Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 34

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cuckooroller in topic Video of honeyguide and Ratel

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG!!!! Image treasure trove

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Mark Harper has made many (if not all) of his images of birds usable by us, and his travels have taken him to two bird diversity hot spots we are really really need images of, New Guinea and the Philippines. He has rhabdornis! Wild birds of paradise! And lots of other stuff! Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sabine. Good! Mark has failed to stick in the locations, but he has a trip report, that I have seen, somewhere on the web with the locations of those birds. Will look for it. Too bad we can't use my DB for the Philippines. I doubtless have one of the most extensive for the Philippines because of my work on that country's Records Committee. Unfortunately, a lot of the images are sent me with the stipulation that they stay only on my HDD.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Terrific. I have uploaded all the parrots that I could see there, that had not been uploaded. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to get locations as it might help determine subspecies (Island Thrushes in particular, as he has two images from widely different parts of their range). And yeah, it would be great if we could dip into your HD, but not to worry. I'm amazed by the progress we've made in the last year, getting substancial contributions here and on Flickr from Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Central America, the Caribbean, Uganda, Micronesia, Fiji, Indonesia, New Guinea and now the New Guinea and Philippines (apologies if I've missed any). More and more people are donating as more and more people become aware of what we do. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sabine, I have taken a look with the adjunct of the Clement & Hathway. The location of this Island Thrush [1]is Kumul Lodge (Mt. Hagen). It is Turdus poliocephalus carbonarius (adult male bird). This one [2] is an adult male T.p.thomassoni. Here is a link to the trip report I mentioned: [3]--Steve Pryor (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. An interesting species I have yet to find on my travels. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
What about making a list of the ones to be uploaded with the identity confirmed and any other details that need to be listed such as male/female/juvenile or the subspecies. I have already uploaded the parrots, but I can not identify any of the others. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any in this flickr photostream - I have uploaded the "Brown-throated Parakeet". Snowman (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cape White-eye (split)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This article should be split into Zosterops pallidus and Zosterops capensis as both taxa considered as distinct by the IOC (2008). [4] --Melly42 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Just a note: The volume "Birds of the World: Recommended English Names", by Frank Gill and Minturn Wright, on behalf of the International Ornithological Congress" should not be considered a taxonomic authority having the prerogative of establishing taxonomic bird treatments. This is not its' intent, and the authors themselves so state on the 2° page of the Introduction. This volume does not establish propositive taxonomic treatments. It simply suggests a standardization of nomenclature (i.e. the English Common Names) for birds.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the taxonomic treatments of the International Ornithological Committee are as effective as the treatments of the AOU or the SACC what you can see in the BLI changes --Melly42 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Melanie. I know that this might seem to many to be nit-picking. However, nit-picking is what much of avian phylogeny and taxonomy is all about. Most of the original research being done on the phylogeny of afrotropical species is being done by Pete Ryan's group at the Percy Fitzpatrick Institute of Cape Town. This is most likely a good split. However, my point is that if you want to cite the IOC indications, that you use the conjunctive case in the explication of the new species being considered. In other words, until peer-review of the proposed split lends further weight to its' probity, and until the split is carried therefore in an authoritative secondary source, the best example of which will be the forthcoming Howard & Moore, 4°Ed., already overdue, then the use of the IOC volume must be considered as a tertiary source, and not a propositive taxonomic list, and note should be made of this. I know that this creates difficulty because we are essentially between authoritative taxonomic sources at the present time. The Howard & Moore, 3°Ed., has in the interim offered only corrigenda to the already listed species, and has not offered any indications as to addendum, i.e., the addition to the list of species since discovered, and recognised as good species, or species that have valid justification for being split. So, my discourse is really a question of semantics, but it intends to make present that using the IOC as a secondary taxonomic source, having the power of a propositive taxonomic list, is really not the intention of the volume though it is being used as such. Use it therefore in this manner but always mention that there is still an element of doubt.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Le Peuple Migrateur needs cites

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Le Peuple Migrateur (aka Winged Migration and The Travelling Birds) makes the un-cited statements
- "Many critics question if "Winged Migration" is really a documentary at all since there is so much manipulation of the birds and the footage that made it into the final film"
and
- "The film states that no special effects were used. On the contrary, while no computer-generated imagery (CGI) was used in the filming of the birds, several entirely-CGI segments augment the real-life footage."
Does anybody have any cites for these? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ID

