. Have you seen bird 395? Snowman (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Previously bird 379 - not uploaded at that time, because it was provisionally identified with the comment "Crested Eagle?", the question mark indicating that it was a question or guess. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Snow, Jerry's assessment is correct. This is Morphnus guianensis (Crested Eagle). The species has two color morphs, and this is the so-called pale morph. The bird is an adult, though the persistence of the beige edging to the coverts (rather than being sort of a dirty white) would have me propend to this being a young adult bird. The faint ventral barring when present, is normally present only in the male bird (this true only in the pale morph).Steve Pryor (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Crested Eagle uploaded to File:Morphnus guianensis eating green snake -Bolivia-8.jpg on commons. This is second image of this species on the wiki and both are shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In case you are interested, the snake is Corallus caninus.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I nearly asked about the snake on the Reptiles talk page, and I wondered if someone on commons would add in the snake details. I trust that you are correct, and I have amended the file description on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for both IDs, Steve—good to know. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Cariama cristata.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Red-legged Seriema uploaded to File:Cariama cristata -Whipsnade Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a Montezuma Oropendola. MeegsC | Talk 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Psarocolius montezuma -Guatemala -singing-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template on talk pages

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re:Template:IOC name exception

I think that this template on talk pages is incorrect or a misleading over-simplification, because it does not explain about hyphenated names and capitalisation, and it does not explain that some of the IOC names are not use much. Also, The actual situation is explained (or should be) on the WP:Bird main page, so I think that this template should be deleted. Snowman (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the template. Essentially it is just a brief notice drawing readers' and potential editors' attention, without the need for excessive detail. Further explanation and detail could (or should be?) available on the WP:Bird main page. It provides potentially useful information without, as far as I can see, any downside, so I fail to see why this template should be deleted. Maias (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

IOC list - Black-backed Bittern query

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

In the course of standardising the names of ther herons to the IOC list, I notice that the list has Black-backed Bittern (Ixobrychus dubius), which we have as a redirect to Little Bittern, with obvious reference to the Australian subspecies Ixobrychus minutus dubius. However, BirdLife has Black-backed Bittern as the common name for the extinct New Zealand Little Bittern Ixobrychus novaezelandiae (formerly I. m. novaezelandiae but now usually considered a full species, unsurprisingly as it is (was) a lot larger). However, the IOC does not have NZ Little Bittern. Does anyone (Sabine's Sunbird?) have an explanation for this confusion? Maias (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have never heard of the NZ Little Bittern being called anything but that (or more simply NZ Bittern). The species is pretty obscure - it was barely recorded in its existance and there are very few specimens. I think the connection is that the Ixobrychus minutus dubius subspecies is sometimes considered to be the same as I. m. novaezelandiae [2]. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
OK - thanks for that. Maias (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully the confusion has now been resolved, the species has recently been renamed Australian Little Bittern (Ixobrychus dubius) by Chrisidis & Boles 2008 [3] Aviceda talk 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tom. I am still unclear on this. Does B & C actually take a position on the their view of the status of the taxon formerly ranging in N.Z.? I have the Boles & Christidis on order, but it will not arrive until the end of October along with the others books I have ordered from Lynx.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the best outcome. The Aus Little Bittern is certainly dissimilar to the NZ one.
I will start at least a stub article on Australian Little Bittern. Maias (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Steve, I'm afraid I was only aware of the C&B's new taxa, but I've just found their publication on Google Books [4] Check out page 108....it might mean more to you. Aviceda talk 11:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, much obliged. Paraphrastically, since I could not just select it out from the page, their position is that they treat it as a complex recognizing three species-level taxa; minutus (Africa, Palearctic); dubius (Australia); and novaezelandiae (New Zealand). They retain dubius more closely related to sinensis (interpreting DNA evidence) rather than to the previously supposed minutus, and they mention that if further DNA evidence becomes available that dubius, and novaezelandiae may either be found to be conspecific race taxa; related more closely to other Ixobrychus; or maintain the status quo as being viewed as separate species-level taxa.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly be interesting to obtain molecular evidence of the affinities of novaezelandiae, but I do not think that there is much doubt that it is a separate species from dubius. It is not only much larger (about 20 cm longer according to HANZAB) but also appears to have no distinctive adult male plumage, though there is the possibility of mis-sexed specimens and maybe some genetic testing could help sort that out. Maias (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know that members of this project have commented on Featured Pictures before, so I was hoping you could leave a comment on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anthochaera_chrysoptera.jpg_2. There is dispute over the encyclopedic value of the image. I don't want this to be seen as canvassing - I'm currently in support but am quite willing to change my mind on the issue - but I would like comment from someone who knows a lot about birds. Thanks. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD - Opinions needed

