Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Birds for identification (22)

Certainly, the species is correct. Certainly, it is a male. I am ignorant if the species has an eclipse phase in the male, though I would guess that it does not. This could be an immature (not a juvenile however) male, as the pectoral bib does not seem fully formed, the filiform display feathers are short (maybe growing out, maybe just worn off from captivity), and ventrally it looks rather pale (should be a bit more yellow, though this could also be due to other factors related to captivity, such as diet). Hopefully, someone else, has the Beehler, I don't (went out of print before I could get a copy).--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I can upload this simply as a male as the rest is in question, perhaps someone with a copy of the Beehler will provide more details later and the information can be added then. B. Beehler has a new edition, scheduled for release in 2011. Dougjj (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would say this is a good solution. By the way, as one having waited numerous times on publishing dates of bird books, that release date is just ball-park. The volume was already supposed to come out earlier, however, Neville Kemp's group in Yoghakarta should now have finally completed a rather meticulous review and update of all of the taxonomy and nomenclature for the Indonesian bird list. I know it has been published, but not yet in English. Beehler doubtless delayed working on the new volume partly waiting for Kemp to finish. HBW-14, is the better bet, and it will be released surely this October, and it will cover this group.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, uploaded the image as File:Seleucidis melanoleucus - 20030511.jpg and added to Twelve-wired Bird of Paradise. - Dougjj (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, without consulting books, therefore I have to confirm, Melospiza melodia.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping for a "Belding's" Savannah Sparrow, which we need. The barely detectable central breast spot and the white background of the underparts are right, as is the habitat, but I don't have time now for a careful check, and anyway I've never seen Belding's or the West Coast races of Song Sparrow. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think it is a Song Sparrow, probably Melospiza melodia pusillula, which breeds in salt marshes around San Francisco Bay. According to BNA, that race has yellowish underparts like this bird, and lots of pictures show it with a weak central breast spot and even the relatively narrow black sub-mustachial stripe this bird has. And the eyebrow stripe is perfect for it. By the way, Belding's isn't supposed to go north of Point Conception (or not often). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Jerry, sorry I can't be of exhaustive help. My main expertise is not in the birds of temperate North America, where I am more or less an instinctive ID'er from my youth, but not from having exhaustively studied the birds. You might want to try a couple of people that I have when I am in doubt about California birds, real experts, [2] [3]. I have Roberson's e-mail in my address book if you can't find it on the site.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Sparrow collecting nesting materials -California-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, it would take a better man than I for this. Absolutely no context, would not care even to guess a genus. Would need to see the parents. Some of the other photos appear to be young Poicephalus. So, good luck!Steve Pryor (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought you would know this one. Maybe it is not as difficult as you think. The almond by its foot indicates the size of its foot and so the size of the parrot. Does it look like an juvenile male Eclectus Parrot? What else could it be? There is an older juvenile photograph on the wiki article. I saw the others in the flickr photo-stream; there are some chick Senegal Parrots, but there are other species there too, which I am still thinking about. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, the problem is, at least for me, that I hate to guess. Fledgelings of a whole lot of species, as well as juvenile plumages, simply are not well documented for too many birds, and not only psittacines. Yes, I had thought of Eclectus, though this not being an adult plumage, I have no information as to sexing from this plumage. One of the major problems would be Tanygnathus!Steve Pryor (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But I would not expect to see a Tanygnathus being hand reared with other common pet birds. I would guess that it is a popular species of companion parrot. Looked it up in Forshaw (2006); Tanygnathus juveniles have red or white beaks. Also it says that the juvenile Eclectus resemble the adults, and that it is the female Eclectus that varies more with different subspecies. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth asking the flickr photographer for an ID? Perhaps he/she knows these birds personally. MeegsC | Talk 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It could be the best solution!Steve Pryor (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have asked and I will look out for a reply. I have uploaded it to File:Eclectus roratus -juvenile -7 weeks-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have got a reply already, and the flickr photographer has added the species to the flickr captions. I will add the 7 wk old male Eclectus Parrot to the wiki article. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just some info. Apparently shot at Blackbrook Zoo. I checked ISIS, and they are a member, but have nothing useful for Pyrrhura in their listings. Will try to find time, but the separation is not easy from just this angle, and just this one photo. Also, problematic the taxonomy even if we can figure it out.--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but hold the judgment on the last two numbered links. I do not have any information as to the putative races, eyrei, and septentrionalis - they are not mentioned in the J & P. What do they say in the Forshawe? All the other ones are easily moluccanus. I just checked the HBW, and it does not mention these races. So, need help from somebody with the Forshawe. What I need are two things: (1) respective range limits, and (2) what distinguishes them morphologically from race moluccanus.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Looked it up in Forshaw (2006):
  • septentrionalis - like maluccanus, but brightener, more violet-blue streaking on head, and shorter tail. Northern Queensland, on islands in Torres Strait, except Boigu and Saibai and Cape York Peninsula.
  • eyrei - not listed. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
5th is at File:Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus) -on fence.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Not chiriri. Brotogeris tirica.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
uploaded to File:Brotogeris tirica -tree blossom-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Easy as pie, but after having seen them for about 15 years. Nectarinia [Cinnyris]jugularis - adult female. The nominate race jugularis ranges on Cebu.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cinnyris jugularis (female) -Cebu-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Passer montanus. Only recently recorded from Cebu.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Just a record shot, and not a good photo. The only reason it is of interest is for the location. As I stated, recorded from Cebu only recently.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, you somehow linked the Passer montanus again here. Not the Cockatoo.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Cockatoo in cage on Cebu. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Will look later. Immature birds, yours. The separation has to do with the extent of ventral barring for the most part. Hope I can see enough.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I suggest we leave this, I think the ID is OK. Someone changed the category as Caracara cheriway doesn't exist yet as a category in Commons, and they didn't want the birds to get lost. Adding Caracara cheriway is on the to do list. - Dougjj (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The species has synonyms. There are three species on commons for the genus; see Commons:Category:Polyborus. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I think there is probably now enough taxonomical consensus (though not for the nomenclature perhaps) to update the taxonomy for this bird. In spite of the rather sensate and elegant motivation on P. 219 of HBW-2 for retaining Polyborus as the generic name, it has now been generally accepted that for several reasons, including taxonomic precedence of Caracara to Polyborus, that the generic name should be Caracara. Of this conviction are the SACC, the Howard & Moore, the IOC indications, etc. Therefore, Polyborus as a generic name would now be considered a junior synonym. As far as the taxon lutosus, it should be noted that there is absolutely no united viewpoint on it having been a distinctly specific taxon meriting full species status, and being extinct, there never will be the possibility to dig further into the question (the genetic material being insufficient). It has been treated by some as a species, but, the general consensus has been that it was a distinctive race of what is now being called post-split Caracara cheriway (here the nomenclature is not yet unequivocal though there is the tendency to want to call this - Northern Crested Caracara). I suggest that someone update the pages for this bird, allowing the split, and calling the two (or three if somebody really wants lutosus as a species), by the generic name Caracara; Caracara cheriway (Northern Crested Caracara aka Crested Caracara); and Caracara plancus (Southern Crested Caracara aka Southern Caracara)[4].