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Where was the image made? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Md. --if you care, if not 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
That's Maryland, for those of you outside the U.S.
A Streptopelia dove? I'd say Eurasian Collared Dove, currently conquering North America, but the dark flight feathers on the wings don't seem right. Red-eyed Dove? At least it has dark flight feathers. But both of them should have a white border to the nape collar. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How is Zenaida ruled out ? Sorry, little knowledge of N American birds but starting here from the most common species. Shyamal (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a Mourning Dove to me. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I ruled out Zenaida (the Mourning Dove is enormously more likely in Maryland, as American birdwatchers know) because of the dark collar on the nape. Are you thinking that's a shadow? Also, it would be nice for the eye-ring to be blue. (At least, I can't see any blue there.) Otherwise it sure looks like a Mourning Dove. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it has to be a shadow. The eye-ring is light colored and therefore OK with me, and the range casts almost immediate elimination on everything except the Eurasian Collared-dove, which is still fairly rare on the east coast. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Lots of dove species could escape from cages. "Like I Care", you didn't happen to see the bird's tail, did you? That could put all my doubts to rest. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
no i didnt notice. The bird was sitting atop a tree behind these buds with its tail hidden. By the time I turned around to get a shot from an other angle, it flew away. :( --Like I Care 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) sorry, i just changed my signature again.
I see the similarity, but cannot make this into a Streptopelia for a wide number of reasons. It looks like a standard Mourning Dove with a dark shadow on the neck. It is common for the eye-ring to appear whitish (as a google photo search also will confirm). • Rabo³ • 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it's a Mourning Dove, and Like I Care, you should just mention in the description that it's got a shadow on the back of its neck that might look like a plumage marking but isn't. (It sure fooled me.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks guys. appreciate your help. i may come back again with similar requests. hope you all will bear with me. --Like I Care 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Avian Biology

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone here read the Journal of Avian Biology? A 2009 article, "A molecular systematic revision of two historically problematic songbird clades: Aimophila and Pipilo", on Aimophila and therefore Rufous-crowned Sparrow was published, and it has been requested at the RcS's FAC that information from this article be incorporated. I am unable to find more than an abstract online. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the paper. Email me and I'll send it to you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I currently don't have email enabled, but will try to get it up in 36 hours, after I get back from a quick trip. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Colasisi

Latest comment: 15 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

The Colasisi article is a bit confusing, because confuses if Colasisi is a genus or a species. Junipar and Parr refers to Colasisi as a species, but I am not sure if there is another use of it to refer to the genus. Anyway, I think the page needs a clean up. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Colasisi is a local name for all of these various races, I presume from Tagalog (but it could be some other dialect); EDIT: have now checked, technically Pilipino, however Pilipino is just a name change of Tagalog when the National Congress decided to use Tagalog as the base dialect for the National Language, then called Pilipino. Colasisi = Philippine Hanging-Parrot = Loriculus philippensis. It does not denote a genus. The genus is Loriculus and there are many other species of Loriculus around southeast, and australasia.

As far as the putative camiguinensis, different from all the other Loriculus philippensis, personally, if this proves to be other than a race, possibly related to apicalis, after an exhaustive genetic work-up, I will be very surprised. The whole proposition just does not make intuitive sense. The principal reasons for its' being proposed as a good species, are morphological.--Steve Pryor (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not find "L. camiguinensis" or "L. p. camiguinensis" in Forshaw (2006) or Juniper and Par (1998). The only one on Camiguin mentioned in Forshaw (2006) appears to be apicalis. Forshaw 2006 says that L. p. bonapartei is sometime thought of as a separate species. Is L. p. apicalis or L. p. bonapartei the same as L. camiguinensis? Snowman (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, that is because the describing paper was not published until 2006, after the plates for the Forshaw had already been put to bed before printing. Both these volumes have apicalis as ranging on Camiguin Sur, and both are mistaken. The bird on Camiguin Sur is at the least (I say at least because it has been proposed as a species, however, for me it is only a race), a race, and a race different, though probably at some distant date differentiating from the apicalis that ranges closest, that is on NC Mindanao. Here are a couple of links: [5] [6]

As far as bonapartei: Juniper & Parr, supported their justification, at least in part, on the Howard & Moore, 2°Ed., having split this bird from philippensis. It has since been relumped by them. It is usually considered a race, and the differences imputated by some as constituting sufficient justification for a split seem to be rather along the lines of PSC thought. I have some photos of this race, that unfortunately I cannot upload. Bonapartei has become exceedingly scarse, as have other races of L. philippensis. Nigel Collar, notes in HBW-4 only that there is doubt. Not sufficient for splitting, at least in my view. One would hope that when they finally get around to working out the genetic variance between camiguinensis, and apicalis, that they will include in the sample group, not only bonapartei, that itself, may have differentiated from apicalis, but also samples of the galgulus ranging in NE Sabah.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for links, which have helped me to edit the page. I think they should all go on a list of highly protected Philippine birds. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Species page name to be moved or kept

