Jump to content

User talk:Rabo3/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Fiji Whistler & Pacific Koel

Hi, just wondered if you can add any material/references to my new article on Fiji Whistler (recently split from Golden by IOC) and anything on the new Eastern/Pacific Koel. Aviceda talk 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoo

This Zoo keeps lots of monkeys. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Most are already well covered, but once that may be worth checking out are: female Pileated Gibbon and a male, and Lesser Spot-nosed Monkey. I see the nice photo of the adult and juvenile Thick-billed Parrot already has been uploaded. • Rabo³ • 07:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

NBII website uploads

  • I uploaded the photographs in the longish list of bird photographs from the NBII website. I have five questions on the uploads, which I have put under the list on the bird talk page. Some of the questions are on identification, which differed from your identification. I went with your identification, as you had made the general comment that there were some inaccuracies on the NBII website. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned in list on the bird talk page, you should not rely on the identifications by NBII. They've made several mistakes, some of which are truly puzzling. • Rabo³ • 07:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "File:Myrmotherula longipennis.jpg", I have put a tag on the commons file which eventually leads to the file being renamed, in a multi-stage bot assisted process. You might be interested in noting the tag format (which I have copied on my user page on commons) and watching the changes that are anticipated. Incidentally, the bird has not an insect on it. Is this a tick, or just a fly? The image is not clear enough to tell how many legs the insect has got. I might add something about the insect in the image description. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks more like a random insect that got caught up along the way than a parasitic arthropods. Yes, I've wanted to get up-to-speed on the renaming process on commons. • Rabo³ • 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been on a waiting list, and today something happened and a new file has been made, is a few days the old image will be removed. See the blue link (was red) on the BirdTalk page. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Images on flickr

Done. • Rabo³ • 09:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nestoridae

Someone has started a new page on a family of parrots called Nestoridae. Is this an accepted classification? I would like some confirmation before changing a lot of other parrot pages and making wikilinks. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better to ask this on the BirdTalk page? Snowman (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it's fine here. I just managed to completely miss this and the following message, as I mistakenly had "unwatched" my talk. Yes, it is an accepted classification, but there are some problems there that need solving. I'll add it to the things to check up on somewhere along the way. • Rabo³ • 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File rename

File:White-edged Oriole.jpg The photographer has asked the zoo about the bird and has got an answer. Can you advice on the correct name of this file? Snowman (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted earlier, it is either P. chrysopeplus and P. chrysogaster. On his talk page the photographer said he checked the zoo where it was taken and they had the Mexican (which equals P. chrysopeplus). I see no reason to doubt that. • Rabo³ • 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have done some tidy up work on that page and started a rename process. It is quite easy to put a tag on the image for rename, then an administrator or trusted user checks it, and then a bot helps to do some of the work. Even linked images on the various wikis is sorted out with bots. Each stage takes a while, sometimes the steps are done in quick succession (over about 3 to 5 days) and sometimes it is slower; I am not sure why some are done quickly and some are done slowly. Snowman (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pied/Torresian Imperial Pigeon image

Just got back from N Queensland and noticed that there was no image on the Torresian Imperial-pigeon page so uploaded one from my trip, but now you've overwritten it with a poor pic from a zoo.....what's happening? Aviceda talk 02:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That certainly wasn't my intention. It was merely because there was a fair deal of confusion over the two species (as you may have noticed, I've just moved most of the info that had been placed under the Pied to the Torresian where it belonged). As the bill and undertail coverts are the primary features in this superspecies, I changed to the close-up photo which shows both rather well. I wanted to use the other photo further down, but forgot somewhere along the way when writing the text. Regardless, it is just as useful the other way around, so I'll re-insert your photo in the taxo-box shortly, and place the other in the taxonomic section. • Rabo³ • 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I have some better shots showing the underparts, do you want me to upload one of those? Aviceda talk 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You're faster than I... I can see you already did. Nice photo, too. In the article I've moved it a bit down to deal with the formatting and spelled out the words in its caption (WP:MoS). • Rabo³ • 03:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Monkeys from Belize

Two monkeys for identification. No hurry. I thought that they were a good find for commons. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2x Geoffroy's Spider Monkey. • Rabo³ • 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons descriptions amended. Snowman (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Parrots (8)

I will be grateful for you opinion on parrots 87, 88, and 89, which are some remaining ones in a previous section. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. • Rabo³ • 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Amaurospiza

Thanks for pointing this out. Pretty unlucky that the only two photos were misidentified. By the way, don't forget to re-add the photo requests if you take all the photos out. I'll make a comment at Flickr too. Richard001 (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot the to re-add the photo request on their talk. The members of this genus are rather erradic in their occurence (but can be surprisingly common at localities with flowering bamboo [i.e. same as other bamboo-specialists] - which is very difficult to predict, however). Consequently, sightings at all but a few localities are rather infrequent. • Rabo³ • 07:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Species Lists of Birds

