Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Serious problem with an article

I was doing some reading on the article about the Anas genus of waterfowl birds when I clicked on the link to Yellow-billed Pintail and something disgusting and obscene came up. I can not even edit the link/direction article to fix it so someone with better knowledge or access should probably do something. Thanks for any help with this. Epf (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Using my computer I can not replicate the problem that you have encountered. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Epf, a well know troll has been hacking into various templates in the taxoboxes; a similar problem happened a lot yesterday. The best place to raise this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dodo if it happens again. If you got the image check the link I just gave also as you may have picked up some malware. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I was intending to change the visibility of this presumed vandalism in the edit history, but can't find where it happened. Maybe malware as SS says Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It was on Template:IUCN and has already been revdeled. I think the vandalism changed the entire page into a link to a malware site or something of the sort. Ucucha (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bird photo and birdcall recording source

An acquaintance of mine is taking freely licensed photos of North American birds and recording their birdcalls and making visualizations of them. Maybe you could help upload those artifacts to Commons and use them in relevant articles? Hope this is helpful! Sumanah (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What a coincidence: I also know Jonathon! I've uploaded a small number of his photographs from Flickr. I don't see the visualisations (and by this, do you mean spectrograms?) under Creative Commons licenses though (which would need to be Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike, like his Flickr photographs, but not Xeno-Canto sounds). What the linked blog post describes (I think) is a tool for generating these spectrograms. —innotata 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Jonathon here. Innotata, you know me? do I know you? :) Anyway, you're right that I've not uploaded any spectrograms, the tool is just for making little thumbnail icons for personal use. I'm not sure whether freely-licensed spectrogram images would actually be useful -- would they? In any case, spectrograms can be generated with a variety of tools, though I admit to being unsure about the issues around licensing a file that was software-generated from an audio file... Also, a bit of clarification on xeno-canto sounds: I know the standard x-c license terms are too strict for a lot of uses, so everything I've uploaded there are is also available under a Attribution-ShareAlike license in case that's useful for anything (see here) Jnthnjng (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A sonogram derived from an audio file would be a "derivative work" - a cc-by licensed audio would need the derivative to have the original source author to be attributed and the cc-by-sa would need attribution to the original author as well as require the derivative to be licensed under the same terms as the source(s) used. The license of the tool used in the creation of the derivative would probably have no relevance. Shyamal (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to put that much personal information up here now, so I think I'll email you via Wikipedia. Thanks for the note; as all your recordings are under the Attribution-ShareAlike license, they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and placed inside Wikipedia articles, and I'm sure we could use many of them. I've uploaded File:Picoides pubescens drumming Roberts Bird Sanctuary, Minnesota.ogg and added it to Downy Woodpecker so you can see what this looks like (incredibly, there was only one recording of a Downy Woodpecker). I'd imagine spectrograms would not be useful all that often, but sometimes they would be good to illustrate the differences between bird calls. —innotata 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Licence is CC, but one that is not permitted on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
For the sounds, you mean? Jonathon mentioned that he has also released them under the CC-BY-SA license, and noted this at his page at xeno-canto. —innotata 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see. I did not look at that page, which is somewhat remote from some of the sound files. I think that it would be clearer, if you linked this additional page about CC licence in the file details on Commons. The licence reviewers will be able to check the licence easier. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I did that, but somehow, the user reviewing the license didn't notice, and tagged the image for deletion. I've posted to that user's talk page. —innotata 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

discussion about daggers

There is a discussion going on where people are unhappy with the biological use of the symbol † to denote extinction. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of our articles it might be worth a look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomic authority

