Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Archaeopteryx lithographica

Any ideas on whether the above new stub article should be merged (to Archaeopteryx, which is an FA), deleted, redirected, or tidied and expanded? Maias (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Or handballed to the Dinosaur project to deal with? Maias (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dinosaur wikiproject as such is only semi-active. A note and a query on proposed merging wouldn't hurt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirected: pretty much deleted. There's nothing to it, and nobody's sure there are multiple Archaeopteryx species. Genus articles are the more common practice at prehistoric animal articles. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If nobody does it before me or raises objections I'll do it myself. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to FA article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (48)

definitely the blue-cheeked subspecies adscitus - not good on sexing them though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is not far north enough to be in the range of the adscitus subspecies. I have looks at maps and I can not quite decide what side of the mountain range it is - the town is at quite a high altitude - but I think it is on the southern side, where the palliceps lives (or perhaps some intermediates). Looking at the illustrations in Forshaw 2006 the adscutus has a yellow front and yellow rump. I think it is the other subspecies, the palliceps, which has a white and pale yellow head, blue lower cheeks, blue front, and a blue rump. Actually, I think the wiki does not have a picture of the adscutus, if it did it would be easier to compare the two. Apparently there is variability in the appearance and there are intermediate types, but I think this is a fairly obvious palliceps and the easiest to identify out of all the commons images of this species, but I am not sure what the intermediate types look like. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed an adult Western Grebe; Clark's Grebe would have a yellower bill, and the white on the face would extend above the eye. MeegsC | Talk 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Aechmophorus occidentalis -California-8.jpg on commons. Good colours and well framed, but probably too much noise for a featured picture. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Dendrocygna viduata -two on land-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Interestingly, my copy of Kingfishers, Bee-eaters & Rollers (Fry, Fry & Harris, 1992) mentions that a few yellow-throated individuals had been found in a population in Kenya, but nothing about them appearing elsewhere. However, the lack of a black gorget (among other things) distinguishes it from all other yellow-throated possibilities. MeegsC | Talk 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A Northern Goshawk, possibly of an East Asian subspecies. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This one has got yellow irises and transverse strips on chest. From commons I see that a variety of forms some with orange irises and longitudinal flecks on chest. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am puzzled by the variety of the images on commons for this species. Awaiting further comments. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Northern Goshawk is variable species, especially in Asia. The bird in question is identical to this one save eye color: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Héja A. gentilis ranges from nearly white to nearly black. Eye color is related to age. Young birds have yellow eyes. I'd be VERY careful using images from falconers, though, as they hybridize birds frequently. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Accipiter gentilis -upper body-8a.jpg without implying corroboration. Is the image description that I have added reasonable? Snowman (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good; the only thing I'd change is irises to irides. ;-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
May be it looks odd to ornithologists, but I assure you I known about general anatomical jargon. We have had a discussion about this word, which is now in the BirdTalk archives. I changed irises to irides on a few articles and got a number of complaints about it from readers. Some smaller dictionaries use irises as meaning the flower or the part of the eye. So irises and irides are both correct in some books, but irises seems to be in common use. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite obviously, an American Kestrel. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Falco sparverius -Vermont Institute for Natural Science-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"Male" (blue-gray wings) added to description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Trying to identify falconer's birds, when not perfect adult examples of their species, isn't the best idea. There are many hybrids, and there is no grographic clue to go on. (This bird is not an adult.) Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that about hybrid hawks. Not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anytime you have birds in captivity (other than a zoo), hybrids abound. Parrots, finches, hawks, falcons...if it's a private citizen keeping them, hybrids are a real concern. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Why so negative on captive breeders? Anyhow, there is a bit of a clue: the photographer's Georgian. Tomorrow I'll see if I can find out what it is, if you'd like that. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Who was being negative about captive breeders? I guess I missed someone else's post. But more to the point, they can get birds from anywhere, making where they live irrelevant. I'd not waste your time. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I only listed it here in case it helped the editors on the "Eurasian Sparrowhawk" page for an illustration for of Sparrowhawks in falconry. Thank you for the interest in its identification, but do not worry about it too much. I expect there will be more. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed as male Pink-throated Twinspot. Only possible confusion species is Red-throated Twinspot; males of the latter species have a bright red face, throat and breast, and a grey crown. It's sure a better picture than the one currently in the article! MeegsC | Talk 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought is looked right, but I did not know what similar species there are. Image shown in the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Distribution map How-to page