Doug, if this is done, we can then come back to your birds and see what they are.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Two small corrections: The type for Polyborus is indeterminable. Therefore it has disappeared from usage and isn't really a synonym as this would require it to be available. The acceptance of Caracara lutosa is the logical result of accepting Caracara cheriway and Caracara plancus as separate. Morphologically, adults of the extinct Guadalupe Island population differ from those of North and South American mainland populations more than the latter two differ from one another and we suggest that the extinct C. lutosa should be recognized at the species level regardless of the treatment of the mainland populations. That is from the discussion in Banks and Dove (1999) which is the basis for more than one species of crested caracara. If having the Northern and Southern the consensus is therefore to also accept the Guadalupe. • Rabo³ • 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rabo, you don't happen to have the Banks and Dove? In any case, I think there is more to the split of plancus and cheriway sensu strictu than morphology (as is the case for lutosus). There is mention of almost parapatry between the two in South America, and apparently no zone of possible intermediate forms at the range interface. Personally, I consider the point moot, since lutosus is extinct. However, it is always comforting to have genetic evidence to hand when supporting one way or the other suggested splits, something not available here. I wonder what the genetic variance would be of the putative insular race pallidus, with both lutosus, and with the mainland audobonii (usually considered of dubious validity, and therefore usually submerged in race cheriway). So, just questions, apparently with no possibility of future elucidation, and therefore a rather sterile argument (on my part, not yours).Steve Pryor (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No genetics with the direct purpose of confirming the splits yet but there's probably some on GenBank. Banks and Dove (1999) is on Sora. They describe a few intermediate cheriway-plancus but speculate that this is the result of secondary contact as the border between the two generally is abrupt. • Rabo³ • 08:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Trichoglossus