It was just brought to my attention that, although IOC is the standard for common names on Wikipedia, it is not the standard for taxonomy! If this is true, what is the standard, and can anyone rationalize it? This sounds much more confusing that the proposal I submitted above. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to understand. The taxonomy on the Wiki is based on the best evidence available from a number of sources. In many cases bird taxonomy is in a state of flux as can be expected at the cutting edge of a science. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about that very thought today. I was going to avoid a discussion for a bit given my questions on the IOC and diacritics. Since you bring it up, has anyone considered Clements as our standard? I prefer them for a few reasons: It gives us a single source to iron out many controversies, they continually update their taxonomic data (last in Feb 2011), they use other sources outside North/South America to base their decisions (use the British Ornithological Union for Europe, Royal Australian Ornithologists Union, etc), and Ebird uses them who have now loaded bird species worldwide into their database and are getting worldwide participation. Looks like the Brits are using the site pretty frequently. Clements also lists all subspecies. I know there is some reluctance to change taxonomy until Howard & Moore publish their list. I know Steve mentions it is weeks away. Does anyone know how HM will update once they publish their list?....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked at Clements in detail - suggest we all take a look and see how we feel. Have been a bit lazy and just used IOC as we are using the common names alot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, a quest for a "standard" is in vain as there really is'nt one, nor is there ever going to be a single unique and undisputed one. There is'nt even a "standard" definition of a "species" (see species problem). A lot of ecological research can do with very conservative treatments and are rarely going to be concerned with gene-flow, while those involved in conservation or population genetics might really go down to the level of metapopulations and look even beyond what the contemporary taxonomic literature deals with. It seems like the main motivation for a standard is to match the article names on Wikipedia to that standard and that itself may need to be questioned carefully. I am probably in the minority that is in favour of dealing with some phylogenetic splits on a single page instead of splitting into separate, stubby articles, especially since the life-history characteristics are nearly identical (perhaps with only call and distributional differences in the vast majority of cases). Shyamal (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, you must be kidding. What you describe is the furthest thing from "easy to understand". It is totally subjective. Anyone who expects everyone to come to the same independent conclusion "based on the best evidence available from a number of sources" is incredibly naïve. If this is such a surefire way to treat taxonomy, then why not do it for common names, too? Surely, if we use IOC for common names we should also use it for taxonomy. Now that is easy to understand. By the same token, if we're going to use Clements, then let's use all of it: taxonomy and common names. It is my opinion that the same authority should be applied to both taxonomy and nomenclature. To do otherwise is incredibly confusing and does not contribute to greater understanding and communication. For instance, what happens when IOC doesn't split something, but everyone else does. There is no IOC name for it, so now what? This problem has a very easy solution. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Snowman said everyone would come to the same conclusion based on the best evidence available.
As I understand it, the reason we don't use some world list such as Clements or the IOC for taxonomy is that some of the most knowledgeable people here feel that all of the lists are out of date and otherwise seriously flawed. We'll see how those people feel about the new Howard and Moore.
Cas, I'll be interested to hear your opinion of Clements. A few years ago, I saw some complaints from Australians about its names for several of their birds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jerry...I'm looking at Clements checklist 6.5 aargh, they have Maned Duck as well...Australian Ibis for Threskiornis molucca (?!), Australian Kite for Elanus axillaris (???) (both of these are too generic and there are other members of the same genus in Oz anyway), the native-hens are still hyphenated, they've omitted Red-collared Lorikeet as name of ssp rubritorquis of Trichoglossus haematodus. Hyphenating the King-Parrots looks very weird to me - something no-one ever does in Oz. will look more later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Snowman did not say that everyone would come to the same conclusion based on the best evidence available. What he did say was that "The taxonomy on the Wiki is based on the best evidence available from a number of sources" and that this was "easy to understand" (and, I gather, apply). I cannot disagree more strongly. Who decides this? Snowman? Or is there some committee of self-annointed, veteran Wikipedians in a dark, smoke-filled room that makes these decisions? Please excuse my facetiousness, but this is not a suitable way to run things. Jerry said, "all of the lists are out of date and otherwise seriously flawed". Yes, I agree. But there simply must be a standard; otherwise we have anarchy! Avoiding that was the whole point of adopting a common name standard, was it not? If, as I gather, there is no taxonomic authority, then everyone can go around changing pages based on what they think is right. And they won't be wrong. No one will. It's a potential cluster*#$&% that is easily avoided by adopting a taxonomic standard. If someone can explain to my why it's logical to use a standard for common names, but not for taxonomy, when the two are so intricately linked, I'm listening. "Because that's how we do it" is not an answer. