This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shyamal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Unable to see the "dashboard" (Quisqualis what where !?) - but if there is something you should be able to see the source - if it is { { xxx } } then you should be able to see the source in Template:xxx .
I made the mistake of explaining who the Barn Swallow ssp sauvignii and tytleri commemorated. Tytler created a red link, and since it's an FAC, I thought I ought to knock out a quick stub from what I could find on the web! Jimfbleak13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read through making mainly minor tweaks (typos, running short sentences together, etc). You need to decide on either US or Brit English, at the moment it's a mix eg traveled but behaviour and colour - I resisted the temptation to change it all to Brit! It's a nice article, and I'll have another look later. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
crane and kite indubitably refer to Common and Red respectively - should they be capitalised?? Also "swallow" is most likely to be Barn. Just wondering, no idea what the correct style is Jimfbleak13:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read through again, made a few minor tweaks such as removing repeated verbs. I added a mention of White's Selborne, mainly because I wrote it earlier today, so take it out if it doesn't fit. The first two sections are very long, can't see an obvious place to break though. Jimfbleak08:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Lets see how it goes. Unfortunately I lack access to one major source - Stresemann's Ornithology from Aristotle to ... which may have some interesting things to add. Will look over again in the next week. Shyamal09:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
eusociality
Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't have digital versions of virtually any of my pubs - only xeroxes. What I can do is to go over the article at some point, to see how things look, and incorporate edits based on that paper. Dyanega17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, I think it is pretty much complete. If you have some time, you can go ahead to nominate it to the FLC. I will be mostly unable to come to wiki for a next few days, and even if I come, I will be unable to handle the queries due to time constraints. If sth is incomplete, you can add it. If you also don't have enough time, let me know, I will nominate it later, otherwise go ahead. Thanks - DSachan22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Deepak, I would wait to fix many of the taxonomic changes and check more reliable sources for conservation status. The list was generated using AviBase which originally produced large numbers of erroneous entries - the list still needs considerable verification. I will look over it again next week. Away now. Shyamal01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late response. I see the problem now. Jimfbleak pointed out some errors in placement of inappropriate images also. So, I will look into that also. Clearly some more time is required now. Thanks. DSachan (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, I've signed up to do the GA review for this. It may be a bit slow since I'm just finishing reviewing Wagiman language, and I'm away for a couple of days. Hopefully I'm on firmer ground with this than near-extinct Australian languages! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been suggested at FAC for bird that a woodpecker be added to the image, instead of perhaps the avocet. I'm not sure if it is needed, but I thought I'd mention it. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
They do indeed have both subterranean and aerial flowers. While I haven't read specifically that the underground flowers self pollinate, I think it's fair to assume that they must. I've never heard anything about underground pollinators, and I can't imagine it could work very well. I have read that aerial seeds produce healthier seedlings than subterranean seeds. Commelina benghalensis can be called amphicarpic, which means that it produces two different types of fruit.
According to my supervisor there are about 27 species in the Commelinaceae in the Hassan district (is that near where you are located?) Hassan District has one of the few floras that includes a truly
epiphytic Commelinaceae, Belosynapsis vivipara, a small rosette plant that grows on mossy tree trunks in wet forests in the Western Ghats. India has a very high diversity of Commelinacae and only Mexico and Tanzania surpass it in the number of species. I look forward to your photographs! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs06:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I live in Bangalore and not far from the Hassan district and your information presumably comes from the Flora by Fr. Cecil Saldanha. Most species in the Western Ghats tend to be found across the belt and unlikely to be endemic to just that district. So I will keep an eye out and take pictures as well. Shyamal (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Zoobank
I noticed you used Zoobank for a list of species in Bengalia - as I note there, Zoobank is a nomenclatural resource, and NOT a taxonomic resource. Zoobank lists all published names, even those which are not valid species, and even those which are not validly published!! It's an easy mistake to make, but the bottom line is that Zoobank is meaningless when it comes to classification; it's just an archive of published names, and roughly 5 out of every 6 published names are not in use. Dyanega (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought as much - becaused it did say names and not species. But I essentially added it to clean up an edit by our friend. Shyamal (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
beetle list
The one you give is not as complete or authoritative as the one at List_of_subgroups_of_the_order_Coleoptera. It also includes several errors, such as the use of the names "Microsporidae", "Artematopidae", "Rhipiphoridae" and others. It would not be an improvement over the present list. Dyanega (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
hmm...one-up on yet another traditional encyclopedia ! Find it a bit hard to believe given that the references cited for current WP list are older than the Insect Encyclopedia (2003). Will compare the two and let you know of any differences that need to be explained perhaps with annotations. Shyamal (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, its under edit-protect. A suggested section on natural history added by me in the talk page to place in the main article by an admin. Could you please oblige? AshLin (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
And then try to add actual species to the list! If you go to User:MeegsC/Sandbox and have a look at the first few orders (ducks and grebes), that works fine because I've removed the section headers from the template I'm playing with. MeegsC | Talk13:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize the problem and seeing Help:Section, it would appear that the only solution is like what you are doing which is not to use the script to write the sections. Perhaps templates for each of the families could be made the scripts of which never play around with == !
