Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 27

format problem

Can anyone tell me what is causing the formatting problem in the Pitta_(bird) article? At the bottom of the page under External Links the text en:Pitta (bird) appears in bold immediately after Pitta videos on the Internet Bird Collection. I think it has something to do with disambiguation but I'm blowed if I can fix it! Could someone have a look and let me know what's causing it? Aviceda talk 09:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. It was an en interwiki link. Not reqd. Since this was the english wikipage itself the templaate bolded it and would not act. AshLin (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, will watch out for it in future. Aviceda talk

Australian birds for identification

Hi, I was hoping/wondering if anyone here could identify the birds in the following photos? Thanks! --Fir0002 04:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Nice pics Richard, Just my opinion but Noisy Friarbird, male Leaden Flycatcher, Rufous Songlark, Speckled Warbler, juv Grey Fantail, juv Brown Treecreeper ...did you see my comments regarding your Gilbert's Whistler pic (I think it's probably a Leaden or Satin Flycatcher) Aviceda talk 05:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did - I'm no expert so I'll have to rely on your judgement (I got the original ID from the Australian Museum), do you think it's more likely a leaden or a satin fly catcher? Looks to me more like a Leaden from a quick google search. Oh and for future reference it's actually Peter --Fir0002 06:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Woops, apologies for the wrong ID, Peter! :) Unfortunately I don't have much experience with female Satin, up here in Qld they are very uncommon, but I must admit my gut-feeling says Leaden. Lovely pic all the same! Aviceda talk 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Fir0002 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Honeyeater

I think it is time to split this article to Honeyeater and List of honeyeaters. Any objections? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not fussed either way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be about the paper that says the ‘ō‘ōs and the Kioea weren't honeyeaters and their closest relatives are the silky-flycatchers. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember someone posting a conference proceedings here to that effect a while back, so it isn't a total surprise. But that was what made me look at the article (on my long term radar anyway now that I have HBW 13). Kinda makes the recent extinction even more tragic don't you think? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate doing extinction articles :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Hawk photos

Here are some pictures of some Hawks that I've taken. I'm not very good at identifying them, but there are several species in there. If anyone can identify them and would like me to upload one of them (this one is particularily good), just ask and I'll do it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, where in the world are they taken? Snowman (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to mention that. They were taken in Southwestern Ontario. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

All the ones I can identify are Red-tailed Hawks. I think the one you mentioned would make a fine addition. Thanks for bringing these to our attention! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you think this one is a red-tail? I was told that it might be a Rough-legged Hawk. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your picture is so good that it shows something rarely visible in the field, namely the bare lower legs (tarsi). The Rough-legged Hawk got its name because its legs have brown feathers down to the toes. ("Rough" wouldn't have been the word that came to my mind, though.) So it's not a Rough-leg. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian Magpie 2

They have psychopathic birds that attack people - we have this thumb| jimfbleak (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hah, that your hand?

My wife's - I couldn't manage to operate a camera and hold the robin simultaneously jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! My hand and bird: thumb —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A big aaawwwww sooo cute. XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Still...better than this when we unwrapped some sandwiches....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC) thumb

Some of this may be too anthropomorphic. Looking at this from the birds point of view the birds are protecting their territory or looking for food. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not mention Hitchcock... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A note about getting images of birds