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, look, here is how it goes. We used to be HBW for taxonomy and nomenclature. Then we started making taxanomic alterations because both had been fixed in the mid-nineties and were not keeping remotely up with changes (I think it was the albatross genera that started the whole thing). It was then that the two became unhitched. No other standard was picked because none seemed to reflect the fast changing world of bird taxonomy, which seemed an odd way to go on an encyclopedia that was supposed to be up to date. Then much later we decided to switch from HBW to IOC for names no one pushed to latch onto the IOC's taxonomy, although it does have the virtue of being up to date, because the focus at the time was names. That is why we do it that way, it is the way we do it, that doesn't mean we couldn't decide to do it another way if we chose to. Personally I have usually deferred to the opinions of Dysmorodrepanis on matters taxonomic, as I think a lot of people have; I wouldn't be adverse to following the IOC taxonomy either. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I am guessing this discussion is really about Bronze-winged_Woodpecker - if so, have added my comment on the talk page. Shyamal (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Shayamal. Bronze-winged_Woodpecker was indeed the spark that got me to start this thread, but it is not "about" that. My reason for posing this thread was one of genuine and utter confusion. Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like a****les, everybody has one, including myself. This notwithstanding, there are several things to be considered on this subject. First, the Clements list. This has ever been a reactive list, not a proactive list, meaning that it has always essentially waited around for other taxonomic authorities to do their peer-reviewing. Even when Clements was still alive, the list would wait for the HBW to publish a volume, and then immediately thereafter we would see a ton of updates (at that time through the Ibis Publications site). Upon Dr. Clements death, the administration of the list passed to the executors of his estate, and because there had been precedent agreement that the Cornell Ornithology Laboratory subsume to the direction of the list an initial tax committee, headed at that time by Jared Diamond, attempted in an extremely rushed manner to continue the tradition by preparing and publishing the ill-fated Clements 6° Ed. The problems immediately presented themselves since the vetting of the taxonomy was extremely lacunar, in many cases fallacious, and in many cases they even forgot the taxonomic changes that had been previously wrought, by them, through the Ibis updates. As a direct consequence of their rush to publish, the list took an enormous hit in its prestige. The tax committee that redacts the list has now assumed another direction with the substitution of Diamond with Tom Schulenberg. In my opinion, though it now seems they are getting their act together, the damage was done, and many that had used it as a taxonomic authority lost faith in the list and switched to the Howard & Moore. They are still laboring to reacquire credibility.
The Howard & Moore. Well, I admit to being preferential for this list because it was always pro-active in its peer-reviewing. Whereas the Clements had always had a regional credibility in North America for its close alignment with the ABA, the HM has always had a global approach. Ed Dickinson, and his collaborators have reviewed to a great extent much of the bird taxonomy worldwide (however, leaving out the New World preferring to integrate collaborators from the NACC, and in particular the SACC). The reviews have been published, and many are still to be found here: http://science.naturalis.nl/research/people/cv/dickinson
The problem with the Howard & Moore has been that the tax group had no provision for the continuative updating of the list other than providing small adjustments for the justificational attributions of the various bird taxa through a series of Corrigenda. There was no provision for the integration of splits, lumps, or specie novum. Hopefully, once the HM 4° Ed. is published, there will be such a functionality addressing this problem, perhaps through a web-site.
At present, ever since the faux pax of the Clements rush to publication of their list, there has been established an editorial board with regional sub-boards by the HM authorities that have been, and even now are proactively peer-reviewing avian phylogeny even at the highest level (sub-board headed by Cracraft). Hopefully, the publication of the new edition will give us a new starting point! It has been obvious for years that there is a dire need for a proactive peer-reviewing global authority, that is not unduly influenced by the siren call of the anarchy represented by PSC thought, and that makes an honest attempt to tie up all of the loose ends of an incredible number of regional taxonomic questions that have come forth especially in the last decade.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Steve, thanks for the info on Clements and Howard and Moore....I didn't know any of the past history of Clements or how Howard & Moore bases their decisions. One troubling point is the uncertainty about continual updates moving forward once HM publishes their new edition. Any way to verify? As an aside, any idea of a publish date for the new edition? I think you mentioned in past discussions it was weeks away....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Pvm, well, when will they publish? I have been waiting for them to pull the trigger for more than two years by now, and the story has always been shortly, almost there, hold your horses, etc. This is hearsay mostly from e-mails, but there have been problems with acquiring control of the remaining unsold volumes of the third edition (I imagine they want to cut the price and sell as many as possible), and then I heard that they are waiting on Cracraft. He might be a hard nut to crack since he will have to bite his tongue I would imagine. He is a dedicated proponent of PSC thought, and the approach of the HM is basically BSC, or reasonable variants. In any case, I can't imagine that it should be too far off. At a guess, late this year, or early next.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