Oh bother! Sorry about that. As you can probably tell I've been stub sorting the birds and having come across several genera that had the species lists in alpha order I thought that that was correct (and useful). I don't know how many I've done. I see you've reverted the recent ones. I'll look back further and revert any that I find haven't been done yet. I wonder if it would help prevent this from being done by another editor if the lists were titled or labelled in some way to indicate that the order is taxonomic (and therefore deliberately in this order)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When I discovered it, I checked your last 1500 edits, and the only place where I found this issue was within the last 6-700 edits (these cases have been reverted). If you know of older ones and can find them relatively fast, I would recommend you revert them, but otherwise they'll be dealt with along the way when people notice such pages (i.e. no major problem). Yes, it might be a good idea to mention the basis for such lists, but many of them need an update anyway (example here - that is an example of a list that largely reflects how most believed it was until a few years ago, but as mentioned in my comment we now know there are some inaccuracies there), and I would probably refrain from doing so until they're updated. In any case most people dealing regularly with animals/plants will know, at least at the heigher family/genus level, simply because literature dealing with these matters commonly follow the taxonomical order (or rather, what was believed to be the taxonomical order when the specific book was published). • Rabo³ • 06:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Flickr photo

Could you review the comment on [1]. It sounds like they are the same species, which is contrary to what you said. Richard001 (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they are certainly not the same species (we even have a wiki article dealing with this common phenomena in the Neotropics: Mixed-species feeding flock), and admittedly I am puzzled a guide would call them Blue Seedeaters, but mistakes do happen. An explanation: Compared to the male Blue-black Grassquit on his photo, the male Blue Seedeater is much paler, greyish-blue (not glossy bluish-black) with a stubbier bill that is never as distinctly bicoloured. Compared to the female Thick-billed Seed-Finch on his photo, the female Blue Seedeater is duller, especially on the belly (often with a relatively dull cinnamon tinge; not as bright as the seed-finch), and has a much smaller bill. You can compare the birds on his photos with photos of actual Blue Seedeaters here (there are also two male BB Grassquits there, and a standard google/flickr-search should give plenty of others; for a Thick-billed Seed-Finch perched in a position where the bill is comparable, see first photo here). • Rabo³ • 05:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Peaceful Dove

I have removed the recently uploaded "Peaceful Dove" image from the article infobox following doubts written on my talk page by User:Aviceda, who thinks that it may be a Zebra Dove. I do not know what it is. Please liaise with User:Aviceda. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with on talk of wiki proj. birds, commons, and your talk. • Rabo³ • 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Photostream

I have been uploading from this flickr photosteam, after the flickr photographer changed the licence of several of them on request. Are there any more interesting ones? What is the brown lorikeet? I have uploaded the other interesting parrots and the three birds with large toucan-like beaks. I could make another request from the flickr photographer to change the licence of some more. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several nice photos there that are worth trying for, notably Mountain Bamboo-partridge, female Fasciated Antshrike (from Panama), and male Canivet's Emerald (from Utila, Honduras). Less significant than previous, but the White-whiskered Puffbird (from Tikal, Guatemala and male Lesser Masked Weaver would be nice too (notice that he identified the weaver as a Southern Masked, but that species has brownish-red eyes, as can be seen in the photo currently feature in the wiki article Southern Masked-Weaver). The name King Shag is rather poor (it is used for several rather similar species [one from New Zealand, and - depending on taxonomy - 1+ from South America/Antartica/Southern Ocean islands], meaning that the name commonly leads to confusion), but his "King Shag" shows two Pied Cormorants, which based on the sources I have access to isn't a species ever referred to as a King Shag. It is difficult to comment on his "Duyvenbode's Lory" based on the available photo, but it is certainly not Chalcopsitta duivenbodei. It is either one of the strange variants (the result of captive breeding) found among certain Trichoglossus, or a hybrid involving two Trichoglossus ssp. or Trichoglossus X Eos. I guess the last is the correct answer, but would not be able to exclude the other possibilities. • Rabo³ • 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I have sent a request by flickr webmail. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
All requested uploaded except for the weaver, because its licence was not changed. I have uploaded two more, which were excellent photographs which I plan to put on the Bird Talk page to confirm identification. Many thanks to flickr photographer. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Brookesia

Thanks for cleaning up some of the Brookesia articles. I think if you explore further you'll see that "Dwarf Chameleon" is used as a common name for the specific species discussed, even if it isn't used for the whole genus:

[2]In a recent paper Raxworthy & Nussbaum (1995) included the Madagascan dwarf chameleons Brookesia peyrierasi and B. tuberculata in the synonymy of B. minima, regarding known hemipenial differences between B. tuberculata and B. peyrierasi as artefacts...