FYI, I've created a little tutorial for how to make those nifty species distribution maps that people sometimes add to taxoboxes: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, Kaldari! Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (47)

This is certainly not a pure Red-crown. It likely has some Yellow-headed Parrot in it. I strongly suggest not using this photo. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I will probably rename it soon as a hybrid and place in the Amazon hybrids category on commons pending further comments, where it will not be used as an example of a pure Red-crowned Amazon. It does look unusual and the unusual ones are often interesting. I wonder if there is some other explanation for the yellow feathers: Could plucked feathers have grown back a different colour? Could it be a little known variant? Snowman (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It is nearly impossible that the feathers would regrow yellow as green feathers are actually black with structural elements that make them appear green. This is well-known, range-restricted species, so it is not a little know variant. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Rename under way to File:Amazona hybrid -Hogle Zoo-8a.jpg and now in category for Amazona hybrids. Bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It is in a cloud forest in the mountains of Andes in Ecuador, so it is a Scaly-naped Amazon. Re-uploaded to File:Amazona mercenaria -Ecuador -Andes-8.jpg and first upload listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Snowman — this is a Tawny Eagle. The pale birds (like this one) are easier to identify! MeegsC | Talk 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I take it that that little eagle didn't kill the animal, but found it dead, maybe killed by a car? And is that a Black-backed Jackal? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The large eagle is 62 to 72 cm in length, so this size can help to gauge the size of the fox, dog, or jackal. I would think that the "fox" was an unlucky road traffic victim, partly because the wiki species article says; "The Tawny Eagle's diet is largely fresh carrion of all kinds, but it will kill small mammals up to the size of a rabbit". I do not know much about eagles. Uploaded to File:Aquila rapax -Ethiopia -with roadkill-8.jpg and shown on species page without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Jerry, it is sitting on a Black-backed Jackal, and the jackal was likely roadkill. The eagle will eat just about any small vertebrate it can catch (as Snowman said, up to the size of a hare or guineafowl), as well as lots of carrion — and large numbers of invertebrates in the non-breeding season. MeegsC | Talk 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Black-backed Jackal canine species added to image description on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both. My "little" was in comparison to say, the Martial Eagle, 76 to 96 cm in length, which I could almost imagine killing a jackal. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
White-bellied Go-away-bird, male (black bill). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Corythaixoides leucogaster -Ethiopia -male-8.jpg on commons and shown in gallery on species page. Snowman (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a Red Wattlebird — and a very nice photo! MeegsC | Talk 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anthochaera carunculata -Australia-8.jpg on commons and cropped version shown in gallery on species article. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
adult male Masked Trogon. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you: "adult male" added to file description on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Accipitriformes

"Taxomony

Order Accipitriformes
[...]
Cathartidae"

Reeeeeally? ;-)

As you know, that's what Hackett et al. in the Science paper came up with. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm still heavily in merging out of convenience. See doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.11.019 and doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-20 for why the Science paper doesn't compute. Then we have doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007999 and doi:10.1002/jmor.10577+doi:10.1002/jmor.10739 which are blissfully ignorant on the matter... and never notice. Which should really not happen if the similarity is due to convergence of so distantly related lineages and not due to adaptive radiation within an order of Neoaves.

That means those detailed morphological studies should have noticed bigger differences between falcons and hawks? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd merge the stubs again under Falconiformes;

Which stubs? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

in any case the situation viz. Cathartidae, Cariamidae and Phororhacidae (and probably some more extinct families) needs to be fixed. They are not altogether unlikely to be proto-falcons that took the secretarybird theme one step further. Might be long-branch attraction though. The issue cannot be answered until the molecular data is correlated with a cladistic analysis of the fossil record, including traditional Ciconiiformes and an "weird" seriema-like "gruiform" one can find. Throwing in a few owls, nightjars and the Oilbird and see if that confuses it is also recommended...