I have started to make an illustrated table for the Trichoglossus genus; although, I have not added much free text. Comments and referenced additions welcome. Snowman (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice table, well presented. I've made a couple of minor copyedits. Is lowerparts a word? The list of ssp would look less dense if the names were abbreviated, eg T. f. djampeanus instead of Trichoglossus forsteni djampeanus. I know nothing about parrots, so I've added no text. jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Article modified; I think the species list looks tidier by using the abbreviation. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is "irises", in this context, a word? The plural should be "irides".--Steve Pryor (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Bird anatomy: it seems to depend on the dictionary (I looked up UK ones). "Irides" is said to be the use in medicine (or anatomy). "Irises" is said to be used for the plant. It was not in a veterinary dictionary. Smaller dictionaries just list iris and irises. The two volume Shorter Oxford Dictionary says irides is chiefly used for the anatomical sense, but it did not say exclusively used. I am 70:30 in favour of keeping irises. Snowman (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely if Oxford is saying irides in an anatomical sense and we aren't talking plants then irides it is? Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't feel like belaboring what might seem a rather abstruse point, but, it does finally give me an excuse to use a book that I have never had occasion to use.

"iris: pl. irides, the coloured tissue surrounding the pupil of the eye."

Op.cit.: The Ornithologist's Dictionary, Erritzoe, et al., Lynx Edicions (2007)

I will let you guys decide on this. Nonetheless, irides does seem to be correct.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will change it to the traditional spelling to "irides". Snowman (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to put the how common the use of of "irides" is in context it is not even in my Oxford paperback dictionary. I feel that many will simply not understand what irides means and therefore its use over the more common irises will detract from the primary goal of Wikipedia as I see it, to provide information. --LiamE (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I really don't care. However, if as you state the primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide information, then ignorance of the correct form to use for specific terms, and altering them therefore to an incorrect usage, basically dumbing it down, seems to me to promulgate misinformation, rather than to instruct in correct information. This is an anatomical term. However, since the New Latin used in the Merriam seems to want to accomodate all those that have used irises which was at least incorrect, then fine. Specific anatomical terms should be searched for in the specialized dictionaries that deal with them. In this case, it would have been better to consult a medical dictionary, or use, as I have, a specific dictionary of ornithological terms since we are dealing with birds here.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that you have expressed an opinion in favour of using a certain form of the word in question. I do not understand why you appear to be dismissing your own opinion by saying "I really don't care". Snowman (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, because there already seems to be a consensus to use what I consider to be the incorrect term. I see no profit in pressing the question. Perhaps in future there may be other more important battles where I won't back off, but even if I am not in agreement this time, I am in the minority, and this question is just not that important to get worked up about. My way of expressing myself is the manner in which I choose to close the argument, rather than unduly dramatize it.--Steve Pryor (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Pages about birds are not the places to be introducing medical terms. The correct palce to instruct on the matter is the Iris article where I have no issue whatsoever with irides being used and indeed explained as it currently is. Irises doesnt seem to be incorrect as it is in dictionaries as the plural of iris so its use is not misinformation. --LiamE (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. For this reason, I did not use a medical term. I used an ornithological term, since we are, indeed, talking about birds. However, question closed as far as I am concerned. It is not worth beating a dead horse about.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I got two people raising this spelling of this pleural on my talk page, so I have changed all the changes on several pages back to irises. Snowman (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I had not followed the discussion here, and the plural of iris is confusing. In most of the literature, it is used in singular, and I am not sure many lay people would know that irides is actually the medical plural of iris. So, I suggest using the singular iris. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of those two. I don't doubt that irides is the correct plural when addressing a technical audience by the way but as I understand it Wikipedia articles should be written to address a general audience. General reference sources seem to prefer the spelling irises for example [5] and [6]. Furthermore the OED compact and paperback versions don't seem to include irides at all. The online version of the compact OED does not specify the plural of iris at all [7] so most would assume a standard form for the plural. --LiamE (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not know why "irides" is called a medical term. Some dictionary just explain the anatomy, so I see it as an anatomical term applicable to any animal with this sort of eye (not insects). I am happy for the wiki pages to remain as "irises" because is a commonly used term and it is in some dictionaries. It is difficult to avoid the pleural with out using more complicated grammar. It is simply not accurate to say that an animal has a green iris, because they are paired structures. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This would seem to me to be a case where either is acceptable, and can be used, but there is nothing to be gained from changing existing articles. Rather like we do with varieties of English. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey-Parkes (H-P) moult??

