Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

GA/FA

Tawny Owl now roosting at GA jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ...as are Willie Wagtail and Red-backed Fairy-wren...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And now so is Antbird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
and I guess everyone by now is using DOI bot to check that {{cite journal}} is complete and correct jimfbleak (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Tawny Owl and Red-backed Fairy-wren through jimfbleak (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have read through Red-backed Fairy-wren and picked up a few things, found a couple more titbits to add, and gotten a nice map. Thus, I have nominated at FAC..have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oi, wait for me Tawny Owl at FAC too, Common Treecreeper tomorrow's main page jimfbleak (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Osprey

I've just had a look at this, and I think it could soon be ready for FAC. I had a quick check of the references, and the main stumbling block is that some of refs for books and journals don't give pages - I obviously can't fix these myself. The photos are great, but too cluttered in places with text sandwiched in places contra MOS. I've moved one, but not sure what to do for the best with the others. jimfbleak (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New article: Diving birds

An article, Diving birds, was created recently. It is orphaned, uncategorized, and (as usual for new pages by new contributors) needs cleanup. Is it a good merge candidate for anything we already have? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine some article on bird foraging behaviour being the best bet. Wikipedia is insanely slow on the computer I am working on at the moment, otherwise I'd forage around myself...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd delete it (surprise, surprise). It's OR, poorly defined - Osprey, gannets and terns also plunge into water for fish. It doesn't mean dive-and-swim underwater either - Brown Pelican doesn't swim underwater. Cormorants, grebes and loons don't plunge. No mention of ducks (foot swimmers) or penguins. It's a mess. jimfbleak (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget the juvenile Hoatzin! (I know, "elementary".) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely bird flight is a stand-alone topic in itself, and I don't think that locomotion suggests flight. Swimming birds might be better since it would exclude the quick plunge birds like terns. However, the last BB described a White-tailed Eagle which had killed a Greylag Goose that was too large to lift swimming 100 m to an islet dragging the dead goose with it, so there could be some interesting candidates. The eagle incidentally then re-entered the water, complete with goose, to swim another 30 m to a larger islandjimfbleak (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to like good chunky article which provide a clear structure to the various aspects (at least introductions) which can then have separate articles (where there is a lot more to say). Avian locomotion seems like an interesting aspect and there must be a lot of bird-hips-dino-bird locomotion and biomechanics papers - bird flight can of course continue as a main article. Shyamal (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps a separate locomotion article is in order. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Great idea! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawk identification

Hawk on flicker. If it could be identified, it could be uploaded. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Brahminy Kite. 212.10.77.167 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Have got images of wild Brahminy Kites if required (...surely more preferable than captive ones?). Aviceda talk 10:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, I think the wiki needs some more that show the features of the kites well. I will upload these ones in captivity, because they illustrate the birds quite well. Snowman (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Ringneck for GAR

I have nominated Australian Ringneck parrot for a new GAR giving a list of problems with the article. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is one of the oldest and needs a buffing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cloacal kiss

The photographer of Image:American Coots mating.jpg believes this to be a cloacal kiss, but I wanted to get a confirmation from an ornithologist or other bird expert. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoatzin is new collab for July August 2008

OK folks, have a go at it - this is an interesting one for several reasons. White Wagtail has improved alot but could still use some tinkering as the number of subspecies make it a potentially hefty article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lorikeet id

Can anyone identify this lorikeet. It is a flickr photograph taken at Woburn Safari Park, England. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

definitely not an Australian species (sound of rummaging around on bookshelf)......
I think it will be one of the many subspecies of Trichoglossus haematodus, Rainbow Lorikeet, some of which look very different from those in Australia. However which one I have no idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Or a hybrid with the above species and the Pohnpei Lorikeet or something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
They have got a lot of lorikeets at Woburn Safari Park, so it might be a hybrid; perhaps, between two subspecies of Rainbow Lorikeet. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Could always email 'em and ask I s'pose....curious now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Their education department is closed until Friday afternoon. It looks too good for a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
But the color pattern is strikingly different from any good species - no yellow, green wings, red crown? If it were not for the red crown, it couls be an erythristic (yellow -> red) T. haematodus.
Bird Hybrid Database gives a list of possibilities. Trichoglossus haematodus x Lorius garrulus or Eos bornea or Eos squamata seem the best matches. T. haematodus x Eos reticulata is not a known combination but it would probably produce an even better match.
As a rule-of-thumb: if one parent has blue or yellow where the other has green, the offspring has green. If one parent has yellow where the other has red, the offspring has red. Not always, but usually.
Dummy response to help auto-archival. Shyamal (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is another one like it here in Japanese. I think it is a cross between a Red Lory and a Rainbow Lorikeet, (using google translate) Snowman (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Woburn Safari Park said they keep three species: Red Lory, Rainbow Lorikeet, and Dusky Lory. Some of their lorikeets are from aviaries all over Britain. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