If you're involved with getting pictures from external sources, note that it's often possible to get a low resolution image when the copyright holder doesn't want to release the normal version. For example, I got this Azara's Spinetail today. I would only recommend asking for a low res. version when other alternatives have been exhausted, though. Richard001 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to offer this option as a matter of course, which helped me get this image from Birdlife. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I offer it when the image is unique, but if it looks like others are available I avoid using it until there are few or no other alternatives. I have got an offer from mpgoodey (Martin) at Flickr, who has lots of rare birds, to release them in low res (although he can't do anything until Feb due to internet issues). This will be great; he often has the only photo(s) of a rare species. Richard001 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, in case people forgot, there are still a number of Public Domain photos on NBII that haven't been uploaded (however, not all are public domain; check the "Rights" section below/next to each photo before uploading it). But beware: Many mistakes there, so don't upload anything where you can't confirm the identification. Regardless, it is still worth browsing around for rarities e.g. (the IDs I indicate for the following are confirmed): Emerald Toucanet ssp. cyanolaemus, Olivaceous Piha, Chestnut-capped Brush-finch, Chestnut-crowned Antpitta, Flammulated Treehunter (and another), Yellow-throated Bush-Tanager, Streak-necked Flycatcher, male Smoky-brown Woodpecker, Pale-headed Brush-Finch (and another), Pearled Treerunner, Buff-rumped Warbler, Scarlet-bellied Mountain-Tanager, Red-crested Cotinga, Blue-necked Tanager, Plain-coloured Seedeater, Blackish Tapaculo, female Coppery-chested Jacamar, Green Manakin, Russet-crowned Warbler of the yellow-bellied ssp. elatus and the whitish-bellied ssp. orientalis, Crowned Chat-Tyrant, White-winged Brush-Finch ssp. dresseri, male Chestnut-backed Antbird, male Blue-rumped Manakin and a female to match it, female Black-faced Antbird, female Rufous-vented Whitetip, Blue-and-black Tanager, male Blue-crowned Manakin, male Hairy-crested Antbird, female Long-tailed Sylph, female Collared Inca, male Amethyst-throated Sunangel, Bronzy Inca, Rufous-headed Pygmy-Tyrant, Ruddy Quail-Dove, Long-tailed Antbird, White-plumed Antbird, Yellow-throated Tanager (and another), Andean Solitaire, Black-eared Hemispingus, Tawny-crowned Greenlet and more. Not all photos are the best, but we don't have anything better (and in several of the above cases we're unlikely to get anything better anytime soon). If uploading any of the above, try to include locality in the description (in some cases only "Ecuador" is indicated, but in others they're more precise). • Rabo³ • 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like a long list like this. If anyone uploads any, please indicate clearly which have been uploaded. Probably best to start at the top and work down. I hope that all these new images will be uploaded by January or February 2009. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploading from above list completed. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reformatted list to work on for uploading

• Images below this line have been uploaded#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o# appreciation to photographers

Emerald Toucanet ssp. cyanolaemus - Emerald Toucanet
Olivaceous Piha - Olivaceous Piha
male Chestnut-backed Antbird - Chestnut-backed Antbird
Chestnut-capped Brush-finch - Chestnut-capped Brush-finch
Chestnut-crowned Antpitta - Chestnut-crowned Antpitta
Flammulated Treehunter (and another) - Flammulated Treehunter
Yellow-throated Bush-Tanager - Yellow-throated Bush-Tanager
Streak-necked Flycatcher - Streak-necked Flycatcher
male Smoky-brown Woodpecker - Smoky-brown Woodpecker
Pale-headed Brush-Finch (and another) - Pale-headed Brush-Finch
Pearled Treerunner - Pearled Treerunner
Buff-rumped Warbler - Buff-rumped Warbler
Scarlet-bellied Mountain-Tanager - Scarlet-bellied Mountain-Tanager
Red-crested Cotinga - Red-crested Cotinga
Blue-necked Tanager - Blue-necked Tanager
Plain-coloured Seedeater - Plain-coloured Seedeater
Blackish Tapaculo - Blackish Tapaculo
female Coppery-chested Jacamar - Coppery-chested Jacamar
Green Manakin - Green Manakin
Russet-crowned Warbler of the yellow-bellied ssp. elatus and the whitish-bellied ssp. -Russet-crowned Warbler
Crowned Chat-Tyrant - Crowned Chat-Tyrant
White-winged Brush-Finch ssp. dresseri - White-winged Brush-Finch
male Blue-rumped Manakin and a female to match it - Blue-rumped Manakin
female Black-faced Antbird - Black-faced Antbird
female Rufous-vented Whitetip - Rufous-vented Whitetip
Blue-and-black Tanager - Blue-and-black Tanager
male Blue-crowned Manakin - Blue-crowned Manakin
male Hairy-crested Antbird - Hairy-crested Antbird
female Long-tailed Sylph - Long-tailed Sylph
female Collared Inca - Collared Inca
male Amethyst-throated Sunangel - Amethyst-throated Sunangel
Bronzy Inca - Bronzy Inca
Rufous-headed Pygmy-Tyrant - Rufous-headed Pygmy-Tyrant
Ruddy Quail-Dove - Ruddy Quail-Dove
Long-tailed Antbird - Long-tailed Antbird
White-plumed Antbird - White-plumed Antbird
Yellow-throated Tanager - Yellow-throated Tanager
Andean Solitaire - Andean Solitaire
Black-eared Hemispingus - Black-eared Hemispingus
Tawny-crowned Greenlet - Tawny-crowned Greenlet
Yellow-throated Tanager - Yellow-throated Tanager (2)