I think the "official" IOC name for it is Philippine Hanging Parrot (without a hyphen). Should the Colasisi page is moved to "Philippine Hanging Parrot" (and the use of "Colasisi" mentioned on the page), or is Colasisi a popular term that should be kept as the page name? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
For me, the page for Philippine Hanging Parrot should be the main page. The Colasisi page should probably just say colloquial local name for Philippine Hanging Parrot, and link to the main page (i.e. Philippine Hanging Parrot)EDIT: Just checked. HBW calls it Philippine Hanging-parrot; Gill & Wright call it Philippine Hanging Parrot. I guess that would pretty much put Colasisi into the minority, and therefore of less weight.--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, 'official', if they can convince enough people to adopt it. I am considering adopting it for the Philippine list, but have not yet decided on it. As of now, it is still a hoped for indication, but seems to be gathering steam.--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean gathering steam in the Philippines? What Philippine list do you refer too? Is the IOC list just suggested names, which can be disregarded if anther name is in wide usage? Snowman (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Gathering steam in general, not specifically referring to the Philippines. The success of the IOC indications will depend on the good will of the academic birding community. This good will seems to be there, and therefore perhaps we can finally arrive at one English Common Name per one bird, and therefore a lot of the equivocation about all of the synonyms so often seen in the past because of local names might finally be obviated. As for the list, will give you a note on your talk--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any drive to move Colasisi. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you looking for other opinions? Of the authorities quoted at Avibase, Sibley and Monroe call it Colasisi, Howard and Moore give you your choice, and Clements calls it Philippine Hanging-Parrot. That seems like a clear majority for PHP (especially since Sibley and Monroe are getting outdated, sad to say), so I'm in favor of a move. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of taste I would prefer Colasisi, but PHP does seem to be more common and conventional. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I am in favour of moving it, as I think having standardized English names is a bliss, and IOC uses PHP. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be moved (oh, and BirdLife International uses Philippine Hanging-parrot for what it is worth). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Move, I don't like opaque and parochial regional names, hyphens, and especially dislike hyphen followed by cap, so Philippine Hanging Parrot, is my preference, although I could live with Philippine Hanging-parrot jimfbleak (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Another for PHP. MeegsC | Talk 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
My position is almost neutral, because I do not know which name is best. I mentioned it because all the other parrots in the genus on the wiki have names in the format "Name Hanging Parrot" or "Name Hanging-parrot". I wondered if "Colasisi" is an accepted name, and it does appear to be an accepted English name for the parrot. Nevertheless, I would much prefer PHP to PH-p. Snowman (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will move it, as the regulars here have already chimed in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I fixed a double redirect, and several redirects after your page move. Generally, the person who moves the page should also attend to the redirects. Snowman (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Might make DYK

Anyway, is there enough to add to Colasisi to make it a DYK. It was (64 words) "readable prose size" at the start of today, and now 159 words. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could rummage through HBW tonight, as there is nothing yet in the article about its biology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Annnnd, there isn't a great deal to add. I'll see if I can find more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
456 words - a few mins ago. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll dig up Forshaw a bit later tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
575 words now. Forshaw has a bit on subspecies, but my impression that his might be outdated anyway (?) I can expand a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
570 words, a few mins ago. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There is too much that was undecided about the taxonomy, so, after a lot of thought, I did not nominate it for DYK. Snowman (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged primary sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I wanted to start a broader discussion. If Snowman's criterion of primary sources is correct (I disagree) and the use of it is forbidden, we have to start cutting massive amounts of pieces of text from all over wikipedia, as we use many many scientific articles, over and over again. Before we start doing so, I would like to know what others think of this issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Example: Cockatoo

This is the reference list of Cockatoo. I have stricken the articles that should be considered primary sources based on Snowman's criterion:

  1. J. Simpson, E. Weiner (eds), ed (1989). "cockatoo". Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
  2. 'Wright, T.F.; Schirtzinger E. E., Matsumoto T., Eberhard J. R., Graves G. R., Sanchez J. J., Capelli S., Muller H., Scharpegge J., Chambers G. K. & Fleischer R. C. (2008). "A Multilocus Molecular Phylogeny of the Parrots (Psittaciformes): Support for a Gondwanan Origin during the Cretaceous". Mol Biol Evol '25 (10): 2141-2156. doi:10.1093/molbev/msn160.
  3. 'de Kloet, RS; de Kloet SR (2005). "doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2005.03.013". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution '36: 706-721. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2005.03.013.
  4. Tokita, M; Kiyoshi T and Armstrong KN (2007). "Evolution of craniofacial novelty in parrots through developmental modularity and heterochrony". Evolution & Development '9': 590-601. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118546207/abstract.
  5. Astuti, Dwi; Noriko Azuma, Hitoshi Suzuki, and Seigo Higashi. (2006). "Phylogenetic relationships within parrots (Psittacidae) inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome-b gene sequences.". Zoological Science '23': 191-198.
  6. 'Christidis, L., L.; R. Schodde, D. D. Shaw, and S. F. Maynes. (1991). "Christidis, L., R. Schodde, D. D. Shaw, and S. F. Maynes. 1991. Relationships among the Australo-Papuan parrots, lorikeets, and cockatoos (Aves, Psittaciformes) - protein evidence.". Condor '93: 302-317.
  7. Christidis L, Boles WE (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing. pp. 200. ISBN 9780643065116.
  8. 'Brown DM, Toft CA. (1999): Molecular systematics and biogeography of the cockatoos (Psittaciformes: Cacatuidae). Auk '116(1): 141-157.
  9. Adams, M., P. R. Bayerstck, D. A. Saunders, R. Schodde, AND G. T. Smith. 1984. Biochemical systematics of the Australian cockatoos (Psittaciformes: Cacatuinae). Australian Journal of Zoology 32:363-377
  10. Astuti, Dwi (2004): A phylogeny of cockatoos (Aves: Psittaciformes) inferred from DNA sequences of the seventh intron of nuclear β-fibrinogen gene. Doctoral work, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Japan.[1]
  11. 'Boles WE (1993): A new cockatoo (Psittaciformes: Cacatuidae) from the Tertiary of Riversleigh, northwestern Queensland, and an evaluation of rostral characters in the systematics of parrots. Ibis '135: 8-18.
  12. Steadman, David (2006). Extinction and Biogeography in Tropical Pacific Birds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 348. ISBN 978-0-226-77142-7.
  13. Steadman, David; J. Peter White & Jim Allen (1999). "Prehistoric birds from New Ireland, Papua New Guinea: Extinctions on a large Melanesian island" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science '96' (5): 2563-2568.
  14. Roselaar, C.S.; J.P. Michels (2004). "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 48. Nomenclatural chaos untangled, resulting in the naming of the formally undescribed Cacatua species from the Tanimbar Islands, Indonesia (Psittaciformes: Cacatuidae)". Zoologische Verhandelingen '350': 183-196. http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/43942.
  15. 'Rowley, Ian (1997), "Family Cacatuidae (Cockatoos)", in Josep, del Hoyo; Andrew, Elliott; Jordi, Sargatal, Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 4, Sandgrouse to Cuckoos, Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, pp. 246-269, ISBN 84-873334-22-9
  16. Murphy, Stephen; Sarah Legge & Robert Heinsohn (2003). "The breeding biology of palm cockatoos (Probosciger aterrimus): a case of a slow life history". Journal of Zoology '261' (4): 327 - 339. doi:10.1017/S0952836903004175.
  17. Forshaw, Joseph M.; Cooper, William T. (1978). Parrots of the World (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Landsdowne Editions. pp. 110. ISBN 0-7018-0690-7.
  18. Styche, Andrew (2000). "Distribution and Behavioural Ecology of the Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo (Cacatua Galerita L.) in New Zealand". Doctoral Thesis. Victoria University of Wellington. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/669?show=full.
  19. Temby, Ian (1999), "Urban wildlife issues in Australia", in Williams, Shaw (PDF), Proceedings Of The 4th International Symposium On Urban Wildlife Conservation, Tucson, Arizona
  20. 'Lindenmayer, DB; MP Pope, RB Cunningham, CF Donnelly & HA Nix (1996). "Roosting of the Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita". Emu '96 (3): 209 - 212. doi:10.1071%2FMU9960209 .
  21. Crowley, Gabriel M.; Stephen Garnett (2001). "Food Value and tree selection by Glossy Black-Cockatoos Calyptorhynchus lathami". Austral Ecology '26' (1): 116–126. doi:10.1046%2Fj.1442-9993.2001.01093.x.
  22. 'Saunders, D. A. (1974). "The function of displays in the breeding of the White-tailed Black Cockatoo". Emu '74 (1): 43 - 46. doi:10.1071/MU974043.
  23. 'Cameron, Matt (2006). "Nesting habitat of the glossy black-cockatoo in central New South Wales". Biological Conservation '127 (4): 402-410. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.08.019 .
  24. Heinsohn, Robert; Stephen Murphy and Sarah Legge. "Overlap and competition for nest holes among eclectus parrots, palm cockatoos and sulphur-crested cockatoos". Australian Journal of Zoology '51' (1): 81 - 94. doi:10.1071%2FZO02003 .
  25. Patel, Aniruddh D.; Iversen, John R.; Bregman, Micah R.; Schulz, Irena; Schulz, Charles (2008-08), "Investigating the human-specificity of synchronization to music", Proceedings of the 10th Intl. Conf. on Music Perception and Cognition (Adelaide: Causal Productions), http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/patel/Patel_Iversen_Bregman_Schulz_Schulz_ICMPC10_in_press.pdf, retrieved on 2008-11-14
  26. Elphick, Jonathan (2004). Birds:The Art of Ornithology. London: Natural History Museum. pp. 24. ISBN 1-902686-66-0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
  27. 'http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/txt/s1434326.htm ABC NewsRadio: wordwatch, Cockatoo
  28. Bomford, Mary; Ron Sinclair (2002). "Australian research on bird pests: impact, management and future directions". Emu '102' (1): 29-45. doi:10.1071/MU01028.
  29. Ahmet, Mike. (1998). The damage caused by Red-tailed Black-Cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus banksii) on peanut and other crops within the farming district of Lakeland Downs, Cape York Peninsula. Report to Queensland Department of Environment.[2]
  30. 'Garnett, Stephen. (1998). Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo damage and damage mitigation at Lakeland Downs, Cape York Peninsula. Eclectus '5: 26-34.
  31. House, Susan; & Lees, Nadya. (2005). Mammal browsing in hardwood plantations. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Note[3]
  32. Saunders, Denis. (2005). “Conserving Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo: historical background on changing status”. Pp.9-18 in: Gole, Cheryl. (Ed.). (2005). Conserving Carnaby's black-cockatoo - future directions: proceedings from a conservation symposium, Perth, Western Australia, 2 July 2003. Birds Australia WA Inc: Perth. ISBN 0-9751429-0-9[4]
  33. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: Species Profile and Threats Database: Calyptorhynchus latirostris.[5]
  34. Temby, Ian. (2003). Victorian cockatoos. Victorian Department of Primary Industries Information Note.[6]
  35. Environment and Natural Resources Committee (Parliament of Victoria). (1995). Problems in Victoria caused by Long-billed Corellas, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos and Galahs. Victorian Government Printer.
  36. Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation, Fauna Note No.20: Little Corella.[7]
  37. South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage. Little Corella (Cacatua sanguinea): Resource document.[8]
  38. 'Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. (2007). Butler's Corella. Fauna Note No.19.[9]
  39. Anon. (2007). Muir’s Corella. (Fauna Note No.4). Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia.[10]
  40. Birdlife International (2008). "Data Zone: Search Species". http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMFindResults.asp&hdnAction=SEARCH&hdnPageMode=0&cboFamily=67&txtGenus=&txtSpecies=&txtCommonName=&cboRegion=-2&cboCountry=-2. Retrieved on 2008-12-13.
  41. Maron, Martine (2005). "Agricultural change and paddock tree loss: Implications for an endangered subspecies of Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo". Ecological Management & Restoration '6' (3): 206 - 211. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2005.00238.x.
  42. Kinnaird, Margaret F; Timothy G. O'Brien, Frank R. Lambert and David Purmias (2003). "Density and distribution of the endemic Seram cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis in relation to land use patterns". Biological Conservation '109' (2): 227-235. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00150-7 .
  43. Cameron, Matt (2008). Cockatoos (1 ed.). Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. ISBN 978-0-643092-32-7.