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor Education Group. Informed opinions on the notability of a raptor rehabilitation organization would be good to have here. Cheers Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Parrot ID

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, I'm seeking an ID for this parrot at Anglesea Heath, Victoria, Australia, thanks. Melburnian (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously a Neophema; I would think Blue-winged Parrot. Orange-bellied Parrot at Anglesea Heath would be quite unusual, though possibly within its migratory range. Elegant and Rock Parrots would be out of normal range. Maias (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with blue winged. Orange bellied has no yellow at the lores so extensively, and elegant has two colours blue wing covers and are brighter green. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Forshaw 2006 both Blue-winged Parrots and Orange-bellied Parrots can be in this region in September. Please confirm the date the photograph was taken - the camera metadata indicates 19 September 2009. It is not easy to identify this parrot visually from the photograph presented, and, I guess that it could be a sub-adult seen before it has attained its full adult plumage. Are there any more photographs of this individual parrot that might help? Snowman (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
ooooh, it'd be a major coup if an Orange-bellied...they are supposed to be brighter green...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that you are certain that the photograph does not show an Orange-bellied Parrot? Adult male Orange-bellied Parrots have bright-green upper-parts and females are duller; although I am not sure how this affects the green. The green-brown crown shown in the photograph might be consistent with a Blue-winged Parrot, but it does appear to have a reasonably extensive orange belly. I have not decided yet. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a second photo of the same bird, the photos were taken a week ago. Melburnian (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
They are splendid views of its front. Was it on its own? Do you have any other views or "boring pictures" of its back? Snowman (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I do have some other photos but they are even poorer quality and all from the same viewpoint (it was quite some distance away) so don't show the back. I wasn't intending to upload any of the photos because of the low quality, but looking at them closer today I thought there was a remote chance that it might be an OBP, so I thought I would put it up here. From memory there was at least one other bird, but not in clear view. Melburnian (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It was worth considering, because Orange-winged Parrots are rare. I was not sure if the darker illumination and reflected light from dark-green leaves in photo 1 masked any bright green plumage that may have been there, and I have taken longer than the others to decide. The second picture seems to be taken in better light conditions. In-the-round and owing to its brownish-green crown and the yellow on its face, I think it is an adult Blue-winged Parrot. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not a Orange bellied. They have no yellow at the lores between beak and eyes. See for example here: http://www.ozanimals.com/image/albums/australia/Bird/normal_orange-bellied-parrot.jpg -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Many good pictures, non show yellow: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&resnum=0&q=orange+bellied+parrot&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=S5a_Sr-_MpCo8Ab0j9m9AQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1

Files are now at:

Thanks everyone for your help. Melburnian (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some YouTube vids you folks might find interesting...