I can't move the filmmaker's article to the title J. C. Daniel. If you r an admin plese do it for me. Anyways, I will tag it for moving.--Anoopkn (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you would be willing to do a quick sketch of the Crested Shelduck. I've been working on the article, but do not know of any free images of the species. If you want to do it, there are some drawings here and here. Feel free to give me a holler if I can do anything for you. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for both the image and the unbelievably quick response. The picture looks pretty good; however, the shelduck's beak and feet are pale pink, not orange. I hate to bring that up, but could you change it to make them pale pink? Again, thanks for the image, even though it is the holiday season, and if there is anything I can do for you, please ask. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish that there were some pictures of live birds too :) I knew that there were some pictures of the skins on Google, but since the skins do not neccesarily acurrately portray the bird, I wouldn't put too much faith in them. However, I did not know that there was a picture of the skins in Commons. I searched for it but missed it somehow. Anyways, thanks for the drawing and for tracking down the picture of the skins that I stupidly missed. Oh, and I nominated the article for a DYK and mentioned that there were pictures in the article, so the sketch may end up on the main page! Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Khatri-Rao product
You have requested an adition to the Kronecker product page about the Khatri-Rao product. Since I needed it too and didn't want to look it up each time in a paper like the one you mentioned, I added something about it. Is my explanation clear? StevenDH (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, I did a few copy eds on the Khatri-Rao product and have hopefully not changed the meaning. An example with a small matrix would be a valuable addition. Shyamal (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe your rephrasing wasn't entirely correct, so I changed it again, hopefully both correct and clear this time. I also tried to add an example, but even the small matrices I used turned out to be too big for TeX/Wikipedia to handle (saved the result as User:StevenDH/Kronecker product temp, if I remove a few columns from the matrix TeX doesn't complain but the result's wrong of course) Any idea on this? StevenDH (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I played around with the formatting in spite of knowing little about TeX but did not seem to fix the problem. It does appear to be a length problem as a perfectly working matrix when lengthened stopped. Maybe it should be raised on the bug reporting page. Sorry, but my knowledge of TeX and its rendering on wikimedia is too limited. Shyamal (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for comment, I'm planning to send it to GA, but a bit more to do yet on breeding in particular. I've already got Blackbird and House Martin queuing at GA nominees, so no great rush. I've done a few GA assessments, so i don't feel too guilty about adding a third. It's a pity there aren't better images for ssp other than tristisJimfbleak (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a fair bit of variation in Chiffchaff plumage, and the illustration of fresh autumn plumage in Collins has yellower flanks than the pictured bird, which looks spot-on for chiffy. After your message, I did check for alternative possibilities. It's certainly not Willow or Wood Warblers, the only other common English Phylloscopus species. I checked the rare species too, but most are ruled out by the absence of wingbars or a much more prominent supercilium, and would not be present as a vagrant in August (except perhaps Greenish). P. griseolus in Newcastle would be nice, but very very improbable! Jimfbleak (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tough ! Guess we have to take the photographer's word for it, lighting and camera quirks can add to make id from photographs quite problematic. Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Synchronicity
Ahaaa...you thought what I was thinking only an hour earlier. I was just musing on nominating osprey after we all put some work into it a few months ago, and just thought GA would be a good way-point to try and conserve what was done before vandalism etc. I can't review it as I contributed a bit early on but will keep an eye on it and fingers crossed. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal! Good to see that you're also busy. I was wondering if I could have your support for a merge proposal. It concerns this discussion. I've already tried reasoning with the party responsible for the status quo (an admin), but that conversation went nowhere. I would like to see the previous situation restored, but I don't want to make this into a big fight. I wish to keep this as civilized as possible. Assuming your agree with the proposal, a simple word of support would be fine. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you seem to have called off the merge I proposed. As I've been trying to explain, I understand your point of view and am at least partially sympathetic towards implementing it, but in that case I would first like to see a number of practical issues discussed and worked out in advance. In the mean time, the current consensus is in favor of a merge by at least 4 to 2, so I would ask that you please respect that. --Jwinius (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am confused, I thought you agreed to the points made. Essentially you need to either merge all subspecies into one article or leave it at status quo. My final take was that you were for leaving it alone, or at least that is what I understood. Your original idea that the nominate subspecies was in some way different from other subspecies and needs to be dealt with in a different way has hopefully been clarified and I was presuming that there was no longer any debate about special treatment. Let me know where I have been unclear. It should now only be a non-controversial matter of deciding what content goes where and have a summary of subspecies in the main page with details in the subspecies pages. Shyamal (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I only said that I thought your POV had merit. Personally, if I had to make a choice I would rather get rid of all the subspecies articles than go with what Viridae has done, but in my view both of your options will lead to complications. The "formulae", if you will, that I am a proponent of, may not be perfect, but it has many practical advantages within the WP environment. For example, having the species article focus on the nominate subspecies means that it's always perfectly clear which names and which images should be associated with which articles. With either of your options, however, I fear it will always remain a matter of (hot) debate how the species articles are written, e.g. which names, images and descriptions should figure more prominently. I want to avoid all that. Remember also that all of the GA articles that I've worked on -- Bitis arietans, Bitis gabonica, Daboia and Vipera berus -- all of them are set up according to these exact same rules and so far no one has complained. Along with all the other python articles, the Morelia spilota article was also written like this. Bottom line: I don't want to set a precedent unless it's really worth it. --Jwinius (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you are free to follow any structure you want, but you need to have a firm and well defined justification. The idea that the species is equal to the nominate subspecies and that the other subspecies are not to be treated within the species article is unfortunately based on a very incorrect understanding of taxonomy (irrespective of whether it has been pointed out or not) and that is where you will need to be clear in order to avoid any problems. I doubt if even Viridae would worry if you lumped all the one line subspecies articles into one comprehensive species article with all subspecies dealt in one place with clear differentiation of the geographic distributions (I presume most reptilians follow the usual allopatric pattern). So I am not going to worry as long as you include a statement pointing out the structure in the lead. Shyamal (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In lieu of a more practical solution at this time, that last part was exactly what I had in mind. Even such a change represents a good deal of work (when applied to all snake articles that mention subspecies), but at least not a mountain leading to uncertain consequences. Now, if you could please revert your last few edits to the relevant articles, I will try to come up with a better lead statement. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, then perhaps you could do the honor of "enshrining" the consensus that took place following the merge proposal, something like this. I'd rather not do anything before an admin first makes the result official. After that, I will basically revert the two pages in question to the versions before Viridae made his changes. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Jaap, please do go ahead and make the changes. I use my admin privilege mainly (perhaps only) for doing useful things like moving to existing targets (something that is common in taxon pages) and fairly obvious protection. As far as the debate goes it needs to be based on rationales and I have already expressed mine at sufficient length. It appears to me that none of the "voters" really were needed for making the required changes. You would only need to convince Viridae that you have a clear structure in mind. If you can express that, I believe you should have no problem. I do not think there is any need for any ("authoritarian") process here. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year Shyamal I am not at work.The fracture is complicated but improving. I got a little sidetracked
with Museum Godeffroy and it's collectors.Very romantic-the South Seas.Back to work in a month or so and some Indian butterfly photography.
Very best wishes Robert Notafly (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A long time in the making
This finally got published.Fifteen years after the start. I'll mail you a copy. The work has three older sisters Braconidae, Chalcidoidea and Platygasteridae/Proctotrupidae which I will also send.It has to be said they are not an entertaining read.