hardly any of these is considered secondary in that case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Indeed, I would be grateful for clarification of the definition of primary sources. The primary sources during a FAC are regularly checked, as far as I know. For me, a key wiki guideline is about using primary sources with care. It is not about crossing them all off or accepting everything in them onto an wiki article. I would not have called all the above primary sources: several are Government Reports, 32 has been selected by an editor. I have not got access to them all. I have not looked at them all. The wiki guidelines for using sources are here: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Snowman (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
AS I have said above, while journals contain primary sources (the results) they also contain introductions, which summarise related research and frame the question (and are therefore secondary sources) and discussions, which summarise and explain the results in the context of the aforementioned other research. To refer to results in a journal article without referring to the context would violate the rules mentioned. But we (or at least I) always use the discussion and intro. It would be nice to rely more on monographs and books, but the fact is that there aren't enough of these to satisfy the requirements that Wikipedia has these days to cite cite cite and hav lots of sources. CONTRA Snowman above, the opinions of the journal writers in the discussion are NOT primary sources, they are secondary interpretations of the primary sources, the results. They may be wrong (as any assertion in science may be), but they cannot be excluded for that reason. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If we assumed all or most of the sources indicated in the example are primary, what do we or wikipedia gain by limiting their use? Not really a question as I can answer that myself. We gain nothing, but lose two significant advantages of the wikipedia format: The capability of being up to date and the capability of describing things in greater detail than what typically is done elsewhere. That's what they're doing with the taxonomy in some parts of WP:MAMMAL resulting in it being frozen at the 2005 MSW3 level even in cases where strong evidence has been published against it since then. Sure there may be cases where scientific papers are of questionable validity but that is usually easily dealt with by applying a basic level of common sense. That can be said about all sources. • Rabo³ • 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Government reports rarely involve doing first hand biological studies. Things like counts and status estimates would typically be estimated using already published reports. The real risk of primary sources as seen on WP has been based on the use of a few specific medical case history reports to make generalized statements on matters of health and the nearest that WP:BIRDS can get to that level of risk and misuse would be if we took a few sight reports from a birding forum or a local birding newsletter to come up with broad statements on status or patterns of distribution. That could actually be more like OR by synthesis. Shyamal (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with much of above. The primary sources issue is most important in medicine, where people can be harmed if they get it wrong. Primary sources in this project can do no harm and usually are essential in terms of available content. I agree with Snowman that they need to be used with some care, but this isn't normally a problem. At worse, if two recent papers give different opinions we can just include both and say that authorities disagree jimfbleak (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not remember when I last saw a paper where a biological variable was compared between two populations without applying non-parametric or parametric statistics; however, I do not usually read journals on fossils. I got caught out with a paper saying the the Cape Parrot had been split and added it to the wiki, but I later I had to change it based on User Rabo3's views on the paper. Without refering to any particular piece of research: I guess that more esteem is gained from publishing a paper that says a new species has been found than "these findings could mean this, but they could mean that"? Do people get on a band wagon? Should there be reasonable scrutiny of a paper that reports a new species? Snowman (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines on WP for sourcing are just that (guidelines). Generally primary sources are used with care, and the good thing on WP:Birds is there are a number of knowledgeable people to place them in context. Using vigor on sourcing means that primary reports are described as such (eg: a survey of birds at X found...), vs secondary (species X eats food Y etc.) - i.e. importance is to reflect accurately what the source says. There has to be some degree of pragmatism and insight as sources within the three categories are vastly heterogeneous. In answer to the preceding, the more scrutiny the better, however we can't create one where none exists. Sorry if this comes across as rambling - sleep deprived and was about to go to bed when I saw the thread. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Orphan"