But until then, the traditional monophyly (plusminus NWV & seriemas etc) is supported by more diverse data. And while it is only supported by perhaps 25% of all data, the competing hypotheses are not supported by more. Non-creationist hypotheses, that is - meaning they all have to have some sister lineage; the DNA does not agree as to which.

As regards the Science paper - all radical conclusions from it have to be disregarded until it is computed anew without the weirdly-evolving sequences.

I'm bringing this up again because the things quoted from the article need sources... but I doubt one'd find any good modern source. Save for the flawed Science paper, falcons-out-NWV-in was maybe a fringe opinion some decades ago... meaning it begs a countercite. And this is the trouble here. As soon as we add sources, we'll be adding a lot. It's better to do and maintain it once, than to do it twice (at Accipitriformes and Falconiformes)...

(Also, at Falconiformes: "However, in Europe, it has become common to split the order into two..." If I'm not mistaken that was always more of an AOU thing, no?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The SACC recognized three orders—Falconiformes, Accipitriformes, and Cathartiformes—about a year ago [1]. The NACC has Falconiformes and Cathartiformes, and there's no recent or pending proposal to split further. If the AOU had any kind of split before that, I'm sure it was decades ago.
Christidis and Boles separated Falconiformes and Accipitriformes not long before the Hackett et al. paper. It's easy to find other pre-Hackett examples of Accipitriformes at Amazon, for example, especially in popular books such as general dictionaries and encyclopedias. (I don't know what authority they're following.) I haven't noticed any particular geographical pattern. Somebody named C. Mourer-Chauviré, who's probably European, believed in Accipitriformes in the '90s. Cramp's Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Paleartic - Hawks to Bustards splits Falconiformes and Accipitriformes. The upcoming edition of Birds of Europe by Svensson and Zetterström has "Accipitriformes" in it. (Unfortunately I can't tell at Amazon whether that's split from Falconiformes or another name for it.)
My feeling, which isn't very strong, is that we should have an Accipitriformes article because there are enough sources that refer to it, but it should be stubbier than it is now until there's more solid evidence. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Jerry. I really did not know what to say. I would like to put some work and add some refs for support into Accipitriformes, but it'll take some time. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Call ID

Can someone put a possible ID on this Phylloscopus from call File:OsloPhylloscopus.ogg. It was recorded in August 2008 from the hills near Oslo and all I can note is that it was quite "nondescript" and no wing bar. Shyamal (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Willow Warbler to me. Chiffchaff is less disyllabic, and the emphasis is on the second part of the call. Willow is "huitt", Chiffchaff "huitt"; both lack crown stripe and wingbars, but have a supercilium, usually clearer in Willow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I am quite convinced. http://www.xeno-canto.org/sounds/uploaded/VXZDHTKCBO/Willow%20Warbler%20call.mp3 Shyamal (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant to post http://ibc.lynxeds.com/sound/willow-warbler-phylloscopus-trochilus/calls-adult and http://ibc.lynxeds.com/sound/common-chiffchaff-phylloscopus-collybita/calls-autumn-variant but I lost my connection. Incidentally, I've been helping out with Horton Plains National Park, now at GAN. I know it's not exactly around the corner from you, but I wondered if there was anything you would expect in a South Asian article that's not there? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sinaloa Crow

For some reason, Sinaloa Crow (the correct name) redirects to Sinaloan Crow, a name I've never heard of being used. Can anyone tackle this? Thanks. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sinaloa Crow" is both the IOC and the AOU name, if anyone's wondering. Of course it's inconsistent with Cuban Crow, but what do you want? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved to IOC/AOU name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ravens again...