Plumage talks about the "Humphrey-Parkes (H-P) moult", but as far as I can see nowhere says what the term means. (Please edit that article, don't just reply / discuss here. Thanks.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked Humphrey-Parkes terminology? Maias (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
[8][9] [10] [11]--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't post here to ask what this term means, I posted here to ask that it be clarified in Plumage for users of that article.
I'll go link it in Plumage. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

dispatch for signpost

Given our recent landmarks, now is a good time for a piece in the Signpost - I began a dispatch here - Wikipedia:FCDW/Birds. Folks are free to add notes etc. I did think about adding something on systemic bias (birds from Anglohpone countries and species vs higher level taxa), but have run out of time and have to hop off for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added stuff about the two kinds of systematic bias. Perhaps we need to also link to my own article on writing about birds? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Choice bro' - excellent idea for a link. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to remind you, mate, that I may live in New Zealand but that doesn't make me a kiwi. Yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Misidentified?

According to this edit, File:Yellowlegs - natures pics edit.jpg might be a Greater Yellowlegs, not a Lesser Yellowlegs (that editor, however, left the image in the article). I compared it with other photos at [12] as well as [13] vs [14] but honestly I'm having trouble telling the difference between the two species. Can anyone help? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Great shot.
Greater and Lesser are easy to tell apart—just get them to stand next to each other. :-)
Judging by Sibley, this is an immature Greater. The bill is a lot longer than the head front-to-back (Lesser's bill is just a little longer than the head), the base of the bill is a lighter color than the rest (Lesser's bill is solidly dark), and the breast is white with distinct black streaks (Lesser's breast is grayish and the streaking is less distinct). All this confirmed by Birds of North America (subscription required), which says bill length is the best characteristic. Adult birds are darker on the neck and breast. So pending correction, I think it belongs at Greater Yellowlegs. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much! howcheng {chat} 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Duck / waterfowl question

Hi can I get an expert's attention here? I like going to the river / pond and feeding the ducks. I'm not sure what species they are and I can't seem to find a picture of one on Duck. They're brown / gray with green heads but some are just brown and smaller. They peck at each other over the crackers if that makes a difference. They're also really strong swimmers, they can go like a foot from the waterfall and not get sucked off the edge. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Without seeing a picture I'm going to guess Green-winged Teal or Mallard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Tom, here is a site that has photos of most duck species. Just look through it. [15]--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah they're mallards. Funny little dudes. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whiskered Tern

We have had up to 11 Whiskered Terns at the local gravel pits for a couple of days, which was an unexpected surprise. It got me wondering why whiskered? There doesn't appear to be an obvious moustachial stripe in any plumage jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim, you got me. I have wondered myself. No rictal bristles in Sternidae. By defn.: whisker, describes a contrasting plumage stripe extending back from the bill (aka moustachial stripe). None such exists as you have noted in any plumage. The only thing I can think of is that somebody viewed the blackish gape line to the commissure and figured it looked like a whisker?--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If I have time tomorrow I'll check HANZAB, maybe they know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No, apparently they don't. Maias (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
However, see here Maias (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You need better eyes than mine to see that in the field or even in photos! jimfbleak (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
When you were in America, did you notice how sharp the shins were on those little hawks? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Azure-hooded Jay Crown Rustling

Does anyone know what this means? "There tends to be a constant movement of the crown feathers that reveals the condition of the mate." The sentence is in the Reproduction section here and I'm not quite sure what they mean. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

At a guess it signals using erectile feathers on the head, possibly showing of pretty colours like the Ruby-crowned Kinglet or Royal Flycatcher. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think of that, but I don't think that is what they meant; at the very least, the crown does not have a special color and I don't believe any related jay does that. The field guides would have likely mentioned this too. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The ADW article, at the end of the paragraph with that sentence, cites a paper that's at SORA. The paper doesn't have anything in it about moving crown feathers. I think you could probably ignore the sentence. If it's original research, I don't think ADW is a reliable source for that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Racquet-tails

  • Many birds have racquet-tails. Is racquet-tails correct for the name for a wiki article on genus of parrots or are there more than one genus that can be called racquet-tails. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Many birds can be said to have racket-tails, but none are called Something Racket Tail. Only Prioniturus has that distinction, and since we don't have or need dab pages for various descriptors (Red-backed may mean Red backed Booby or Red-backed Spindletail) there is no problem with the genus sitting at that page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
An aside. Prioniturus immatures grow out fully feathered central rectrices. As in some, but not all, species of Momotidae, the attachment of the rami to the rachis of these tail feathers vary in strength. The racket is formed with age by normal preening where the loosely attached rami simply detach and leave the more strongly adherent terminal rami only.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A Weird Discovery

