Talk:Echo parakeet/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon! Looking forward to this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Take your time, I must admit I feel a bit burned out after writing this one, writing comprehensively about an extant animal is hard, too much is known about them, and there are too many relevant sources, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the three are grouped among the subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet of Asia and Africa. – This might be a bit confusing, it reads as if the Echo would be a subspecies of the rose-ringed. Maybe add some clarification.

Technically, it does mean they are subspecies, and there is actually no commentary on why they shouldn't be. I'll see if there is something I have overlooked, but it seems to just be a case of arbitrary taxonomy. The other extreme could be that the other subspecies are elevated to species, but the source doesn't seem to imply that. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It implies they the Echo is a subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet, which is seemingly in contradiction to the remainder of the lead, which states that the Echo is a species of its own. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It never states that explicitly (it even refers to them by binomials P. eques and P.echo), only "The close phylogenetic relationship and low but detectable nucleotide divergence between the single specimen of the extinct P. eques and the extant P. echo (0.2%) suggest that these island populations had evolutionarily diverged, but the low level of divergence suggests it is likely the populations on Reunion and Mauritius were only divergent at a sub-specific level." Since one goal of the study is to "determine whether P. eques warrants distinct species status or can be considered as conspecific with the extant P. echo", I take that to mean that they are considered subspecies of P. eques rather than P. krameri (though I can't state that explicitly here either), and that's also how later sources have interpreted it when referring to that DNA study (by using the names P. eques eques and P. eques echo). But yeah, logically, they should be considered P. krameri subspecies (unless that is a species complex itself)... FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From an evolutionary point of view it might not be that contradictory anymore (you can have species evolving from other species, such as chronospecies). It seems something like this is meant here? If so, maybe reformulate with "evolved from the rose-ringed parakeet", at least in the lead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said the following, which is closer to what the source says: "grouped among the subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet (from which they diverged)"~. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juveniles have a red orange bill, which turns black after it fledges, – singular/plural

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(with echo meaning woodnymph) – But Echo (mythology) was a mountain nymph? Why not link to Echo (mythology) directly? I also would add the language.

The source (Hume 2007, thus an interpretation), says "From Latin echo, meaning a woodnymph." I take this to imply it is not a specific nymph? The original Newton source has a footnote explanation of the name, but it's in Latin, so I'm not sure what to make of it, at the bottom here:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source gives Ἠχώ, which is Greek for the specific nymph Echo (see Echo (mythology)). The phrase in that source I would translate with "Echo, a nymph", but you should better ask somebody who really knows latin … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, so Hume's text, and what I should probably write, would be more like "referring to Echo, a woodnymph in Greek mythology". FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a mountain nymph (which also makes more sense, since you do not usually hear echos in the woods). But yes, I think something like this would be it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so maybe I should just say "referring to Echo, a nymph in Greek mythology", to prevent contradicting the Hume source? FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now say "(referring to Echo, a nymph in Greek mythology)". FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(which retained the name P. eques) – Palaeornis eques or Psittacus eques? Not clear.

The former, added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and found it probable that they differed from each other (unless the birds on Réunion had simply been introduced), though it was unknown how. – seems strange, the different collars are quite obvious?

It appears no one found this suspicious until very recently. I suspect it's because it is only recently that many live specimens have been observed, whereas most earlier writers only had a handful of dead specimens to work with, perhaps making them assume the extend of the collar varied more in the wider population than their few specimens showed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, just wondering. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of many mascarene parrots being poorly known, – why not "most" instead of "many"?

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Africa and Asia may have been colonised from there rather than the other way around. They found the echo parakeet to have diverged between 3.7 and 6.8 million years ago, and if correct, this could imply that speciation had occurred prior to the formation of Mauritius. – A bit confusing, are they suggesting that the echo originated on another island, colonised the continents, and arrived on Mauritius after it was formed?

That source only states "These discordances also assume that speciation occurred on the island that these parrot taxa currently occupy, i.e. P. echo and M. mascarinus may have diverged prior to their arrival on Mauritius and Réunion, respectively." But the preceding paragraph on Cheke & Hume's ideas indicate they could have evolved on hot spot islands that are now submerged. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and has two ring collars on its neck, which are incomplete and fail to meet at the back. The male has one black and one pink collar, which appears crescent shaped in side view, and has blue suffusion above it. The female has an indistinct black and a green collar, which becomes dark green across the cheeks and yellow-green at the back of the neck. – You first describe the ring collar of the female, than that of the male, and then again that of the female.

You mean this "It has two ring collars on the neck, which are incomplete, failing to meet at the back."? That is supposed to refer to both of them. The subsequent text is just about how the two differ in this feature. Is it confusing? FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The outer primary feathers of some males is tinged with blue. – singular/plural

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The underside of the tail is brownish grey with a yellow edge. – Of male, female, or both?