[1] Robert Notafly (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Concerning frog articles
I don't suppose I could get you to reference all the other ones too? The vast majority of them have nothing, and this is not a desireable state of affairs. Jtrainor (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Polbot actually did a good job for missing taxon articles. Unfortunately these stubs were created prior to that. One of the IUCN status bots may be able to more efficiently fix the problem. Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sandbox
Hi Shyamal Sorry to bother you again but there is a redirect seemingly protecting the sandbox page you so kindly fixed for me.There is nothing that I really need here and if the easy thing is to delete the whole lot please do so.Robert Notafly (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Have added a first version - will improve it over time. The photos by Elliott McClure show a pale collar which is not visible in other illustrations that I found on the net. I will try and improve on the image as and when I find more source photographs. Cheers. Shyamal (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In case your Swedish fails you ;-) the sections are roughly
left column, top down: "Split species" - "Spit species moved to new genus" - "Moved to new genus"
right colum, same: "Moved to new genus and change of English name" - "Not recognized in Clements list"(?) - "Lumpings" - "In different family than in Clements" - "Timaliidae in Clements but not in HBW" - "Change of English name"
A lot of the confusion is explained by the fact that the nominate of jerdoni is sunk into cachinnans. Therefore fairbanki is actually part of the former jerdoni. imbricata was formerly in lineata (or -us as Garrulax). virgata is not in the list for some reason, it should be in "SPLITTADE OCH FLYTTADE TILL NYTT SLÄKTE" under G. lineatus I think.
The reference for Strophocincla is:
Wolters (1980): Die Vogelarten der Erde. Eine systematische Liste mit Verbreitungsangaben sowie deutschen und englischen Namen. Issue 5, leaves 21-25: 395. Paul Parey, Hamburg & Berlin.
Sure, will give it a try. Good source images are sometimes not easily found on Google Image search. For instance I know of excellent Indian bird images on www.indianaturewatch.net and www.orientalbirdimages.org which do not show up on searches. Let me know of good source images. I had to fix the other image as well - I found that the tail is only tapered and not with a racquet as I had earlier depicted. Shyamal (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Gandhi in England
Hi Shyamal,
I have been making some slight edits to the entry for Horace Alexander. Horace was my great-uncle and I knew him as a child. Family lore is that Horace & Olive Alexander and other Friends arranged Gandhi visits to mills & meeting houses in Yorkshire during the boycott of British exports to explain the Congress party position and was well received. Also, as I live in Bradford now, I'm interested in any local connection. However, crucially, I have not managed yet to find any supporting evidence. Do you have any knowledge of this episode perhaps?
Any help appreciated. Thanks.
David Sturge --MrElectric (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Great to see the links (terrific resource)and plates added.This seems to be a rare work.I have seen only three copies and ours has been in great demand. I will write a review of it shortly.Best wishes.Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notafly (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see it of use. The Smithsonian Biodiversity Heritage Library and the Internet Archive are doing a great favour to humanity. Shyamal (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Shyamal. Do you have any information on Lygosoma quadrupes (description, ecology, etc.)? I've upload my pics in Commons and want to make an article about this lizard in Bahasa Indonesia. I'm very glad and thanks if you can help provide such information. Regards, Wie146 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've written an article covert (feather), and added two of your images, but they don't show all the named covert feather groups. Is there any chance that you could tweak the first one in particular to show the upper/under tail coverts and all three sets of wing coverts, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's really good! Only query is if there should be a line to underwing primary coverts? Thanks a lot (I'm amazed, incidentally, that we've gone this long without a coverts article considering how often they are mentioned. Thanks again 06:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)
Actually my intention was to point out that the lesser, median and greater were all primary underwing coverts in this case. Maybe I should move the caption. I also have an upperwing version. The unfortunate bird died on hitting a window about two weeks ago. Shyamal (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Orange-headed Thrush hitting window! I know it depends where you are, but its so much more exotic than Greenfinch or Blackbird - I've only seen one, skulking in undergrowth. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi SP-KP, I doubt if the publication has an ISBN from what I see of it on the net, but I could find out from the author. Shyamal (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tabulated the data, looks neater. We need to decide between cyanotus and cyanota, I don't mind which, but a mixture at present. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Shyamal Harry Evans. Yes the three in English when I can get to the library which won't be for a week or two. I'll send them on.