Shearwater?
Shearwater?
Post Release

Sorry about the crappy pictures, but I didn't want to disturb it too much. My sister discovered this bird sitting in the middle of an active road. It looks like a Short-tailed Shearwater chick to me. The feet are webbed. Would anyone like to confirm the ID? I've left it resting in a cardboard box overnight. Assuming that I didn't feel like eating it, what should I do with it? Visual inspection would suggest that it isn't injured. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We need context. Bare minimum, where?--Steve Pryor (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
here. I know that they breed on Bruny Island about 60km away. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Release it on to the sea, these guys don't walk too well, as you probably know jimfbleak (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'd do. For future reference—here in America there are wildlife-rehabilitation centers where the vet could advise you or check the bird for injuries. I'd be surprised if Australia doesn't have something like that. If you can't find one, a regular vet could probably help you find one or tell you that there isn't one.
It sure looks like a Short-tailed Shearwater to me too, but I have no sources on southern seabirds other than the ones that visit us. I believe a photo of the underwing would be helpful. On that subject, this may seem obvious, but it wasn't obvious to a friend of mine when the situation arose: if a carnivorous bird bites you, you'll save yourself some trouble and discomfort by cleaning and disinfecting the wound immediately. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother eating it either. It's the fat chicks that are the delicacy, once they are flying they have little eating quality - stick with the pie floater jimfbleak (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The tail isn't the only thing that is short in a Short-tail; the bill is too, compared to the Sooty. Doesn't rally look like a Wedgie either, so I agree it is a short-tail. I agree wth the plan, especially if you don't know any wildlife rehab places (They probably are around, we have one near me in Wellington; saw my first Westland Petrel there). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I think Sabine is the best to determine this one being of the zone. So, all I will do is relate what little information that might be applicable from the Onley & Scofield (however by necessity adapting information for adults to a young bird). Pretty obviously the choice here is between griseus and tenuirostris. Since this is a difficult separation there is an apposite comparative table considering only these two species on P. 199 of the above-cited volume. According to this table (remember, it is a table for separating adults): Puffinus griseus - larger and heavier-bodied with deeper 'barrel'-shaped chest; long, narrow pointed wings; comparatively long, slightly wedged tail; proportionally longer, slender bill; flat-headed appearance; longer, narrower neck. Puffinus tenuirostris - comparatively slight with shallow chest; proportionally shorter, more rounded wing; stumpy tail with square or slightly rounded tip; short, stubby bill; more rounded head with higher forehead; short-necked with an almost hunchbacked appearance.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I read somewhere that sooties and short-tails at sea are the most commonly misidentified birds of North America. On the surveys PRBO I worked on we used to to assign doubtful cases to Sooty/Short-tail because if we excluded unidentified shearwaters we'd loose a decent chunk of the avian biomass of the North Pacific. If I recall there is a difference in flight style between the two that is a big help (Debbie Shearwater taught a friend of mine how to tell the two apart at sea), but obviously that is little use here. The photo is too hard for me to ID. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Almost certainly Short-tailed; chicks just fledged and should be heading up along Aus east coast to north Pacific. Sooties leave slightly later I believe, with few breeding around Tas. Also, the bird in the box seems to have whitish chin and very slender (tenuirostris) bill. Maias (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I released it about a meter from the water. It sat around for a little while. I increased my distance and took a photograph or two. Rather unexpectedly it decided to climb the nearby bank a bit and then hid in some grass under a Casuarina. I assumed that it was trying to make a "hasty" escape. So I left it and went to uni. Hopefully left alone for a while it will continue it's journey. I will have a look around for it tomorrow in order to make sure. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Macaroni Penguin heading towards FAC

Hi all, this is nearing the point of being thrown into FAC (awaiting a map), so all input and comments welcomed. I buffed it after the school biology project got it to GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done a run through, tidying and generally meddling. I've left comments on the talk page, but I think it still needs a bit of work to it get through FAC. jimfbleak (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I felt that too but felt a bit blocked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruff

Also aiming for FAC soon, any input welcome jimfbleak (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (23)

Just checked my new copy of "Birds of Northern South America, an ID guide" by Restall and would have to go for Sun Parakeet (Aratinga solstitialis)... although having no S American field experience I would get a second-opinion! Aviceda talk 09:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the flickr caption which says something like this in English: "Sulfur-breasted Parakeet. Separate species of Aratinga solstitialis, only in 2005."? Snowman (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The source I have (HBW), which is pre 2005, I would place the top individual unequivocally as a Sun Parakeet, the next one down is somewhere between a Sun Parakeet and a Jandaya Parakeet. Given that Silveira et al 2005 described a intermediate form here it is not unreasonable to assume that this is what they were talking about. Without a more modern guide I have no idea. Do we have an article for the new form? Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiki page at Sulphur-breasted Parakeet, and one reference is listed there. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have the describing paper (from Auk Vol.122). I can't recall if somebody sent it to me, or if it was/is downloadable from the web. In any case, I have looked at the photo, and it is the taxon pintoi. Whether or not it should be considered a good species, rather than a taxon to be associated to an existing species, is for others to decide. I have always been much more BSC, than PSC, and though in the paper, a reference is made to: "R����, C., � � C. M�&���. 2004. Molecular systematics

in Aratinga parakeets: Species limits and historical biogeography in the “solstitialis” group, and the systematic position of Nandayus nenday. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30:663–675."

