Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Unreferenced added measurements etc

Some unreferenced additions to articles, e.g.this, are being made. The editor has something of a history in this regard, though some added material does appear to be referenced and may be quite legitimate. Maias (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he is a generally a good editor, but it would be helpful if he would provide more references. Perhaps, give him a polite memo about references on his talk page. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I have invited the user to participate in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally try to include reference but I do miss a few. If there's a question regarding the source for something I write or if I leave the reference off, let me know. Thanks this edit unsigned by Sandhillcrane at 21:22, 8 March 2011

... and please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Snowman (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fiji Parrotfinch

I thought we were about due for a Polynesian FAC, so I've started working up this attractive little finch. I'd be grateful for any input (edits, links or emailed text), but in addition to straight biology, the following could do with some clarification.

My own experience and that of others suggests this is a far more approachable bird than some other parrotfinches, any RS to say that?
Watling implies that this is a pest of rice fields. Anything to support this, it's supposed to be uncommon?
This species appears to be kept in captivity occasionally. Lots of sources, but nothing RS so far.

A long way to go yet, not even started on the lead, but any info would be helpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (110)

Sabine, this is humii. The location is coastal and in Phetchaburri Province(on the northeastern coast of peninsular Thailand). The taxon armstrongi resembles this taxon, but it has a greener mantle, and it is an inland race (interior of Thailand, and Burma; fide Fry & Harris).Steve Pryor (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I checked the location but must have made a mistake as I took it to be inland. Glad I double checked, thanks. My source was rather vague about where the boundaries were too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I used my phone's GPS to help geocode most of my Thailand birds. You can click on the "google maps" link below the description to see them on a map. All should be within a few kilometers or so, many are quite precise (~10m), including the kingfisher. The whole upload can be found at commons:User:Noodle_snacks/gallery#Fri_Mar_04_18:52:07_EST_2011. I'd appreciate any scrutiny, subspecies information and so on that you can provide. In particular I could not find File:Aethopyga sp - Ang Khang.jpg in my field guide. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
J.J, your bird is an adult male Aethopyga saturata galenae. By the way, your saturata from Doi Inthanon - isn't. That is an adult male Aethopyga nipalensis angkanensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the description for the bird at Ang Khang, and moved it to File:Aethopyga saturata – Ang Khang.jpg per Commons guidelines. —innotata 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
To whoever is working on these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-throated_Sunbird

For this page, the photo of the male bird off to the right is certainly a missed ID. I suspect that the female below it was identified by association, but I have not yet had time to vet it. In any case, the photo of the male is that which I cited above as being an adult male Aethopyga nipalensis angkanensis. Further, the photo that I did vet, the one off to the left, is correct for that species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot-winged_Starling For this, it is rather obvious that the bird affixed to the page is an incorrect ID. Though I have not done any profound analysis, it looks to me like a female Monticola solitarius. In any case, it is not Saroglossa.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Female Monticola soliarius.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Blue Rock-thrush now at File:Monticola solitarius - Kaeng Krachan, Phetchaburi, Thailand-31Jan2011.jpg on commons. The author hints that it is a juvenile on the talk page of the image. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where that talk page of the image is. He originally uploaded it as a species of Starling. It is an adult bird. The photo is somewhat difficult to analyse because the foreground is over-exposed, and the back of the bird is hidden for the most part. However, you have to work with what you can see. The covert edges are white (the white edges lack in juveniles); and the barring of the undertail coverts is that of the adult (the barring is darker, closer together in the juvenile). If the Author still has problems, have him contact me and I will scan off a plate from the Clement & Hathway and send it to him.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You need to go to commons to view the talk page. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Late juvenal Icterus leucopteryx lawrencii. The sex is not determinable at this stage.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Juvenile Jamaican Oriole now at File:Icterus leucopteryx -San Andres, Archipelago of San Andres, Colombia -juvenile-8.jpg on commons and shown on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to try to prod someone into helping out—this is either a Common Raven or a Chihuahuan Raven. According to BNA on line, they can be indistinguishable in the field when there's no size reference. (Common is bigger.) The only distinctive mark visible in this picture is the nasal bristles: usually, but not always, covering more than half of the top of the bill in Chihuahuan and less than half in Common. So this looks like Chihuahuan to me. But Common is expected in the Grand Canyon and Chihuahuan doesn't normally occur within a couple hundred miles. So I don't want to say. Maybe somebody who knows these birds better than I do can tell by build or something. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Jerry, this will have to be one of those unsatisfactory touchy-feely probable ID's without a definitive. No problem on the range, or on the habitat for cryptoleucus in the Grand Canyon. I have others of cryptoleucus from the same locale in my DB. I was hoping to get a bead on this one by the extent of the primaries along the rectrices, but this photo just denies me any sort of idea of where the primaries finish - supposedly the cryptoleucus has the primaries that superimpose for length on the rectrices while that of corax has the primaries shorter than the rectrices. The rictal bristle extent which is supposedly good, well, I have always found it sort of iffy. However, one of the things that I have been able to count on (or, at least I imagine that I can) is to compare the tomial lines. The tomia on the cryptoleucus seem straight and decurve just slightly near the bill terminus while that of the corax starts curving about halfway down the bill and the bill terminus itself shows, in the corax, much more of a bill "nail". In any case, I compared quite a few bills, and came up with this bird seeming more cryptoleucus, than corax, for what it is worth!Steve Pryor (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve, especially for the information on the primaries and the tomia. Since I made my previous comment, I found that the Breeding Bird Survey shows an isolated population of Chihuahuan at the Grand Canyon, though other sources don't, so now I'm not surprised you have photos of it from there. But if you can't tell, I guess we're going to have to leave it undetermined. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed. This is the race that actually ranges in Japan, that is, Halcyon coromanda major - much less violaceous dorsally than the other races.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Shown in infobox, first photograph of the species on the wiki. Subspecies details added to image description on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, this is an immature male Chrysolophus amherstiae - I think a first-year bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Lady Amherst's Pheasant now at File:Chrysolophus amherstiae -Dudley Zoo, West Midlands, England-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, looks buteonine to me, not a Falcon. Just got back from N.Y., and probably won't have time to go through this stuff until late tonight, or tomorrow.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, in my opinion, this is a pale adult Buteo hemilasius.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Upland Buzzard now at File:Buteo hemilasius -Mongolia-8.jpg and shown in infobox. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hirundinea ferruginea. This is taxon bellicosa, sometimes split as a good species.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Cliff Flycatcher uploaded to File:Hirundinea ferruginea -Domingos Martins, Espirito Santo, Brazil-8.jpg. Subspecies details added without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, if the "without implying corroboration" is directed to me, then forget saying it. I really don't care about getting credit for anything on the wiki. I stayed away from the Wiki for quite a while because I did not want to get sucked into the politics, and because some of my friends were attacked. So, I will do the ID's, but if I ever get credit or not for them, I really could care less.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It really means that I have not got the right material to check it, so I am taking your word for it. I like to add this where relevant to get the emphasis right. I am not sure what yo mean by "politics". Can you give some examples (perhaps on your talk page) of where editing went wrong for you? Anyone who adds correct information wishing to improve the wiki should not get attacked, providing they keep to guidelines (add notable material, provide in-line references, do not add spam links and so on). If you want to start editing again, then I am sure several editors here would watch your edits and guide you along, if needed. Snowman (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am 99% sure that is the case. I have to dig up some material on the Jackdaw and recalled reading it and thinking it makes sense as that's where Linnaeus would have described it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Junior's unofficial mascot owl

Hello. I am here because I understand your deep feelings for birds of prey. They are trying to remove Junior's unofficial mascot owl and I believe this poor dead owl is worthy of an article. Will bird experts such as yourselves please take a look at the article and help me to improve it? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not worth improving. Definitely a candidate for deletion or merging to Junior Barranquilla. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This poor owl and the sad event are already featured on the football teams article, but it does not have the in-line references of the separate article. I would suggest expand the football team's article and add relevant in-line references for the owl. I think that the separate article is heading for deletion, but the information can be kept in the main article. Did the owl have a name? Snowman (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

White Stork....

is at FAC...bombs awaayyyy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (111)

Confirmed, pealei, on gross morphology also. The taxon (manuae) ranging in the rest of the NP American Samoa - save Tutuila - is different on gross morphology from the Tutuila ranging pealei, and it is most resemblant to vitiensis. "H.c.pealei Tutuila I. Samoa. Crown blue; forehead white on females, buffy-white on males, continuing as a very broad white superciliary stripe to upper nape; ear-coverts and band across lower nape greenish-blue; collar and underparts white; mantle green-blue, rump billiant blue, wings and tail deep blue. H.c. manuae Tau, Olosega and Ofu Is., in the Manua group, Samoa. Like vitiensis, but supraloral spot larger, and superciliary stripe wider, becoming tawny or cinnamon at nape. Underwing-coverts buffy. Op.cit.: Fry, Fry & Harris, 1999Steve Pryor (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Corvus brachyrhynchosSteve Pryor (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
American Crow now at File:Corvus brachyrhynchos -Slates Hot Springs, California, USA-8.jpg, moved without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Trogon, maybe viridis? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I had not even looked at this since Trogons are normally rather easy to dice out. What does IP mean? In any case, whatever it means, I agree. Here it is a question of distinguishing the adult males (and this bird is an adult male) of the recently split chionurus (from viridis), or viridis sensu stretto. To do this you have to examine the disposition of the white on the undertail respect to the undertail coverts. In viridis sensu stretto the basal portion of the central rectrices are black, and therefore it makes the undertail coverts appear to be bordered by a black stripe that follows by contour the undertail coverts (which are yellowish). Per contra, there is no such black border in chionurus - you just have the yellowish undertail coverts upon a totally white field (i.e., the totally white, including the basal portion, central rectrices).Steve Pryor (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I just checked what you do have for chionurus, and it might be a missed ID uploaded there. That bird does not appear to be a taxon chionurus. It seems to be an adult female viridis. However, I want to double check this with other books because of the Panamanian location - chionurus should range there and not viridis. Just double-checked, and now I have even more questions about this. I see an iridescent green scapular peeking out at me from the right shoulder of the bird. If true, then it would change the sex of the bird, and how I would have to look both at the species (I might have to start considering concinnus/caligatus), and at the undertail. I will have to come back and spend more time when I have it. For comparison, adult male chionurus http://www.flickr.com/photos/uropsalis/4467826166/sizes/l/in/photostream/ , adult female chionurus http://www.flickr.com/photos/26175334@N02/3250577626/sizes/o/in/faves-caranpaima/Steve Pryor (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess you're talking about this? Immature male but certainly chionurus. 212.10.94.169 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly that one. The problem is that if the location is correct, and the sex is correct, then the undertail becomes a problem, if hypothesizing chionurus. Soberania is near the caribbean coast along the canal zone. The undertail would not seem to be consistent with a taxon chionurus - in particular, I don't think that what should be totally white rectrices grow in barred, to have the barring then disappear. It might be necessary to go back and do the differential ID with all of the ranging Trogons, provided, of course, that that location is confirmable. The only thing that I can think of to check is age-related moult patterns for the substitution of the rectrices in the immature males of chionurus, and I am not sure that I have that sort of information.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That's how young male chionurus look. Between adult and juvenile, they have a complete rectrix molt. All Neotropical trogons start out with a female-like rectrice pattern. The illustration of an immature male viridis in Birds of Northern South America is potentially misleading as it shows an individual after the molt. Irrelevant in this case, but at least some species also have a tendency to leave the nest before the first set are fully grown, giving them a strange 'un-trogon' appearance (like this). 212.10.94.169 (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, and the explanation. I did not know that the young males all started out with a female retrical pattern. The information that I did have at my disposition is very unsatisfactory, i.e., a small generalized blurb about Trogon moult in HBW-6, virtually nothing from the Ridgely & Gwynne, Panama bird guide, and rather misleading and indirect information (mostly regarding viridis, and not chionurus) from BofNSA. Thanks again, it is appreciated.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Those errors in the wiki would partly explain why I was confused by the text and images on the wiki. Which one still needs to be corrected? Are there any more that need to be corrected? Snowman (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, OK, I will run it down. The bird object of the original question was correctly ID'd by the IP as an adult male Trogon viridis. The bird that is now linked to the Trogon chionurus page is not a female, but rather an immature male bird, but the IP has already modified the caption, so that is OK. The other birds already on the Trogon viridis page are OK.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In this locale, I can only make it an immature male Aglaiocercus kingi. Have no idea why the tail is so bedraggled.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Other photographs taken on the same day in the flickr set seem to have been taken at Manizales City Zoo, Colombia, where it may have been kept in a cage or in limited space and got its tail features dirty and worn out. Does the zoo location complicate the identification? Snowman (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it could have, but not really. The bird is not a genus Lesbia, and the numbers of Trochilid genera sporting tails this long are few. Also not another species from Aglaiocercus.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a Ptilinopus fruit-dove. Given the location, presumably Red-bellied Fruit Dove. Immature male? Maias (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Immature male greyii.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Images now at File:Ptilinopus greyii -mainland of New Caledonia -juvenile male-8.jpg and File:Ptilinopus greyii -mainland of New Caledonia -juvenile male-8.jpg. One shown on species page, the first photograph of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've changed all to sub-adult without gender specification. See Red-bellied Fruit Dove for why it isn't juvenile (a real juvenile here). The male and female are very similar – in full adults, you need a complete view of the underparts to separate them with any level of confidence. Even with a complete view of the underparts, I doubt it is possible to separate genders at all in sub-adults/immatures/juveniles because of their reduced belly patch. 212.10.94.169 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I confirm that all of those photos, including this one are chrysops. However, the bird uploaded to the upper right on the species page has an undertail that is atypically white all the way up to the undertail coverts. Normally, the undertail base is purplish.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, well, the still visible breast barring is an indication of immaturity (the three birds in the foreground). The out of focus bird in the background would appear to be an adult. Unlike most Chloephaga, this species is not sexually dimorphic.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
File details updated and shown on species page. I think that all four geese in this photograph are juveniles. The one in the background is burred and so it is difficult to determine the stripes on the feathers. I think its overall appearance is also a juvenile, which are duller. Also, the adult had a more demarcated border between the grey of the upper neck to the brown below. See adult taken with the same camera; File:Chloephaga poliocephala -Patagonia-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Golden Pheasant (Chrysolophus pictus). Ruff not fully developed, immature color of wing coverts, and primaries, belly yellow rather than tending to reddish. This is most likely a second-year male.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it a colour mutant? Snowman (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a possibility. I will see if I have anything in my DB that are surely of immature male pictus. That this bird is immature I am certain (N.B. it is never good to be too sure of yourself, and I was wrong here). Certainly both this species and the Amherst's are widely present in those sorts of collections where ornamental birds are prized, and in many cases people have tried to fool with them selection wise. Will try and make a better determination if I can find some surely normomorph non-captive immature male bird photos.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hockeylover/3347101667/
Same location, and probably the same bird. I can see that the ruff is what I would have liked to have seen in the first photo, and I probably judged the ruff length incorrectly! So, yes, an adult male yellow mutant. I was not able to find any second-year normomorph males by the way.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I look out for bouncers. File details expanded. Adult male yellow-colour-mutant Golden Pheasant shown in gallery on species page. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Adult male winter M. alba alba.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated and moved to File:Motacilla alba at the Garden for Zoologic Research, Tel Aviv University, Israel.jpg. —innotata 16:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the picture of a Rock Pipit in my book of European birds. Snowman (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No, not Anthus, and no, not Calcarius. I have a method that I have used for about twenty years when I don't immediately recognize a plumage. I usually have immediate group, and a lot of times immediate genus recognition just because of experience. So, though I will have to come back because I don't have the time to dedicate to it just now, I can give the advantage to others in the meantime that might want to avail themselves of my first impression. By the way, the bill, the long, but thin legs, exclude the two mentioned genera immediately. When I come back to this with time I know that I will have to look through fledgeling/immature plumages of possible Muscicapidae. Ficedula/Erithacus come to mind, but I won't limit myself only to those genera.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Stands like a Robin. Snowman (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd go for juvenile Bluethroat (Luscinia svecica svecica) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, yes I was thinking about that possibility. I have been going by elimination because there are certain features that have me doubtful, but then it is always difficult to match age-related plumages exactly and most of the stuff on the web is just too young. I have eliminated: Oenanthe; Phoenicurus; Saxicola; all Luscinia with the exception of svecica; Prunella; Ficedula; Muscicapa; and Tarsiger. Basically, it leaves us with Erithacus, and L. svecica.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that more pictures of this bird were requested, so here are a couple more. In the last picture it's showing its tail next to our campfire. We saw this bird on the banks of the Lätäseno river, in the "arm" of Finland, near the border of Norway. The place we saw it is a sandy river bank, separated from the open road by a barren fell landscape at high altitudes and unbearably thick vegetation at low altitudes, so it isn't actually very easy to get there. I don't have many other pictures of it as we were there only two days and I took pictures of the bird on only one day. JIP | Talk 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Jim, Bluethroat - red base to outer tail feathers is very distinctive and geography is dead on. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I will get off the fence as well. For the reason stated above, the localization and extent of the russet component of the outer tail feathers near the tail base, and also because there is an incipient supercilium that is evident, and neither of these features is good for the immature Erithacus.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The extra images I requested seem to be more conclusive, when considered all together. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Files moved to: Snowman (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
So it has been identified as a Bluethroat (Finnish: sinirinta). Excellent, thanks. I have to tell my father about this when I next go visit him. He was as puzzled with the bird's identity as I was. JIP | Talk 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity