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While working my way through the "Orphan" section of the most recent project listing, I came across the article on Fatu-liva, which is an obviously fictional bird. Is there any reason to have it tagged to this project? If not, is there any reason to tag it elsewhere? It has no linked articles, bar a redirect for the name of the fictional islands. MeegsC | Talk 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see Phoenix_(mythology) is tagged to this project too. I guess it depends on what people here want to work on. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just created a stub article for George Shepard Chappell, who wrote the spoof travel book from which the Fatu-liva article is taken. I suppose that if someone writes an article on the book (and I am not likely to), then Fatu-liva could be merged into it. Meanwhile... well, I just don't know. At least it has an amusing photograph... Maias (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (19)

Latest comment: 15 years ago53 comments8 people in discussion
This is tricky - I can't find any illustration in my books that looks like this, but it surely must be a sunbird - juvenile maybe jimfbleak (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim, will try to find time. Of course, a sunbird. Real flash impression, possibly an eclipse male cupreus (Cinnyris cupreus).--Steve Pryor (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought Copper Sunbird seemed the most plausible candidate, esp as the bird seems so have some copper colouration on the head, but this seems to be some way in its moult on from the eclipse plumage shown in Birds of the Gambia jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Still haven't found the time, but I did notice that if you look closely, you can see that the bird has an iridescent shoulder patch, which should be a clue, and which is what made me think most of cupreus, that coupled with the yellowish ventral wash. The shoulder patch, if cupreus, eliminates a juvenile. Cupreus eclipse male would also be consistent with the black throat patch. Also, to note the lack of ventral or flank streakiness.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Will look later. A Caveat for races of philippensis in Phils: there is a booming intra-insular trade, many then become escapes, especially on Luzon, so documented race ranges have become only indicative, unfortunately.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is the nominate. An adult male, albeit a young adult. Loriculus p. philippensis.--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I have amended the image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what it is eating? Snowman (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Will also look later. Probably a captive of a local bird however. Not a Ptilinopus. Looks a female Treron.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Female Treron vernans.--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pink-necked Green-pigeon (Treron vernans).jpg Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You guys can hash this one out. I generally stink on shorebirds mostly because they have never inspired me. I know only those that range in the Philippines.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Charadrius obscurus New Zealand Dotterel ? Shyamal (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, NZ Dotterel see [[7]]. Aviceda talk 14:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:New Zealand Dotterel winter.jpg blah blah blah. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Location is Camiguin Sur. The taxonomy adopted depends on which authority you want to follow. Restall in "Munias and Mannikins" split the tri-colored race (L. malacca, monotypic, that he calls Tricoloured Munia), from the essentially bicolored races that formed along with the nominate malacca malacca, the L. malacca sensu largo (i.e., pre-split). The associated split races, sans malacca, he calls Chestnut Munia (Lonchura atricapilla). Personally, I have examined the literature, and I think Restall is correct in his interpretation, and that the split is valid. HOWEVER, his viewpoint is not without controversy. There exists a zone of intergradation between malacca sensu strictu, and atricapilla atricapilla sensu strictu between the area of Madras, and Sambalpur, Orissa. The Ripley Guide supports this split. The Howard & Moore has not supported the split, however see this in this regard: [8] As for the Clements, don't ask. I just do not think the Clements is a seriously authoritative proactive list.