For instance, I just found this 2010 study, which looks like the end of threskiornithinae and plataleinae... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Casliber, in re Trichoglossus rubritorquis. I am certain that they have seen the Christidis & Boles (2008). Paraphrastically, their position is not that it might not be a good species, but that the entire Trichoglossus haematodus complex is in dire need of revision (i.e., probably other species involved and not just rubritorquis). So, it is a position in abeyance of further developments as it were.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh I know, I was just pointing out they'd left out the name, as Jerry had asked me above about common names on Clements. Damn those pesky lorikeets for living on inaccessible islands...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Every single list that exists has some serious problems (name any major list and I'll point to several places where their treatment is in direct conflict with the published evidence). This is where taxonomy differs fundamentally from English names. English names are not about evidence; e.g., "this bird is called a Rainbow Lorikeet because DNA has supported that name". Taxonomy is about evidence. How can I, or anyone with a scientific background, justify following a specific taxonomic treatment just because some list does... when we know that taxonomic treatment doesn't match the published evidence? Natureguy1980, I believe there is a reasonable simple answer to your question on who decides taxonomic treatments on wiki: Evidence does. If you want to split off the Bronze-winged Woodpecker as a species, you should provide the published evidence for the it. This matches the very core of wikipedia: Anyone can edit wikipedia as long as the information is balanced and a reliable reference is provided. • Rabo³ • 12:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Rabo, in a perfect world I agree with you, however sometimes the evidence isn't strong enough, sometimes it is. Sometimes all the tax web sites agree, sometimes they don't. So in that imperfect world, with taxonomy always changing, how does one verify that changes are worthwhile, accurate and who decides and when? Right now as Natureguy1980 points out, it is pretty arbitrary and has no consistency. Some vandal could come up with a dummy study, or someone could come up with a weak study with little supporting evidence for each of the 10,000 species of birds, change the taxonomy and there would be no way to verify it. Also, I think we all know how difficult it is to cite references whenever we make changes. So are we doomed to leave a species taxon the same until someone cites some study to support the change? If we do that, I think in no time we'll be more out of date than we are now. Using a taxon web site, whether thats the IOC, Clements, Howard and Moore or Birdlife International or someone else makes it a whole lot easier in my opinion..Pvmoutside (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Your questions, Pvmoutside:
* "How does one verify that changes are worthwhile and accurate?": By reading the evidence pro/con, i.e. the basis for the possible change. Yes, this does require a level of knowledge about how biology works, but making major changes on wikipedia (regardless of subject) in a field you don't know is questionable in any case. Comparably, you won't see me making major edits to Bongo Flava or Beulah Gundling because my knowledge about these subjects is, shall we say, limited.
* "Some vandal could come up with a dummy study... there would be no way to verify it": Actually very easy to verify. Check if the quoted article/book exists. If yes, check it and compare with the information provided in the article. Perhaps I misunderstood it, but it appears you're suggesting that only sources that are freely available online are good sources?! If someone needs a source and is unable to find it, they can either ask here on the talk page of WP:BIRD or at WP:RX.
* "So are we doomed to leave a species taxon the same until someone cites some study to support the change?": If someone can't provide a source for a claimed taxonomic change, they should not add it to wikipedia. In cases where there is more than one taxonomic treatment (e.g. taxon treated as subspecies by some and species by others), it is by default "challenged or likely to be challenged" → WP:V. • Rabo³ • 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way: Just because a taxonomic treatment is used by the IOC but not other authorities doesn't automatically invalidate it either; evidence is the key. For example, among major world covering taxonomic lists IOC are the only to have Pygmy Eagle as a species instead of subspecies and I guess that is the reason this edit earlier today. The recent papers (here, here and here) that deal with it all support the split. No recent published evidence for its treatment as a subspecies. • Rabo³ • 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Rabo, a point well taken. Bird taxonomy is chock full of this sort of thing that we usually speak of as "being in the pipeline". I knew about weiskei only because I bought the Christidis & Boles when it came out. The most that we might want for a published list is that it ties up the clutter as much as possible, and that it gives us a new starting point, and then of course we all expect that other taxonomic problems will present themselves as we go on, and as we have more studied data to consider. BTW, though I am sure you are aware probably others are not. There will be a HBW-17. What exactly will be in it, well, I am not sure. I would expect it will be heavily taxonomic, and I would expect higher avian phylogeny to be a central thematic.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I knew something new was coming (supposedly announced at this weekend's BirdFair actually), but I'm pleased there will be another HBW! I was half imagining they would start at the beginning again in the light of everything new that has been learnt since 1992! At any rate, Another book for me to buy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to formally propose that IOC be the taxonomic basis for us at WikiProject Birds. As you can see here, IOC does keep up with taxonomy, and I don't think we could find a more up-to-date standard anywhere. Could anyone please let me know how to go about formally proposing this? Many thanks. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple, just create a new subsection, state the proposal clearly, explain the reasoning, then create further subsections for supporting, opposing, neutral and further discussion (look back at how I proposed to switch to their names). Personally I'm inclined to support, providing we can decide in certain instances to deviate if consensus decides. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think a policy of using IOC taxonomy as a default, with the provision that it may be abandoned in the presence of a clear majority, is a good one. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That would be my choice. Incidentally, it would be a worthwhile project for us to try and get daughter articles to match to their parent articles. We have quite a few Old World warblers where the parent articles list the species as being in one of the new families but are still listed as Sylviidae on the species page. Making our taxonomy consistent across the project is a worthwhile goal! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of reflections. The IOC taxonomy, and consequently also the common names, is supposedly aiming towards establishing an end point, with the Version 2.10. The implication is that their taxonomy is being reviewed (and there are a number of PSC splits in my estimation that may not hold muster) and destined to being folded into the HM 4° Ed. Further, in my view, there already exist certain problems with the higher avian phylogeny as it is now being presented on the IOC list (e.g., Ploceidae), and I would like to see this phylogeny being represented after due deliberation. I am as anxious as anyone else that a new point of reference is established as far as bird taxonomy. I am presently using myself the IOC taxonomy out of desperation. However, in my opinion, the HM 4° Ed. is certainly destined to assuming the role as the taxonomic standard in the near future. It should provide the new taxonomic starting point that has been lacking in the last eight or nine years. In spite of the mounting degree of impatience that many feel due to the taxonomic black hole that we have been thrashing around in the last few years, and given that the new volume should be published within the year, it seems to me that reconverting the wiki taxonomy to the IOC taxonomy may prove to be in many cases just make-work. I would counsel a bit more patience until a true annotated, peer-reviewed text taxonomic work is published, and then change the wiki taxonomy.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the standard used for taxonomy, I strongly advocate that it has to be the same as the authority used for common names. Right now, the we follow IOC for the latter. Would it not be a good idea to follow IOC's taxonomy, as well, until a better resource for both comes out? Then we can simply vote to follow a new standard. I contend that a standard is better than none. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomic Authority Proposal