White Wagtail races and distribution

While attempting an illustration to add to the current collaboration article, I found that there are few (none accessible to me in any case) sources that indicate the global distribution of the more well marked races and their colour patterns. One illustration with Japanese captions comes close http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~XC9T-TKN/ph_htm/ph_wtail.htm but does not seem to indicate the sources. If someone has access to sources material, I could attempt incorporating the information into an illustration. Shyamal (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing image - hope the original source is sufficiently up to date. If HBW information differs, feel free to provide me any images or info to update the map. Shyamal (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • M. alba alba should be on Iceland and the tip of Greenland also. The HBW is rather vague about where different supsecies are beyond "West Iran" or "North Mororco"; so this map is a good indication of breeding ranges. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Modified. Shyamal (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
HBW + a topographical map will usually allow a rather detailed delimitation. HBW + a topo map with land-cover data even better. For NAm species, Birds of North America for those that have/can access it is a major source. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Aleutian Canada Goose or Aleutian Cackling Goose?

Um ... it appears that the same bird appears in Wikipedia's pages in separate contexts as the Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) and as the Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia). Maybe someone who is up-to-date and knows what taxonomic standards are used here could clear up the confusion? Best, Eliezg (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done that and threw in a ref as annotation in the source. Contains decline specifics - probably best left after the article is beefed up to Start or class. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Brontornis/phorusrhacids/ameghinornithids/Etc.

Darren Naish's blog Tetrapod Zoology has a number of interesting articles on reclassification of Brontornis / phorusrhacids / ameghinornithids / Cariamae / bathornithids (jumble of names included here as search engine bait).
E.g. http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/06/youre_not_a_protophorusrhacid.php#more
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New question:
Phorusrhacidae says: "A new specimen discovered in Patagonia in 2006 represents the largest bird skull yet found. The fossil has been described as being a 28-inch (70 cm), nearly intact skull. The beak is roughly 18-inches long and curves in a hook shape that resembles an eagle's beak."
I can easily believe that a phorusrhacid would have the most massive skull of any bird, but are there extant or extinct birds with longer skulls (pelicans, herons, storks, Argentavis)? If so, we may want to tweak/clarify this reference in Phorusrhacidae.
Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure if the skull w/o the beak does not qualify as the longest/largest ("largest" is always suboptimal - "longest" vs "most massive"/"heaviest" is less ambiguous). With the beak, Osteodontornis orri or one of its relatives might be it.
We have not included Ameghinornithidae here; see Strigogyps sapea for that thorny thing (if you want to do it, fire away). Brontornis and now also the family itself have received caveat emptor remarks as regards the Anseriformes thing. I have the paper in question & have time ago cross-read it against the 2003 review, but I cannot remember to what conclusion I came... only that it was too complicated for a quick-and-dirty edit. I think the characters used to set up the Brontornithinae did not overlap with those used to assign the type genus to the Anseriformes or something. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

