Template talk:Psittacopasseres

Inappropriate header?

@Larrayal Thank you for making this and similar templates. Regarding this navbox in particular, I'm not quite sure about the organisation - specifically, in how non-panpsittaciform birds are included in an ostensibly stem-parrot navbox. The phylogenetic position of many genera are uncertain, it's true, and moreover a lot of these birds have historically been thought parrotlike - but the current position in published work is to treat them as part of a widespread, diverse radiation of arboreal birds, in their own right. They are also equally distantly related to passerines and parrots.

Besides that, the use of "Psittacimorphae" and "Passerimorphae" strikes me as odd. Is there a source for these names with the definitions used here? I've seen three definitions of "Passerimorphae": the Sibley-Ahlquist def., synonym Australaves, and synonym Psittacopasseres. "Psittacimorphae" is likewise elusive. Sub31k (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for reaching up ! In this case, it was an arbitrary decision on my part to draw the line at Passeriformes, to avoid a too large navbox. I preferred, in this occasion, to use the nomenclature used in the Psittacopasseres page itself instead of perhaps more widespread terms like "stem-Passeriformes" or "stem-Psittaciformes", that may be more appropriate. Due to the uncertainty of the relationships between all these taxa, I preferred to include them all in one navbox, instead of dividing them between the passeriformes and the psittaciformes templates. But yeah, the maintaining of those groupings is definitely not a necessity. I will remove it, but I advise you to voice your concerns in the Psittacopasseres page itself as well. Larrayal (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It's a nice and neat navbox. When I have time I will go check up on the taxobox subtaxa section for Psittacopasseres - not sure if it's necessarily current, or if it reflects the uncertainty in positioning of many taxa. In general, it's hard to represent ambiguous positions with diagrams that depict certainties, right? Again thank you lots. Sub31k (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)