This above is just to give background. As things are, though I think that the needle of the balance is now shifting to wider acceptance of this split, there is still a bit of controversy about it, and so we can still see the bird in question as Lonchura malacca (Black-headed Munia), or as Lonchura atricapilla (Chestnut Munia). In either case, the race ranging on Camiguin Sur is "jagori".Steve Pryor (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, the article has not got a licence suitable for the wiki, so I can not upload it. I have requested that flick photographer change it to a suitable licence, and I will look out for a reply. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The flickr photographer has kindly changed the licence. Uploaded to File:Lonchura malacca jagori -Camiguin Sur-8.jpg on commons.
Did you mean Black-headed Munia = Lonchura atricapilla? Which page should the image be linked to? The wiki has a page Tricoloured Munia = Lonchura malacca. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As was seen in the above explication by me, there is still some small doubt that these should be two separate species, though I think that by now it is pretty well established that they are, and that also the Howard & Moore will follow suit, and I mention this since the updates suggested for the IOC indications are usually made in concert with consultation with Ed Dickinson, and will probably reflect the stance that will be taken by the upcoming H & M, 4°Ed. They have already amended the nomenclature to Tricolored Munia (Lonchura malacca), monotypic; and are disallowing the previous use of Black-headed Munia since it was applied to the pre-split species, and since using it again for one of the split species would cause confusion. Therefore, they have amended the split atricapilla, with all the races associated to it, and are calling it Chestnut Munia (Lonchura atricapilla). I would tend to not want to promulgate any more usage of the nomenclature Black-headed Munia, as for their same reasons, it would cause confusion. EDIT: Almost forgot. It would be better in view of the general tendency to accept this split, to relabel the photo to - Lonchura atricapilla jagori.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. File rename under way to File:Lonchura atricapilla jagori -Camiguin Sur-8.jpg, and cropped version added to Black-headed Munia article - a useful addition. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Aratinga (mitrata) alticola -Peru-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Derbyan Parakeet-- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Is its belly a bit reddish? Snowman (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have said Psittacula alexandri - immature. To note that the primaries have been cropped, evidently to impede the bird from escaping.--Steve Pryor (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Its beak is black, so it is a female Red-breasted Parakeet. I thought it might be an immature because of red at the base of its beak, but I could not prove it because there are many subspecies that I have not got illustrations of. I have mentioned the image description that its wings are clipped (poor parrot). Uploaded to File:Psittacula alexandri -pet on shoulder- Burma-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that it can be surely sexed at this age. Immatures of both sexes have black bills, then the bill with maturity in the male will turn red. I would be just guessing here if I said that I could surely determine that this particular immature bird may be an immature male just based on the slight reddishness near the sere. I would just say immature, of not determinable sex.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Juveniles: grey iris, green crown, pale red beak. Adults: yellow iris. Female: black lower mandible and red upper mandible in some subspecies and all black beak in P.a.fasciata. Male: all red or upper mandible is red, lower mandible is black in P.a.fasciata. I think its beak is going black. I do not have illustrations of intermediate bill colours, but it looks like it is likely to be an older juvenile female's all black beak to me, that is changing from pale red to black. P.a.fasciata does occur in Burma. (looked it up in Forshawe 2006). Snowman (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, don't have the Forshawe. I may include it in my annual bird book bonanza from Lynx when I submit my order for the HBW-14. I do have, however, the Juniper & Parr, and the reason that I am titubant about pronouncing myself as to a possible sex is from the mention (in the description for P. alexandri fasciata - which this should be), i.e., "Reddish bill of juvenile turns blackish (and then red again in mature male)."--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I have the J & P 1998 too, and I have just found what you say. I am uncertain the parrot's gender now, Forshaw 2006 does not mention a beak colour change from red to black and then to red in the male. I am happy to call it a juvenile at the present time. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note as to definition of terms. This particular bird would not be considered a juvenile. The commonly used, but rather generic term "immature", does not have well-defined parameters for its' use. Generally speaking, it can mean "any age not adult", however, in this particular case, its' use has been defined at least as being intended as "not juvenile", v. the J & P description that mentions that the bill of the juvenile (implied of both sexes) is red. The fact that the bill in this bird is not red, leads me to define this bird as "not juvenile" in this context, and for this reason, I consider this bird "not juvenile", and am using the rather unsatisfactory, but sometimes useful term "immature".Steve Pryor (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Image description updated on commons to say that it is an immature parrot. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 197. File:Georg_Flegel_005.jpg. The illustration has been on the "birds for identification" series before, when there were different opinions. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Red-headed Lovebird. It is listed as Micropsitta, but those have black beaks, and non has this kind of color pattern in the first place. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kim.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The illustration by Georg Flegel is is called "Still-Life with Pygmy Parrot", but I guess that might be a bad translation from the German. Currently, the parrot is not further identified in the image description on commons. Little Lorikeet got a lot of "votes" last time. I thought it was a Red-faced Lorikeet (also known a the Red-headed Lorikeet). Previous discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_20#Small_parrot_in_painting_idnetificationSnowman (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Not Little Lorikeet, they have black beaks and longer tails. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Again agreed. Of the visible characteristics, this can only be genus Agapornis, and of these only pullarius is consistent, though this particular bird might be immature. As far as Glossopsitta, the wing conformation eliminates the genus - this portrait bird has short, rounded wings!Steve Pryor (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I note someone has added the appropriate species category to the commons image. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a male (orange centre to crest), but it looks like a Goldcrest to me - I can't see the strong head pattern of Firecrest jimfbleak (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Rename underway to File:Regulus regulus -roadkill -Scotland-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, I have little doubt that these are some species of Amazona. However, there is too little showing, for me at least, to give even a probable species. I would say, just forget this photo. Not useful.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is enough of a white power appearance on the parrots backs to be characteristic of A. farnosa, called a Mealy Amazon because of the appearance of having flower on its back. Actually, I think it is. It also shows good camouflage of green back - not usually photographed. I think it is a good; although, perhaps, an unconventional photograph of a Mealy Amazon. It probably will not win any photography competitions, but is illustrates a point well, and I wonder if the photographer knew about Mealy's "flower covered" backs. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Looked it up in Forshawe 2006: "... identified by prominent glaucous suffusion on upper-parts, and two-toned tail. and prominent white eye ring". Snowman (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New info source