birds of prey taskforce

for those who are still interested, i am still trying to headline a birds of prey task force. please leave me a message on my talk page if you are interested. Raptors cover such a large `space, they need a task force. i mean, the domestic pigeon has a task force! come on! -Tobi4242 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What would a potential raptor task force accomplish that this project as a whole could not? Could you outline some specifics? Also, while I am no expert on the Domestic Pigeon task force, I think that it is seperate because there are around 100 different breeds that are not species or subspecies but rather domesticated forms, similar to what happened with the dog. Additionally, domestic pigeons make up a pretty sizable hobby. I think this project focuses on wild birds and related fields more than on domesticated. Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting here.
Oh, and while I'm talking on raptors, there is a potential problem that an IP caught in the American Kestrel article that I moved to the talk page. If Tobi4242 or someone else wants to take a looksee, go right on ahead; I won't have time until tomorrow or Wendsday (exams). Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rufous. Thanks for championing our cause :-)
Actually Tobi, I was just looking at a document from the EE (which is the major organization in Europe for pigeon breeders). They have 405 different registered breeds of pigeons. So that's 405 breeds that we ultimately want to at least review and maybe even make articles for them. There's a bit of work that we need to get done to polish our little corner of wikipedia. Mind you that's potentially 405 breed articles; that's not even considering the genetics of the domesticated pigeon (which includes 40 or 50 mutations not found in the wild stock and currently only documented by scattered webpages) and a bit of other stuff regarding domestic pigeons.--Onorio (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That gives me an idea for a collaboration...getting the current taxonomy right for Bird of prey....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ok. ok, ok... i get it. there are a lot of breeds of pigeons, but there are more breeds of birds of prey. and i want to stay on subject. we need a birds of prey task force that i proposed in FEBUARY. i still need a co-header to help work with me, for i cant do it myself. so please people, no more pigeons on this subject, lets debate the taskforce idea. i say it is a good idea. we could use one. -Tobi4242 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this hawk on flickr what is says it is? Snowman (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My first impression was to say it was a light morph Harlan's Hawk Buteo j. harlani but the photo says it was taken in California which while not impossible would put it a bit out of normal range. If you scroll down and look at the second photo you can see it looks a lot more red. I'm assuming that is the same bird. They are both banded. I think the reason it looks a little off is that the camera is trying to auto-white balance with noting for reference but a blue sky so there are some color issues with the camera making it look more brown than it really is but yes, it looks like a red-tailed hawk. Kirkmona (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I was wondering if is was suitable to upload to commons. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
ahem, back to the topic at hand AGAIN. what is the decision on birds of prey taskforce? i say: good idea. what else should be said? -Tobi4242 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Tobi, I don't think you've answered the question raised by Rufous-crowned Sparrow. What will a task force accomplish that the project as a whole would not? In the case of the pigeon task force, they're dealing with domestic breeds, which is not something the project as a whole deals with. Raptors, however, don't have "breeds"; they have species, and the project is already committed to creating an encyclopedic article on each species. Granted, it may take a while, but it's a goal we're aiming for! So—what do you see the task force covering that isn't already being covered by the project? MeegsC | Talk 21:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lorikeet identification

Lorikeet on flickr. It could be an "Iris Lorikeet", but it does not look like the other images on the commons. For the "Iris Lorikeet" some websites record 3 subspecies and also different head colours for male and female. Does it have subspecies? Snowman (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a hunt around; the plumage is certainly not that of any lovebird, and the bill is faintly lory-like, but the eyering is pure lovebird. I'm mystified. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look at "Birds of Wallacea" (Brian Coates) and Iris Lorikeet (Trichoglossus iris) might fit the bill. Taken from book T.i iris (Timor) shown, T.i. wetterensis (Wetar) larger darker green side of head. Ti. rubripileum(E.Timor) hindcrown also red, violet-blue band on hindneck. Aviceda talk 08:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I was puzzled why the subspecies were not mentioned on the article, and I did not add anything in case the subspecies classification was not well recognised. Can you narrow it down to one subspecies, and is it a male or female? My guess is that it is a female because they have more green on the top of their heads, but I could not find another photograph to match it, and I am unsure about the differences between the subspecies. Snowman (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The timor race shown in the Coates book doesn't show the red behind the bill and under it's eyes as it appears in the photo but does seem to have more red on the top of the head. Aviceda talk 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have put it in the Iris Lorikeet commons cat. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just 'googled' Mindanao Lorikeet [1] certainly looks a possibility (if the image is correct!) . Aviceda talk 05:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This is it, or it looks very much like it. I found some other images like it too. Well spotted. I have amended the files. It is the first photo of the species on the wiki; now in the infobox on the Mindanao Lorikeet page. Snowman (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Could it be the "Trichoglossus j. pistra" or "Trichoglossus j. johnstoniae " subspecies? Snowman (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks most like nominate, but could just as well be an intraspecific hybrid when captive. ISIS appears to be down right now (or at least very slow), but - if pure - it's possible London Zoo have listed the ssp. there: [2]. If this flickr user allows her photos to be uploaded to wikipedia, you might also consider the Splendid Sunbird [3] or the Amazilia Hummingbird [4]. 212.10.77.167 (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded those two using the special tool on commons. Flickr license ok for wiki on both images. Are there any more? Perhaps this project should have a dedicated page for flickr spotting. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm subscribed to quite a few 'Flickr' bird groups that you might not be aware of (just typing in 'member' aviceda should bring them up) Aviceda talk 02:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But most of the flickr images do not have a suitable copyright license for the wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Snowman, where can you view flickr copyright licensing? (just wonder how my own are covered) Aviceda talk 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The flickr license is shown by several different ways. When you click on "details" the symbols below the image indicate the license, if you know what the symbols stand for. They can only be used on the wiki, if they have a Creative Commons-licensed AND allows "content to be used commercially" AND allows "content to be modified, adapted, or built upon". We have discussed the licensing here before. I think you have photos a "Green Rosella" and a pair of "Mulga Parrots", and it says "all rights reserved" under both images so I can not upload them. They also have watermarks, which are discouraged on the wiki, but not altogether banned, I understand. Another place to look for the license is under the writing to the right of the image in some screens. It seem to me that all of yours are "All rights reserved". Snowman (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Will upload Green Rosella and Mulga Parrots to 'Commons this 'arvo (Oz-time), no license issues there (I think!) let me know if you come across any others that you might require. Aviceda talk 02:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not on your flickr site, but have you got these Australian parrots; "Elegant Parrot", "Hooded Parrot", "Ground Parrot", or any Tasmanian varieties of the "Rosella" genus? Snowman (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