Those clever ravens (though Brown-necked this time), sure do continue to impress with their intelligence! We should probably work this info into the generic raven article, as well as the species account. MeegsC | Talk 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the species article. I think the best thing'd be to beef up intelligence section on genus corvus page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

cockatoo

...has now passed GA and Sasata really put it through the ringer. I reckon it is just about ready to go to FAC...if anyone has some comments that would be great before taking the plunge....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, FAC time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse

I was quite surprised in going to the Gunnison Sage-Grouse page, to see it named "Gunnison Grouse". I checked, that that is indeed the IOC name: a name used by no other authority I'm aware of and which goes against the name used by a local authority for a localized, endemic species treated by that authority only. IOC also uses Sage Grouse rather than Greater Sage-Grouse. I've been away for a few months, so 'm not sure where the IOC/naming discussion ended, but it seems that if there was ever a case for abandoning the IOC usage, this is a very clear-cut one. It's a local use issue, so it should offend no one the way a "Grey Plover" or "Red Phalarope" debate would. The first name, in particular, appears only in the IOC book. I really think these need to change. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you—I'm just not sure what I think. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Same here. I think the AOU uses the new names, though. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before, but have you written to them? I went through my university libraries and the library of the Museum of New Zealand hunting down evidence with regards to the one bad name, and not only were they grateful but it looks like they are going to change it. They do listen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What? — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
AOU uses Greater Sage-Grouse and Gunnison Sage-Grouse. There is no motion, nor has there even been that I'm aware of, in the AOU's North American checklist committee to rename the sage-grouse. See http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/pending.php Sabine's Sunbird, who are "they"? And what is the "it" they're going to change? Some antecedents would help alleviate my confusion. :-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, "they" are the peeps at the IOC list and the "it" is Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae. I found (and showed) that the name they use, Red-fronted Parakeet, is no longer used at all in New Zealand, and they agreed that the name Red-crowned Parakeet would be better. Apparently there were some crossed wires with regards to many Kiwi names (and not just Kiwi names - see the massive recent changes to New Guinea names) and they are working to make endemic species fit what the people who live there use. If Sage-Grouse is what people in its range use they will listen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The IOC names site now mentions Wikipedia and WT:BIRD on the home page ! Shyamal (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And me and Kim! Ha! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New template for swallows

Template:Hirundinidae - for comment and improvements prior to roll-out. Currently uncollapsed to make it easier to view and edit. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's worth adding the subfamilies
  • Pseudochelidoninae genus Pseudochelidon (river martins)
  • Hirundininae -all the other swallows & martins genera
Personally, I'm happy with the current structure, but just a point to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Updated to include subfamilies. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That was quick! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to remove "sawwings" from the genus column. Several other groups have common names (Pseudochelidon river martins, Riparia sand martins, Delichon house martins etc) and I think for consistency it's best to leave them all out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the commons names go in; see Template:Ramphastidae. I think it is easier to scan with the common names. It does look a bit untidy with commons name, and it might be best t remove them. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It needs a tidy up. These link to the same page Sand Martin and Pale Martin. These are redirects: Cuban Martin, Grey-breasted Martin, Galapagos Martin, Angolan Swallow, Montane Blue Swallow, and Rufous-bellied Swallow. I got the list from the family page, but it is probably out of date. Can you clarify what the IOC (or commonly used) names are? I expect some of the pages need moving. The link in the template will not become emboldened on a species page, if it is a redirect. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Now rolled out - some of the pages or the template need IOC name fixes or name updates. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Is there sufficient material for Black-backed Wagtail or should it perhaps just be in White Wagtail? Shyamal (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree merge, there's one sentence of text - if the split becomes widely accepted, and/or more info is available, it can always be split again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Pigeon

I have initiated a community GA review on New Zealand Pigeon. I do not know much about this bird, so I can not fix it. It currently has sections that do not have any in-line references, so it fails GA criteria 2b. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The three main contributors are Casliber (35), User:123.100.103.66 (27) Kahuroa (24) I don't recognise Kahuroa as a project member, but he/she is still active, and the isp was active up to November at least. Perhaps one of these would take it on? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Isp mainly vandalism Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, while we are shunting pigeons, you may be interested in this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Goshawk - dab outreach request