the genetic variances of pintoi, with other possibly related from the solstitialis complex are not offered.--Steve Pryor (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Further note, what are all those fastidious little boxes with letters in them where I wanted to paste in the names of the Authors? How do I not allow them?--Steve Pryor (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steve, looks like a coding-problem, I assume you are referring to Ribas CC, Miyaki CY.? [17], this 'markup' language challenges me all the time. Aviceda talk 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, yes, that was the paper I was referring to. Here is a link to the same Auk paper that I have: [18]--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Swainson's Francolin, indeed! It's a male, based on the spurs on its legs (which females don't have). MeegsC | Talk 09:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Francolinus swainsonii -Kruger National Park-8.jpg on commons and used in infobox - first image of it species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Adult Red-tailed Hawk; there are at least three pictures in the set. MeegsC | Talk 10:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree on Red-tailed, though not sure of the developmental stage, nor the possible plumage morphs in this locale.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It's an adult because of the red tail (visible in the next photo). "The characteristic red tail of adults is not obtained until the fall of the second year of life." (BNA on line.) B. j. calurus, according to the range, the dark throat, and rufous underwing coverts. As for the morph, I think one would have to call it light—if "polymorphism" is the right word for variation in this species, since some apply it only to discontinuous variation. This bird is a good illustration of plumage variation, since its flight feathers are unusually dark even for calurus while its belly band is unusually faint, and its tail is totally unbanded. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jerry, an interesting subject bird "morphs". In birds generally restricted only to the existance of recognizable plumage morphs that are hereditary and that have no possibility of conversion into another "morph", therefore not phasic, i.e., not temporary. Sometimes the existance of phenotypical, but clinal, plumage differences within the same races of birds, over geographical distance, e.g., Nyctibiidae, are difficult to insert into the rather simplified acception of plumage morphs. One thing we should always remember is never to use the wrong word for "morph". Many have used in the past, even the Authors of birding guides, the term "phase", and this has created confusion. Phase should never be used for morph, though many still do.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
In this particular case, the use of "morph" is correct—a light morph bird will never change to a rufous morph or a dark morph. There are several recognized morphs of Red-tails (as well as many recognized subspecies). Several of the subspecies share similar morphs, which helps to complicate things! :P MeegsC | Talk 02:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Meegs, yes, absolutely right. Mine was just an aside really, intended to inform whoever happens to read these comments (Jerry was using morph correctly) and is confused about when phase is correct, and when morph is correct. I am a bit of a stickler on terminology, as you might have noticed, professional deformation I suppose.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Buteo jamaicensis -Shoreline Park-8c.jpg with the two other to commons. Snowman (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(discussion on identification here please) Snowman (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Besides a Kiskadee, it could also be a Social Flycatcher or (according to a section in that article) :a Rusty-margined Flycatcher (Myiozetetes cayanensis), a White-bearded Flycatcher (Phelpsia inornatus) or White-ringed Flycatcher (Conopias albovittatus).
I'm no expert on the tyrants, but the bill is too massive to be a Social Flycatcher based on the images in the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a Great Kiskadee. The only real confusion species is Megarynchus, and the bill conformation is wrong (is more massive, has the culmen with more curvature, and the lower mandibular margin is tendentially straighter.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I suppose this particular bird is not a full grown adult yet, then, because (according to the article an adult is about 22 cm. This bird was 10-15 cm. Magalhães (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to judge sizes. Very few birds are as small as only 4 inches long, very few. This bird is not a juvenile.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The images, although very good don't make it easy to judge mantle colour or whether there are rufous wing edgings, and this bird certainly looks to have a bill at the heavy end for Great (which I agree it is) adult male? jimfbleak (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Jim, there is no particular sexual dimorphism in the species. Sexes are alike. As far as the bill size there seems to be a clinal variation from N to S (they illustrate the clinal variation in HBW using as the starting point the nominate sulphuratus, and intimate that those races ranging to the north of it have smaller bills, and those to the south of it, heavier bills. There is also a clinal race variation in the width of the rufous covert margins, and the amount of rufousness in the primaries.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense, Steve. I just thought it looked stonky compared to some I've seen. I guess my suggestion was influenced by reading that male Whiskered terns have much larger bills than females, a fact not often mentioned in field guides. jimfbleak (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Black Lory. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Chalcopsitta atra -Palmitos Park-8a.jpg on commons and used on the genus page. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Purple Glossy-starling if I am correct. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Is user Kim van der Linde correct? Snowman (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
100%, it's an adult jimfbleak (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Lamprotornis purpureus -Kasteelpark -Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Used in article infobox, because it was a better focused image that the previous one. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Egyptian Goose. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Alopochen aegyptiacus -GaiaPark Kerkrade Zoo-8a.jpg on commons and used on the wiki article. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not a duck its a whistling-duck. A White-faced Whistling Duck in this case. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Dendrocygna viduata -Sao Paulo Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
ID on photo is correct. Given the location it is the nominate race. Nice shot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Petrochelidon pyrrhonota -flight -Palo Alto Baylands-8.jpg on commons, and shown on Cliff Swallow article. Snowman (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bird nest