I have just started a new article page which at the moment is entitled "Abnormal Behavior (birds)". The title will shortly be changed to "Abnormal behaviour in birds in captivity" and I invite edits to this. DrChrissy (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity for ya. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Techfix

I don't know if anyone else has had popup problems, but User:Kingpin13 came up with the following /common.css fix

@import url('http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/css&title=User:Lupin/navpopdev.css');

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency with introduced ranges on maps

See Mallard, Common Blackbird, and Song Thrush. The Song Thrush is has been introduced to New Zealand and Australia and probably other places, but it does not appear on the map in the infobox nor is there anything in the caption to say that there are introduced populations elsewhere. The Mallard and Blackbird have introduced ranges on the map. What is the best way to present information on introduced ranges? Snowman (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The introduced ranges are often far afield, so it doesn't scale well to have ranges in, say, Australia and England detailed on a world map easily. Maybe separate maps in a column? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of having introduced species on the maps, or of having separate maps. Multiple maps looks messy, and the scaling problems are compounded by, eg Eurasian Starlings in Oz, NZ, US and Fiji. Lose detail on the natural range, and countries like Fiji or Hawaii become meaningless dots Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What about showing a map of the native range and added to the map caption something like; "Also with introduced populations in New Zealand and xyzland". Snowman (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Request for help

At the parrotfinch FAC User:Sasata has come up with a list of foreign-language sources in order to make sure the article is comprehensive. Most, except Monographie der Gattung Erythrura Swainson are very obscure, with few if any cites, and the FAC coming up as top Google hit!

  • Gefiederte Welt appears to be a breeder's magazine. Is it a reliable source?
  • Can anyone help me out accessing any of these, I'm really struggling. I suspect that most will add little, but I don't know if I can't find them

Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim – the following comes from: Holyoak, D.T. (1979). Notes on the birds of Viti Levu and Taveuni, Fiji. Emu 79 (1): 7-18. Maias (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Erythrura cyanovirens Red-headed Parrotfinch
Viti Levu: seen in plenty from near sea-level to at least 260 metres, about Suva, near Joske's Thumb and in region west and north-west of Vunidawa. Gorman (1975) recorded it up to 1,200 metres. Taveuni: seen only three times, two pairs and single bird, in forest at 420-580 metres. On Viti Levu seen singly, in pairs and flocks of up to SIX birds, in forest, secondary forest, scrub, plantations and open grassy places. Food includes seeds of grasses and herbaceous plants of open country, gardens and villages, and insects gleaned from low foliage in forests, sometimes from canopy. Often joins mixed flocks in forests.
Call: high-pitched zi-ei-zi or zee-zee-zee-zee, often repeated in bursts of varying length. One seen carrying piece of dry grass twice as long as its body in open grassland on Viti Levu. Several green-faced juveniles seen in company of adults in same region.
Thanks Maias, there are a couple of bits in that I can add. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this external link to a live camera of birds nests in trees acceptable? Snowman (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Too ephemeral to meet criteria under WP:EL. Shyamal (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: External link removed. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lories and lorikeets

The Lories and lorikeets article has recently been converted to USA English with this edit. These birds are not from USA, and there are several in Australia and many from non-English speaking parts of the world. I would have thought that there is a case for this article to be converted back to Australian English. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree on region and given that they also introduced a number of incorrect changes, I have reverted it. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Swallow's name

Hi,

Does anyone here know how the Welcome Swallow got its name? I've heard it has something to do with their insect catching abilities and for that reason people let them nest under their roof etc?

Appreciate any info! --58.175.33.78 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excerpted from a response by Trevor Quested through the Birding-Aus list-server

"John Gould named the Welcome Swallow, which he first met in Tasmania. 'The arrival of this bird in the southern portions of Australia is hailed as a welcome indication of the approach of spring'. (Handbook, vol.i, p.107)."

My comment. I would tend to believe this. Gould did provide the English Common Name, and this is apparently a direct quotation from Gould. To note, I do not know to which "Handbook" the citation is attributed. Were I to guess, one of Gould's own historic worksSteve Pryor (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Books is your friend: [1]. The quote is authentic, although the wording in the original is slightly different. Ucucha 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much guys, a good story! --58.175.33.78 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-breeding

What's the general consensus regarding the non-breeding article? It's been in this state since 2009, so it doesn't appear that the author has any intention of expanding it further. Is it worth keeping, or (since it's basically a very brief rehash of a tiny portion of the plumage article) is it better to redirect it to the plumage article? Personally, I think I'd bin it! MeegsC | Talk 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a template warning of possible deletion and notified the creator. Snowman (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Snowman. I wasn't going to do that until I knew whether others felt it should be deleted, but I guess it's okay to start earlier. MeegsC | Talk 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think a redirect to pluamge is fine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If it's kept in the end, then it should probably be moved to a less ambiguous title. 'Non-breeding' could refer to a lot of things in this world... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Only decision is whether it's worth making a redirect when deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it can be deleted without redirect, because "non-breeding" does not seem to be very meaningful to me. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am happy for any useful content to be moved to plumage. I have no strong opinions on whether we have a redirect or not, but snowman's point is valid - I am having trouble imagining anyone searching for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, deed done (didn't realise Pied-billed Grebe had brilliant breeding plumage). I didn't create a redirect, since seems implausible, but no problem if anyone wants to make one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Order that herons are in

User:Scalasaig has changed all the heron taxoboxes so the order is Pelecaniformes instead of Ciconiiformes. I left a message on his or her talk page, but I'm wondering whether we should revert this (or ask Scalasaig to) or what. And might we be any closer to a consensus on where to put the families of what used to be Pelecaniformes and Ciconiiformes? Okay, I'll stop whining. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not known much about this, but I think it should be sorted out. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought they'd been transferred to Pelecaniformes (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Some people have done that, but I don't know whether there's a consensus. See this discussion and this one in the archives. Since then the SACC has adopted the same classification as the NACC without dissent, so that's a big step closer to a consensus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That page is actually a very nice succinct summary of the toing and froing so far, and also offers some discussion of alternate names Suliformes vs Phalacrocoraciformes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Culmen

We currently have a stubby article (unlikely to be much expanded) about the culmen, or ridge of a bird's beak. Does anyone have any compelling reason why it shouldn't be merged into the beak article? We could put it into a separate subsection in the beak article, which would allow us to create an anchor and link to that section for any appropriate wikilinks... MeegsC | Talk 23:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think culmen can be merged into the beak article leaving the redirect "Culmen (bird)". Snowman (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure now what would be best for article development here, but since culmens are what are given as the important measurements for beaks, mentions of culmens should go straight to a definition of the word, with the image, and so on—perhaps linking most mentions of culmens to a Wiktionary entry would be better. And articles like beak are getting cluttered with poorly merged articles; somehow this should be improved. —innotata 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, you could also link any mention of culmen directly to a subsection of beak called "Culmen" which would have a definition and a picture — and would have the added benefit of explaining a whole lot more about its relationship to the beak than any wiktionary entry will do. As for poorly merged definitions, I wasn't aware that any had already been added to beak (having not spent much time with that article yet); what in particular do you find poorly done, and I'll work on improving it when I add information about the culmen? (Of course, you're also perfectly welcome to link any instance of culmen directly to a wiktionary entry.) MeegsC | Talk 19:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd go for merge and redirect. It's difficult to see how as a stand-alone it can get much beyond a definition and a couple of examples Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Interwiki links are usually given in the external links. Are direct interwiki links in a block of article text allowed? In some parrots the culmen changes colour as the bird matures; see Red-bellied Macaw. I guess that there is probably something interesting in the embryology. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure. But there are no interwiki links for the culmen article, so it's a moot point for this one at least! MeegsC | Talk 21:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no, this sort of interwiki link in text is standard: Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links; I think I've even been asked to add one at an FAC or other review. —innotata 12:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I was thinking about the links between different language wikis rather than sister projects. But yes, people could certainly link any culmen reference to the wiktionary rather than the culmen section of the beak article, if that's what they decide is more useful. MeegsC | Talk 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
My two cents. I looked at the Beak article. It would seem to be stilted to explain things from a general vertebrate anatomy viewpoint, rather than more specifically as related to birds. An example, though from a purely formal standpoint, vertebrate anatomists use the term maxilla, and formally, it is correct. However, in more common usage people that work more specifically with birds alone, call the maxilla, the upper mandible adducing several reasons that go beyond the scope of this comment, however, one of them is the generally static structure of the maxilla in other vertebrate groups, e.g., Mammalia, that in class Aves, does not obtain (there existing varying degrees of upper mandibular mobility).