Hi all, I'm from the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project, and was hoping to find some help here. You see, one of the most-linked disambiguation pages in Wikipedia is Goshawk, currently with 121 article links. Now, I'm guessing most of these can be shunted to Accipiter, but I'd really like to have an expert review. Could someone take a look at these? Thanks, --JaGatalk 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think most will shunt to Northern Goshawk, as that page was recently moved from goshawk, and the former disambiguation page was moved there instead. We (here at the project) will work to update the links. MeegsC | Talk 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, moved a bunch. Some are links to generic goshawks though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

May be of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_F._M._Horne Shyamal (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Carduelinae

We have a problem here - this is currently redirecting to Rosefinch. Does anyone know if there is a Carduelinae page out there under another name? If not, I'll create a stub. SP-KP (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! (I'd be the one to know if there was one). But please read Carduelis and Rosefinch first, to get the taxonomy. (Though these pages need updating). innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The redirect had been erroneously changed to Carpodacus; fixed it back til we have the article. As regards literature, see also under the old-new redirect target. The Arnaiz-Villena, Ruiz-del-Valle et al. sources are key, and are all available again now (fixed 2 broken links). Unfortunately, the supertree is still not freely available (grrr!), and neither the Ryan paper which is crucial for Serinus (q.v.) and the Groth papers which are also important (and none of the 3 "big" ones of the 4 are in the supertree either). Otherwise, Marten & Johnson (1986) is rather old but still it's good, I'd look at it first, it is primitive by today's standards but it gets the basic idea right. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, papers can be more inaccessible: try finding a paper on the phylogeny of the Felidae. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The basic idea? What basic idea? This is the part of bird taxonomy–besides waterfowl, perhaps–that's most muddled. What is this "supertree" you referred to, and are all the other papers you mentioned cited at Wikipedia? I can probably get a hold of them, indirectly, and add info from them to the articles fairly soon. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done now. I'll give it some work once I'm done with Fringillinae. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

swoop

I can't seem to find any article about swooping birds, is there an article on wikipedia? i think it would be a good idea to have an article that talks about swooping, and lists the birds that are known to do it.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Swooping on what? Snowman (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In the Australian vernacular "swooping", as a transitive verb, often refers to aggressive behaviour towards humans and their domestic animals by birds, especially with regard to defence of the nest and of dependent young ("I was swooped again by that bloody magpie in the park"). Species such as Australian Magpies (see that article for more detail), Masked Lapwings, Magpie-larks and butcherbirds are well-known for it. I am not sure how you would structure an article on it, as it is part of general anti-predator behaviour when caring for young, something characteristic of many animals (think elephants, bears, crocodiles etc). Maias (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I would never have figured that out!
Maybe something can go at Bird_nest#Nest_protection_and_sanitation, which currently mentions nothing about aggressive defense of nests. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It could mean a hawk swooping down to catch a mouse - see Wictionary definition of swoop. There is a dab page Swoop, but the ornithological swoop in not there. There probably should be a page (or part of a page) for "Swoop (bird)" Snowman (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need anything on swooping in birds. It seems to refer to any downward (or suddenly fast?) flight. I've added links to airplane, bird, bat, and insect flight at the dab page, as well as a mention of the Australian meaning. I've also put two sentences on bird attacks at Bird_nest#Nest_protection_and_sanitation, but more could go in there. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry - it seems to be just a subsegment of bird light. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Land birds

This is a newish stub article about land birds (as contrasted with seabirds and "waterbirds"). I am not sure about its utility - it certainly needs much work to make it useful, if that is worthwhile - but "land birds" as a general term for any bird not fitting into the other two categories? I would also question whether waterbird should redirect to Anatidae. Maias (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm—looks like this could be deleted with no real loss! MeegsC | Talk 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Landbird is used as a term mostly in insular ornithology to distinguish between seabirds and the rest. But I don't really see how a good article to be written about them, given they encompass pretty much everybird that isn't a seabird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What about shore birds? Snowman (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
By definition, shorebirds are landbirds. MeegsC | Talk 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah? Then how do you explain this, hm?
Seriously, I agree that "waterbird" shouldn't redirect to "Anatidae" and we don't need an article on "Land birds". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now here's a thought