Bird nest seems very comeplete and well-done. Why not nominate it for GA or even FA? ResMar 23:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a great article, but the types of nest from Saucer or plate to Sphere are thin and would need some expansion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed—it's still got quite a ways to go before it's GA/FA ready. I'll move it to the front burner as soon as I get the darn Red-throated Diver article done. Back from several weeks in the field tomorrow... MeegsC | Talk 18:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with IUCN 2006 and 2008 template?

Just wondering if there is a problem with Template:IUCN2006 & Template:IUCN2008. Both seem to be returning deadlinks. Just left a report at the template talk page. prashanthns (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The templates are correct, but the target pages have moved. Find the correct link or number on the target page by searching the IUCN site, put it in the template and it will work . Snowman (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...Looks like every single article with IUCN link needs to be re-linked. Is there a way of getting a bot to do this?prashanthns (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, not every single article. Some of us have been changing them as we come across them, so a small number (probably less than 200) have been updated. A bot would be great, but requests so far have gone unanswered. MeegsC | Talk 08:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (24)

Bald Eagle. As if it could be anything else. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus -GaiaPark Kerkrade Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Correct, pale adult of Oregon Junco. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Junco hyemalis -Morro Bay Heron Rookery -USA-8b.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The only thing pale about this bird is the flanks, right? By the way, I tried to figure out the exact subspecies instead of just "Oregon group", but this guy's flank color is unusual for any of the subspecies, so I got nowhere. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought that its head is a bit darker than the grey seen in other photos on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too, now that you mention it, even compared to the males. (Females of this type usually have lighter gray heads than males.) I've edited the description to say that only the flanks are pale and give the subspecies group. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Snow, it WAS a Troupial, Icterus icterus. However, recently split. Will try and look better and see if this bird gives me enough to determine the post-split ID.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Had a look. The bird is adult. Have eliminated the possibility of it being either of the recently split, from Troupial sensu largo, the taxa jamacaii, or croconotus. Therefore, we are dealing with one of the remaining races of Troupial sensu strictu, i.e., nominate icterus, ridgwayi, or metae. This is not a race metae. However, I am unable to surely determine on the basis of this photo alone (because of the angle), whether this is a race icterus, or a race ridgwayi. In any case, Troupial (Icterus icterus) post-split.--Steve Pryor (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Troupial uploaded to File:Icterus icterus -El Paso Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. It is also called the Venezuelan Troupial? Snowman (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this photograph from commons File:Common Troupial - Nashville Zoo.jpg said to be a Common Troupial the same species? Snowman (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Anything called Common Troupial refers to the pre-split bird. Venezuelan refers to both the pre-split and post-split, but may refer to a race - will have to check both the photo and the race ranging in Venezuela, and if only one. Will try and get to these two question tonight.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You just want to impress us with how amazing a photo that is. Well, I'm amazed. But I don't know leafbirds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Jerry, that's the result of a lot of luck and a cooperative bird. We need a photo for the article, this one should be OK if the species is correct. - Dougjj (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Doug, will try and look at it tonight and determine if it is indeed separable as sonnerati.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I have a reference for this in The Photographic Guide to the Birds of Thailand Including Southeast Asia & The Philippines by M. Strange, also the Hong Kong Park has an illustrated plate of the male & female online. The photo has been uploaded as File:Chloropsis sonnerati-20030531.jpg on Commons and the en.wiki Greater Green Leafbird article has been expanded. I wish I had a shot of the male, but the species is hard to find in Singapore. - Dougjj (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, orange tinge rules out thick-billed jimfbleak (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I'll post these in the article. - Dougjj (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
On the chance that it will jog your memory, Little Weaver? And can I borrow the cup? I'd like to attract a Pine Grosbeak. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