As to the original question (culmen), this should be treated both in a glossary type format (I presume that is what the wiki dictionary is, but it should also be presented in a diagram form under bird topography in a "generalized" beak section. There are certain constant anatomical features in beak anatomy among all bird family groups. Culmen is one of them, as is gonys, the tomia, the mandibular commissure, the nares, etc. It should be noted, however, that there are family groups where a "generalized beak" though still formally obtaining, becomes anatomically much more complicated. A good example, Diomedeidae, the Albatrosses. In the case, such as this one, in which the generalized beak structure is departed from, and actually becomes important for the ends of the identification of the species involved, then urges a special beak section attached to the anatomy of the family group itself, and that goes into this special beak anatomy.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the embryological similarities and evolutionary associations between birds and animals should be emphasised. I think both terminologies should be explained. I think mammal anatomy us more universally known, and I find it helpful to think what the mammal equivalents are of bird anatomy. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Collaborations redux

Okay, I must say I am finding it very hard to get interested in editing Mallard, even though it could be a great article. I edited the collaboration page to state when the next collaboration would be chosen to say, "upon the current collaboration achieving Good Article status, or a months' inactivity." So we can revisit if no-one wants to edit an article. I suspect that Snowman and Kim van der Linde will want to work on Parrot, as do I, and it is an order, so maybe the thing is to vote on something one is happy to put some effort into improving. We could leave it open for a seven days, this way, parrot is a front-runner (not a bad thing as at least three of us will possibly contribute). I am open minded, and another option is another species which might only need a little bit of work.

NB: Both FACs appear to be going well, which is good as it makes up for Emu being demoted :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I've no interest in Mallard, despite its cosmopolitan range. I'm unlikely to contribute much to parrot because I lack sources or knowledge, although I'm happy to check ref formatting and other menial tasks. You've really been through the FAC mill with the stork, I think I would have lost patience. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, well, anyone else have any ideas? If not I might just flip over to Parrot....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (112)

Anser anser --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated and moved to File:Anser anser -Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France-8.jpg. —innotata 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, will have to come back with my Owl book, however, a leg-up for those looking at it in the meantime, this is an obvious genus Strix. Even though this is a captive, captive birds in these sorts of bird parks usually come about from injured local birds (therefore it is a Strix that probably ranges here).Steve Pryor (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Not that I would have known, but the clues above suggest Spotted Owl. Maias (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Maias, these really should not be hints, they are more or less an internal forma mentis that I give to myself, though I have externalized it here for the benefit of others, until such time as I can really dedicate to finalizing an ID.

In any case, this is a Strix varia, and I had imagined that it was since it is the close morphological counterpart of a Strix with which I am familiar here in Europe, i.e., S. aluco. All of the forms of S. occidentalis are easily distinguishable for their breast and belly spotting having the contour feathers with a dark heart and halfway up sort of notch-like on either side of the feather you have little whitish spots. The paleness of this particular bird would make me tend to believe that it is a race helveola (I am referring to the base coloration of the mantle and wings being a sort of cinnamon-buff color as well as the breast and belly streaking being on a field of total white without any indications of darker color wash).Steve Pryor (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I live and learn... :) Maias (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Barred Owl now at File:Strix varia -Arizona Renaissance Festival, Apache Junction, Arizona, USA -falconry-8a.jpg on commons and shown on en wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Aplonis metallica.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Metallic Starlings now at File:Aplonis metallica -Phoenix Zoo, Arizona, USA -two-8a.jpg on commons and shown in infobox on en wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

..Plegadis falcinellus.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Glossy Ibis now at File:Plegadis falcinellus -Phoenix Zoo, Arizona, USA-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The eye of this bird is distinctly red (rather than brown), and the lores show a bit of pink at higher magnification. I think this is a White-faced Ibis. MeegsC | Talk 22:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
According to ISIS, Phoenix Zoo has one male White-faced Ibis and no Glossy Ibis. It is difficult, because the side of its face is not shown well. However, it has red irises, reddish hue on legs, and grey beak, so I would move it to White-faced Ibis pending further observations. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and this is my fault. I was too approximate. I think I spent about a half a second looking at it, and responded without putting my brain in gear.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
White-faced Ibis now at File:Plegadis chihi -Phoenix Zoo, Arizona, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
In spite of the usual white flank feathers being not visible, this is a Common Moorhen.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't imagine it being anything else, too. Updated and moved to File:Gallinula chloropus -Phoenix Zoo, Arizona, USA-8a.jpg. —innotata 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, unlike most species of this genus, this one does not have a well-developed facial disc, which coupled with other features (e.g., the long, strong, distally unfeathered tarsometatarsi) practically give away the ID. This is an adult female Circus approximans.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Swamp Harrier now at File:Circus approximans -New Zealand -with dead hare-8.jpg on commons. I do not know how it was identified as a female, as is it difficult to determine bird size in the photograph. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, did not try and determine the size. I assigned the gender because of the amount, and caudad extension of the belly streaking, and also because of the color of what I call the culottes (the tarsal feathering). The adult male has whitish culottes, streaked on the chest though less densely streaked, and the streaking rarifies starting from the lower chest. In this bird, the streaking involves the totality of the crissum (not good for the male).Steve Pryor (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I will allow it is a Falco. However, it is a waste of time trying to dice it out with no further information. There are several Falco that this sort of head shot could fit. There is no information on location, sex, age, etc. Need more before I will spend the time.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: I have indicated that I think the image documentation is poor at "Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falco sp.jpg", where it is a FP candidate. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the documentation isn't poor. It gives a species Saker Falcon , and a location, northern Spain, in English, Spanish and Basque. However, if this is a wild bird, it's well out of range, so it's probably captive. That just makes it harder to confirm ID. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
When I made that comment the image description was poor and details were subsequently added. This is readily seen in the edit history. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've just checked on Commons, my error Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Brahminy Kite sub-adult. Shyamal (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I suspected it was a Brahminy Kite. Normally, I would rename the file at this point. However, this is a FP in one of the language wikis, so it would be useful to have one or more positive identifications before I rename it and remove it from a number of foreign language wiki articles. There is safely in numbers. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And you'll certainly need help from someone who knows Malayalam. As you know, the picture appears in the Malayalam article linked to Eagle, but it's possible that the title of that article is a broader term and includes the Brahminy Kite. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes; but the image would be identified incorrectly, so I think the best I can do it to remove the images from language wikis and leave good edit summary in English and let the people who have wrote the pages pick up the problem hoping that some of them are bilingual and able to read my edit summary. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
it is also known as Red-backed Sea Eagle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
New redirect Red-backed Sea Eagle to Brahminy Kite made. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this is another photograph of the same bird; File:Eagle from Kerala.jpg. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Image description on Brahminy Kite (Malayalam: ml:കൃഷ്ണപ്പരുന്ത്) corrected on commons. Most of the Malaysian pages are related to FP assessment and I have not changed those pages. Both images appear on the Malaysian page for Eagle (Malayalam: ml:പരുന്ത്), and I have changed the captions in Malayalam to indicate the correct species. As kites are not eagles and the original names are potentially confusing, I have moved the files to File:Haliastur indus -Kerala, India -upper body-8.jpg and File:Haliastur indus -Kerala, India-8.jpg with a request at global delinker on commons to change name of the file in all of the language wikis. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (113)

That's an adult Brahminy Kite. MeegsC | Talk 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean Malayalam: major difference there. Now at File:പറക്കുന്ന പരുന്ത്.JPG on Commons. —innotata 22:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I misunderstood what language ml stood for. Was it misidentified on the ml wiki? Should it be "ml:കൃഷ്ണപ്പരുന്ത്" in Malayalam. Probably best to use binomial, as there is no doubt about that. Snowman (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless we know what it means, I don't think we should use a different name. The second part is "parunthu", which is what the article on eagles is called, and the bird is called an eagle in English and a "parunthu" in Malayalam; the first part looks like a common word, my guess is "flying" (I can't read Malayalam script, and can't figure out what it means). —innotata 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, several problems present themselves trying to divine what this might be. First, it is a captive, and captivity, along with unusual feed regimes tend to false plumage schemes. Second, I can see that it is an adult, and that it can be one of two races, the nominate lutea, or kwangtungensis (on the basis of the presence and the extent of the reddish basal primary patch - which, by the way also look to be good for an adult male of one of these two above-mentioned races). Without having the bird ITH, and doing the morphometrics, this is as much as might be said with any certainty about this bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: Described as male and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It is an adult female. Don't be taken in by the frazzled appearance of the superoanterior portion of the casque, it has not been broken off, it is just frazzled by abrasion against structure of the cage.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Update; file description amended on commons and shown in gallery on en wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, a minutia. Cask in this context is improper. The zoological implication of this structure is "resembling a helmet" paraphrastically speaking. Therefore, it should be amended to the correct spelling in this case, which is "casque".Steve Pryor (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Amended. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Innotata, well, we are in the U.K., and I am guessing that the bird was shot fortuitously, and is not captive. It is not nisus. It is a gentilis. There are certain signs of immaturity demonstrated by the bird, and I would age it as a second-year bird. I would need a more complete series from other angles to say more about the bird. So, Accipiter gentilis, on instinct it might be female but this is just my impression, and at least a second-year bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the description. —innotata 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Innotata, this doesn't appear to link to a bird photo. Is this the correct file name? MeegsC | Talk 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's at commons:File:Bird.jpg. Didn't notice the redirect here, and will move when this is identified. —innotata 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Red-vented Bulbul Shyamal (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Updated and moved to File:Pycnonotus cafer -Kotdwara, Uttarakhand, India.jpg. —innotata 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Adult Nashville Warbler, isn't it? Presumably ridgwayi. (And the one on the right is a Virginia's.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup. MeegsC | Talk 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Selected to illustrate the infobox on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, Snow, this one is throwing us a curveball. There is only one normally ranging Malurus here. Malurus cyaneus cyanochlamys. The immature male appears much as the adult female (the eclipse male does too but it retains dark lores, and a dark bill, and a darker tail). The tail color of the adult female is sort of brown-russet, and the color of this tail is not. The tail of the adult male will be darker and bluish. So, what this is, is an immature male bird. I confirm the species and the race.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: described as an immature male and shown on en wiki species page. No curve-ball intended; I was as helpful as I could and hinted that it could be a male, female, or juvenile. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I was talking about the bird throwing us the curveball - not you. The question was obviously legitimate. It just took me a while to explain the tail color to myself. There will always be grey areas in bird identification. I have a large ornithological reference library, but I don't have HANZAB (just too costly for covering just one region, Australia). Age-related plumages (read: juvenile, immature, etc.) have never been well-covered in books. So, the only thing you can do sometimes is to use the book descriptions that will only take you to a certain point, and then you have to make an educated guess, as in this case.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Identified juveniles are useful to the wiki. Snowman (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F

You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (114)

This one is OK as well. Aglaiocercus kingi. However, he omitted to give the sex. It is an adult female.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Long-tailed Sylph now at File:Aglaiocercus kingi -Manizales, Caldas, Colombia -female-8.jpg on commons. Shown in infobox in en wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem with this one. That is what it is. It might appear a bit strange because the bird was shot in a downpour, and it flattens out the feathering on the head.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
File description expanded. Shown in infobox on en wiki. First image of its species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed. The principal confusion Turdus in the zone would most likely be Turdus grayi casius, but they are enough different so as to not constitute real problems. So, this is Turdus ignobilis ignobilis, which is the ranging race here, and it is an adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Subspecies added to image description on Commons. Shown in infobox on en wiki. First image of its species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I have no idea exactly which tax authorities the wiki follows. Personally, I have looked at the lit on the Hepatic Tanager sensu largo, and follow the indications as exposed in Restall. The SACC still has not come down on the split. In any case, in this location, at the time of year this photo was shot, you have two taxa competing for our attention. They are, Piranga rubra rubra, and Piranga lutea (I follow the split). This particular photo shows an obviously adult male of one, or the other. I looked through the picasa album of this user, and he has both species represented. However, this particular photo, on the basis of the bill conformation, and its color, in my opinion, is of an adult male Piranga lutea toddi (non-split: Piranga flava toddi). Steve Pryor (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what taxonomy to apply. Are any changes needed? Snowman (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(Laughing), Snow, well, I was hoping you knew! I don't know who the wiki listens to for their taxonomy. Perhaps the only reasonable approach would be to give the conservative taxonomy, and then make a note somewhere that for those that don't agree, i.e., that accept the split (and I personally think that the SACC will eventually accept the split) that the bird is, in that case, this other post-split taxonomy.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody knows—and it's definitely funny. There are a few editors here who are expert enough to make judgements from the current literature, and the rest of us muddle along as best we can and, I hope, try to give information on the controversies. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware that this one was so controversial. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, just a general comment that does not help us right now. Most of the more serious are waiting until the 4° Ed. of the Howard & Moore comes out [the last I heard perhaps this October - (p.c.)]. Since the publication of the HM 3° Ed., there has been a veritable tsunami of work being done by many that investigate avian phylogeny from a genetically cladistic approach. However, there has been no major text referent in the interim. Pete Ryan's tax group at the Fitzpat Inst. in Cape Town reviewed the Afrotropicals; the Indonesian bird list has been reviewed and updated by Neville Kemp's group; likewise the birds of the Oriental region through the work of many, Robson, Collar, Rasmussen at the forefront; Christidis and Boles published their review of Australian birds in 2008; and then not to mention all of the continuing work being done by Van Remsen's SACC group. The upshot is that there has been a lot of new information just looking for a home. The Clement's 6° Ed. seemed to afford the possibility of resolving, at least in the interim, some of the loose ends, however, they completely dropped the ball, and basically just rushed the 5° Ed. with the Ibis updates into publication, thereby condemning that list to a sort of limbo of irrelevance as it was already obsolete even before laying it to stamp. The group at Cornell is now having a tough time reacquiring credibility. The Howard & Moore will be a much more serious peer-review of all of this orphan information, and should provide us at least with a new starting point. It should also include much new information on higher avian phylogeny as now being understood through cladistics. So, this is the situation that everybody is now in until a reputable text tax work is published. We are rather in a vacuum at the present time. The IOC birdlist is a laudable attempt to provide a stop-gap taxonomy, however, having examined many of the justifications, and just speaking from personal opinion, many of the treatments now being propounded by the IOC list seem rather PSC, and I doubt all of them will stand the muster of competent peer-review. A small window into the future of that which might be expected is provided here: http://jboyd.net/Taxo/taxo1.htmlSteve Pryor (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I will look at this one when I have time to look at the other one. Both are genus Turdus.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Had to dig a bit for this one. The major confusion species here was Turdus serranus. This is an adult male Turdus fuscater gigas.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Update. Renamed File:Turdus fuscater -Bogota, Colombia-6.jpg on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Turdoides striata Shyamal (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Jungle Babbler at File:Turdoides striata -Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, India-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I merely toned down the definitive population identification from image - the article already has a good photo of a wild specimen of known provenance and the zoo image is a rather unrealistically white and adding little value. Shyamal (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Chestnut-headed Bee-eater Shyamal (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Shyamal (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the descriptions for both of these images. —innotata 20:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Any Help GREATLY Appriciated!