Do you know anything about the coleopterist Malcolm Cameron (entomologist)? He must have been in the army India Constantinople etc and also I think working in the British Museum (Natural History). Again I need the library.Back at work but only three days a week. All the best Robert Notafly (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I met Suprabha Seshan at the park, says she knows you. She offered to add some of her excellent photos taken at Mukurthi NP and other Tamil Nadu parks and would ask for your help in uploading to WIKI and adding to articles. I'm especially also interested in a good map of the park she has that would be great in the article.
Next week I will go either to the northern part of the park near Mukurthi peak or hike back to Sispara and go down to Silent Valley. Depends on hearing back from Kerala Forest Dept.Marcus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You had asked me that before I came over, I remembered and I tried the library this morning but closed Sunday. She is 2nd on my list tomorrow.Marcus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Scolopendra Centipede, Wayanad, Kerala
Hey, hallo!
My name is Greg Pelka, I'm from Poland, I'm a centipede keeper, hope soon will be a myriapoda scientist. I'm very interested in specie on photo You've posted, it's Ethmostigmus specie. I've keeping and breeding some african species. I've got a reaquest for You, Yiu're there in India, can You just post/send me some photos of native centipedes You're finding there in India? For me Indian myriapodfauna is very unique and interresting.
Hope i'll see some fresh photos of You:)
Could it be a difficult to You to send me some live specimens? I'll pay for the parcel of course.
Here's my e-mail addres: greg_pelka@o2.pl
Hi Greg, I will post any pictures of centipedes that I come across. I am afraid no live material can move under the law. Movement of even dead specimen material is possible only for scientific research and would need collaboration with established research groups in India. Thank you for the ID suggestion. Shyamal (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As I thought. India has very strict law. Even photos will be very interesting for me, there are very few good photos of Indian species.
Regards
Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.23.46 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
ARkive link
Hi Shyamal Go to the Troides helena page, then to External Links for the ARKive video from the BBC.Enjoy! I enjoyed the section of him? flying away to the trees. Off today for a medical. All is very well.Best wishes Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notafly (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice, I tried taking pictures of a courting pair recently but only got a flicker of wings. In the display the male flies in a vertical circles around the female, presumably wafting pheromones onto the female. Shyamal (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a french veterinary surgeon, and I do not understand and ask for your point of view: you can find the use of band and brand, what are the difference ?
Sorry for the delay, I tried in vain to get this. A very very old cladistic study that I have hitherto overlooked. It could be fun, definitely is on my to-get list.
I can find indications that some stuff has been published on Lonchura species complexes, but that is not what's needed here; namely silverbills are generally missing from the studies.
However, I have sent you 2 newer papers (tell me when you get them). One is a source in the Zoologica Scripta supertree and may or may not include a denser taxon sample; it appears to confirm the results of the 1987 Emu paper: Spermestes and Odontospiza are probably among those genera split from Lonchura there.
The other argues for merging the silverbills and Padda into Lonchura but also confirms that if either is considered a good genus (as Wikipedia has it), the two genera are certainly distinct (as two or as Odontospiza) - essentially the mannikins.
The placement of the silverbills appears mostly a matter of taste.
However, one can twist around the argument of the J.Ornithol. paper in favor of a split:
Padda is more plesiomorphic than the silverbills (it goes somewhat closer to Lonchura proper in morph studies) but might be more distant in DNA sequence. Hence, the silverbills appear a more highly apomorphic divergence, and since the ecomorphology is what gets selected upon, can be expected to diverge from the core Lonchura for good rather soon. So they are certainly the "typical" munias' closest allies, but they are perhaps more rapidly "moving away" from them than the "javasparrow" lineage diverged from the "silverbills+typical munia" lineage.
The fact is amply demonstrated that the silverbills are in some respects peculiarly convergent to the Grey-headed Silverbill, which is properly called Odontospiza caniceps (its old name and the type species of Odontospiza) if one wants to consider Euodice and/or Padda distinct.