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A World Science Festival presentation on avian intelligence - touching on Alex, Snowball, Zebra Finch song, tool-use amongst corvids, vocal learning, human/bird brain comparisons, birdsong in relation to human music and a few other things. Just a heads up because I found this to be a fascinating talk.

part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FWIW, there is a shortage of hooks at DYK, in case anyone is thinking of writing any...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just nominated Australian Little Bittern for DYK, but the hook is a bit weak. Maias (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bird diets

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Diets recently extended for Spangled Cotinga and Guianan Cock-of-the-rock, and probably others. Are they correct? Snowman (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (41)

Latest comment: 15 years ago51 comments4 people in discussion

With 90 parrots under the series of headings "Parrots for identification" (now unified in the "Birds for identification" series) this is the 500th bird in the identification series. With appreciation to all the participants. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ID is correct.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Pink-spotted Fruit-dove uploaded to File:Ptilinopus perlatus -Papua New Guinea-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
<It is the first image of the male on the wiki.> I have added it to the species article, which is a very short stub <with an image of the female as well.> Snowman (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The answer to both questions, yes!Steve Pryor (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Commons files tidied up and "female" added to file description. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
An erudite IP has amended the species page giving the explanation in the edit summary; "Wrong. Genders essentially identical. Dull captive versus brighter wild." I am somewhat of a technician here and I am happy to listen to other wikipedians. Are there any more opinions? Snowman (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
He is likely right. I sometimes rely too much on memory, which though usually eidetic, I can't remember everything. My Eustace & Barnes is out on loan at the moment. Will try and check it out later in the HBW.--Steve Pryor (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The erudite IP has also amended both image descriptions on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The identity of the "erudite IP" is known to me. He is, indeed, erudite. He is now specializing in neotropicals, and is an authority in particular on Brazilian birds. A world birder, with a very enviable life-list.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
But you never know who an anonymous IP is, but, if you think that you can guess, I think that it would be wise to say little. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You notice that I have not offered a name. He will have his reasons, and I respect those reasons.--Steve Pryor (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Species ID is confirmed. This is an adult male (at least seven years old, but some of the bill ridges are seen to have been broken off, so this is just a ballpark estimate.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That is interesting. Do they get one band for each year? I have added "adult male" to the image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, to a certain approximation. I am sure that there is an upper limit of ridges, though I do ignore just what it is. The life span of Bucerotiformes varies according to species, in the wild, or in captivity, etc. Generally, between 10-40 years. I doubt that they continue to add bill ridges after a certain number, however in this species for the first years they do add one ring a year.--Steve Pryor (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
They look like some form of starling, but I am a sub-neophyte at Sturnidae....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Lamprotornis chalybaeus. The location is in Etosha NP (NC Namibia).Steve Pryor (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Greater Blue-eared Glossy-starling uploaded to File:Lamprotornis chalybaeus -Etosha National Park -Namibia-8.jpg on commons. This is the ninth image of the species on commons. I thought that it might be useful sometime, because the two birds in the photograph are looking in different directions and so the head and neck details are seen from different angles. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Garrulax [Trochalopteron] milnei.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Red-tailed Laughingthrush uploaded to File:Garrulax milnei -Oasis Park -Fuerteventura-8a.jpg - only the second photograph of its species on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Snow, just a note. Genus Garrulax sensu largo, has been extensively rearranged in function of its' having been known to have been polyphyletic for some time, though I know not how much this has been reflected, as yet, in taxonomical opera. If you need one, I can extrapolate a list of the changes from my oriental regional ornithological journal sources. Let me know.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope that someone will expand these short stub articles sometime perhaps using the information that you have, but it is not for me at the moment. Thank you anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