Suggest start at top of list and work down. Snowman (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Images above this line have been uploaded#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o#o# appreciation to photographers

Questions about the above list

• 1. Is this small bird called a Blackish Tapaculo as in the list or a Unicoloured Tapaculo on the website. Snowman (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• 2. Could someone make a short stub article on NBII please? It might be useful to refer link or refer to. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• 3. Is Yellow-throated Tanager correct? It has a different name on the website. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• 4. Yellow-throated Tanager - the is not available today. Is there a typo in the link? Snowman (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Now uploaded with corrected link, and listed above. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 5. It is not on the list above, but it is from the same website; File:Myrmotherula longipennis.jpg had been uploaded some time ago by someone. The image description says that it is a different species. Identification needs confirming so that commons can be tided up. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, you should not trust the identifications by NBII. They've made a number of mistakes, several of which are truly puzzling. Several had already been uploaded by another user before I by chance stumpled upon one of the mistakes. The so-called "Myrmotherula longipennis" is one of these mistakes. Here's a working link for the Yellow-throated Tanager photo. • Rabo³ • 07:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The second Yellow-throated Tanager image is now uploaded, and I have linked it in the infobox being better than the former image. Rename for "File:Myrmotherula longipennis.jpg" is under-way to Image:Dichropogon poecilonota -NBII Image Gallery-a00079.jpg and this will help to tidy up commons. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Parrots for identification (7)

• 70. Rainbow Lorikeet. Which subspecies is this? Snowman (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny looking, doesn't look like any of the Australian ones somehow...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what it is and where it is from. I would like to know what others think. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an Edward's Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus capistratus) from Timor. Uploaded to File:Trichoglossus haematodus capistratus -Lion Country Safari-8.jpg on commons. Opinions welcome. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Only closely related subspecies has no orange in the chest. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. T. (h.) c. fortis has a clearly orange-tinged chest. E.g. examples of true wild fortis can be seen here and here. Try comparing the chest-colour of those two with the the bird from Lion Country Safari. According to ISIS records, Lion Country Safari has both capistratus and forsteni. Regardless, when taking the issue of how certain subspecies are "achieved" in aviculture (cf. my earlier comment on how someone managed to get "Pyrrhura hoffmanni gaudens" through selective breeding), I'd suggest leaving it as a member of the C. (h.) capistratus group (of which both forsteni and flavotectus are members) rather than using a specific subspecies. • Rabo³ • 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I forgot about fortis. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see parrot 81, which is similar or possibly the same individual at the same zoo. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 71. Image:Amazona oratrix -pet-8.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. • Rabo³ • 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 72. Small green arini in zoo. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Forpus species. Cannot make up my mind between coelestris and passerinus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Either passerinus or xanthopterygius. The angle doesn't allow a view of the rump (to see if it is blue or not), but the combination of blue in the wings and no blue post-ocular streak excludes coelestris. • Rabo³ • 09:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking to upload it or not. A suitable description might illustrate the difficulty in identification. Snowman (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Forpus species -Discovery Cove -Florida-8.jpg with a relevant image description. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 73. Aratinga in zoo. Looks like Aratinga solstitialis. Is it a hybrid? Snowman (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A. solstitialis changing plumage from juvinile to adult. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What plumage changes are happening? Does the colour of the eye ring change too? Snowman (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Aratinga solstitialis -Discovery Cove -Florida-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 74. Macaw in zoo. Also, monkeys in flickr series. Snowman (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Either A. militaris or A. ambiguus. Difference between these is mainly size, and shade of green, so hard to identify from pictures. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Identifying these two species is a problem. I thought that it might be possible on this photograph, because the colours are quite good. Snowman (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 75. Parrot in zoo in Australia. It is male or female? Snowman (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd angle...I am thinking it may be a female Red-winged Parrot, nothing else really fits...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Juvenile Red-winged Parrot, based on beak color. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pale irises also indicate a juvenile. Uploaded to File:Aprosmictus erythropterus (juvenile) -Brisbane Zoo-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• 76. Cockatoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Salmon-crested Cockatoo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Cacatua moluccensis -Bloedel Conservatory-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 77. Australian parrot to confirm identity. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Female or juvenile Red-rumped Parrot. Aviceda talk 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Psephotus haematonotus -Blue Mountains -NSW-8.jpg on commons. Its tail is rather short. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 78. Arini in zoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Scarlet-fronted Parakeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