I submit the following for your consideration.: "In order to conform with common name usage, WikiProject Birds will use IOC taxonomy as a default, with the provision that it may be abandoned in the presence of a clear majority." Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

  1. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. With some thoughts in the discussion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support with caveats. It would be nice to have a default standard we can look to to split/lump species moving forward. Commons currently uses the IOC for taxonomy. I like the idea of having the ability to challenge their splits and lumps, similar to what we do now with English names (African Grey Parrot, Australian Wood Duck, etc). Can splits and lumps/new species articles be reviewed and challenged by admins to ensure accuracy as best as possible? I know the past history and problems with Clements, but they update to subspecies, so their info may be more comprehensive and seem to stay current.......We could wait for HM, but Steve's past comments look like they've had problems in past getting something out. He does indicate something may be coming out soon, but sounds like past anticipated releases have come and gone with no indication of release???? With an IOC standard, it would give us some basis, instead of depending on a reseach paper or 2 to base decisions.......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Pvm, just a point of information. The IOC also deals with the subspecific taxa. I just got finished reviewing all of the subspecific taxa about three weeks ago communicating the entire time with Dr. Donsker. I have the entire thing on an Excel spreadsheet, and it is updated (not annotated mind you) to August 8. Anybody that wants the file can have it. Just get me your e-mail in some manner and I will send it. As far as the difficulty that the HM has had in the past with not allowing for some manner of updating the list, well, one can only hope that they have learned their lesson. I am certain that there is quite a bit of pressure on Ed Dickinson to ensure that past mistakes are not this time repeated. I would expect them to establish a web-based correction system directly connected to keeping the 4° Ed. updated.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Perhaps conflictedly opposed might be nearer the truth. I certainly agree that a taxonomic standard is necessary. I think, however, that adopting the IOC taxonomy is tantamount to making a purse out of a sow's ear. It has never been a taxonomic authority, and such has been the position of the IOC itself that disavows any inclination by third parties to endow a false patina of ufficious authoritativeness in a strict taxonomic sense. I will continue to use multiple taxonomic sources, complaining all the way, and I will wait until the HM 4° Ed. is published. We have all struggled in the taxonomic vacuum for years, a few more months will not change things.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I really think that this proposal is inappropriate. I think that there is absolutely no need for the Wiki to have IOC taxonomy "to conform with IOC common name usage". IOC have a list of English names, which is not the same as a taxonomy list. Taxonomy is a science that is evidence based and at present is subject to a lot of change due to scientific advances. I am not exactly sure what criteria IOC have to make a taxonomy list, but as far as I am aware, essentially IOC seem to have have names for anything that might be a species as a catch-all in order to have a name for every possible species including any taxa that might be split into a species. Erudite Wikipedians may wish to refine this over simplification and explain how IOC make their taxonomy list, so that others can make their own opinions based on better information. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The IOC is not the end on taxonomy. It can be one source, it can be a major source, but no, it cannot be the final word. Taxonomy should be based on reliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe that the current policy of following no taxonomic authority is anarchical. Adopting a standard taxonomy makes sense for the same reasons that adopting a common name standard does (which we have: IOC). It will help to alleviate conflict. I have included a provision that allows for deviation from the standard in the case of a clear majority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it makes sense to have a standard, so long as it is merely the default . Our taxonomy is a hopeless mess at the moment, and we'll retain the ability to deviate from it if we want to, but at least we can make the taxonomy we use internally consistent. I know all taxonomy is in a state of flux but I suspect it is going to continue to be so for quite a long time. So we may as well pin our colours to one of the better ones. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "presence of a clear majority": If this proposal is adopted, then I expect people will say that they will prefer a particular IOC taxonomy name, because it is according to the IOC taxonomy that WP Birds use. Thus I suspect people would have pre-determined opinions and vote in consensus discussions according to this proposal rather than on available evidence. I think this proposal is a bad idea that does not enhance good science nor good scientific discussion. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a hard one, for all the reasons outlined above. Part of me has been using IOC for species splits and lumps, as they have been updating pretty promptly on recent papers etc. But I have concerns about higher level classification. My feeling is that the project is harmonious enough and of a size where we've been able to sort these issues out on a case by case discussion. The clincher is Steve's note about upcoming which might be a good one to look at....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Even if we could depend on a timely publication of the H&M, isn't it rather silly to use one source for common names and another for taxonomy? Surely the two won't agree all the time. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually by adopting Clements (or another list) apart from the IOC as a default on taxonomy, it could give us a good comparison to make move decisions on both tax and english names by crosschecking both. For example, the english name Pink-legged Rail has been moved from New Britain Rail. No other tax lists refers to the bird as Pink-legged Rail except the IOC, all the other lists reference the bird as New Britain Rail, so it may make sense to change it back in this case. Similarly, the IOC is the only list to call the Galapagos Rail the Galapagos Crake. All others keep the english name as a Rail, so I left it. Taxonomically, we could do something similar. Use Clements as our default, compare the species to other tax lists and scientific literature, and make decisions and challenges there. It wouldn't be too hard to cross check the IOC english name with the Clements tax...At least it would give us a basis to start, and separate us from everyone else. We could drop defaults on everything and take a poll on all the current info, but I think that would be too difficult to do.......Just a thought..Pvmoutside (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian Wood Duck/Wood Duck