Removed, it was from an account of the Réunion subspecies, so not appropriate there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were long mainly active in the upland forest of Macabé Ridge, – why "were" in past? They are not anymore? Where is Macabé Ridge in the park?

Hehe, you are touching upon an issue which has also annoyed me. The most detailed source about the bird (which many newer sources also rely on) was written in the mid 1980s, when the species was even more restricted in range (and before the Bel Ombre population was found), therefore much of it is outdated when it comes to range. The bird's range continues to increase as it recovers and grows in numbers (which is also why I have not listed the specific areas of the park where the bird is currently found). Would it be better if I stated where these locations were by the time of the citation? FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would already be helpful to state that Macabé Ridge is within the park and to give a date when this was the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "In the upland forest, they prefer large, mature trees such as", since it is hard to say if this is still true for only the ridge (to the exclusion of other areas)... A more recent source also just says "and their last stronghold is in the southwest, in the upland forests of Black River Gorges National Park where some of the largest mature trees survive." FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

echo parakeets are seen in its – singular/plural

Changed by CE. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is tied to native forests (with their numbers and distribution decreasing as this is destroyed) – singular/plural

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the parakeet may have migrated seasonally in search for food, – to other islands, or just to other woods on Mauritius?

Source doesn't say, but there is no reason to believe it means between islands, changed to "the parakeet may have moved between areas seasonally". FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

were genetically differentiated – different?

Changed, though it is effectively the same. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some holes have overhangs or other features to prevent flooding – maybe "that prevent flooding"? Since flooding prevention is not the reason why the overhangs are there.

Changed, though the source says "and with overhangs or other features to prevent flooding". FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(while one to four is also possible), – suggest "one or four" (one to four should be almost always be the case).

Changed to just "two to four normally", as most sources seem to say. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chicks are rather active, flap their wings, and go near the entrance hole after 50 days. – Suggest to move the "50 days" to the beginning, as the sentence makes little sense without this information.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks fledge (usually one or two per nest) – is that an indirect hint to the mortality rate?

I couldn't find the source for this, so I added "Two of the young are normally raised" elsewhere instead. So yes, that is an indication of mortality, but it isn't really stated specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In some species – some other species? some parakeet species?

The source only says "'Helpers' at the nest are, in some species, associated with a skewed sex ratio". So it is a general statement, which may or may not be true for the echo. But I have now rewritten the text, and that part is gone now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

showed that the sex ratio was equal among echo parakeet chicks and embryos, and that the male-biased sex ratio among adults must therefore be due to other factors. – It was not previously stated that the sex ratio is skewed in the echo?

The following is stated before, is it too unspecific? "In some species, "helpers" are correlated with a skewed sex ratio, and it may not be unusual for parrots to rear more male than female offspring... creating an unsustainable excess in the populations there". FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would specifically state that the Echo shows a skewed sex ratio first. Something like "In some species, including the Echo" or "In some other species … suggesting that the same is true for the Echo" or whatever is the case. It seems to be fact that the Echo has this skewed ratio? So it cannot be solely based on other species? Then, why stating "In some species" in the first place? This is still a bit unclear to me, maybe I just didn't comprehend. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is also due to the main source being from the 1980s, before large populations could be observed, and therefore many observations were preliminary. I have now expanded this point a good deal, but it is a subject that is still unclear and being studied... Not even an otherwise comprehensive 2017 book mentions these studies. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's most of the article already. Will do the rest soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the copy edit is ongoing, I can answer a few questions here that I am unsure how to implement anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All should now be answered. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and Solanum auriculatum (wild apple) – hmm was it really translated as "wild apple"? It has not anything to do with apples, maybe choose one of the common names given in the wiki article.

The source just says "In addition to star fruit, other introduced plants utilised for food include strawberry guava Psidium cattleianum and wild apple Solanum auriculatum." I would usually prefer to stick to the source, but no strong opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and while the dwarf forest and scrubland of the south western plateau are important throughout the year, with the birds feeding on different species as edible parts become available. – the "while" doesn't seem to fit. And while what? Something missing?

Not sure what happened there, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

of the south western plateau – of that national park? I would repeat that here.

Removed "of the south western plateau", as the bird now has a wider range. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The echo parakeet forages alone or in small groups while ignoring each other – also doesn't seem to fit? Maybe "with individuals ignoring each other"?

Took your suggestion, I think both are valid, though (while as in they are ignoring each other when/while they forage). FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius kestrels are mobbed regularly, by echo parakeets joining and flying around the kestrel together, and landing in surrounding trees, while emitting alarm calls – aren't this too many commas?