415a. File:WLANL - jpa2003 - Paradijsvogel.jpg - Snowman (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
415b. File:WLANL - Urville Djasim - Paradijsvogel - Bird of paradise (1).jpg - Snowman (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
415c. File:WLANL - Urville Djasim - Paradijsvogel - Bird of paradise.jpg - Snowman (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Greater Bird of Paradise (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure. It is an adult male. Either apoda, or minor. The life mount is however extremely foxed! For apoda, I would have expected more of a brownish component in the upper central tail streamers, but it appears totally blond - would depone for minor. On the other hand, for minor I would have expected a greater yellowish component on the hind nape and wing scapulars. If I had to make a guess, I would say this is minor.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I found these as unidentified birds on commons and I was hoping to tidy up a bit there, but perhaps these museum specimens are too faded to distinguish between similar species. I wonder if there is there anything written in Dutch that gives any clues. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Barn Swallows, Hirundo rustica. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Hirundo rustica -Kent -Washington -USA-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Manorina melanocephala. An adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Noisy Miner uploaded to File:Manorina melanocephala -Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
418a. File:Bubo virginianus -Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary-8.jpg Snowman (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
418b. File:Bubo virginianus -Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary-8b.jpg Snowman (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into the relationships of the four usually recognized races of vitellinus (the phylogeny is not totally clear), this particular bird is an adult male vitellinus vitellinus - the other race usually grouped most closely to vitellinus is ariel, and it has reddish periocular skin, and a yellowish bill insertion (both mandibles). The other two races, usually associated to species vitellinus, are culminatus, and citrolaemus, and both have visible yellow-striped upper mandibular culmens, and neither have totally powder blue bill insertions, such as can be see in this bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think R. v. vitellinus has a lot of blue like this one. User Rabo3 has edited the species page. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Snow, mea culpa, mea massima culpa. I transposed the race names, absolutely right - this is the nominate, not culminatus. I was checking it off in the HBW, and had the book in the other room (I don't have a table large enough to open these tomes near my home workstation), and typing in another room. Just got mixed up.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I listed it here because I thought that it had more blue than the other images. It is an adult male of the nominate? Snowman (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I had intended to say, and then my brain got in the way. All races except ariel have powder-blue periocular skin. Citrolaemus, and culminatus share the feature of having a distinctive yellow (or yellow-green) culmen stripe including the upper mandibular bill tip. The bill insertion stripe of citrolaemus is two-tone (yellowish proximally, powder-blue more distally). The bills of both the nominate, and ariel are almost entirely black, with the exception of a small linear zone that is powder blue in both species on the most proximo-superior portion of the upper mandibular culmen in both species, however, the rest of the bill insertion stripe (with the exception of the powder-blue tomia) of ariel, is yellow. The same zone in the nominate, is as it is in this particular photo. It is totally powder-blue on both mandibles.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled why the Channel-billed Toucan article does not comment on differences between the male and female. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Because as in most Ramphastidae that do not demonstrate sexual dimorphism sexing without having them ITH is pretty difficult. The female of this species is just slightly smaller. Sexing the adults without having them ITH is a judgment call. The main differences, and they are subtle, are in the gross conformation on profile of the bill, its' relative massiveness, its' relative length against the thickness at the insertion, etc. The male bird has a longer, more affusolate, and overall more massive bill than the female. In my judgment, and I repeat, in my judgment, the bird in the photo is a male.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New World vulture is collaboration for October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OK, let's see if we can get a featured topic...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've spent the last couple of days sorting out the refs, fixing the numerous different formats, removing links to Amazon and other spam links, removing links that don't go where they should, updating IUCN, replacing suspect sources etc. Two refs (Tozzer and Zim) lack page numbers, and one significant piece of taxonomy lacks a ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone add references for the inadequately or unreferenced items? Some of the stuff, like the extinct species, can probably be removed if it can't be given proper in-line refs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aviculture section in Cockatoo