A small issue, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. The IOC english name Maned Duck has been rejected by Move Requests, looks like consensus went the other way to Australian Wood Duck. Should we now change Wood Duck to American Wood Duck to avoid confusion? I feel a disambig page occuring down the road. I'll be happy to leave as is....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We try to use the common name on Wikipedia, and surely American Wood Duck is not at all a common name. Presumably, the consensus was because Australian Wood Duck is in fact commonly used. It seems a really bad idea to move to a name that is not commonly used, and a name not used by our main standard. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that if there are only two topics, there should only be a disambiguation page if there is no primary topic, and I'd expect Aix sponsa is for the name Wood Duck. —innotata 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It would seem from "Chenonetta jubata". Avibase. that Oz Wood Duck is not much used while "Aix sponsa". Avibase. is plain Wood Duck on every English language list. Definitely should be Maned Duck. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed name changes - multi-move discussion about bird names

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the naming discussion taking place at Talk:Palawan Peacock-pheasant#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to review or help out, Black Honeyeater and Red-headed Honeyeater are at WP:GAN. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if anything can be added from HBW tomorrow. It might be worth putting a piccie of the habitat (or one of the habitats) in that subsection. Sabine's Sunbird talk
Not a bad idea. Not sure if we have any images of mangroves from NT though....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katgerste/2000293567/ Hows this?] Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Cas, just a real fast comment regarding Sugomel. I know for a fact that people get all screwed up with the confusion with Myzomela nigrita (Black Myzomela), and I know it because people have sent me photos for vetting that are often labeled incorrectly. Evidently, not so obviously, they are not the same bird, and probably a note to that effect somewhere would be appropriate. Second, the desinance of the subspecific epithet should be changed - speaking of as it is applied to Sugomel (neuter gender). The niger is a holdover from when it was associated with Certhionyx as the genus. It is correctly, when Sugomel is used, Sugomel nigrum.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Aha, good point. An annoying fact is we'd need a reference noting the confusion between it and Myzomela nigrita - hopefully a bird authority has noted it somewhere....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The Avibase page on Myzomela nigrita gives "Black Honeyeater" as an English name. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Although come to think of it, you don't need a source for a hatnote, do you? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
'Correct' or not the IOC seems to be the only authority that uses Sugomel nigrum rather than Sugomel niger according to Avibase.Marj (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Marj, be that as it may, somebody has to be right first. the -mel of the generic name refers to a substantive which is neuter in the latin, and since it ends the generic name it renders the entire name neuter. The ICZN protocols impose the change in the desinance of the subgeneric epithet. Here it is a question just of people adjusting themselves to the change in generic name, but it should have been done at once with the changing to Sugomel. By the way, in spite of Avibase, HBW uses nigrum, Boyd uses nigrum, Zoonomen uses nigrum. To insist with the usage of niger associated to Sugomel would be simply to perpetuate a mistake. Steve Pryor (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Are leaf-warblers "horny"??