What about a condor FT? Both the species are at FA already, so just needs condor at GA. I would have thought that the condor grouping could be justified, since they are so different to the other NW vultures, but I'm no expert on cathartidae taxonomy. Any views? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea, although getting the family leads to a more ambitious FT...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
True, but nothing seems to be happening with the family. Is there a sound basis for condor FT though? Although the condors are much bigger than the other NWVs they are not in the same genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
They are not the same genus as each other either. Not sure how they go cladistically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
An old morphology-based source says they are unrelated, viz that California Condors are related to one vulture, and Andean Condors to another. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Forgot which one it was—ah, it was by Alan Fedducia! Maybe they are related… 17:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nepal House Martin

Thanks to help from Snowman and Shyamal coupled with a general lack of information about this species, this article has been written in record time, and I'm shortly going to send it to GAN as the second article in a planned Delichon Featured topic. Any copyediting, additions or other improvements gratefully received. Asian House Martin and Delichon still to do.

Incidentally, I noticed that some WP:FTs have up to 25 topics, so a largish genus or small family could be done, assuming a team effort. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A largish genus? Passer? I'm trying to get at least a little bit of improvement at each species right now, and I think I could get all but a few (e. g. Saxaul Sparrow) up to GA status over the very long run. —innotata
There's no minimum length for GA, and I've got Clements Finches and Sparrows, so that's perfectly feasible. Once I've finished with the house martins, I'll do what I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Saxaul Sparrows, though, are really badly known. I believe there is no original research on them published in English, only brief descriptions in standard references. Until some time between 1988 and 1993 (the publishment dates of my two main refs, Clement et al. (which I currently only borrow from libraries) and Summers-Smith) the only records of its voice were Ernst Hartert's description "sparrow-like" and a description in a book in Russian as "pleasingly melodious"! Others, such as the Socotra Sparrow are as badly known. Right now I'm working on House Sparrow and Chestnut Sparrow (the latter in my userspace) and adding bits to Eurasian Tree Sparrow (see the new ref style there: that's what I'll be using for all the others) and I plan tackle Italian Sparrow, Spanish Sparrow, Cinnamon Sparrow, and Iago Sparrow soon, for your information. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now to get back to the matter of a Passer featured topic. I think I ought to point out where other participants of the WikiProject can help, so here goes:

More later. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: Talk:House Sparrow/to do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tackle that one, once I'm finished with Chestnut Sparrow, and along with some more important matters as regards the Mediterranean sparrows. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (49)