uploaded to File:Aratinga wagleri -Jurong BirdPark-4.jpg to commons with some correction for colour distortion of image as presented on flickr. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 79 Arini with red on head in zoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitred Parakeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Has the licence changed? It is the wrong licence now. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Map of Australian Magpie subspecies

OK all, I have a map which may be somewhat tricky as there is overlap between subspecies which may need different colours or stripes or something. Anyone fancy making a map? and I can email the images to make it from? I would be immensely grateful :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Most surprising bird I ever saw in a zoo...

We went to Featherdale Wildlife park in Sydney's northwest on Xmas eve....and saw this in an open enclosure. Fearless it was too...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. How did that end up in a zoo, do you know? Was it crippled? I might add that pic to our Great Skua article... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC

Did they have anything less surprising, like parrots or black cockatoos? Snowman (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Loads, but the cages prevented me getting good shots of most of the cockies, channel billed cuckoo, albino kookaburra and whole stack of Eclectus Parrots and Sun Conures (labelled thus)...still some good shots of others that I will upload shortly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Question at assessment talk page

Hi, I asked a question at the assessment talk page, but I thought it might be good to add a link here so people can find it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Assessment#absolute_or_relative_length_in_quality_scale.3F -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Recent DNA Study Bird Orders

According to a recent DNA study (and as well as the Tree of Life website) that all of the birds of prey (except falcons) belong to the Accipitriformes (even the New World vultures). Also, the herons, shoebills, spoonbills, ibisies, hammerkop and shoebill are consider as part of the Pelicaniformes. I alrighty started adding Accipitriformes to every bird of prey species, genera, subfamily and family's TaxoBox. But they're still more, so I need some help. I'm done with every bird article that is related to the Accipitriformes article (unless the New World Vultures are included, but we have to discuss about it). Also do the samething to the entire Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae families, by adding Pelicaniformes on each species, genera and subfamily TaxoBox. Also if someone fixed up the articles Pelecaniformes, Accipitriformes, Falconiformes and Ciconiiformes that would be great as well. Also single, lonely families (like the seriema and hornbills) should be rank as orders (based on the study and what we did to the Tropicbirds). --4444hhhh (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest you provide references. TOL is ok, but when their page (as is the case here) is entirely based on a specific study (the Science article published some months ago), I'd strongly suggest you provide that reference (I presume you did read the actual paper, right?). Note also that the Science article provided many answers, but also left many loose ends. In other words; just following it without further insight can be problematic in some cases. • Rabo³ • 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I do have the references, it's just that I don't know how to references, so if someone does them that would be great. You found the first two, but NatGeo also has an article about them. Also if someone help me on the members of the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae by putting Pelecaniformes, because I wund up adding every single Accipitriformes member's taxobox with Accipitriformes.--4444hhhh (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I had it that Pelicans were moved to Ciconiiformes but it kept its name as ciconiiformes, unless pelicans and their closest relative the Shoebill form an order between them (???). In which case Pelecaniformes becomes Phalacrocoraciformes.... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, Casliber, where did you get the info on THAT! Phalacrocoraciformes? --4444hhhh (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to change the classifications based on a single study. I did it a couple of years ago with the Sidley-Ahlquist ordering, only to have most of my additions reverted or redirected. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The American Ornithologists' Union has had to reverse themselves three times that I can think of in recent decades—moving Cathartidae to Ciconiiformes, lumping several families into Muscicapidae, and lumping several families into Emberizidae. I think we should be more conservative than they and other authorities are, and limit ourselves to "recent studies suggest", "some authorities recognize", and the like instead of making changes ahead of them or even simultaneously with them.