Long way to FAC yet, but I want to send nuthatch to GA soon. The problem with family level articles is what to leave out, there's masses of research on every aspect of the European and NAm species, very little on most of the Asian birds. I've tried to get a reasonable balance, but as always would welcome any suggestions for improvement. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can look for journal articles on Asian species if you like. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been using the Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds to expand a few family articles (to the extent that it agrees with our taxonomy). It has the imbalance you describe, Jim, but most of its articles do say some things about the family as a whole. I have a copy (a very thoughtful gift), but it's searchable at Amazon. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I could only find one article on an Asian species. It seems the family has not been well studied in that part of the world. However, it is worth noting that the family is comprised of a single genus, and as such it is fairly safe to focus on what has been studied and extrapolate those patterns onto those that have not been as well studied as long as you make it explicit in the text that there are gaps in scientific knowledge (the same way I did in Antbird). It is a pity the family text on the nuthatches in HBW isn't out yet (it comes out in September) as they have better access to unpublished data and obscure journals like the Biak Island Journal of Ornithology or whatever. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above suggestions, and Jerry's editing. It was antbird that inspired me to move my sights to family level, although I think this one is a bit easier! Interesting that two species on opposite sides of the world insect-rub. I like this family, although I've only seen a few species (but I have seen Red-breasted in the UK!!!) jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The ease of writing a family article depends on the availability of HBW treatments (or other in depth family monograph), to my mind. I haven't tried one without that yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Then the question is whether it's better to have the stubs we have now for many families or slightly better articles based on popular accounts, like the one I mentioned above.
Speaking of which, I've been working on Lark. I said they've long been placed at the beginning of the oscines, with a reference to the first AOU check-list (1886), but does anyone have a better reference? Quite possibly the first British list (1883)? And can anyone confirm that HANZAB places the larks at the beginning of the "Passerida", the same as the present AOU list? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to a push towards FA. It is entirely possible to get an article beyond a stub without HBW or a monograph. But for a family with many non Aus/NAm or Eur species it is easier to avoid systematic bias with them. My current emphasis is split between pushing a few towards B/GA/FA and trying to get a bunch more simply as far as start. As for Firefly, I think it does a reasonable job of summarising the family (I used to work on Corvidae for a while). Although I seem to recall it inexplicably splits the chaffinches off into their own family. As for the larks, I'll see what HBW says on them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
An at least equally strange choice on Firefly's (Christopher Perrins's) part was to split grouse off but lump New World quail with Phasianidae.
And yes, Lark could benefit greatly from HBW, probably more from questions I didn't know to ask than from the ones I did ask. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you checked the Oriental Bird Club's publications for possible articles? Many of the Forktail articles are available as pdfs; the issues are listed here. MeegsC | Talk 04:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There is one nice bit here http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdf?idno=m8005a16;c=zoomed , but I found that there are very few illustrations for some species. Just looked up my Ben King's Birds of South East Asia and found that only the three common nuthatches are illustrated, no sign of several others. No photographs either. I was hoping I could help with the article by adding a overview map of the many species and their ranges. If someone has maps and illustrations from any works that can be used as a basis for an illustration, I would be happy to have them via email. Shyamal (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, just found http://hdl.handle.net/2246/4241 Found Charles Vaurie and Walter Norman Koelz's Notes on some Asiatic nuthatches and creepers. American Museum novitates ; no. 1472
Nice find, at first glance mainly of historical interest or at ssp level (too detailed for family article), bu definitely some usable material jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch (2)