Confirmed—there's only one pink spoonbill. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Shown on Roseate Spoonbill species page. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Should this Eurasian Eagle-owl photograph replace the existing infobox image that is a Featured Image on the German wikipedia? Snowman (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Swings and roundabouts really. Both look pretty good to me, both are of obvious captive birds, so your call unless anyone objects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would not like to replace featured content without a very good reason, such as a consensus. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a tanager. Anybody with a tanager guide out there? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ridgely and Tudor is on limited preview at Google Books. I looked at all the plates of tanagers and didn't see anything close (but not all the tanagers are illustrated). It's also not in Howell and Webb. That purple throat with no other bright color looks really weird and makes me wonder whether this is a leucistic individual or an avicultural form. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Could it be a Spangled Cotinga? It resembles pictures I've seen, but I've never seen the real thing... MeegsC | Talk 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Aha! Looks perfect to me. But why is the "pale shining turquoise-blue" (Ridgely and Tudor) replaced with white? Is that an abnormality of the plumage, or something about the photo or processing? Or just my color-blindness? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
On my screen this bird's feathers are pale blue except for the purple ones on its chin and throat. It looks paler blue than on the photographs on the species page, I guess that the photograph may be slightly over exposed. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cotinga cayana -Jurong Bird Park-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 493. File:Sparrowchick.JPG. Is it possible to confirm this is an Italian Sparrow? I don't think this can be ascribed any identity, especially without any locality information. Italian Sparrows are only found in part of Italy, and over Italy south of around Rome, and along the Adriatic coast, they integrade with the Spanish Sparrow. If it can not be given an identity, it should be relabled to state that it is a Spanish, Italian, House, (or maybe Tree: can somebody check?) sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The editor who uploaded it has made no other edits and is not registered at Wikipedia. I'm guessing the editor just started the account to upload the one image. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to identify passerine chicks unless you work with them or are very familiar with them. The photographer on the other hand might have identified them by seeing the parents - or knowing where the nest was. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The uploader identified it an an Italian Sparrow. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the uploader may have meant a sparrow, in Italy. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this inspired me to look through a friend's collection of photos of house sparrow fledgelings. (Note: they're film, and none of them are good enough to upload.) This looks nothing like those, though it apparently is a bit younger. It would be good to confirm that this is a sparrow, which will be easier than finding the species. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Acorn Woodpecker working on its larder. Already uploaded here 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC) This edit, unsigned by Sabine's Sunbird (talk)
The Flickr page gives an extensive and accurate discussion of the status of Maltese sparrows. They really are a sort of hybrid swarm. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have read the long caption on flickr - it seems to say the the sparrows on Malta are "Spanish Sparrows", and that hybrid sparrows are elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Usually with such a detailed description I'd be inclined to trust what the photographer says, but the guy identified a Chiffchaff or Willow warbler as a yellow wagtail in another photo! Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is certainly from Malta, then it can be identified: as belonging to the hybrid swarm. Whether we need an image of a so-called "Maltese Sparrow" is another matter. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors can cross out their own text, but no one else's. Also an editor should not change an edit after it has had a reply. I might find this less confusing if you crossed out any errors like this; "confusing statement or error here". Snowman (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you referring to? As for Maltese Sparrow that is what some Victorian splitters called it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I listed this sparrow here because I could not corroborate its identity myself, and I thought it might help one of the sparrow pages. If this is from a hybrid population and if the sparrow pages are going to reach GA, then I guess one of them should mention this population on Malta. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The commons is a collection of images for all sorts of purposes, and I like to add atypical birds and hybrids to commons, as well as typical examples. The hybrids sound interesting and should not be ignored. The wiki includes referenced text and an image of hybrid feral Agapornis parrots. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to Wikipedia. The Maltese sparrows will be mentioned, in Italian and Spanish sparrow, once I finish reading up on this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Sparrow (genus Passer) -Ghadira Nature Reserve -Malta -female-8.jpg on commons. Is the image description correct? Snowman (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It could be a House or willow (Spanish/Italian) sparrow of nearly pure blood. Possible, but unlikely. I think inserting a probably into the text may be a good idea. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Malta is a small island of just over 300 km². Presumably they will all be genetically mixed. Snowman (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoops! How absurd of me. I meant a wintering sparrow of either parent species from the mainland, or a descendant of some that stuck around. A "probably" certainly is in order. Anyhow, if there are any shots of sparrows (which are not Tree Sparrows) on Crete, Rhodos, or Karpathos on the Commons (or any you want to identify) the story is the same as at Malta. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhpas I should upload this hybrid onto the Commons then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I can not corroborate its identity. If you are sure, then upload it and it should not cause any confusion as long as it is appropriately described and categorized. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I took the photo! Back when I was working on albatrosses. I'll upload it when I get home (as a bigger copy the image is stored on my home computer). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, I did not look for the photographer. Looks like an interesting individual bird and I think it will be a worthy addition to commons. The category structure for hybrids rather basic at present, but you can trace it from "Amazona hybrids". Snowman (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wood Pigeon

There is a discussion here to move Wood Pigeon to Woodpigeon. I've already rolled back the change once as inadequately discussed. If this page is moved, it seems to me that it should be to IOC Common Wood Pigeon, not to Woodpigeon. I'm the only member of the project to have expressed an opinion so far. I don't really mind what they call this bird (more than 50 in the trees in my garden a couple of days ago!) just feel that it should be considered by the project Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear consensus, I'll move Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In time for Christmas

A new Leaf warbler is discovered. Should be able to get a DYK? out of this one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

New article sitting at Limestone Leaf-warbler. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I was just going to ask about this one, since I got the Ibis paper. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit, but I'm not sure I've improved it. I'm not going to be able to get it to DYK alone, at least not soon. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_47&oldid=1142155220"