i am doing a report on the pauxi, any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.70.209 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Pauxi is your starting point, with links to the two species and some possible sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sparganum

The above word appeared in a list of marsh plants, along with obvious stuff like Phragmites, Typha and Carex. It must be a typo, since it is a kind of tapeworm larva, what might have been intended? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a Sparganum (=Sparganium is listed on GRINS) sometimes considered to belong to a family but often place with Typha - in any case the same names can be used in different Kingdoms. Shyamal (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Jim, it is certainly a typo (though some people just misspell the generic name). Shyamal is right, genus Sparganium (Bur-reeds), a genus of plants having habitat near small bodies of fresh water.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both, I thought it might be a typo for sphagnum, but that seemed wrong in the context, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (115)

Yes, confirmed. I still see some vestigial indications of immaturity (a certain remaining rufousness of the color of the transverse breast barring), so I would call this yes, an adult, but a young adult bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Adult male Francolinus [Peliperdix] coqui.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Coqui Francolin now at File:Francolinus coqui -Tarangire National Park, Tanzania-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The questions surrounding the taxonomy of these birds is complex, and still controversial. The present tendancy (in spite of Pete Ryan's treatment as only two species) is to follow genetic cladistics that would split into three good species. They would be: (1) a clade comprised of the races atricollis, ugandae, and ansorgei (Black-faced Quail-Finch - Ortygospiza atricollis); (2) a clade comprised of races gabonensis, fuscata, and dorsostriata (Black-chinned Quail-Finch - Ortygospiza gabonensis); and (3) a clade comprised of races fuscocrissa, muelleri, digressa, smithersi, and pallida (African Quail-Finch - Ortygospiza fuscocrissa). The specie(s) are sexually dimorphic. The adult males are generally looked at for the morphological distinguishers, and the atricollis clade has races with black faces, and a small white chin; the gabonensis clade has races with black faces, and no white chin; and the fuscocrissa clade has races with the males having conspicuous white spectacles, black faces, and a white chin (more conspicuous than that of the atricollis clade races).

To the bird in object. This is an adult male African Quail-Finch (following the above taxonomic explication at least) - Ortygospiza fuscocrissa muelleri.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not doubt that, but the wiki does not have a page on African Quail-Finch (Ortygospiza fuscocrissa). Should the wiki have an article on this taxon at species level? The wiki has African Quailfinch (Ortygospiza atricollis), which looks different. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks different because it is a different race (species by most). For the wiki, the Gambia bird is an adult male African Quailfinch - Ortygospiza atricollis ansorgei. For most of the rest of the world, it is Black-faced Quail-Finch - Ortygospiza atricollis ansorgei, so the nomenclature changes, but not the taxonomy in this case.
I won't intervene actively on editing the taxonomy. The reason is that I don't know who make the decisions for the wiki, nor what taxonomic criteria they might be using for their treatment. In any case, since the wiki is treating this bird as just one species, then it would be African Quailfinch [or Quail-Finch, don't know how the wiki establishes its criteria for nomenclature either), and treated as just the one species it would be Ortygospiza atricollis muelleri - adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the wiki aims to use the taxonomy that has wide acceptance. When a new taxonomy classification has good evidence and has wide acceptance, then the wiki can be updated. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, could not find a certain reference to the location. The bird has three disjunct populations (in Somalia; in a small zone straddling southcentral Ethiopia/northcentral Kenya; and then where this bird was likely shot, in a small zone straddling southcentral Kenya/northcentral Tanzania. In any case, it is a normal morph,adult Pseudalaemon fremantlii.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Photographer from Tanzania took pictures in the Serengeti two days later. Snowman (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Short-tailed Lark now at File:Pseudalaemon fremantlii -East Africa-8.jpg. It looks like it has quite a long tail, so I am not convinced. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Other than the free tail from the rather long primaries (for a lark that is), you need to look at the massive, slightly decurved bill, and in particular, the markings on the side of the head. Steve Pryor (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: first photograph of its species on the wiki. Shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it is probably in Tanzania, because the photographer is from Tanzania and looking through his Flickr photostream I think it is likely that all his bird photographs are from Tanzania. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed. The sympatric race of P. plumatus is talacoma, one of the short-crested races, and is distinguishable from poliolophus also by its having visible yellow, circumferential eye-wattles, whitish malars, and an absence of the blackish pectoral spurs visible on the lateral breast of poliolophus.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Subspecies detail added without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, sorry maybe my explanation was confusing. This bird is monotypic. So, just Prionops poliolophus, an adult (not sexually dimorphic). The race talacoma is associated to the principal confusion sympatric species for this bird, which is Prionops plumatus talacoma.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I read it wrong. Subspecies details removed. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I am unclear on the precise location. The file is labeled Espanola (Hood), but the map indicated for the location by the user has San Cristobal (Chatham). Whichever it is, it is an adult male Geospiza conirostris, though I am unclear on what the race would be if on San Cristobal.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The text above the geo-location map on Flickr is sometimes a place near the actual place, and I guess this is due to a granulation effect. To determine the location on the Flickr maps I find it best to zoom in and out to find where the location pointer is. In this case it is definitely Espanola Island. The commons geo-location has Espanola island also. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Going on the commons images, I am not able to assess sexual dimorphism of the Large Cactus Finch well; however, provisionally the beak of Bird 1155 seems to me to be too big and too dark for a Large Cactus Finch, Geospiza conirostris?. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, sometimes, as in this case, I have to use my obscenely large photodatabase. I don't have a monograph for the Darwin Finches unfortunately. To tell the truth, I don't have even Guide Books that cover the Galapagos. What I do have is a ton of photos in my DB, and since when I download photos to the DB I stick in all available information as to location and sex, I have made an assumption, and that assumption is that the blacker birds are adult males in many of these species. This might not be true, but I don't have a text referent instructing me otherwise. Perhaps somebody else on the wiki has a book covering these Finches that can help us out here. Perhaps some of the editors that are now in accademia have access to ornithological works through their Universities that I don't. My books are all bought because here in Italy that is what you have to do if you want to have references. Unfortunately, in the HBW series, which I have by the way, the Darwin Finches will be covered in the last volume, HBW-16, and that has not yet been published.

I will look at the other Finch you linked later, though it does look like a conirostris on a cursory examination. The trick between conirostris and magnirostris is what the bill looks like on profile obviously, its massiveness (both are massive), but particularly the degree of decurvature as the culmen and gonys approach the bill tip. The magnirostris looks more like a parrot bill, while the conirostris having relatively less curvature of the culmen seems to be longer, more pointed.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just found out that the Large Ground Finch does not occur on Espaniola, but the Large Cactus Finch and several other finches are found on the island; see Avibase. It turns out that the subspecies on Espaniola, G. c. conirostris, has a far larger beak than on other islands according to the wiki article. Snowman (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: moved to File:Geospiza conirostris -Espanola Island, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador-8.jpg and described as a male Large Cactus Finch. I also get the impression that the darker ones are the males. Shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I have the text HM 3° Ed. I don't usually use Avibase as a first referent. Denis Lepage has done a tremendous job attempting to administer an enormous amount of information. However, it is also rife with inexact information and this depends on its being driven by that provided from outside sources (much as the wiki), and not always the lists put up are vetted. Prout HM 3° Ed. the following species of genus Geospiza are pan-galapagos: G. magnirostris; G. fortis; and G. fuliginosa. Per contra, again according to the text HM, G. conirostris has three races with the following distributions: G.c.conirostris - Espanola (Hood); G.c.propinqua - Genovesa (Tower); and G.c.darwini - Darwin (Culpepper). I generally lend more credence to the distributional information as provided here: http://worldbirdinfo.net/default.aspx
However, in the case of this genus, not even that site is of any additional help.
I also looked at the IBC uploads, and I must say that I question some of the ID's there. Doubtless somebody will have to go through both the photos and the videos with a fine tooth comb as the publication of HBW-16 approaches.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If G. magnirostris is found on all of the Galapagos islands, then my elimination of this species from the differential list was based on incorrect information. How sure are you? There is a lot of misinformation out there, so shall I categorize it as unidentified? Incidentally, User Rabo3 wrote most of the Large Cactus Finch article and I would think that what he wrote would be correct. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I can only be as sure as my sources. Certainly, the list that you looked at on Avibase (collated using the HM 3° Ed.) is incorrect in view that it contrasts with the information that I can look at in my copy of the text HM (well, I suppose it is incumbent to state that either the text HM is correct, and therefore the list as collated is simply incorrect, or that the collator had information as to the actual non-occurance of the bird, making the text HM incorrect. I consider the last possibility as being less likely). I would love other sources, but I just don't have them. On the Cornell Neotropical bird site, I did find a photo of what does appear to be a conirostris, on San Cristobal if I recall correctly, and it appears as this bird does http://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu/portal/species/overview?p_p_spp=632716. I have the sense that there are a lot of misidentified bird photos out there in cyberspace, and that until the HBW does publish that there will continue to be doubts both as to the insular distribution of these finches, as well as missed ID's.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult when sources say different things. However, on this occasion I am going with Avibase, which says that Large Ground Finch does not occur on Espaniola. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I should ask WP plants what the plant is growing over the sand. Snowman (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, well, thagus is after all a relatively recent split from occidentalis, so it is not surprising that they closely resemble one another. P. occidentalis murphyi naturally ranges to the N Peruvian coast, and will range coastally farther south (always remaining within Peru however) in years in which El Nino conditions subsist. However, to the photo. For those accepting this split, it is a Pelecanus thagus non-breeding adult bird. The adults are rather easy to differentiate (I mean between the other races of occidentalis, and thagus) because thagus is hugely whiter on the wings and with more white streaking on the breast.
For the other photo, the one from Chile. Only thagus ranges. Most of them are juvenile however.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ptilinopus jambu, adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Jambu Fruit Dove now at File:Ptilinopus jambu -Detroit Zoo, Michigan, USA -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nettapus auritus, immature male.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
African Pygmy Goose now at File:Nettapus auritus -Detroit Zoo, Michigan, USA -immature-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

Please see discussion at Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex. Note that the term copulation redirects to sexual intercourse. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

... And animals feature in the article at "Mating". Snowman (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dicrurus or Category:Drongos

I see that there are two categories for genus Dicrurus. These should be merged. Does the project prefer the scientific name (Category:Dicrurus) or the common name (Category:Drongos) when building categories? Dawynn (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not identical; "Dicrurus" is for birds in that genus while "Drongos" should be for those plus the Pygmy Drongo which is also in "Chaetorhynchus". Maias (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: ...or find another common name for the Pygmy Drongo. Maias (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there is another name but it seems likely the Pygmy Drongo is not a dongo but a fantail. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Sabine is correct. Dicruridae is now monogeneric. The Chaetorhynchus has been moved into Rhipiduridae (along with Lamprolia, and with the once-associated Yellow Fantail now extracted and moved into Stenostiridae). As far as the Pygmy Drongo, the generic name remains the same, Chaetorhynchus, but the nomenclature has not yet been touched, and it should be.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FA news

White Stork and Fiji Parrotfinch both promoted. Congratulations to Cas for the enormous patience he showed in bringing the baby home (lol) through a mountain of sometimes very nitpicking reviews, especially as most project members were unable to review or vote because of significant earlier input to this collaboration. The finch had a much easier ride, since a short article presents a smaller target. 22 more FAs needed! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to flip over the collaboration to Parrot but would like to hear from Snowman and Kim as to whether they have the time or energy to put into improving it now, or whether we leave it for a while. I have listed Jackdaw as a "low-effort" alternative collaboration as it is pretty comprehensive and has had spurts of work done on it over the years. White-bellied Sea Eagle is another and Red Knot and Red-throated Loon are two others even closer. Other proposals that have never been collaborations, and the standing list here might be worth considering. Thoughts? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Parrot is quite doable if Kim (or someone else suitably knowledgeable) is able to lead the work on the evolution and systematics section. However, if some definitive review of parrot taxonomy is due to be published in the near future, it might be best to wait until then. Otherwise, yes, the standing list is an obvious source of future collaborations. I quite like White-bellied Sea-eagle too…Maias (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see an easy way to do the taxonomy in its present state of flux. Snowman (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, do you not think it is okay to present the key studies and what they propose, noting areas of greater (eg basal NZ parrots and cockatoos) and lesser certainty? I think parrots are better known than, say, the pelican/stork group (?) But if you and Kim would rather wait, that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If you know what the key studies are about, then fine. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at some - there are about four or five key ones to discuss I think, and there are some strong bits and weak bits. I am not an expert on these things, and will ask Kim (who has a better understanding of cladistics) as well as Dysmorodrepanis. If Kim wants to make a go of it, I think it is worthwhile all of us getting stuck into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Parrot phylogenetics are pretty well established by now, the main issue is that the obvious new groups have not yet been renamed, especially at the subfamily level where current names are complete bogus. But we can write around that. There is a major phylogeny for the South American parrots in the making, but the Arini as a group are well defined and unambiguous, that phylogeny will be more at the level of genera. We can expect a split of Aratinga some day. In the end, there are only a few small groups that are difficult to place, although a new study by Mayr shed some light on those. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Update - Kim is busy until September at least so I think Parrot is too ambitious and have unsupported it for the time being. This leaves White-bellied Sea Eagle as the frontrunner - interesting as it has a large distribution in south Asia. Anyway, anyone else want to input? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