I've send Nuthatch to GAN now, complete with video amd sound clips, thanks to all for suggestions, finding papers, and particularly to Shyamal for the images jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pelecaniformes renaming to Phalacrocoraciformes?

Hi all, was reading in the 2008 Systematics and taxonomy of Australian birds which is talking of higher order changes and noting evidence that Pelicans are more closely related to Ciconiiformes while the remainder of the Pelecaniformes form a natural group which would then require a rename to Phalacrocoraciformes. Does anyone know of a general consensus for this yet? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How do they delimit it?
Cormorants, darters, boobies -> Phalacrocoraciformes? (actually Suliformes?)
Pelicans -> Ciconiiformes?
Frigatebirds -> ?
Tropicbirds -> ?
Ibises -> ?
Herons -> ?
Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The summary is - Pelicans are sister group of Shoebill, and they suggest a Pelica/Shoebill/Hammerkop clade at ordinal level or within Ciconiiformes. Tropicbirds are by themselves in a separate order. Frigate birds are the sister of a clade of cormorants/darter/gannet clade and all can be in what was pelecaniformes. They recommend Phalacrocoraciformes as it is the most speciose group. (not sure how that goes with priority though....) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"all can be in what was pelecaniformes" no, the Pelecaniformes would be pelicans, hamerkop and shoebill or those + Ciconiiformes (if you want to bust priority, which you are technically allowed to). The bulk of the "Pelecaniformes" are a clade. The cormorants/darter/gannet clade is suborder Sulae and the frigatebirds have already proposed as suborder Fregatae; I'd guess the former has priority but basically there are no rules for anything above superfamily. So if they formally propose Phalacrocoraciformes, that's nice. The other approach would be to copy the IZCN methodology, in which case it would be Suliformes. (Come to think of it, I like Phalacrocoraciformes better).
So it would go:
  • Order ?Phalacrocoraciformes/Suliformes
    • Suborder Sulae: gannets/cormorants/darters
    • Suborder Fregatae/basal family* Fregatidae: frigatebirds * = depends on where you place Limnofregata in the order's evolution
  • Order Ciconiiformes
    • (Suborder "Ciconii", "Ciconiae", ...) <- if you want "Pelecani". At least one of the two - I think "Pelecani" - has been formally described.
      • Family Ciconiidae
and so on
  • (*) Order Pelecaniformes/suborder "Pelecani" (or whatever)*/family Pelecanidae: pelicans, hamerkop, shoebill * = preserves present taxonomy best, but ultimately depends on the fossil record.
  • Order Phaethontiformes: tropicbirds
?
For I would be very happy to have a source for such or a similar arrangement. The fossil bird list would immensely benefit.
BTW anyone: storks, herons, ibises etc - do they have any trace of webbing between the hallux and the second toe? The more parsimonious scenarios are that totipalmate (4-toe) webbing either evolved twice and got lost once, or that it evolved thrice. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK googling... - Phalacrocoraciformes gets 60 ghits and 4 scholar hits, Suliformes gets 40 ghits but appears to be an order of fish as well...? Phaethontiformes gets 318 ghits and 3 on google scholar. this is the book I am getting it all from which is an official Australian book but not worldwide..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch (3)

Nuthatch at FAC now, thanks to Shyamal for improving on my crap graphics, and Snowmanradio for other tweaks esp with images. jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC update