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, I have buffed this up in preparation for nomination at WP:GAN, but some more references for the aviculture section are needed. I'd rewrite it myself but would be grateful for some sources to figure out exactly what it should say....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be able help. I have added a little text. Some of the ornithology books, including the books already used, may be contradictory to what is found in aviculture books. At first some of the section may be internally contradictory. To me at the moment it looks like the aviculture books are more cautious about keeping cockatoos as pets than the ornithology books - I wonder the ornithology books could be checked to see exactly what they say. I suggest using the article talk page to liaise. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Safwansh (talk · contribs) has been adding SPAM links to his/her website ([5]) to many of the bird articles today. I've posted a message asking him/her to stop, but will need some help removing links. Is there a bot that does this? MeegsC | Talk 13:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (38)

Latest comment: 15 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion
Brown Pelicans. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update on changes made by User Jmabel on commons - new page at File:Brown Pelicans in flight, Westport, WA 01.jpg and old page listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Tufted Puffin, non breeding. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Fratercula cirrhata -Point Defiance Zoo -Tacoma-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Great Argus -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Argusianus argus -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg and shown in the genus page infobox - for variety of images - different to the one in the species page infobox. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is the adult male nominate race (Malaysia, and Sumatra).--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, details added to image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This small olive, gray, and white bird is a Red-eyed Vireo. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Red-eyed Vireo uploaded to File:Vireo olivaceus -Madison -Wisconsin -USA-8.jpg and shown in infobox on species page being much better than the previous image. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. Faint orange tinge on face, pure white tail tip, and center tail feathers longer than others distinguish it from Sharp-shinned Hawk. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Accipiter striatus -Tucson -Arizona -USA-8.jpg on commons and shown in species page infobox. (I do not know enough about these hawks to corroborate this identification) Snowman (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have noticed that you uploaded it as the wrong species. It's a Cooper's Hawk, Accipiter cooperii, not a Sharp-shinned Hawk, A. striatus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, the link to the wrong species sent me the wrong way. People usually wikilink the species in question and not a different species. Bad name file listed for deletion and Coopers Hawk uploaded to File:Accipiter cooperii-Tucson -Arizona -USA-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A chick Congo African Grey Parrot uploadad to File:Psittacus erithacus erithacus -chick-6a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed as already labeled.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Pied-billed Grebe uploaded to File:Podilymbus podiceps -British Columbia -Juvenile-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The ID is correct, as labeled.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Southern Antpipit is at File:Corythopis delalandi.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Snow, is there some reason to need the use of this? It is obviously not anything related to present-day birds collocated within genus Psittacula. I will attempt the ID if there is a reason for needing the use of this particular plate.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the old name is not used today. I listed it here when I saw that you were back, partly because I thought that you might be interested, but, if you are not, do not worry. I am almost certain that its features fit with only one parrot, and I think that the wiki only has one photograph of this species and that is a male, and that the painting is a female. Also, I am planning uploading all the bird paintings by Edward Lear to commons and categorising them, and this is one of the few of his paintings that I did not instantly recognize. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Psittacula torquata -Collared parrakeet -Edward Lear painting.jpg. Looks like a female Guaiabero (Bolbopsittacus lunulatus). Snowman (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (40)