I'll leave the determination to you, however. --Boston (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

... that's where the peyrierasiand (peyrierasi and) originated, though I see you corrected it (and in any case no big issue, as easily dealt with via the page-move). Anyway, to the issue you actually ask about: Above supports my point. As can be seen, it speaks about the Madagascan dwarf chameleons (i.e. plural), and then continues to mention several species. In other words, as I stated in my earlier comment, this is a group name (essentially the name for the B. minima superspecies, if it is even correct to call it a superspecies, as I have not seen data for the entire genus and doubt it presently exists to the extend that really would be needed). It would be a bit like suggesting Fischer's C. is the correct name for all the species previously included under that species, but now known to be different (though with the significant difference compared to previous example that Fischer's C. remains a correct Eng. name for one, a now much more restricted Kinyongia fischeri). • Rabo³ • 22:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I come to a different conclusion with the same evidence. If the paper says "Madagascan dwarf chameleons" (plural) and the species in question is almost (or perhaps actually) conspecific, then we should consider it a common name in use for all three species in question. They share a range and can't hardly be distinguished by the naked eye. But we know common names are a fuzzy area anyways. Sometimes several species share one. Sometimes a single species has a long list of them. At any rate, I'll defer to you as indicated. Thanks for your edits! --Boston (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cassowaries

I see you did some editting on the cassowaries. Question, you point out that the northern cassowary also is in northern New Guinea, my source (the cited source) does not state this, could you throw an additional citation for this fact. Thanks in advance speednat (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Done (see also map in that species' article). • Rabo³ • 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I also made adj. to your ref, to make it inline with the rest of footnotes speednat (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Photographs

I hope that your wiki break is not too long, and I hope that you will be able to help with the identification of several birds in photographs mentioned on the BirdTalk page. Also, I have uploaded some more parrot photographs of species new to the wiki that you might like to write about - many thanks to flickr photographers. Snowman (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have gone away without leave (AWOL), or at least without informing other wiki users why you are not currently contributing to the wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This applies here and elsewhere. • Rabo³ • 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have acquired Forshaw. (2006) "Parrots of the World. A guide to identification", and it has been useful. Snowman (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions on bird names

platenae. • Rabo³ • 14:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou, category on commons fixed. Snowman (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy of the Bananaquit

Hi, as you have made much to clarify the taxonomy issues touching my contributions to the Speckled Chachalaca entry, I would like to ask you to add, if possible, some clarification to the Bananaquit article. The Brazilian fieldguides I've been using (Frisch and Monteiro Pereira) both place the bananaquit into the Emberizinae (Frisch actually places it into the Fringillidae, subfamily Emberizinae), but, being no ornithologist, I've no means of knowing whether this taxonomy is obsolete or not. Thanks a lotCerme (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not belong in the subfamily Emberizinae (if this subfamily is recognized) or for that matter the family Emberizidae. It is part of a group that includes the Darwin's finches, Tiaris, Loxigilla, etc. Most of these were previously placed in Emberizidae, but are now known to actually be part of Thraupidae (see Group 2b). However, at present, most authorities keep the bananaquit in incertae sedis, as there still are some issues that need to be resolved within the entire nine-primaried oscines. • Rabo³ • 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've already edited the entry accordinglyCerme (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Identifications

Rabo - thanks for the corrections and IDs Dougjj (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peter Lundin

Hello and thank you for the note. I admit there was a bit of bad faith involved when I saw numerous changes made by an anonymous IP user with one previous edit from last year. Thanks for taking the time to explain the details. Best regards, momoricks (make my day) 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for correcting my mistakes on Orange-breasted Trogon and the images at Commons, as well as those of other editors for the bird articles. That was mighty real embarassing for me (especially since I have also taken a photo of the identification plate for the Orange-breasted Trogon at the bird park). Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! • Rabo³ • 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thank you for taking the time to correct the errors I made with several Bird IDs here, and for the extra effort of helping to ID several birds in my galleries on PBase [[3]]. I really appreciate it! Dougjj (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Crested vs plumed guineafowl

Thanks for correcting my wrong identification of the Kenya Crested Guineafowl for the Plumed Guineafowl. To avoid future mix ups, I have added an illustration by Daniel Giraud Elliot to the Plumed Guineafowl page.

Also thanks for improving the text of the above mentioned articles. I have translated the new text and put it on the Dutch wikipedia.

eboy (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Parrot photographs

I will be grateful for your opinion on the following two photographs listed on the WP:Bird talk page as:

  • 207 (? Aratinga solstitialis) there are two in the photograph, but one is much greener.
  • 223 (? Pyrrhura griseipectus) a good photograph recently uploaded to commons, and could be a good one for the infobox image. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
207 is probably a subadult Sun. The reason for 'probably' is that when they have this much green to the wings they usually also have some green to the nape and crown. I can't see any of that on this individual. Only other possibility is Sun X Jandaya, but I still think a somewhat unusual subadult Sun is more likely. 223 is correct, but I'm probably going to suggest merging P. griseipectus with P. leucotis soon. Right now Wikipedia is pretty alone in recognizing them as separate species, as the arguments for the split are rather poor (unlike P. pfrimeri where the case for separate species is quite strong). • Rabo³ • 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added 223 to the infobox. Does the image need a change of name? Snowman (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO its current name is fine. As long as the scient. and common names remain as redirects after a possible merge of P. griseipectus and P. leucotis. • Rabo³ • 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rabo3/Archive_3&oldid=1141053983"