Folks, both the FAC candidates have been a bit quiet, so drop in and let me and Jim know how we can improve the articles. ...:) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tawny Owl is through, while Red-backed Fairy-wren needs some more reviewers..I promise this is the last fairy-wren for a while....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Are the emu-wrens ever going to get some love? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Aaaawwww...I might be tempted if'n I can get a nice photo....as I still have both key monographs...I did tramp around Royal National Park one day on heathland trying to spot one with no success. :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, photos of non fairy-wren Malurids are rather scarce, I don't think we have any. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Several fairy-wrens pages have received a lot of work, but the genus page on fairy-wrens is a stub. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian wren id

If identified, this Fairy wren could be a good illustration for an article. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice one. The one on the left is a male in eclipse plumage (dark bill gives it away), while the paler bill on the right is a female, and the reddish lores make me think Variegated Fairy-wren.a locale would be extremely helpful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Snowman if you bring it over it would go well in Variegated Fairy-wren which is FA. I am pretty sure she is on the east coast somewhere (Kookaburras give it away) but can't find a locale. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite a lot of her images are tagged on a map and they appear to be centered around Sydney, southeast Australia. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded it at Image:Variegated Fairy-wren (Malurus lamberti) -two on branch.jpg. I do not know what eclipse plumage is, so can you write the caption and link it on the page? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed her map - it was in NSW so Variegated it is. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks good on the article page. Is it worth mentioning the subspecies? Snowman (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note of caution, has Superb Fairy-wren been considered? They too are found in NSW and I'm not 100% sure they are Variegated (though you are probably correct) Will post some of mine later today when I get home. Aviceda talk 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought the red lores gave it away, but female superbs have them too (d'oh!). Upon rechecking, the tail ofthe female is brown here, not blue, which definitely makes it a superb..good call Aviceda. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There may be a need to show photographs of all the different fairy-wrens on the genus page, so that they can all be seen together. I am relying on locals for the identification, and there seems to be a consensus now. I will go back and correct commons and re-upload the image with the correct name. Then, if it is good enough, perhaps someone will link it on the appropriate page. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It is now at Image:Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus) -pair.jpg and the old bad name file is listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Careful with the use of 'eclipse' in the genus Malurus. Some males retain and breed in the dull brownish plumage, which is also why the use of 'breeding' and 'non-breeding' plumage is rather problematic in this group. Ian Rowley and Eleanor Russell, among (if not the) top authorities on Malurids, have recommended using 'dull males' and 'bright males' instead, and indeed did so consistently in the Maluridae chapter in Handbook of the Birds of the World vol. 12. Rabo3 (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The words dull and bright used instead of eclipse and breeding forms for the modified image details on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Albotross identification

Seen off the west Australian coast, which Yellow-nosed Albatross is this? Or is it one of the similar looking albatrosses? Snowman (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Indian. Rabo3 (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at that pale head, I'd agree. MeegsC | Talk 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It is good to have a consensus, but if anyone has any other views please give your opinions. I will upload it and link it to the taxobox of the Indian, the first photo of its type on the wiki, I think. I must have got the flickr setting wrong as it is not copyrighted for the wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a different one near Dunedin, New Zealand which can be uploaded, if identified. Snowman (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Shy Albatross. Given the location I'd hazzard that is the NZ white-capped subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Its subspecies is the difficult part. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a new book out that probably deals with this, and I think my library has it. Given that the species may get split it would be worth knowing. However it isn't too much of a problem as I have a dozen or so good images of White-caps I can upload, so we are only lacking one of the Australian subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds really good, but which one is missing? Snowman (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The New Zealand subspecies is the White-capped, which I have images of. The Tasmanian subspecies is the Shy, which I don't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I don't have as many good images as I thought, but this one is okay. Image:White-capped Alabtrosses.jpg. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Birds

I note that there is a basically inactive branch of this project at Commons. Should this be kept as a media arm of the project, or would it be better to merge all such projects into one 'tree of life' or even 'biology' project there, given the far smaller community? Perhaps it could be left as a 'work group' or subpage of a larger project? Richard001 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that WikiProject Birds should take more interest in commons. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree - easier now with unified login too. Snowman do you (and maybe Aviceda) want to start up the WP:Prject page over there? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Identification water bird chick