But if one would include Padda in Lonchura proper, one would probably want to include Euodice also just to be safe. If it is not in the Emu paper, it appears as if no up-to-date comparison of these 3 has ever been done. The supertree puts Padda far more distinct, but I have checked the actual study and it is not necessarily correct: there were no silverbills there, so all we can say is that Padda is closer to Lonchura proper (L. pallida etc) than either is to Neochmia and the Poephila group, with no word at all on the silverbills.
However, phenetically (for whatever that means) Padda is a bit less close to Lonchura proper than Neochmia is to Poephila.
So we know this:
The "typical munia" group and the silverbills are a clade, by weight of evidence tentatively including the javasparrows.
The "Grey-headed Silverbill/mannikin" group is another clade.
These 2-3 lineages are a clade (the genus Lonchura in the "maximum merge" version.
Accordingly, the following alternative arrangements are certainly correct:
The next 2+2 are risky; one approach is certainly wrong but we can't at present tell which one, and they may be all as good as wrong (if we have a too rapid divergence of the 3 lineages). I like to avoid deciding based on a not too well-marked phenetic difference, but if I had to I would say the first two are wrong.
Euodice, Lonchura, Odontospiza
Euodice, Lonchura, Odontospiza, Spermestes
versus
Lonchura, Odontospiza, Padda
Lonchura, Odontospiza, Padda, Spermestes
All other schemes (mainly not splitting Odontospiza but any other genus) are wrong.
I have not looked into the matter, actually (I have no detailed "family book" which one would need). Out of gut feeling I would go with Euodice, Lonchura, Odontospiza, Padda. This is the version that a) sums up the past opinions best and b) makes no mistakes.
THhnks for that super detailed note, I will need to look at it more carefully to really gather some of the points. I have not seen anything in the mail, but will take your summary of the material for now. Shyamal (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Marcus, good to hear. That is quite a handful of images there ! Great, looks like we badly need some botanically inclined folks to create articles that could make use of that material. Shyamal (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On 21 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Togian White-eye , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Shyamal Heinrich Hugo Karny (7 October 1886Mödling near Vienna- 7 August 19391939Kroisbach near Graz) He also worked on Thysanoptera ......So far I'll see what else I can do. Got an enquiry about the father and son team Alfred and Guilliame Grandidier who worked on the fauna of Madagascar with father and son Henri and Alphonse Milne-Edwards which makes for some complications.Cheers for now Robert
00:00, 00 March 2008 (UTC)
F E Many thanks
Shyamal Many thanks! I'm glad it was all there.I just did a bit on the Grandidiers. Alfred Grandinier was in India for a time.Doing what I dont know. Regards Robert
00:00, 00 March 2008 (UTC)
Sir Oliver Beauchamp Coventry St John 21 March 1837 - 3 June 1891. There's some stuff about him and Blanford in Persia in Mearns' "The Bird Collectors". Smallweed (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, I saw in your archive that you were asked if you could identify this bird. But if I follow the link ta:மூங்கில் அணத்தான், I find a Madras Treeshrew, and this animal is not a bird. So I must have been confused in the answer. Do you happen to know the name of the particular bird? Davin7 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Shyamal.I was just about to add the pic from Norway when I got a lot of messages about the Forensic Entomology project at Texas A and M. Did I tell you I work in this arena? A lot of excellent work has been done here but there are also some problems. One is that the page on the blow fly (actually several species) redirects to the Calliphoridae page and info on the family becomes confused with that on single species (sometimes misidentified) .I only work on taxonomy but I can see my biology colleagues finding very much bigger problems with the Texas additions(there is a mass of work here my e-mail box is full- the literature is immense). Another problem is that many students accessing the FE pages have English as a second language so very simple, very clear English is essential.In lectures we use a lot of diagrams, graphs and so on and have translators.However once the words possible maybe and sometimes are taken out there isn't much to say.Flies do what flies do they adapt to situations.For instance subarctic populations of Calliphora vicina fly happily at low temperatures.Robert
PS This is for the editors to decide and I see there is a robust discussion already.Have to hurry my daughter let a Trojan clicker in Notafly (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Insect indicators of abuse or neglect
S This page is excellent so far as I am able to judge, giving a good view of the subject.Note though the use of the term PMI which of course is not what we calculate which is the interval since colonisation.I'm sure I put in a note on this several times but changes are so frequent on these pages they become a full-time job.The term is very widely used though and the qualificaton implicit.I thought the legal page looked good too.R.