NB: American Goldfinch will be today's featured article on may 15, if anyone wants to do any spring-cleanng etc. Have done a little myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Update

White-bellied Sea Eagle is new collaboration until it is GA or stalls for lack of activity for one month. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, I'll do what I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

California dreaming

I had a single day birding LA between flight in Feb. I might go again for a proper trip next year, but later so the migrants are in. Any suggestions for when would be a good time to go? Also, is there a good birding site guide for that part of the US? Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

January–February is good for breeding birds and some nice wintering birds. (Most stuff doesn't actually leave, so migration is quite a different animal than it is in the UK or the eastern US.) Summer breeding birds would be back by April 1, though. MeegsC | Talk 11:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks for that, I'll probably go up to Vancouver on the way back, so I don't want to be in BC too early. My day in LA was 27 Feb, and the mountain roads were all closed by snow, which would have restricted us a bit if we had had time to explore more. Late March/early April perhaps? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Getting to any mountains and back from LA in a single day seems somewhat optimistic what with how much traffic you might encounter. Might be a good time to head for the coast to see wintering sea and shore birds - which would come from both north and south in the case of the seabirds. Perhaps a day trip t one of the Channel Islands? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you've misread, Sabine's. I had a single day this Feb, next year will be a proper trip, not decided how long to go for yet (got to fit in two Canadian destinations for family visits, not sure whether to take in Nevada or Arizona at all), but I would think a couple of weeks. FWIW, on our one day in Feb we did more or less what you suggested, coast at Venice Beach and Ballona, plus some south of LA parks and nature reserves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Opps, bit tired there. My area of expertise is the Bay Area, which has pretty good birding, particularly if you can reach Monterey Bay for a pelagic trip. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not tied to LA, would San Francisco be a better base? I want to do the pelagic anyway. 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't make a direct comparison, but I do like the birding in that area, although living there might have biased me! Lots of redwood forests, Point Reyes (particularly good for late wintering shorebirds) Monterey Bay, the Farallon Islands and also accessible mountains and deserts (Reno and Tahoe). Of course, LA has the channel islands, with associated endemics, Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Extinct Birds: What Tense?

For articles on possibly extinct birds, what tense should be used? IUCN considers 14 species Critically Endangered, Possibly Extinct, such as Bachman's Warbler, Eskimo Curlew, and Guadalupe Storm-petrel. While IUCN considers any surviving populations as unknown but are unwilling to commit to declaring them extinct, many authors have no such qualms and refer to these species in the past tense. For the sake of internal consistency, I assume one tense should be used, but should it be present or past? Additionally, there are another 15 or so species that the IUCN just considers Critically Endangered, birds such as Crested Shelduck, White-eyed River Martin, Pink-headed Duck, and Ivory-billed Woodpecker, that a good number of authors consider either potentially or definitely extinct and have not been seen for, in some cases, decades. I know White-eyed River Martin uses the present tense; is this a good standard for this second group of species? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest going with the IUCN designation and use past tense for EX and present for CR. Where the IUCN designation is not applicable (as with subspecies) I guess we use our best judgement. What do we do when speaking of people whose extancy is uncertain? Is there a guideline regarding when to change BLP to BDP? Maias (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess we live in hope and use present for those 14.... (crosses fingers) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a rule-of-thumb criterion, however, I don't know how much it is followed any more. The rule-of-thumb was "no records for fifty years, declare it extinct". The discriminative valence of this rule-of-thumb seems to have been diminished in the last about ten years for the rediscovery of several birds that had not been recorded for even longer time spans. We could just determine a decision for the wiki, or we could hedge the bets and just call certain of the birds that are almost certainly extinct, probably extinct. Bachman's Warbler is certainly probably extinct. Certain others having very restricted ranges, e.g., insular endemics like Semper's Warbler, that have been searched for repeatedly are probably extinct. Another, unfortunately, is the very pretty Toxostoma from the Island of Cozumel. The Guadelupe Storm-Petrel is certainly extinct. The hesitance of declaring one way or the other for certain of the birds is due to "data deficiency", and this is often times due to their having known historic huge ranges, a good example, the Eskimo Curlew.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting paper to use?

Encountered this new ZooKeys article: Taxonomic revision and phylogenetic analysis of the flightless Mancallinae (Aves, Pan-Alcidae http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/709/abstract/taxonomic-revision-and-phylogenetic-analysis-of-the-flightless-mancallinae-aves-pan-alcidae- All info and pictures are licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License so free to use. Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts...

...on the land birds article? Is this "unconventional term" (using the article's own language) something that's worth keeping? MeegsC | Talk 03:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard this term. Is it defined or used anywhere? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There is waterbirds and sea birds. If there is no such term as "land birds", then perhaps the article name could be changed to "birds of the land" or something similar. Snowman (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Having read through the article, and I am sorry to be undiplomatic, but it is just a bunch of gobbledigook. It is pseudoscientific sophistry. It should be eliminated.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
... but is the article name or a modified article name usable. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Other possible articles for birds that live in various environments; "Birds of fresh water", "Birds of brackish water", "Birds of dunes", "Birds of the shoreline", "Birds of running water", and so on. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, the problem I have with articles like that is, what do you do with birds that live in more than one environment? Many birds that live near water also live on land. Are they waterbirds or land birds? What if they are birds of freshwater AND brackish water AND shoreline AND dunes? Do we have to have an article that covers lots of possibilities rather than birds restricted to a single space, in addition to birds of a single space? Nightmare. These are artificial "constraints", and I'm with Steve: I don't think "unconventional" (i.e. not widely accepted or used) terms belong in Wikipedia. MeegsC | Talk 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
With regard to oceanic islands “land bird” is often used to cover just about any bird that is not a sea bird or staging migratory wader, so including the rails, herons and ducks which might otherwise be classified as waterbirds (and would be so at a continental wetland) but which are tied to the island for their day-to-day existence. It would be possible to write an essay covering the overlaps in meaning and shifts in usage, but creating a factual, well referenced and useful encyclopaedia article is not easy. Maias (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree, it's OR and fairly trivial in terms of content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I use the term in my research (into the island rule and birds), but as a category from which to draw samples. I'd be hesitant to describe it is a natural or artificial group worthy of an article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Snow, the problem with this sort of article is that it attempts to endow a concept with a scientific valence not inherent in the substance of the original premise. It is logically fallacious. An example. With the same sort of false criterion, criterion in the singular since only the "landness" of a hypothetical bird is considered, would be the likewise forced attempt to define birds using the criterion of "airness". Yes, in most cases it might seem oxymoronic since most birds fly, but I will force the issue and conjecture that Apodidae are "airbirds", and I make this distinction on some sort of putative degree of "airness". After all, it is estimated by some that some Swifts spend up to 85 - 90% of their lifespan in the air, flying. The point is that singling out just one thing and attempting to make it seem good scientific thought, does not make it so. I have often seen such argumentation, and it always brings to mind the rather cute film called "Creator", since it exemplifies that which Dr. Harry Wolper's "Big Picture" philosophy argues against, that is, given the finiteness of human beings, their exasperated attempt to subdivide, and to quantify things that should only be understood in the broad sense.

As far as the exception of Sabine's Sunbird, well, if I understand what he is saying then it makes sense. He is, however, contextualizing the use of the word fencing it in and providing a definition in a restricted argument. It becomes a problem when attempting to define a usage of the term in a broad sense.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm not a she. But yes, I use the term in a restricted sense for a specific hypothesis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Sabine's Sunbird, my apologies. I imagined that you were using your first name, and I tend to shorten web monikers on public fora. Actually, excuse me for all of the times that I have had the same mistaken presumption in the past. The only reference indicating gender on your page is under one of the Medals.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not remotely offended. The Sabine comes from Sabine's Gull, which was gender neutral. I'm not quite sure why I chose the name to be honest. Think nothing more of it. (And I should make it clearer on my userpage) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Water Rail is now carefully picking its way through the murkiest of all swamps. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (116)