Chick bird. If identified it could be uploaded. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A jacana of some sort?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Jacana for sure. I'm not sure if any guides can separate the chicks though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There aren't that many species so a locality should do the trick. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
No deal, the tag says zoo, so it could be from anywhere. I guess we could ask which zoo it is, and then we could see if the zoo has a website which lists the species it has, and if there is only one species then that is it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! That'll teach me to comment without checking. Can't imagine a zoo having more than one species of jacana, and more than likely the local one at that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese tag translates to "Kakegawa garden of flowers and birds" using google translate. The link offered in a section above lists species at zoos. here. Snowman (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Two species seem to be held in Japanese collections, the Wattled and African Jacanas. Images of both species look similar on Google image. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
More clues: found this, this, and this in the same set. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the titles explicitly calls it an African Jacana - I'd go with it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded all four. Is it Actophilornis africana or Actophilornis africanus? Commons might have an error with a category name. Snowman (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actophilornis africanus Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gull chick identification?

Image:Hatchling Gull chick in egg.jpg Anyone have any ideas on this one (details on image page)? Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Flickr info it is a Lesser Black-backed Gull. No reason to suspect otherwise, the photographer clearly differentiates between the two species in his comments in other photos, and is clearly aware of the difference. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Doh! I completely missed that. Deary me... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baby gull.jpg So, any ideas on this fella? Questions have been asked previously but no-one seemed to know for certain... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the photographer knew (or there is only one species breeding at a site) there is really little chance of figuring it out, they all look much the same. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A brown sea bird chick with an adult. Good photo on the Seychelles. What are the birds? Snowman (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Brown Noddy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded it. Should the chick be in a nest? Snowman (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Brown Noddy nests are on the ground and are a lot more rudimentary than those of Black Noddies. By the age of that chick the nest could well have been abandoned and the chick would instead simply stay with its parent in a breeding area (a copule of square metres). I have uploaded a picture of an adult on a nest in the Commons. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

I just read from Dawn chorus (birds) that the phenomenon is mostly seen in spring. Is there no high intensity calling period in summer in the northern palearctic region? Looking around the Nordmarka forests of Oslo the last few mornings (including what I thought was an early enough 3 AM) and wondering why there is so little bird song... I think the earlier mentioned article needs some good sourcing and improvement to answer my presumably silly query. Shyamal (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The purposes of the spring chorus are to establish territory (esp for migrants) and to advertise for a mate. Even as far north as Sweden, I would guess that most birds are on territory and breeding by early June at the latest (peak song time in the UK is mid-May). Although some species will sing again prior to a second brood, this is obviously more fragmented, and I don't know how many birds would raise two broods that far north. Some birds may even be starting to moult, although it may be a bit early for most species, and failed breeders (terns etc) are already dispersing. It's pretty quiet here apart from the inevitable Robins - they only stop singing when moulting, since territorial year round. I agree that the article needs improvement. Best stay in bed (3 am!!!!) jimfbleak (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with identification

File:IMG 6264W.jpg
Spotted Turtle Dove?

My best guess is an immature spotted turtle dove. Spotted in Tasmania, Australia. Any help would be appreciated so I could rename it appropriately and give it a good description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot like Eurasian_Collared_Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) Not sure if it has gone feral in Australia too. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Eurasian Collard Dove is greyer than this one, which is fawn colour. I think that there is also a difference in the posture of the wings at rest. I do not see any spots. It could be a Barbary Dove. I think that a wild dove would fly off and would be difficult to photograph. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but some of this genus are very similar - I agree location suggests a domestic sp though jimfbleak (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably a Feral Barbary Dove, it's currently a big issue on the Birding-AUs Mailing-List [5], Christidis & Boles have added it to their latest list of Australian birds. Aviceda talk 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And the Barbary Dove has smaller eyes than the Collared Dove. I guess that its tail feathers look a bit damaged (or irregular) in the photo and one of its wing feathers is broken, it may have been living in an enclosed place, but there are probably many reasons that could explain this. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bird flu

Is Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 part of WP Birds? Snowman (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it only affects birds, so I don't see why not. given the readiness of country projects to poach "our" articles, I'd have no scruples about claiming a clearly relevant GA. jimfbleak (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added the WP Bird project banner to the bird flu article, so it will show up in the statistics when the bot next does a run (probably within three days). Snowman (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job - it is a topical article which should be under the auspices of here (as well as WP:Virus, and med etc.)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little leery of claiming this article, I mean, it isn't like we actually do anything with it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And Avian flu, a start class. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