From time to time, several IP addresses have been insisting on having the Leaf-warbler article say that leaf-warblers are "horny". One of these editors said in an edit summary that this is a commonly used term in ornithology and refers to the beak, but the change has been repeatedly reverted by users and bots who (I assume) think it is sexually related vandalism. Is there any acceptable alternative term (possibly "horn-beaked" or "horn-billed") that is accepted in the scientific community, would be clear to the average reader, and would avoid the mistaken assumption of vandalism? Or is this the one and only correct term, and we need to figure out some way to get people to understand and accept this fact? Or is this whole "horny bird" thing in fact really vandalism (and the claimed explanation is bogus)? Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been around a while and this is new for me. Unless this is some sort of strange usage to a limited group of people considering themselves "elite initiates" into some sort of restricted club, then it seems like somebody is playing on words. Just about all bird beaks are "horny" technically speaking in that most are composed of keratinous lamellae, the same material constituting mammalian "horn". To make a distinction of a group of birds being "horny" begs the proposition that they are different in this from other bird groups, groups that presumably do not share the characteristic of having keratinous bills and presumably sporting bills made of others materials, e.g., marshmallows, or cinnamon-flavored graham crackers. Acceptable usage in ornithological parlance should be restricted to the bill being made of horn-like material, or the color of a bill being horn-colored. Other usages seems to me to be purposeful attempts at cheap levity.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It's just vandalism. Check out the contribs from the last editor which include "Great Southern Horny Ocean". --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a few bird-related terms that can be used for cheap giggles. 'Cock' being the most obvious - also jizz. I have to admit that I cracked up laughing the first time (didn't know what the term meant then) I heard someone talking about a duck's jizz. Oh yeah, which reminds me - in the Greater Vasa Parrot article, is the "The males have re-evolved a phallus, one of the largest known in the avian world, and copulations can last up to 120 minutes" line correct or incorrect (or correct-but-intentionally-smutty)? Saw that a while ago, flagged it at the time but I forgot about it until now... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought the penis record belonged to Ruddy Duck but the article doesn't mention it. Given that I'm at work at the moment, I don't think I'll start googling on the subject. :) --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Lake Duck, also called the Argentine Ruddy Duck, is what you're looking for. —innotata 14:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Arnot's Chat

Myrmecocichla arnoti or Myrmecocichla arnotti. My sources can't seem to agree. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed by Steinheimer and Dean (2007). Apparently, Tristram (1869) named it after a Mr. Arnot, but incorrectly spelled the name arnotti instead of arnoti. Some people proposed correcting the name to arnoti, but since Tristram himself credited the name to a Mr. Arnott (incorrectly spelled), the ICZN's rules mandate that arnotti is correct. Ucucha (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the original description is here. Ucucha (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. The 2007 article is behind a paywall, can you send me the abstract so I can see if I can hunt it down elsewhere? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Weird, it opens for me. It is the third article listed here; I can send you the PDF if you want. Also, the 1965 article arguing that arnoti is correct is at doi:10.1080/00306525.1965.9633876, but I don't have access to it. Ucucha (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Though it might seem counterintuitive, the IOC has at least corrected the Common Name to Arnot's Chat (Pentholaea arnotti).Steve Pryor (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on what genus to place it in? It's in Myrmecocichla at the moment, but HBW pushes it and another into Pentholaea on account of them being smaller, more arboreal, nesting in holes in trees, lacking white wing panels, being more "normal" in shape and having more elaborate songs. At least the IOC thinks this is compelling enough to follow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sabine's Sunbird, I really haven't read any genetic workups in this regard. However, the factors you mention, especially cavity-nesting, and the more elaborate songs do seem compelling to consider them different. By the way, I sent a couple of missives to your institutional e-mail. Did you receive them? One in particular might be of interest as it is from Frank Gill and speaks to the changing scope of the IOC list, i.e., to now just for the common names, but with the intention of development as a bona fide peer-reviewed tax list in direct competition with the HM.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean my uni email? It is currently unavaliable, so sorry no I haven't gotten them (I really should get that back; deleted). As for cavity nesting all of them do out, only Pentholaea use holes in trees whereas Myrmecocichla dig holes in the ground or use rock cervices. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have stuck your e-mail in my add book, and deleted here to render it unpublic. Will forward the stuff I had already sent.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I get your input on an issue that's arisen at White Cockatoo?

See the discussion I've been having with an IP at Talk:White Cockatoo#ProFauna. He raises what seems to be some valid points about statements that were present in the article until yesterday and I've made some amendments to the article based upon the BirdLife International factsheet for this species - but I'd appreciate some eyes of the more ornithological perspective (I'm pretty much psittacculture) on this with regards to the status of the U2 in its native environment today and the extent of illegal capture for the bird trade. Cheers... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Similarly an IP has raised some points at Talk:Cockatoo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of taxonomy.....