Irena puella, adult female.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Asian Fairy-bluebird now at File:Irena puella -Detroit Zoo, Michigan, USA -female-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, don't wait on me for Gulls. I detest Gull identifications. Have never studied them at length for this reason. Terns, I will do.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Species Ok, but not a juvenile, adult mantle feathers and yellow-based bill indicate a second year bird, ssp argenteus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Larus argentatus -Eastbourne, East Sussex, England-8.jpg on commons. I thought it was young (1st, 2nd, or 3rd year), but I would have thought a second year bird would be called a juvenile, but I do not know the terminology that is used for gulls. Snowman (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please add the subspecies details, if you are certain. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Juvenile plumage only up to first moult, then small gulls get adult plumage, but larger species take up to three years more, with increasing amounts of adult plumage at each stage. For many small birds, it's just juv to adult, but large seabirds in particular often have several distinguishable stages. I'll add ssp, even in shadow it's too pale for argentatus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't/couldn't any obviously non-adult gull be considered a 'juvenile'? That's the way I've always looked at it - i.e., juvenile until the age of 4 (or so). Plenty of people I know would even refer to the bird above as a 'baby gull'. Hmmm. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"Immature" is a better term for non-adults of unspecified age. For seabirds which take several years to reach maturity, "juvenile" specifically refers to the first proper plumage, followed by first winter, second summer etc — a good field guide will show these plumages and use these terms or their weird US equivalents. "Baby birds" I think is used by the same people who say birds are "born" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I presume that this is this gull is a large gull that has three stages of annual plumages and then gets its final adult appearance in the fourth change? I think that "baby bird" is reasonably clear and refers to a very young bird and most likely to be smaller than the adults or to need food from the adults, however, I have not seen an exact definition of the term and I am not sure how to apply "baby bird" to gulls. Perhaps Bird 1161 may look very young to some people, while actually being a year or two old. I find "birds are born" to be ambiguous, because I do not know if this refers to when the egg is laid or when the chick hatches. In general I am not particularly clear on what in the difference between a "juvenile bird" and an "immature bird"; however, it would probably be beneficial for the wiki to include referenced text for the precise use of "juvenile" for gulls. Currently the European Herring Gull article has an image of a 2nd year bird with the caption "juvenile", so does this need correcting? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Article also has image captions such as 'A sub-adult', 'A flock of fledglings' and 'Parent and chick' - all featuring 'immature' EHGs. Probably a good idea to use consistent language. FWIW, and this is just my take on it, I'd consider a 'baby gull' to be anything from a newly-hatched chick to a full-sized, fledged juvenile that's still following its mum around and cheeping every five seconds (as they do) - i.e. anything that either *is* a baby or still behaves like a baby. If it's a gull that's either brown, or still has some brown feathers, I'd call that a 'juvenile' (though Jim is probably correct with his point above)...--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that young gulls that have become separated from their parents may be shown what is food by older gulls that are not their parents. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I may be anthropomorphizing here, but I've seen behaviour such as ten or so fledgling gulls standing close-by and watching intently as an adult gull dismantles/deshells a crab in front of them. One possible interpretation could be that it was showing them what to do, or that they were watching and 'taking notes', at least. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I find that believable. I think I saw a rather isolated and lost juvenile gull in Kent, England being helped (shown how to peck at seaweed on the beach) by adult gulls once. From watching captive parrots I am fairly sure that the larger and more intelligent parrots of all ages learn by watching and copying. Snowman (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that the large gulls are supposed to be fairly intelligent - moreso than many birds, at least (though probably not on the level of parrots and corvids). The behavioural changes between newly-fledged gulls and the adults always amaze me - specifically how they go from being meek, timid, needy and rather dopey to pretty much the exact opposite. Seems to be a really marked change in gulls... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The species is confirmed. It is the only Crican Flowerpiercer. I might dispute the age, and the sex since it is contingent. The adult female is decidedly streaky on the breast and throat. I don't have good information on the immature plumages, however, were I to make an educated guess, this is an immature bird of not determinable sex. Nonetheless, as I have time I will search my DB for anything of help. The bird of this photo was not associated apparently to the obvious adult male of this user. The photos were taken on different days.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, having checked my DB, the immature seems to have a slight olive-green wash dorsally, and the lower mandibular paleness is more extensive, and pinkish! So, I will go along with the original ID of this bird being a female, simply it is not very ventrally streaked - it happens!10:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Steve Pryor (talk)
First photograph of the female on the wiki. Shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That's an adult Black-bellied Whistling-duck (distinguished from a young bird by the color of its bill). MeegsC | Talk 13:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
File now at File:Dendrocygna autumnalis -Houston Zoo, Texas, United States-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I checked the ISIS first of all, and Houston Zoo has the species. The only other Crax it has is a female daubentonii, and this isn't that. Though adult I don't know how adult it is, or the alimentation of the bird, and the dimensions of the bill wattling may be deceiving. However, I would view this bird as a male bird, and the reasons are twofold; the first, the color of the belly should be much redder, a sort of peach-orange tone, were it a female; and second, what little can be seen of the distal phalanges wrapped around the perch are black in color (the female has the entirety of the leg, including the phalanges, yellowish).Steve Pryor (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Female in infobox has buff crissum similar to Bird 1164. I think a the male has a white crissum. If the crissum is paler than you might expect, then I guess that this is due to the zoo diet or something about birds in captivity that are often paler than the wild equivlents. No facial ornaments visible on Bird 1164 and to me this absence seems to be a good indicator of it not being an adult male. The wattles in the male are present on the under and upper sides of the beak. The underside of the bill is visualised well and wattles are not seen. I have not been able to confirm that the legs of the female are yellow, but the wiki article says of the female are "their feet and legs are a greyish flesh color". I am not sure if the legs of Bird 1164 are actually blackish or greyish, but they appear rather dark in the image probably due to not being illuminated well. ISIS records that Houston Zoo have three females and one male, and here on Flickr is a photograph of a male at Houston Zoo. Incidentally, "crissum" does not appear to have a definition on the wiki. Further comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if that is the one male from the Houston zoo, then you are right! Yes, the male has a white crissum, however, I think that I used the word belly here. To be precise one should say a white belly, and a white crissum. Will give you some references for the color of the legs and feet of the two sexes when I have time to dig them out. It is primarily this the reason that I opted for a male bird since on a black field yellow should stand out, and here it does not!
I have looked at this photograph at high resolution. I think that there is only small portions of the birds toes to be seen and these are in poor illumination. There is not much to go on hear unless the birds toes or claws are a markedly different colours in the male and female. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, as so many times happens, I am not finding any sort of unequivocal answers to these questions through my sources, which are mostly plates rather than textual descriptions. Birds of Peru - male has charcoal grey tibia and nails, female flesh-colored, lighter nails. The usually worthless Souza (All the Birds of Brazil) runs true to form and is totally worthless. Someday I will just chuck the volume in the trash. Absolutely no help. The Restall, BofNSA, no textual help, and actually is erroneous since it limits itself to considering the dimorphism as to the color of the venter to be limited to just the crissum, something not true. As for the Restall plate, I see no color differnce in the tibia of the two sexes - both charcoal greyish, again erroneous fide photos of the two sexes of the bird itself. HBW-2, no textual help. The plate shows the male with charcoal-black tibia, and the female with what I would call straw-yellow tibia. I googled for the images, and here are some:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_opoAhFfvMUo/TLW_D8J3GgI/AAAAAAAACkY/r9aHHO6LSuk/s1600/paujil1.jpg Female with pale flesh color tibia, darker nails. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_opoAhFfvMUo/TLW_QZQShbI/AAAAAAAACkk/DLcStvZ3R1c/s1600/paujil4.jpg Idem. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmlburnett/4068152971/ Apparently female (can’t see the crissum) greyish tibia, horn nails http://www.flickr.com/photos/sedges_have_edges/4246190982/ Female, pinkish tibia http://www.flickr.com/photos/tlc_enigma/2045081039/ Female, Pale flesh tibia, darker nails http://www.flickr.com/photos/sengkelat/2828538230/sizes/o/in/photostream/ Female, tibia a sort of sickly greyish color. Steve Pryor (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some helpful photographs that seem to show both female and male with black claws, males have grey legs and females have pinkish-grey legs. In Bird 1164, I think that only the claws are visible and the colour of the toes in indeterminate due to poor illumination. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The wiki says that belly is slang/colloquial, so I think it would be better to say "white crissum and lower abdomen" for the male. Snowman (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I won't split hairs on this. Some divide the abdomen into upper and lower (and using belly as a synonym). Others have the abdomen (belly) extending from the lower limit of the breast all the way to the undertail coverts (englobing thusly also the vent). Still others consider the belly (abdomen) to stretch from the inferior limit of the breast just to the caudad base of the legs!Steve Pryor (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that anatomy descriptions should not be ambiguous. The consideration of anatomy is a science. The area around the cloaca would be the pelvis, so to me is seems clearly wrong to call this area the abdomen. In human anatomy the anterior of the abdomen is divided into four (quadrants) or nine (all nine have names). Snowman (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree in principle. I find, however, that as the terms are used in bird-related literature that there is ambiguity. Further, as much as we might want to homologate everything to the most-studied vertebrate, Homo sapiens, evolution throws us curveballs, and there is no strict correspondance between anatomical topography of birds, and man. I can only offer the only volume that I have dealing strictly with ornithological terms, the Erritzoe. For Erritzoe, et al. the following terms obtain: abdomen (defn): ventral part of the body between the breast and the base of the legs, adj. abdominal; also called belly. belly (defn): the part of the underparts between breast and undertail coverts, also called abdomen. The point is, I suppose, that even just reading these two definitions, for this volume supposedly synonymous, we see equivocation of these terms. One speaks of a zone between the breast and the base of the legs, and the other speaks of a zone between the breast and the undertail coverts, an obvious equivocation!Steve Pryor (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is great similarities between the bones of birds and mammals. Birds are the closest related order to mammals. Evolution and embryology provide insights into the similarities and differences of the topographical anatomy of birds and mammals. In mammals the anatomical regions can be defined by the bones. I do not know much about bird anatomy. Why should there be any confusion with head, abdomen, thorax, and pelvis in birds? From what you say about ornithologists' terminology, the only thing that is certain is that "belly" is somewhere on the front or underside of a bird below the breast (breast is not localised above). I do not recall seeing "belly" used to describe birds in a wiki article. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I don't normally use the wiki as a reference. I don't know what terminology might have been used in the articles. Though I totally agree with you on the similiarities, and though I am heavily schooled in genetics, and in embryology, and well-grounded formally also in comparative vertebrate anatomy, nonetheless, and regardless of the stance of the wiki on some of the terminology commonly used in ornithological works, even in highly prestigious works such as the HBW series, these terms are commonly used! Just one example, though I am sure there are many. HBW-2, P. 362, and excerpting from the Descriptive Notes for Crax globulosa, it offers "Female is the only Crax with red cere and rufous belly".Steve Pryor (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason for using "belly" in the wiki, which to me sounds like slang terminology. I guess, that perhaps the use of "belly" in ornithology books is idiosyncratic. In anatomy the word "abdomen" is widely used: anterior abdominal wall, abdominal aorta, abdominal cavity. As the wiki says "belly" is slang and pending comments I plan to remove "belly" from wiki articles where

"abdomen" would be more conventional. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Crissum (defn): undertail coverts, especially when these are distinctively coloured, and the area around the vent. Op.cit.: The Ornithologist's Dictionary, Erritzoe et al (2007), Lynx Edicions.

It is a useful term since many times birds have undertail coverts concolorous with the area of the vent.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not be able to use a reference provided above, since wiki editors should really have read the source for themselves. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Houston Zoo also appear to have Blue-knobbed Curassow (Crax alberti); see Flickr photo, which looks different to Bird 1164. Snowman (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
tricky - My first thought is male Turquoise Parrot, but i wonder also about a Scarlet-chested Parrot male slightly turned away from the viewer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would go for Scarlet-chested - possibly a young male just coming in to adult plumage. Maias (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, tricky. I am not saying those options are wrong; however, the zoo's website lists Elegant Parrot and Turquoise Parrot in their birds list. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Turquoise it is then, it's definitely not an Elegant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ducula mullerii, an adult. It would appear to be the paler race, that is, aurantia, however, given the captive context would not bet my house on it.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Collared Imperial Pigeon now at File:Ducula mullerii -San Diego Zoo, Florida, USA-8a.jpg on commons and selected as the infobox image on the species page on en wiki. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Female or juvenile House Sparrow. —innotata 14:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Make that female: bill color, and circumstances (time of year, didn't notice it was new; insect held in mouth). I'll update the page. —innotata 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
House Sparrow now at File:Passer domesticus -United Kingdom -female-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Megascops choliba.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Tropical Screech-owl now at File:Megascops choliba -Ceara, Brazil-8.jpg on commons and selected as the infobox image on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of "belly" in descriptions of birds

There was some discussion on the use of "belly" in bird descriptions in the analysis of "Bird 1164" (the Wattled Curassow), but it may not have been seen by many people and re-starting the discussion under a new heading might prompt comments.

Belly is said to be slang on its wiki dab article. The OED has various uses and I have listed the anatomical uses below:

  • "That part of the human body which lies between the breast and the thighs"
  • "The under part of the body of animals"
  • "That part of the body which receives food; the stomach with its adjuncts."
  • "The bowels",
  • "The womb, the uterus",
  • "The internal cavity of the body; the inside"
  • "The front, inner, or lower surface of anything"