H5N1 and avian flu and dozens of related articles are about viruses and microbiology and medicine and health. Not about birds. Should microbiology or viruses groups claim bird articles because birds get sick with viruses? And I note you cherry pick H5N1. Don't you care about all the other H?N? articles we have? Of course not. You don't know anything about them. Not even that bird flu does not "only affects birds". WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It depends how you see the wikiproject tag. I see it as more of a loose guide and heads up alerting and pointing a would-be editor in the direction of a wikiproject to discuss something about the article, rather than said wikiproject having some proprietary claim over it. Thus, someone may want to ask about some bird-related info on the page, and be alerted to here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh so it's like when a company adds its site to the "external links" section so a reader can be "helped" by knowing where they can go for more information. Spam. I'm going to remove it from avian flu and H5N1 if that's the best reason you can give for this arbitrary spamming of virus articles. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I alone in finding the above message a bit offensive? I find the comparison to a company "spamming" articles ridiculous. We have quite a bit of expertise here WAS 4.250; perhaps we might even (shock, horror) be able to help improve the articles. If that's allowed, of course! MeegsC | Talk 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the WP Bird project banners have been removed from the talk pages of these two pages. I see at is a matter of classification that these two articles should be part of the WP:Birds project. Bird migration is very important to these topics. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys, this is a non-issue. Tagging isn't really that important. I know it is supposed to help people find us but leaving a tag away from one or two articles isn't going to stop people who like birds from eventually finding out about us. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if you guys wanted to help with

WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments like "given the readiness of country projects to poach 'our' articles, I'd have no scruples about claiming a clearly relevant GA" make it appear that you actually don't want to put the work in to create/improve articles about bird diseases. Who here volunteers to help with the H?N? articles? We don't even have articles on some subtypes that are only found in birds but are not a threat to people. I only created articles on subtypes that had some relevance to human disease. But you are the bird guys; are you interested in creating the missing H?N? articles? ... Yeah, I thought so. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do want to help, or even just want to read some interesting stuff; try out H5N1 genetic structure and Fujian flu. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Berg

Query - I've started working up Crested Tern, Thalasseus bergi - any ideas who Berg was ? jimfbleak (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would go to User:Smallweed. Shyamal (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A guess; the Berg River wetlands, located 140 km north of Cape Town. Article says it breeds in South Africa. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The who's bird is it book gets no hits for Berg or Bergi - so I think Snowman is right, its a locality. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder who the Berg River is named after. The wiki article on Lev Semenovich Berg says that he has 60 species named after him, but it could be red herring. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
HANZAB 3 (1996), p.605, has "Named in honour of Carl Heinrich Bergius (died 1818) Prussian pharmacist and botanist who collected the first specimens of this tern near Cape Town." Maias (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. He is mentioned in List of South African plant botanical authors as Karl Heinrich Bergius (1790-1818), so he died pretty young. Maias (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got some breeding/nesting notes to add....as one good tern deserves another....been waiting all day to do that pun... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Groan....have to make a few of the bigger starts and shoddier Bs Cs tehn I guess..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Willie Wagtail

Hi all, I am working up Willie Wagtail for FAC - will get a good map this week. Any other content or copyediting input/comments/issues noted much appreciated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

True versus typical

A couple of our genus and family articles use the phrase true as a qualifier in the article title. I'm particularly thinking of true parrots (Psittacidae), true owl (Strigidae) and true thrush (Turdus). I think perhaps the qualifier "typical" might be more appropriate. While it migt be appropriate to call something true if there is a false something else (like the false-sunbird asities) the other parrots, owls and thrushes aren't false, they are just not the main families (or genera). Any thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

fine with me jimfbleak (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "True parrots" is the correct term, so this suggestion does not work. Snowman (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I have to say that we have to go with whatever authoritative lists etc. call them, I think is 'true' in parrots, but am not sure what it is in others. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
HBW has typical owls. Parrots are just parrots, but thay don't have articles on orders like we do (or genera). It doesn't matter too much I guess. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess that leaves us with typical owls and true parrots at the moment then...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_19&oldid=1083415243"