The AOU's SACC has a proposal on separating the falcons from the other diurnal raptors, with what look like good reasons for doing so but also some reasons for holding back. No votes yet. If they accept it and other authorities do, I think it will be time for us to. So I appreciate the hard work you did, 4444hhhh, but I think we should change it back, at least for a while. Maybe a bot can do it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you going to do the same thing with the taxobox of herons, shoebills, spoonbills, ibisies, hammerkop and shoebill? with the Pelecaniformes in their taxobox?--4444hhhh (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should at the least discuss big changes, which would certainly include changes to orders, before making them. I haven't read the evidence but I agree with Jerry that we should at least wait for the Ornithological Unions and Associations to catch up. We already have enough inconsistencies between the species - genus - family - order - birds of - articles as it is without bringing about more. For now I agree things should be put back until more evidence is published and or more authorities chime in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

this book has the Phalacrocoraciformes in it, and also suggests Ciconiiformes is the better name than Pelecaniformes for combined stork and allies order with Pelicans now in it. Funny how much more conservative bird taxonomy is than plant taxonomy, where changes work their way through into literature pretty quickly. Now in birds we have several vintages all floating around. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

444hhhh just changed the order of Cattle Egret to Pelecaniformes. Any idea why? Can we please discuss order changes here first? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. As I said, I hope we can get a bot to put these back, at least for a while. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't seen anyone rebooting the taxobox and plus, it's getting worldwide attention this recent study.--4444hhhh (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's great that an ornithological study is getting worldwide attention, but that doesn't make anything in it correct. If you want people to leave your changes, maybe you should explain what's wrong with my and others' arguments that it's too soon to follow this new study. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Because every scientific community is exploring it, and even science websites like Discovery and NatGeo are writting it down. Also the Tree of Life has the changes on the web.--4444hhhh (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) we need to discuss each change and get consensus here first due to the large number of pages which need reformatting. Coming from plants, where reclassification seems alot smoother than with birds, we need to be careful as many lists have stopped at many different steps along the way (sigh). So shall we discuss each one below and try to get everyone who is most knowledgeable to comment? It would be good to list different alternatives plus links to studies proposing them (if possible) so that some rationale can be understood by everyone and we go from there, then with comments for and against each proposal with some discussion on strength of evidence and degree of acceptance in the wider ornithological and taxonomic community. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict!)

It is clear that the Hackett paper has explored the higher level systematics using some exemplar species and they have obviously found problems in the current taxonomy and it would take time for the "scientific community" to refine, extend beyond exemplars and examine if the generalizations hold and produce a consensus classification. It is clear that in this case we do need secondary and tertiary sources; works like Peters, Clements and HBW (and works like Christidis&Boles) should be the source for taxobox. I have seen something related to this in some FA reviews where objections have been raised for citing primary sources. Primary sources on the other hand seem perfectly fine for citing vagrant distribution or some rare behaviour of food habit. On the other hand one could also argue using WP:RS and expect a citation for stating that the Cattle Egret belongs to the Pelecaniformes Shyamal (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The study has a lot of problems. For example the falcon-hawk thing simply cannot resolved so easily, as hawks have a tendency to go their own way in molecular phylogenies, leaving falcons stranded. The fossil record flatly contradicts some of their arrangements; shorebird fossils for example are known from the Maastrichtian of Vega Island, where according to the study they should not have existed yet. As a baseline, we should stick to "Phylogenetic relationships among modern birds (Neornithes): toward an avian tree of life" and compare this with any new data. It is the most thorough review to date, and it addresses many of the critical points.

As regards Pelecaniformes, we know by now that this would be the clade containing pelicans and the Shoebill, but not albatrosses or cormorants or penguins or loons. The tricky thing is: would it contain herons and ibises, and if so, would it contain storks too? It is indeed looking as if the Ciconiiformes would be storks only, but this remains to be determined. To make more than an informed guess, Mayr or Dyke or Olson or any other crack paleornithologist would need to check out Proplegadis and Eociconia in the light of the molecular data. Because these two guys, fragmentary as they may be, are the hardest evidence pertaining to the issue. Everything else is little more than statistics and probability.

The wise thing to do is probably to use the conventional Ciconiiformes classification for ibises and herons, but label it "(disputed)" in the taxobox, with an explanatory note in the text. It is not the first study that finds the storks not closer to herons and ibises than anything else. If we duly note the dispute, we a) do not need to take a stand right now and b) are well prepared when there is robust data.