Yes, but I think this should be part of a parent article - which is perhaps Entomological evidence. It would have been nicer if the structure had been decided and all topics assigned were fitted into the structure. Otherwise an excellent educational idea. Shyamal (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I shot a good picture of one in Thailand this week. Since I am not an enwiki-user, you might insert it in the English article if you please. I also have ecven higher-resolution pictures of it, if you want.
It is Image:Mabuya Multifasciata.jpg at Wikipedia Commons:
[5]
Hallo Shyamal!
First, I want to express my sincere admiration as to your many contributions to the Wikipedian butterfly articles! You have done a great work indeed!
But do you have a special reason for adding the List of butterflies of India article to the see also section (while the species, genus or even family is not endemic or otherwise mostly Indian)? It just leaves a false impression to the reader that the subject of the article would be somehow more associated with India, rather than Great Britain, China, or say, Poland? Kaarel (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is shaping up nicely. Do you have any info on the breeding season of the species in India/South Asia? I'm imagining its tied into the wet/dry season. I'm looking for breeding info on the African/SA populations. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal. I've translated the most part of your Image:BirdBeaksA.svg at Image:BirdBeaksATamil.svg. For some reason, it's not displaying the Tamil text in the commons page for the image, but displaying it when used in another page. Could it be because of some hardcoding of fonts that I did in inkscape? Can you please have a look as this is my first work with inkscape? -- Sundar\talk \contribs12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sundar, When I open it in Inkscape, I see no text (except some remaining English). What I remember doing for this is copy Unicode Tamil and paste it. Give me a moment, let me try this out. Shyamal (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks nicer but the only trouble with having it this way is that when you put it as a thumb in the article, the text gets compressed below the threshold of readability. Of course fixing the thumb width improves it but then the idea of user settable thumb size is broken. Shyamal (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Shyamal I added images of the two Sumalia spp. today and Appias panda male and female but didn't get to look at uor cicadas which I don't know much about. Very late now Need some sleep RobertNotafly (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Chough dilemmas
Is it worth replacing the "in flight" image with your ChoughSilhouette.svg? I can't decide whether a good drawing is better than a relatively poor image of a real bird?
For some reason, the calls site wouldn't let me register, so can't download anyway. I'm still confused by the licence, not sure whether to risk it at this stage of an FAC. What do you think? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I downloaded the chough call file - it is in FLAC format and I have been looking at converting it to ogg. From what I understand of the license - it provides all the freedoms required to relicense under cc-by-sa-3.0, I will try and re-upload with credit to the author as given on the licensing page. But maybe we should reconfirm on the village pump. Regarding the sketch, I leave it to your discretion. I often tend to prefer simple illustrations to photographs due to higher "data-ink ratio" (see Edward Tufte for that idea). Will look over again tomorrow. Shyamal (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, have just noticed an error on [[7]]
I'm fairly certain that the images are of Grey Shrike-thrush (Colluricincla harmonica) but I'm not sure of the protocol to replace them with correct images.Avicedatalk09:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Going back to your flight images, this would be most useful combined with a similar pic for Alpine, showing the differing silhouettes. However, that obviously makes much more work for you, so absolutely don't do it unless you feel the urge. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Alpine looks spot-on to me. If anything, Red-billed looks a little long- (or narrow-?) winged. Flight silhouettes vary quite a bit from book to book, and in at least one Red-billed looks almost identical in shape to Common Buzzard. Thanks for the impressively rapid response. Birds on ground look good too, although I don't think I've seen Alpine other than in flight. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC
Looks really good, I'm sure you are right, my sources obviously tend to show nominate or mainland European ssp. Boca del Infierno brought back memories, we went to Spain for four days about 10 years ago - whale watching from the ferry, two days in Aragon including that Wallcreeper, and two day in Rioja, testing the wonderful local wines after the day's birding. Thanks again - will you put the image in, after all, you've done all the work?. A straight swap for the upper flight picture I assume is the best location?
Looks good, I've trimmed the "obvious" bits from the caption (they are mentioned in the text anyway) so that in my browser at least it doesn't overrun the section, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ABirdBeaksA.svg&diff=9502180&oldid=9342691){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mabuya_Multifasciata.jpg){kind=link}