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

For those who haven't already heard about it, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is overseeing the creation of a massive website which will (eventually) cover every species found in the Neotropics—that is, every American species found south of the U.S./Mexico border. It will include photos, video and audio (where available, obviously), as well as regularly updated textual information. Unlike the Lab's Birds of North America project, access to this one will be free. The portal is found here. This could provide some great sources of references, etc. for this project—though it might also pull some contributors away! MeegsC | Talk 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all the added material is copyright to Cornell University, which will not suite those that want to contribute under a "free" creative commons licence. Snowman (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear: I didn't mean we could copy it—I meant that they provide lists of reference material (as well as providing a reliable source themselves) which could be used to improve articles here. —MeegsC | Talk 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I see now that you meant contributions rather than source. Yes, it won't be CC. But it also won't get vandalized! :P MeegsC | Talk 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Different motivations for contributing Snowman. I'd be happy to contribute just to have more publications on my CV. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruff

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I'm starting to work up Ruff and its genus name Philomachus I believe means "combative". Can anyone help with a verifiable source for this, I don't think this web source will get through GA/FA. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy-peasy. It is derived from philo- "loving" and machos "battle". Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Both from the Greek, while the specific name 'pugnax' is Latin and means, well, pugnacious. Maias (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. For a source there is HANZAB 3 (1996), p.341. Maias (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to all jimfbleak (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything on Colasisi? one of the common names for the Philippine Hanging Parrot (Loriculus philippensis) Colasisi is from the Tagalog, but I could not find a reference for it. Snowman (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked over here - we can see what turns up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion here that it comes from the term for a concubine. Maias (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
More mistress, than concubine.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It does not say if the bird name came from the term for mistress, or the term for the bird was given to the term for mistress. Might need a Tagalog dictionary for the etymology. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the bird came first; it's more plausible to use a colourful cage-bird as a metaphor for a mistress than the other way round. See also here and search for 'kulasisi'. Maias (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So the origin of the name of this hanging parrot is not convincingly explained here at present. Snowman (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
A nice editor gave me a book ref but no detail here. I will ask him if it mentions anything else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, Casliber, have the book. It does not get into a disquisition of the etymological origin of the word(s). It simply says "Colasisi - Loriculus philippensis [Colasisi (Pil), Kusi, Kolansi, Kolasisi (Vis)]. N.B. Pil = Pilipino (another name for Tagalog); Vis = Visayan.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Video of honeyguide and Ratel

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This video, showing a Greater Honeyguide guiding a Ratel to a bee colony, was just added to "Greater Honeyguide" as an external link. If it's real, it would settle the question of whether honeyguides guide Ratels. Parts of it look very fake to me, but could you fake the way the bird flies around the mammal? What do you think? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerry, I just don't know. It would help to see some rather longer film clips of how the Greater Honeyguide interacts with humans they are attempting to guide. For certain aspects the behavior of the bird appears to resemble "mobbing". However, mobbing is generally associated to brood protection in other bird species, and it is known that the Greater Honeyguide is a brood parasite, so the explanation would not appear to hold water. It begs the question, therefore, what might be an alternative explanation for the behavior of the bird, if not to gain the attention of the Ratel, and if so, other reasons to attempt to gain its' attention if not for wanting help in breaking open a wax-producing colony of insects - tough for me to conceive of another reason. Well, all in all, this behavior in relation to a Ratel would not surprise me. However, I would like to see all the film shot from which these segments have been clipped. As is, it is suggestive, but! Would like to see more.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are some short, more reliable-looking clips that the same editor linked to: Honey Guide Bird(Amazing Partnership) Guiding humans to Beehive, BBC Talking to Strangers: honey birds. If that helps. As I recall, they both say there's no proof of guiding Ratels, which is further reason to doubt the clip I originally asked about. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Particularly interesting would be close up shots of the broken open colony (i.e., to fix the conformation of the opening after the Ratel has abandoned the area, and with the Honeyguide in the same frame; also good closeups of the piece of honeycomb after the Ratel has left, and with the Honeyguide on it, so we can judge if it is the same piece. Further, clips of the Honeyguide calling that can give us a better idea if the Ratel was even in the same general vicinity - something which we can not tell - we just see him in a tree.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_34&oldid=1087588821"