Another interesting thing: IONO if I mentioned this before, but I found an old paper that demonstrates that rhea and tinamou eggshells look pretty damn similar in microstructure. Heh. But it is a symplesiomorphy or a synapomorphy? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't add anything ornithological to that, but I'd like to mention that favorable reports on this study are a good reason for us to mention it but not a reason to rely on it for all our bird systematics. Also, change of the Tree of Life to reflect it doesn't seem independent, as one of the authors of their Neoaves page, John Harshman, is probably the J. Harshman who's one of the authors of the Hackett et al. paper. I'll start changing the falcon and heron pages soon, but I could use some help. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started doing some as well, but I leave for my break tomorrow and won't have time to do too much. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the species here from Bearded Vulture to Grasshopper Buzzard, putting "Falconiformes (or Accipitriformes, q.v.)" in the taxobox. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Up to Square-tailed Kite. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done with the raptors. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, not a good idea. First, Accipitriformes needs serious makeover (I have annotated a few points & changed some of the most serious errors). Second, the falcon/hawk thing is perhaps the most serious problem of this study. Because it would mean that even though falcons were not included in doi:10.1007/s10336-003-0018-1 and the new Zygodactylidae study (J. Syst. Paleontol 2008), the results (which make very much sense) fall apart, because falcons would go right in the "near passerine" core group. Also, the fossil record can only be matched to the Science scenario by seriously twisting it, nearly to or even beyond the point of breaking it apart. It also does not work well regarding biogeography and ecological competition. In other words, it would be almost as astonding if it were true as would be to witness an act of creation of a lifeform out of thin air.

It may be fortunate in that respect that we have good grounds to suspect why accipitrids have the nasty habit of jumping all around the place in molecular studies: their genome has been reassembled extensively; you can grab the refs from the Accipitridae article. But check out the Masillaraptor description - it basically contradicts the entire Accipitriformes article in its present form. In a nutshell, Masillaraptor is known from one good specimen (plus another privately-held one), and it is from the Eocene, and as regards their anatomy even in trivial (non-adaptational) details, falcons are more similar to hawks than Masillaraptor is to either. But Masillaraptor is still more similar to them than to, say, basal Psittaciformes. And for the Science paper's scenario to be correct, it would have to resemble, say, a treeswift about as much as it resembles a falcon or a hawk or a parrot. This is clearly not the case.

So we have the confusing situation that the material evidence points very strongly in one direction, while the statistical inference points in another. Strongly, I think not; IIRC the bootstrap support for the falcon's placement was quite weak indeed.

It is very likely that the accipitrids are what upsets the molecular phylogeny here, as they have been doing since Sibley & Ahlquist. The falcons, not being able to clade with them, would simply long-branch attract to the first lineage that was similar enough; the inclusion of multisource sequences makes thois particular problem worse and worse, as the more sequences you add, the more the odds are that you get one where accipitrids are really completely unlike any other living bird. The Science paper has several obvious cases of long branch attraction in less controversial clades, but as it's required to be brief they are not discussed.

To illustrate the problem with phylogenetic inference (cladistic or phenetic, doesn't matter - though phenetic is of course worse) consider this recent study using a vast sequence sample, but of mtDNA only. You'll see that, once again, accipitrids clade nicely but attach in a "weird" spot, leaving falcons (and in this case owls too) to attach somewhere else "at their own discretion". Not even close to passerines.

Note also other details - how the kinglets fall outside all other passerines in the absence of suboscines to put them in their rightful place betveen corvids and Passerida. The lapwing's position suggests accelerated mtDNA evolution, and/or (as it does not behavce so strangely in the shorebird "supertree") that the "attachment point" of the whole shorebird clade to the rest of the phylogeny is way off; certainly, shorebirds are older than passerines (we have a single confirmed charadriiform bone from the Cretaceous, and a whole load of presumable charadriiform material too). Adding a single paleognath might turn this upside down, though it has been noted that passerines will often seem older than they are known to be in mtDNA studies.

The rest is basically fair and square; the internal structure of the major clades is for the most part beautifully resolved and ties in nicely with everything we know or suspect. Note than with mtDNA, you won't get back to the Mesozoic and still get good resolution; at ~2% sequence change per million years (the rule-of-thumb for cytB) little phylogenetic signal remains after 65 million years.