Latest comment: 15 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion
Preliminarily, no geographical context. Appears part of a set of parrot lovers in Toronto, Canada. Genus is obviously Pyrrhura.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I woulkd say Pyrrhura frontalis. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping someone would mention that species, because that is what I think it is. Reddish-bellied Parakeet (also called Maroon-bellied Parakeet) uploaded to Image:Pyrrhura frontalis -perching on branch-8a.jpg on commons. If there are no contra-opinions, I plan to show it in the species infobox after a several days. In the absence of User Rabo3, I have to think about the parrot images more carefully. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Common Raven Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Corvus corax -California-USA-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's a Broad-billed. MeegsC | Talk 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. E. glaucurus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Going on the images, I have changed the species page to say that they are mainly brown (not mainly blue) with this edit. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's an Azure Dollarbird, also known as Purple Dollarbird (Eurystomus azureus). MeegsC | Talk 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Some others in the genus look very similar. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Meegs. This is a Dollarbird (Eurystomus orientalis). Tell me if you need me to motivate this assessment.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Oriental Dollarbird uploaded to File:Eurystomus orientalis -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
My bad! That's what I get for looking at the wrong scientific name... :P MeegsC | Talk 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Snow, there is no doubt about the species - Ptilinopus aurantiifrons. Some doubt on the sex (the adults are similar though the female is described as being duller), and on the developmental stage (only the full adults have good descriptions). In my view, because of the rather large greyish component of the mid-belly, I would view this bird as not a full adult - subadult I would say, and of indeterminate sex.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded Orange-fronted Fruit-dove flickr photograph to File:Ptilinopus aurantiifrons -Berlin Zoo-8a.jpg on commons without implying corroboration (busy reinstalling software on main computer). It is the first photograph of this species on the wiki and now shown in infobox of species page. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Snow, I am not often stumped in Brazil, but this one has me stumped. You should enlist Arthur Grosset's help on this one. I have an idea that it is Aratinga, or closely related to Aratinga. Certainly not the Brotogeris as labeled, for a ton of reasons. Here we have an actual grey-black head that includes the entire head and extends onto the throat. The conformation of the undertail, would seem to depone for Aratinga (or related), or Pyrrhura. The undertail is however yellow! There would seem to be an incipient lighter-colored periocular ring (there is another photo showing two similar birds in that user's gallery). So, three possibilities, some strange sort of hybrid, some juvenile plumage of something that I can not even imagine, or I am just slipping!Steve Pryor (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Its black beak, long tail, and dark head appears to be an unusual combination. It might be an out-of-normal-range feral or escaped bird. It would be better if the top of its head is seen and the illumination is better. I have seen two photographs of these in the flickr photostream. I do not think it is a A. Weddellii, because these have white eyerings. My differential list includes: one of the A. pertinax (not all of the subspecies are illustrated in Forshaw 2006), A. aurea (possibly a juvenile without much orange on its heard, but the illustrations I have seen show too much orange in juveniles), feral hybrid in a big city. I hope User Rabo3 will turn up again. Snowman (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
One of them has a bit of orange visible on the top of its head and one orange feathered eyering is visible. The feathers on its head seem a bit spiky in places and I wonder if they are wet. I am provisionally saying it looks nearer to Aratinga aurea aurea than the other illustrations; its range is vast and nearer to Sao Paulo. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if it was from a mixed-species feral flock. The other parrot shown has a darker iris and might be a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say just forget these photos. Unless somebody comes in here with convincing arguments as to a species ID for a surely pure-bred species, I would assume that we are looking at some sort of strange hybrid (and I cannot even clearly imagine the parents), then it would seem to be useless for the purposes of the wiki.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that they are too unusual to forget. They may be an interesting example of hybridisation within mixed feral city flocks. There is an image of a well known sort of hybrid lovebird, mentioned in Forshaw 2006, on the lovebird genus page. There are a number of images of hybrids on commons. I think that hybrids can be of scientific interest. I plan to categorise them as hybrids - probably Aratinga hybrids. Being categorised as hybrids they will not confuse species categories. Snowman (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed—the dark iris settles it. I should add, though, that I can't confirm it's a female rather than an immature male. Maybe someone else can. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone identify it as a female or a juvenile male? It is quite a good photograph of a common bird, and I think that it would be worth clarifying its identity. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Brewer's Blackbird uploaded to File:Euphagus cyanocephalus -San Luis Obispo -California-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Almost certainly a Brewer's Blackbird as labeled. The male Rusty Blackbird is very similar to Brewer's, but would be a vagrant in California, where this picture was taken. The high gloss and the tail length look better for Brewer's too. Someone with better color vision than me could clinch it: is the head iridescence purplish, different from the blue-green of the body (Brewer's) or blue-green like the body (Rusty)? (Allegedly they can be distinguished by bill shape too.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not uploaded, because it is now "all rights reserved" on flickr. Snowman (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Cyanocorax chrysops. Adult, nominate race.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Plush-crested Jay uploaded to File:Cyanocorax chrysops -Tulsa Zoo-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (42)