"Belly" may be used in some erudite ornithology books and perhaps this is due to authors idiosyncrasies, which perhaps we should avoid copying on the wiki. It seems to me that there are more sharply defined anatomical words that can be used in bird descriptions. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem with "belly": is it really slang, or in any way unclear in the context of describing birds? isn't it the standard term for the lower part of bird's underparts, escpecially with plumage? is anything else used for this, let alone commonly? —innotata 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not slang or even strictly colloquial. (I just fixed that at Belly.) Also, as this encyclopedia is for the general reader, we should prefer widely understood terms where they're not misleading. I'd say this means there's nothing wrong with "belly" in descriptions of birds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
...but which definition of belly is being used. Female and male is generally used in bird articles rather then hen and cock. Snowman (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
bird books never describe where it means as it is (I guess) pretty obvious. Generally it is the underpart covering what would be the abdominal cavity, while the breast is that covering the thoracic area. I am surprised at the OED not being more exact really. Maybe a more scientific definition that is sourced is somewhere. I always called it the White-breasted Sea Eagle, but I think there were some concerns a la bowdlerisation which is why White-bellied is more common/official now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just picked three field guides at random from my shelves and all of them have diagrams of bird feather topography which point to the same area; it's the area on the underparts below the breast, and in front of the vent, flanked on either side by the flanks. It's the area that's solidly dark on Dark-bellied Brent Geese, but solidly pale on Pale-bellied Brent Goose. SP-KP (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That area in the three books does not correspond to any of the possible zones listed in the EOD. Anyway, the linked images of geese do not show clearly where the lower border of the "belly" is. One seems to have white to its under tail coverts, which is beyond the vent. The adult White-bellied Sea Eagle has white from its head to its tail - its "front, inner, or lower surface" (one of the OED definitions of belly) is white, and it is not just white over the anterior abdominal wall. I have just looked along my bookcases and the first human anatomy book that I saw did not have "belly" listed in the index. Incidentally, is the vent part of the pelvis in birds? Snowman (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be getting a bit too hung up on the OED definitions, and on definitions that relate to organisms other than birds; it seems as though OED hasn't yet picked up on the term 'belly' in the sense it's used by the three field guides I picked (I've just picked another four off my shelves and they all point to the same area). The Pale-bellied Brent Goose does indeed have areas other than the belly which are white, but if you look again at the two photos together, you should be able to appreciate which area is the belly - it's the area which is dark on the Dark-bellied and pale on the Pale-bellied; forget about areas which are dark on both or pale on both, as they won't help. SP-KP (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the upper border of the colour changes goes rather high on these geese, perhaps onto the chest. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep. If I had to draw a line separating the breast from the belly on these birds, I would draw it slightly lower than the end of the dark "neck-sock". It sounds like we both now have the same concept of where the belly is. Obviously, bird names have to have a degree of approximation in them - Pale-belly-and-lower-reaches-of-the-breasted Brent Geese would be a bit of a mouthful, wouldn't it? Other "bellieds" that spring to mind are Blue-bellied Roller and Red-bellied Paradise Flycatcher. SP-KP (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The illustrations at List of terms used in bird topography may help? SP-KP (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it simple, we don't want, in a general encyclopaedia to end up with remiges, retrices, tarsus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What is simple about using a term that probably will be interpreted differently by different readers? The linked list has a pointer to "belly" that seems to be in the right direction, but the boundaries of "belly" are not indicated on the diagram and are not explained in the text. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I get it that to the general public some of the specific terminology may be, well, hermetic, abstruse? However, as long as some of the comments by people doing the identifications, e.g., some of the more difficult ID's done on flickr, where there are many highly prepared people using highly technical and subject specific terminology when rendering their opinions, are understood by the people on the wiki, then it is all good, maybe a glossary is not needed for the specific terms. So, I agree, but I agree conditionally with the above exception.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What exception and what are you agreeing to? Snowman (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
with Keep it simple, we don't want.....etc. What I intend saying that since many of the wiki editors draw sources from flickr, that at least these editors should understand the specific terminology because in many cases the more difficult ID's are rendered (in the flickr comments) by people using subject specific terminology, such as, rectrices, remiges, tibiotarsi, etc. To restate, that there is a wiki section viewable to the general public explaining these rather abstruse terms I find not necessary as long as the editors are prepared themselves in understanding this sort of terminology.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that use of "abdomen" was simple and is a word that is readily understood. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It is understood. I have already made my position clear if we are talking only about belly-abdomen, and it seems to be why the subject is being brought up again. However, I will reiterate. I feel that you are forcing an unnecessary homologation to human anatomical terminology in this particular case. Many of those consulting the wiki for bird-related material will already be familiar with the use of belly as a normal descriptor as related to birds. They will also understand abdomen. It just seems to me that since it is so commonly used in bird-related parlance, that there are probably more meritorious battles to be fought, just not this one. It seems like a tempest in a teacup to me.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Merriam-Webster dictionary shows "belly" as being a synonym for "abdomen". And it's probably a more widely-recognized word. MeegsC | Talk 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster definitions of belly has some similarities with the OED giving a number of anatomical alternatives including "underside of an animal's body" and "abdomen" which could lead to confusuion. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a description (in a field guide or other book) where they refer to the "belly" as being the entire underside of an animal? I know you said the OED defines it thus, but I'd be interested in seeing a real-life example of that. MeegsC | Talk 20:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I thought I'd look up how many "bellieds" there are in the IOC list. There are quite a lot: Ashy-bellied White-eye, Band-bellied Crake, Band-bellied Owl, Bar-bellied Cuckooshrike, Bar-bellied Pitta, Bar-bellied Woodcreeper, Bar-bellied Woodpecker, Black-bellied Antwren, Black-bellied Bustard, Black-bellied Cicadabird, Black-bellied Cuckoo, Black-bellied Cuckooshrike, Black-bellied Firefinch, Black-bellied Gnateater, Black-bellied Hummingbird, Black-bellied Malkoha, Black-bellied Sandgrouse, Black-bellied Seedcracker, Black-bellied Seedeater, Black-bellied Storm Petrel, Black-bellied Sunbird, Black-bellied Tern, Black-bellied Thorntail, Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Black-bellied Wren, Blue-bellied Parrot, Blue-bellied Roller, Brown-bellied Antwren, Brown-bellied Swallow, Buff-bellied Hermit, Buff-bellied Hummingbird, Buff-bellied Monarch, Buff-bellied Pipit, Buff-bellied Puffbird, Buff-bellied Tanager, Buff-bellied Warbler, Chestnut-bellied Cotinga, Chestnut-bellied Cuckoo, Chestnut-bellied Euphonia, Chestnut-bellied Fantail, Chestnut-bellied Flowerpiercer, Chestnut-bellied Guan, Chestnut-bellied Hummingbird , Chestnut-bellied Imperial Pigeon, Chestnut-bellied Malkoha, Chestnut-bellied Monarch, Chestnut-bellied Mountain Tanager, Chestnut-bellied Nuthatch, Chestnut-bellied Partridge, Chestnut-bellied Rock Thrush, Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse, Chestnut-bellied Seedeater, Chestnut-bellied Starling, Chestnut-bellied Thrush, Cinnamon-bellied Flowerpiercer, Cinnamon-bellied Ground Tyrant, Citron-bellied Attila, Coppery-bellied Puffleg, Creamy-bellied Antwren, Creamy-bellied Gnatcatcher, Creamy-bellied Thrush, Crimson-bellied Parakeet, Crimson-bellied Woodpecker, Dark-bellied Cinclodes, Emerald-bellied Puffleg, Emerald-bellied Woodnymph, Fire-bellied Woodpecker, Glittering-bellied Emerald, Golden-bellied Flycatcher, Golden-bellied Flyrobin, Golden-bellied Gerygone, Golden-bellied Starfrontlet, Golden-bellied White-eye, Green-bellied Hummingbird, Grey-bellied Antbird, Grey-bellied Bulbul, Grey-bellied Comet, Grey-bellied Cuckoo, Grey-bellied Flowerpiercer, Grey-bellied Shrike-Tyrant, Grey-bellied Spinetail, Grey-bellied Tesia, Lemon-bellied Crombec, Lemon-bellied Flyrobin, Lemon-bellied White-eye, Ochre-bellied Dove, Ochre-bellied Flycatcher, Olive-bellied Sunbird, Orange-bellied Antwren, Orange-bellied Euphonia, Orange-bellied Flowerpecker, Orange-bellied Fruit Dove, Orange-bellied Leafbird, Orange-bellied Manakin, Orange-bellied Parrot, Pale-bellied Hermit, Pale-bellied Mourner, Pale-bellied Myna, Pale-bellied White-eye, Pearl-bellied White-eye, Pink-bellied Imperial Pigeon, Plain-bellied Emerald, Purple-bellied Lory, Red-bellied Fruit Dove, Red-bellied Grackle, Red-bellied Macaw, Red-bellied Malimbe, Red-bellied Parrot, Red-bellied Pitta, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Reddish-bellied Parakeet, Rose-bellied Bunting, Rufous-bellied Antwren, Rufous-bellied Bush Tyrant, Rufous-bellied Chachalaca, Rufous-bellied Eagle, Rufous-bellied Euphonia, Rufous-bellied Helmetshrike, Rufous-bellied Heron, Rufous-bellied Kookaburra, Rufous-bellied Nighthawk, Rufous-bellied Niltava, Rufous-bellied Saltator, Rufous-bellied Seedsnipe, Rufous-bellied Swallow, Rufous-bellied Thrush, Rufous-bellied Tit, Rufous-bellied Triller, Rufous-bellied Woodpecker, Russet-bellied Spinetail, Rusty-bellied Brush Finch, Rusty-bellied Fantail, Rusty-bellied Shortwing, Sapphire-bellied Hummingbird, Scaly-bellied Woodpecker, Scarlet-bellied Mountain Tanager, Slaty-bellied Tesia, Snowy-bellied Hummingbird, Spot-bellied Bobwhite, Spot-bellied Eagle-Owl, Sulphur-bellied Bulbul, Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher, Sulphur-bellied Tyrannulet, Sulphur-bellied Warbler, Tawny-bellied Babbler, Tawny-bellied Hermit, Tawny-bellied Screech Owl, Tawny-bellied Seedeater, Violet-bellied Hummingbird, White-bellied Antbird, White-bellied Antpitta, White-bellied Blue Flycatcher, White-bellied Bustard, White-bellied Canary, White-bellied Chachalaca, White-bellied Cinclodes, White-bellied Crested Flycatcher, White-bellied Cuckooshrike, White-bellied Dacnis, White-bellied Drongo, White-bellied Emerald, White-bellied Fantail, White-bellied Go-away-bird, White-bellied Goshawk, White-bellied Green Pigeon, White-bellied Heron, White-bellied Hummingbird, White-bellied Imperial Pigeon, White-bellied Kingfisher, White-bellied Minivet, White-bellied Munia, White-bellied Nothura, White-bellied Parrot, White-bellied Piculet, White-bellied Pygmy Tyrant, White-bellied Redstart, White-bellied Robin-Chat, White-bellied Sea Eagle, White-bellied Seedeater, White-bellied Seedsnipe, White-bellied Shortwing, White-bellied Spinetail, White-bellied Storm Petrel, White-bellied Sunbird, White-bellied Tanager, White-bellied Thicket Fantail, White-bellied Tit, White-bellied Tody-Tyrant, White-bellied Treepie, White-bellied Tyrannulet, White-bellied Warbler, White-bellied Woodpecker, White-bellied Woodstar, White-bellied Wren, White-bellied Yuhina, Yellow-bellied Bulbul, Yellow-bellied Chat-Tyrant, Yellow-bellied Dacnis, Yellow-bellied Elaenia, Yellow-bellied Eremomela, Yellow-bellied Fantail, Yellow-bellied Flowerpecker, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Yellow-bellied Gerygone, Yellow-bellied Greenbul, Yellow-bellied Hyliota, Yellow-bellied Prinia, Yellow-bellied Robin, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied Seedeater, Yellow-bellied Siskin, Yellow-bellied Sunbird-Asity, Yellow-bellied Tanager, Yellow-bellied Tit, Yellow-bellied Tyrannulet, Yellow-bellied Wattle-eye, Yellow-bellied Waxbill, Yellow-bellied Whistler SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that's a lot. I feel like asking you to do some really repetitive task on Wikipedia I haven't got around to doing. Not sure of you needed to to make the point, but even harder to say "belly" is idiosynccratic now. —innotata 23:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It's OK, it only took about five minutes. And I've got a nice backlog of repetitive tasks of my own to get around to some day :-) SP-KP (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Gosh. What a long list. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Bristlebird‎

If anyone wants to expand this as part of a DYK, I have it included but haven't expanded it as I am tired and about to sleep (as well the bird doesn't grab my attention as much as other tasks) - see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_May_9...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fish Eagle

Should the dab at Fish Eagle be at Fish eagle (currently a redirect to Fish Eagle) or perhaps merged with one of the eagle pages? Snowman (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Stet. Maias (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it should be at "Fish eagle", as "Fish Eagle" is not a valid species name. According to Wikipedia's MOS, I think that means the second word should not be capitalized. MeegsC | Talk 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (117)

Snow, Anser erythropus. Not too sure of the location. However, I doubt this bird is there of its own volition. As you probably know, England is rife with duck ponds. I have the idea that this user went over to the Cotswald conservation village in Wiltshire while at the Mitsubishi Horse Trials (held at Badminton) to get all of the duck shots.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted. The location is wrong. I included it with a batch from Living Coasts in error. I have asked the author for the location, and I am waiting for a reply. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I got a reply on Flickr with the location. Lesser White-fronted Goose moved to File:Anser erythropus -WWT Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, England -head-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Milvus migrans. I don't recall that there is any special discourse regarding Milvus sp. in the Balearics such as there is in the Cape Verde Is., but you might check it. If there isn't, and I think there isn't, then that would make this a nominate race bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Milvus migrans Balearic Islands.jpg. —innotata 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Innotata, I am looking at this again with the advantage of the larger photo. The reason is that it does not make particular sense to me that they could be talking about reintroducing migrans to the Balearics. They have a problem with Milvus milvus going extinct there. This might be a subadult M. milvus. Will look better with books later.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this makes more sense. The higher degree of tail bifurcation (good for M. milvus), and the too rufous breast (for migrans) I should have been able to discern from the smaller photo that you originally linked. Please amend the file name to Milvus milvus, because that is what it is. I changed the description myself, but I don't know how to change the name of the file itself.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've moved it. You can request renaming on Commons using the template {{rename|name suggested|reason}}. —innotata 13:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Red Kite was moved to File:Milvus milvus Balearic Islands.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it helps to read Portuguese. Falco eleonorae. I recognized it on its morphology in any case.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was from the appearance, the automated translation as "sea hawk", and the Catalan mentions. Uploaded to File:Falco eleonorae Balearic Islands.jpg. —innotata 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Curiously, it seemed so much like a dialect of Portuguese, that I understood it, and did not even realize it was Catalan.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Snow, anything from the Philippines is in my wheelhouse. This one is confirmed, and also that it is on Palawan.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ardea sumatrana, also on Palawan.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Great-billed Heron uploaded to File:Ardea sumatrana -Palawan, Philippines-8.jpg on commons and selected for infobox on en wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Spilornis cheela palawanensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Crested Serpent Eagle now at File:Spilornis cheela -Palawan, Philippines -head-8.jpg on commons. Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Snow, you just can't tell from only a head, or bust shot. I could tell if I had it ITH, but I would have to do the morphometrics. It is considered on gross morphology basically not sexually dimorphic, though there are some very subtle differences, but I would need an entire series of good full body shots to just maybe, maybe, tell you the sex.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Torgos tracheliotus, adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Lappet-faced Vulture now at File:Torgos tracheliotus -Rio Grande Zoo, New Mexico, USA-8a.jpg on commons and selected for the infobox on en wiki. Snowman (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Bird 1179. [3][4] weaver in Rwanda. There are also some photos of breeding weavers, probably the same, and what appears to be a different bird[5], after these in the gallery. —innotata 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing IOC names

In compiling the above list of "bellieds" I noticed that quite a few IOC names are missing from Wikipedia.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Missing IOC names which I've started, and will complete when I have a bit more time.