Two more things to note:

• I'd have thought they had White Storks in Britain. Or did I miss it? Too bad, because seeing the herons & cormorants latch together, it would be very significant to see whether a stork would change this - though there is no pelican, if a stork would kick out the herons and attach itself to the cormorants, it would harden the case for herons not being Ciconiiformes.
• Cuckoo and hoopoe. True enough, the "Coraciiformes" are paraphyletic (if neither DNA nor Gerald Mayr nor Gareth Dyke objects, we're about as good as we'll get in our day and age). But with Cuculiformes? Even if the "Metaves" are bogus, they ought to clade with pigeons?! (turacos + hoatzin would fit there ever so nicely). So the question to be asked is "would including a woodhopoe change anything here?". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian Magpie - feeling blocked

I hate getting sidetracked sometimes...I have left this for a bit and lost momentum, now I look at it and I feel a bit worn out, but I would like to push on with it. Anyone is welcome to point out some glaring errors, query some odd wording or highlight some other illogicalities.

Also Snowman, our commons images are rather homogeneous - if you see any interesting ones on flickr (any from Sydney are the nominate race, which would be a cool one to get in the taxobox. I have been out with my camera but have found it hard to get a decent shot of any) -also, any attacking people, or being fed, would be cool - I thought as you were scouring flickr you may have seen all sorts of things. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Snakes, spiders, jellyfish, venomous fish... and even the birds are dangerous. jimfbleak (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot crocodiles (which are multiplying since being protected in the north, and sharks...I did a double take the other day when I found this in my garden..need to sleep now....g'nightCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No audio? We really need to make a bigger effort at getting some audio for good/featured articles and candidates. This is a pretty common species so there's sure to be plenty available on the internet. Whether raw or in a video it should be easy to get some. Richard001 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I have not looked for any thus far, or maybe I will go and stalk a few birds with my laptop...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seem some images on flickr, I think they were Australian Magpies. I will take a little more interest next time I see some. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this one here? Snowman (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That guy has some nice shots, I like the baby figbird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already uploaded some of the Magpie Larks, and I have just uploaded the Australian Magpie to File:Gymnorhina tibicen -Queensland-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Magpies from all over Australia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Some nice photos there (2) is a rather sinister-looking Pied Currawong (see below too), while the one with the worm (4) is really good too. Typical lazy Sydneysiders noticeable by their absence from these pics on flickr, unlike all the Queensland, Victorian and Tasmanian photographers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• 2 uploaded to File:Strepera graculina -Blue Mountains-8.jpg.

Can the subspecies of this Pied Currawong be identified? Snowman (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the location places it squarely in subspecies graculina - they are all very similar in appearance. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, it is a new one to me. I note that you have added this detail to the commons file. Snowman (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• 4 uploaded to File:Gymnorhina tibicen -Melbourne-8 (1).jpg.

Has the flickr photographer identified the subspecies correctly? Snowman (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that was me. race tyrannica is the race found in Melbourne. A large white-backed subspecies. Previously race hypoleuca but that is now reserved for small short-billed Tasmanian birds. Basically, the classically described 3 subspecies were further split by consensus in the last 10 years or so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Id confirmation

Is this: File:Egretta novaehollandiae Immature Tea-Tree.jpg an immature White-faced heron or something else? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks like it. I cannot imagine what else it might be in Tassie...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot for mining references

Many of the bird articles have little reference notes added as hidden comments by User:Dysmorodrepanis and having recently got some temporary access to Scopus I find that there is a lot of material out there that needs to be examined. Just thinking aloud here that it might be nice if there was a bot that searched for scholarly references using scientific names of the bird pages and dumped the list as a sub-page. For a start - this could be limited to stub and start class articles. This could then come in handy for improvement and in examining the depth of coverage. Shyamal (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting original idea. I think that there anyone wanting to add to an article in the details that you are talking about would what to do their own manual search. Also, I think that the programming skill needed to do what you are suggesting (even to a semi-automated level) is hard to find, but probably easy for an expert. In-the-round, I think it is better not to follow-up this sub-project with any time consuming work, but do not take my word for it. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Dysmorodrepanis could add a reference in the conventional way instead of writing a hidden comment, which, I guess, for all practical purposes only a few people (perhaps only one or two) understand. Incidentally, I have no idea what these hidden comments mean. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply the journal title (abbreviated), the volume : the first page. For articles like Short-tailed Nighthawk, there is no point in adding a reference like Caldasia 27: 247, which merely documents a minor range extension in the Serranía de las Quinchas ;-) but as this is more recent than HBW and thus not included in the data given in HBW, it is significant, and will have to be added... eventually.