All my notebooks say for there was Yellow-backed Weaver and Slender-billed Weaver, and this isn't a slender-billed weaver. But I wasn't meticulous about notekeeping. I'll upload another photo if it helps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Another one. Here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was at QE2 NP in 2006 Slender-billed was very common, I photographed this female there [[20]], looking at the bill on yours I would have to go with that. Aviceda talk 08:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sabine, Tom is right (aviceda). Fidati! There is no doubt that this is an alternate plumaged adult male Ploceus pelzelni. The adult males of luteolus and pelzelni are pretty easily separated by the bill strength, by the slight orangish wash demarcating the inferior margin of the black throat (in pelzelni), and by the cut of the black mask on the auriculars (in luteolus the eye actually makes up part of the black margin, while in pelzelni it is entirely submerged in the black which extends farther back aborally)Steve Pryor (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably Blue-crowned or Highland Motmot (Motmotus momota or aequatorialis) - I've no experience of the bird (or South America), just checked the field-guide! Aviceda talk 08:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Blue-crowned Motmot, looks like nominate M. m. motmota to me jimfbleak (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree on it being Momotus momota. The bird appears subadult. Not sure it is possible to assign surely a race (some races can be surely eliminated, but leaving more than one possible).Steve Pryor (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I accept that, and I haven't got descriptions of all the races anyway. Nominate is the most widespread of those it could be, but can't be certain without the wild range. jimfbleak (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Momotus momota -Woodland Park Zoo-8a.jpg, where I have described it as an sub-adult, and shown it on the species wikipage. It is interesting to see that the tail feathers have not yet become racquet-shaped. With a few of the images of birds with racquet-tailed feathers now on commons, I think "Racquet-shaped tail feathers" could be an interesting new wiki page, but I have not got the references. I will add it to the wikipage. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better as a section of an article on ornamental feathers in general. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Temminck's Tragopan? Maias (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Maias, yes, that is what it is. Tragopan temminckii - adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Tragopan temminckii -Woodland Park Zoo-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Northern Carmine Bee-eater. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
A note only. Sabine is obviously correct. However, since not all authorities consider this as separable specifically from Southern Carmine Bee-eater (nubicoides) note should be made that this is either Carmine Bee-eater (Merops nubicus nubicus), or as the split species that Sabine has already indicated (Northern Carmine Bee-eater - Merops nubicus).Steve Pryor (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Merops nubicus -Columbus Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. The wiki does not have a page on "Carmine bee-eater", but the page "Southern Carmine Bee-eater" (Merops nubicoides) says that "Carmine bee-eater" was its old name. Did you mean the un-split term is Merops nubicoides nubicus? Snowman (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Carmine Bee-eater is/was the name of the bird if not considered split. So, Carmine Bee-eater includes Merops nubicus nubicus, and Merops nubicus nubicoides. If considered split, then something saying "Carmine Bee-eater was its' old name) is equally applicable to both taxa; nubicus, and nubicoides - both have been known as Carmine Bee-eaterSteve Pryor (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirm, Cedar Waxwings. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Bombycilla cedrorum -perching on branch-8.jpg on commons. Are they a pair? Snowman (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter where it is, since out of context. Luckily, I know what this is. Ailuroedus buccoides - an adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ailuroedus buccoides -Denver Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. This is the first photograph of a White-eared Catbird on the wiki and the second image after an illustration. Why is it called a catbird. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the catbirds of this genus give "cat-like wails". I just added that to Ailuroedus. If anyone's thinking of writing about birds of this family, Peter Rowland's 2008 monograph is on "limited preview" at Google Books. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a possible DYK. Should this common name be used for the name of the wiki article on the genus? or is it possible to confuse the common name with another bird or cat? Incidentally, I do not have this as a top priority to change. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely possible to confuse these catbirds with others (see catbird), so I don't think we can use the common name for this genus. Hoping to see Gray Catbirds this summer at Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just found that it call is mentioned in the Wiktionary from an 1832 quote. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
They are certainly called 'Catbirds' in the Australasian region [[21]] , and AFAIK there are no other English names to describe them. Aviceda talk
I expect that they would not be talking about the New World catbirds very much in Australia. Snowman (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to this earlier statement "so I don't think we can use the common name for this genus". Aviceda talk 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be unclear. The subject was whether to change the name of Ailuroedus to "Catbird", and I was saying we can't do that because of the New World and African catbirds. (I gather there's another Australasian catbird too.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Jerry, this is sort of a punt, but I guess it might be resolved with "Ptilonorhynchid Catbirds". A stray thought. I wonder what the unfortunate soul that attempts to do something with "robin" will wind up doing!Steve Pryor (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_36&oldid=1048499521"