SP-KP (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! We had a mass conversion somewhere which is still only half done....see User:KimvdLinde/IOC Names, User:KimvdLinde/IOC Names/Passeriformes and User:KimvdLinde/IOC Names/To Be Done. Before you get too stuck into it..we should get cracking and finish these.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
van der Linde's list hasn't been updated for a while, and the IOC has changed a lot of names, so we should probably ignore those pages now. —innotata 19:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:( Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be better to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Missing IOC names, so the current page that the list is on (the talk page) can be the talk page for the new list of names that is being constructed. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: sub-talk-page moved to sub-page as would be more conventional, I think. Snowman (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In case it is of use, I converted one of my HM files some time ago(that includes the HM races) in conformity with the IOC protocols. It is in Excel, and it is updated. Steve Pryor (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be moving any existing articles to their new IOC names? For example, shouldn't "Red Sea Warbler" now be moved to "Arabian Warbler" rather than the latter (new) name being redirected to the former? MeegsC | Talk 03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Some pages need administrator assistance to to clear the target page, and I think this has slowed mass conversions considerably. Snowman (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Presumably, it would be useful for an up-to-date IOC to be maintained perhaps on a sub-page of WP birds; however, I am unsure if the copyright status of the IOC's list would permit this. Snowman (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of providing the file via personal e-mail to whomsoever is involved in keeping this section up-to-date, but not uploading the file to the wiki.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have moved Red Sea Warbler to Arabian Warbler as the target page did not need deleting in this case. The one double redirect created by this move will be corrected by a bot fairly soon. Incidentally, I have prepared my semi-automatic software so that the regional lists can be updated with this particular name change (and many more page name moves to IOC names that I have done), but I would prefer to do this in a large batch and I need co-operation from an administrator, who will complete the moves that I can not do because of the editing on the target pages. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Done, incidentally, referring back to earlier comments, straight lists cannot be copyright because there is no creative input Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have moved all the other serpent eagles and the snake eagles. I came across a taxonomy issue - there are two binomials directed to South Nicobar Serpent Eagle (Spilornis klossi, formerly S. minimus), and the Circaetinae sub-family page has "Nicobar Serpent-eagle, S. minimus". The IOC has Central Nicobar Serpent Eagle (Spilornis minimus) and Great Nicobar Serpent Eagle (Spilornis klossi). There may be some double re-directs until the bot fixes. Is there a controversial taxonomy issue here? I hope someone has some up-do-date information to fix or explain these anomalies on on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The Nicobar Serpent Eagle was formerly placed under the name S. minimus. Since then, Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) showed S. m. minimus to actually be a subspecies of S. cheela (Crested Serpent Eagle), and S. m. klossi to be a distinct species. It adopted the common name Nicobar Serpent Eagle (under which minimus was formerly known). (Excerpted from BirdForum Opus), and it was correct until this new IOC interpretation. The only thing still unknown is (was) if the two taxa ever had overlap. However, the IOC seems to have now elevated the taxon minimus that had been re-associated to cheela to a good species, hence the need to amend the nomenclature for both taxa. I would be interested in reading the justification on which they base the resplitting from cheela of minimus sensu stricto. It could be just another of the PSC treatments that have creeped into the IOC list awaiting peer-review. "Exactly how many species are in Spilornis remains an issue. There are six here, but Ferguson-Lees and Christie (2001) list 13! I've not accepted the IOC split of minimus because I don't see any evidence to split this and not the others." from Boyd http://jboyd.net/Taxo/List9.htmlSteve Pryor (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As you suggest, Nicobar Serpent Eagle is not a name currently used by IOC. I am puzzled about what amendments are needed on the wiki. I would guess that the wiki could have articles on Spilornis minimus, Central Nicobar Serpent Eagle and Spilornis klossi, Great Nicobar Serpent Eagle as on IOC, if they are widely recognised to be species. Snowman (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Snow, unfortunately this gets into the realm of opinion. I have not been able to find a justification for the elevation of cheela minimus to specific status. S. klossi, on the other hand, seems to me to be a justifiably good species. I might drop a line to Boyd and ask him if he has seen such a justification, and to motivate his position of not recognizing the IOC interpretation. I am not saying that there does not exist a justification, just that I can't find one if it exists. So, if I was doing the deciding, and I am not, I would maintain the treatment of minimus as a race of cheela, and of klossi as a good species (maintaining the pre-IOC split nomenclature as being Nicobar Serpent Eagle). I would footnote taxon minimus on the cheela page, and mention that it has been proposed (by whom as I stated I don't know) as a valid species in its own right. It must be remembered that the IOC list is not a taxonomic authority, but rather a sort of working list that contemplates some rather loose interpretations that may or may not have yet been peer-reviewed to conform with the species concept used by the major text tax works, including the Howard & Moore, which in spite of Cracraft's close association to the HM working group, still follows the BSC for the most part.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The wiki article South Nicobar Serpent Eagle says "(Spilornis klossi, formerly S. minimus)", which implies post-split, so I will leave it with the IOC name at this juncture. The pages are ripe for updates. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Post move clean up done with semi-automated software. Most of the sea eagle and fish eagle name changes can be easily done by two regexs and one or two others need a specific consideration. I plan to update the regional lists, when I have accumulated dozens and dozens of name changes in the semi-automatic software. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Done this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pygmy owls

I don't know that there is that much new information. The same problem exists with the complex G. brasilianum-ridgwayi, that are probably allospecies, but that are variously treated either as split species, or still lumped. The IOC splits californicum (with grinnelli, swarthi, californicum, and pinicola); and G. gnoma (with hoskinsii, cobanense, and gnoma). However, the latest that I have, subsequent to the HBW, is the 2ed. Konig & Weick (Owls of the World) often times used as a sort of jumping off point for Owl phylogeny. I will have a look later on and see what it has to say.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it be better to treat any one of these groups as split or un-split? Currently the split taxa are species pages with a comment that they could be subspecies. I am wondering if they should be subspecies pages with a comment that they could be species. Snowman (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I am still looking into this. However, Owl phylogeny is really a briar patch, mostly due to the data deficiency of many of the neotropical taxa (meaning among other things the absolute paucity of genetic material of the taxa involved). Just to give you an idea of what a problem it is, here is a link to a discussion that my neotrop mentor, Rasmus Boegh, and I had concerning the so-called Choco Screech-Owl, a question that after more than four years has still not been resolved to anybody's satisfaction. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hummingbirder/487191434/

Steve Pryor (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Snow, the following according to Konig & Weick, 2nd Ed. Steve Pryor (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I had stuck in a rather long explication of the treatment of New World Glaucidium, that someone seems to have deleted for some reason! It seems I just totally wasted a couple of hours.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
My assumption was that the explication from the book was copyvio, so I have had to delete it, as I explained in the edit summary. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Then tell me where I can send it to you. I have it in .doc. Have no idea of where to look for your remarks in the "edit summary". However, I had attributed the entire thing, and it was excerpted, not a total copy, and dealt with their taxonomy, and their justifications only. I find little difference in this than in any other discussion when citing a source through op.cit: and quotation marks. It is just longer.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I wrote in the edit summary that I got the message, to indicate that I have the section. I appreciate the time that you have taken to find out more. I think that multiple excerpts would be copyvio. The wiki is quite strict on copyvio, so I had to delete it on suspicion. On the wiki I only communicate on wiki pages (or talk pages). Snowman (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine, as long as you copied it out and stuck it somewhere. You were asking for further delucidation into Owl taxonomy and this is just about the only source that deals with it post-HBW. I decided to give you everything about New World Glaucidium since you are apparently working on Pygmy Owls at the moment, and therefore you might have had other questions about the genus. Still not clear on the copyright violation thing. I interpret these talk pages as a place to furnish information to the Editors only, and not that what is written here is destined to make up part of the Wiki itself.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violations should not occur on talk pages. Snowman (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
...and I agree with that. I don't agree that it was a copyright violation. Nonetheless, if there is a difference of opinion on this, should there not be the possibility of providing information that has been requested after all by an Editor, to that Editor in a manner in which it is not publicly viewable, since the crux of the question seems to be this.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think participants with their wiki e-mail switched on do exchange information. I do not use wiki e-mail and I have my communications on the wiki visible on the articles, edit summaries, and talk pages. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (118)

Female Amblyospiza.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Amblyospiza albifrons female Rwanda.jpg. First image of the female on the wiki. —innotata 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Adult Malachite Kingfisher Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Two images uploaded to File:Alcedo cristata Rwanda 1.jpg and File:Alcedo cristata Rwanda 2.jpg. —innotata 17:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Adult male Cinnyris erythrocercaSteve Pryor (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cinnyris erythrocerca male Rwanda.jpg. —innotata 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Speckled Mousebird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Two photos uploaded to File:Colius striatus Rwanda 1.jpg and File:Colius striatus Rwanda 2.jpg. —innotata 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, adult female Cinnyris erythrocerca.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cinnyris erythrocerca female Rwanda.jpg. —innotata 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A difficult ID. In my opinion, this is Vanellus superciliosus subadult prior to entering first alternate plumage. Other input is welcome on this ID.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The other image in the series shows a nice whitish forehead - suggesting Vanellus lugubris - but thats to a complete stranger to African birds. Shyamal (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank for the input Shyamal. Though I don't think the two are the same bird, I agree that it is more likely that your suggested species is the correct one. Were it a subadult superciliosus a small backward projecting whitish line under the capped effect on the nape, extending from the posterior eye canthus should be visible, and it isn't. The comp photo is easily lugubris. On the linked photo I just can't see any white forehead, and the angle of the head is not that different from that of the other photo, so I should have been able to see at least a white edge were it adult. Therefore, I agree with you, Vanellus lugubris, however, an immature bird (there is also a slight zone of stippling of the plumage on the shoulder of the first linked photo indicating immaturity).Steve Pryor (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Francolinus afer. I question the quality of the photo. The race ranging here should be overall more brownish than greyish.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I won't upload it then (I didn't examine it very closely, and thought it could a species we don't have a photo of). —innotata 19:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is your call what to call this. The IOC has effected a split that I consider PSC, and calls it a White-bellied Cormorant - Phalacrocorax lucidus (this would be the nominate race in this case); otherwise it is a Great Cormorant - Phalacrocorax carbo lucidus. It is an adult in breeding plumage.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is not Southern Caracara (Caracara plancus). I would view it as a subadult given the vestigial brownish edges on the coverts, the grey-yellowishness of the tarsi, and the yellowness of the glabrous preocular skin. However, I would need more and better photos to make a determination of the race of Caracara cheriway that this is, that is, if it is the nominate or audubonii.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand that there are two subspecies in South Africa. Selected for infobox on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure which tax work you are using as an authority. The HM has four races in RSA. The bird in question is race psammophila.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I was using an old book mainly for the pictures. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another psittacine oddity - I know that some of you like this sort of thing...

The blue mutation Yellow-naped Amazon. Video here - the guy also has a few more videos of the bird on the same account. I'd heard of its existence, but I'd never seen footage of one. I don't think that there are many of these in the world. Seems to basically be the same deal as the blue budgerigar mutation, i.e. the yellow pigment (psittacofulvin?) is absent, leaving only the blue structural colour... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. There's a red mutation Blue-front now too... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
From commons: File:Amazona auropalliata (blue mutant) -cage-6a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
What colour is Psittacofulvin? I do not know what you mean by "blue structural colour". If feathers were blue, I would have thought that this would require a blue pigment. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know (I actually started drafting an article a couple of years ago - gave up due to a lack of quality online references), there are several psittacofulvins, also known as psittacins. They're responsible for reds, oranges and yellows[6] in some parrot species and are thought to be unique to the family. As for blue pigments - you might be surprised to hear that birds cannot actually produce the colour blue. It's all a trick of the light. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Sounds like it is due to interference (Color#Structural_color) similar to what happens on a diffraction grating. In which case I presume that it is due microscopic structure, rather than being due to the individual feather fronds that can be readily seen without magnification. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You're exactly right Snowman. It's all about the microscopic structure of the feathers. Someday, I'll get time to put a section about that into the feather article! MeegsC | Talk 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello Project Birds. I am new to Wikipedia, and I thought I could start off by expanding some of the bird pages which are stubs. I am in India, so I started off on Category:Birds of India. I am using Rasmussen and Anderton's Birds of South Asia to add text, while making no changes to naming. I've done up one page Abbott's Babbler, and I wanted to know what you guys thought of it. Is it OK if I now remove the stub tag? When, in general, can I remove a stub tag on such pages? Pratik Gupte (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pratik. Welcome to Wikipedia—we're happy you've joined us! Great that you're expanding some India species; there are certainly plenty to work on. In general, you can remove the Stub tag (and replace the Stub on the related talk page with Start) when you've done as much as you've done for the Abbott's Babbler. By the way, is that really such an enormous species? Or should that be mm instead of cm? One suggestion: whenever you include measurements, be sure to convert them to imperial units as well, for the benefit of our non-metric readers (US primarily). This edit is an unsigned comment by User:MeegsC at 03:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol. It is mm and not cm. Shows how blindly I was copying certain parts. I've never actually seen this bird. I'll change it immediately. I'll convert units too. Pratik Gupte (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah so you've already done that. Thanks.Pratik Gupte (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just changed the units. It would be much better if you could use in-line references, there is a lot in the guidelines about this, including at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Snowman (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I do have a question though. It seems that many pages on birds are created automatically from the entries they have on the IUCN Redlist. This means that in the case of Abbott's Babbler, the first sentence is from the second and third entries in the references, while the rest of the article is from Rasmussen and Anderton's 2nd Volume. What do I do in that case? I can't even cite different pages form the book. It occupies a quarter page. Pratik Gupte (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The information from IUCN could be also covered by the book, so here the information could have two references. If the information is not found in both sources then the IUCN part could have an in-line ref after the information sourced from IUCN and the section quoted from the book could have an in-line ref after the information that was sourced form the book. There would be several correct ways of dealing with this depending on what the information was. It probably would be useful to have multiple references for controversial material, or on pages that get edited a lot, such as the eagles. Make up your own mind. Look what is done on other pages. Look at the Good Articles and Featured Articles (listed on WP Birds main project page page), as these have had rigorous inspections and copy editing. Pages on the wiki should ideally be formatted in a similar way to make it easier for readers. Just cite the page even if it is from the same page each time. Using ref name ="xyz" is handy when the material is quoted from the same page of a book and this occurs on several parts of the wiki article. It usually suffices to use one cite after a block of sourced material - a part sentence, a sentence or a paragraph. Of course, do not copy out exactly the book or it would be a copyright violation - think about what the book says and re-write it in your own words. I expect that people will look at the Abbott's Babbler page and help you with formatting. If not dealing with common knowledge, ideally only make amendments or additions when you are certain and have a reliable source (WP:RS). Be bold (WP:Bold) to get things done. Snowman (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently added some text to Andaman Coucal, but I'm having problems with the references. I don't know how to merge two references into one, ie, make one reference with the a, b etc. and I can't seem to figure it out from what other people have done. The page Citing Sources says that I should do something, but clearly I can't get the hang of it. Any help?Pratik Gupte (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. MeegsC | Talk 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_54&oldid=1137392078"