If the article allows adding the ref in the conventional way without expanding it a lot (depending on my time), I do add it. 95% or more of the stuff I annotate are small details however; it requires the article to be reasonably complete already, so that the info can be put into context (I got burned once or twice by adding it regardless, only to find that the info was not representative but an exceptional case.)

I thus use these annotations as holding bins until articles have reached B-class at least (I tried using the Talk page, but references tend to get lost in the archives or discussions ever so often. Only when we have a dedicated referencing run as we did for Passerine it makes sense). My main reason is that I've been collecting each and every ornithological paper (and a few others) I could grab, ever since SORA went online (Yes, I do have a lot of HD space ;-) ), and then I thought, hmmmm... all this stuff ought to be put on Wikipedia, so everybody can know about it. (It's the least I can do since I'm presently stuck with my thesis application. Want to do DNA sequencing from feathers, am getting offered to take an extra course and catalogize mites or sequence protists. Sucks.) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, Google Scholar usually performs about as well as Scopus for these purposes. I don't think a bot would be able to do a better job than Scholar or Scopus can. If people don't have access to Scopus, they are unlikely to be able to access the text of any references that are found. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A problem with Google Scholar might be that they OCR, and thus when a scan is not very good and in particular when italics font is OCRed (all the old issues of Auk, condor, Wilson Bulletin etc potentially qualify), the names will not turn up. Scopus would not have this problem. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You remember this one editor who put up the exceedingly long lists of references under (mainly North American) bird articles but did not work them into the text. The tool that guy used to get the references would be the tool of choice, methinks. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wonder if your edit summaries for the hidden text would include a link to a page or more likely a subpage that explains how to use the ref, and with a list of abbreviations and external links to the journals. Snowman (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Crowned Crane

Alright, I'm not in the project, but I wanna let everyone know that I added this link to Black Crowned Cranes. Warriorscourge might join 02:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to make constructive edits to wiki pages. I was confused by your user name signature as used here, because I initially thought that you was going to join something, perhaps the bird project or the scheme mentioned on the page that you linked. I wonder if any others find your username confusing, so I have made an enquiry. Please avoid editing your username and turning it into an Easter egg link. Easter eggs links are discouraged on the wiki; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) for policy on linking. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

Just thought I'd let you guys know that I expanded White-faced Heron quite a lot and nominated it for a DYK. You might want to look at it and make some improvements. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New article

This is my first article on a wild bird species, so I could use some help on Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if it could be merged with Sharp-tailed Grouse rather than having a separate page for this subspecies. If you are struggling for more content, then perhaps it should be merged. Snowman (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a good choice for a subspecies article (interesting, distinct and rare). SORA might have some references, for example this which is specifically about its food, and quite fascinating indeed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression, from a quick browse on the web, is that there is enough material around for a pretty good article. Being a gamebird probably helps. See this for an example. Maias (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am having difficulty interpreting "Hmmm". Snowman (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A ponderous sound. Like, "Hmmm, if this would occur in my neck of the woods, I might give an article on it a shot." Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ponderous" has got three meanings is the wiktionary, so this does not help much. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Monty, I choose door #3 :D Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cockatoo name change

The Goffin's Cockatoo page has recently been changed to Tanimbar Corella. The page move was made without a formal discussion and it seems to me without a consensus for this controversial move. I have started a formal move discussion to move it back. see the article talk page where the discussion has started. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See http://worldbirdnames.org/n-parrots.html Shyamal (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is the most popularly used name? All discussion on the name of this page should go in the dedicated section on the articles talk page. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, using an 11 year old book that is static in a world that is dynamic will of course result in more and more outdated pages when the taxonomic changes etc continue. besides that, there are already a bunch of exceptions, like species not yet mentioned in HBW.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Solved, page moved back to old name in order to avoid rewarding controversial page move. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And, page move discussion from Goffin's Cockatoo to Tinimbar Corella started by yourself. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)