Latest comment: 15 years ago37 comments4 people in discussion
Luckily the conformation of the attachment of the casque on the superoanterior part of the cranium allows us to eliminate the possible confusion genus (for the females) constituted by Bycanistes. Therefore, the genus is Anthracoceros, the bird is adult, it is a female, it has a very worn bill including the anterior portion of the casque, and the species is Anthracoceros malayanus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Black Hornbill uploaded to File:Anthracoceros malayanus -Kuala Lumpur Bird Park-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Male Southern Masked-Weaver (black cut straight or slightly concave across forehead, red eye, according to Sinclair and Hockey, Larger Illustrated Guide to Birds of Southern Africa. Have I mentioned how much I love Amazon Book Search?) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ploceus velatus -Johannesburg -male making nest-8.jpg on commons and image shown on species page to show nest construction. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Jerry is right again, so just a confirmation.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to both. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Black-collared Barbet. "The bright red face and throat, broadly bordered with black, are diagnostic." (Sinclair and Hockey.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Lybius torquatus -South Africa-8a.jpg on commons. Diagnostic of what?. Is it a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Diagnostic of the species. Sorry, I should have mentioned it's an adult or nearly so. "Juv.'s head and throat are dark brown, streaked with orange and red." If somebody who knows this species said the streaking on this bird was retained juvenile plumage, I couldn't argue. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
After looking at all the hornbills known from Ethiopia (they're all in Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson's Kenyan bird guide), I'm convinced that the IDs at that page are correct: it's Hemprich's Hornbill. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Tockus hemprichii -Ethiopia-8.jpg on commons. First image of its species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Jerry is right. This is an adult male Tockus hemprichii.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"adult male" added to image description on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmations, Steve. Good to know. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed as described, head much too plain for female Purple Sunbird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled why Loten's Sunbird is not in the List of birds of Sri Lanka. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's listed with an alternative English name and a different genus! Long-billed Sunbird, Nectarinia lotenia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it's a Goldcrest. Not sure about sex, the orange of the male is often difficult to see when the bird is relaxed. It is an adult, but the eyering and ear coverts seem a bit dull, so maybe first winter? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Gender not specified in new upload at File:Regulus regulus -Shetland-8.jpg. Goldcrest photograph shown on species article. Snowman (talk)
They are mostly White-backed. Not all are identifiable. I can make out two rueppellii off to the right - the one with the outstretched neck and the light-colored bill, and the one immediately beneath it in the foreground with his back to us.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Centropus burchelli.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
White-browed Coucal uploaded to File:Centropus burchelli -Birds of Eden-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Snow, I imagine that a bit of "disambiguation" might be required here. How this bird is viewed taxonomically speaking, is taxonomy-dependant. Most view this bird, and I include the Percy Fitzpat Inst. - the major taxonomic authority for Afrotropicals, as being the split good species burchelli - Burchell's Coucal. It was considered in the past, and some still consider it thus, as a race associated to Centropus superciliosus - White-browed Coucal. However, this particular bird does not have a supercilium, and since it is now largely considered a good split species, it might be better just to call it Burchell's Coucal.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I have already called it a Burchell's Coucal in the image description on commons, with both binomial names. I have already done some disambiguation in the image description on commons, but I do not know enough about it to update the species page. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Do not know how much use this photo is because it is not a normal morph plumage. It is a female Chrysolophus. For many reasons, that I will motivate if necessary, I consider this to be a female pictus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Frequently the different ones are interesting. but I wonder if the colours are due to the illumination. The other commons images do not show such orange legs. Could it be a juvenile? Not uploaded at present pending further comments. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The species is surely Tockus leucomelas. However, this is a young bird, and though the thickness of the bill insertion on profile would have me propend for a young male bird, I will not guarantee it.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Southern Yellow-billed Hornbill uploaded to File:Tockus leucomelas -Birds of Eden-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_45&oldid=1137392146"