Anyone seen this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that Psittacopasserae has been created, using that source. Maias (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I had a nodding acquaintance with the Hackett paper. However, I had not seen this paper. The technique seems promising, and I admit I am not up to speed on it. If this proves to be a valid key to unlocking the "silent genome", as it appears to be, well, then this is great news.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Some other comments had been posted here Hope it does not get confounded by HGT Shyamal (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I worry that some bird editors feel they have to keep up with cutting edge taxonomic studies or with the latest edition of whatever list. An encyclopaedia needs an amount of lag so that it reflects established and accepted fact rather than the latest theories. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
So does a checklist, if you want to know my opinion.
I'd say the new article is fine. The question is when, if ever, to start saying that the Psittaciformes and the Passeriformes are part of the taxon. Which wouldn't be so hard a question if we didn't overemphasize systematics here. (E.g., I'd say in hindsight that taxoboxes were a bad idea.)
Anyway, very interesting to see independent corroboration of the passerine-parrot-falcon connection. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Jerry, well, I know where you are coming from about the taxoboxes. However, just remember that higher avian phylogenetics is currently in a great state of flux, but that the huge realignments will be gradually ironed out and, at that point, the taxoboxes will again seem a good idea.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Common Gull, Great Black-headed Gull

Looking for some direction on these two........IOC lists the Common Gull as Mew Gull. I know there's talk of splitting canus from the North American form, but that's been talked about for a while with no resolution. There also seems to be a disambig page for Mew Gull referencing the Percival Mew Gull aircraft, as well as the bird. Regarding Great Black-headed Gull, the IOC lists it now as Pallas's Gull, but I see most of the tax lists keeping it as Great Black-headed Gull. Thoughts?...Pvmoutside (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Stamp thematics

It is useful to show a picture of a postage stamp in an article. For example, the one on the Atlantic Puffin article. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (128)

Will gladly contemplate other ideas on this one since my probable ID does not satisfy me for a couple of reasons including the tail length, and the undertail color, however, going through the range possibles and eliminating: not a Cinclodes; not any sort of Thrush that I can figure the plumage for, plus the bill would be extremely weak for a Turdidae in this locale; leaves, at least for me, Furnarius rufus, however, if that is what it is it is confusing for being one, including the rather grayish head, the longish tail, and the throat that is not conspicuously white. Having said that, I can't think of what else that it could be here.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Tell him thanks, and that I am ashamed of myself. I should have had this one. My mistake was that I foolishly used a book that I really detest - the Souza Bird of Brazil where it shows the bird with a lighter-colored bill, heavy throat streaking and a longer tail. I should have double-checked with Clement & Hathway.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If I had a dollar for every screw-up over the last twenty years, well.... Rest assured that I am not covering my head in ashes and wearing sack cloth! I like to think I am pretty good at this stuff.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, something weird has happened here. This is now redirecting to a picture of two Magpie Geese, but I can see the (I'm assuming) original pigeon in the upload history. MeegsC | Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's better. Adult Patagioenas speciosa.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I think I uploaded it with the wrong file name due to having several browser tabs open at the same time, and then someone moved the file on Commons. Fixed now. Just needs the version accidentally uploaded to the en Wiki deleting. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You mean the adult male Ploceus baglafecht reichenowi? That other yellowish bird looking at the watermelon is probably an immature baglafecht, but I don't feel like pulling the trigger on the ID - just too much not visible, including the iris color. BTW, this might be of interest: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwooper7/6013974507/in/set-72157623845943546
It is an adult Turdoides hypoleuca. No photos of it on the Wiki! Steve Pryor (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded two of the images in question to File:Ploceus baglfecht and Passer rufocinctus in flight.jpg and File:Ploceus baglafecht and Passer rufocinctus in Kenya 1.jpg. —innotata 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We have misunderstood each other. This is the adult male Ploceus baglafecht reichenowi: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwooper7/6014513602/in/set-72157623845943546
The ones you have linked, on the first the bird in flight to the left could be an immature baglafecht, and the second, the bird being yelled at by the sparrow is almost certainly an immature baglafecht.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked about the series of weavers with the sparrows, and I thought you were replying. I've corrected the images I uploaded; I don't know if the image of the male P. baglafecht should be uploaded. Isn't the weaver with the mouse is the same as the one being "yelled at" by the sparrow, and does that photo help? —innotata 14:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I clicked the Kenya set to get the whole series, and then I asked you about the adult male bird. In any case, I have the idea that all of those photos of the bird that you intended are possibly of the same bird - the watermelon bird, the sparrow-screeching bird, the flight bird, and the mouse bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As I suspected, Aplonis metallica, an adult. Aplonis is not usually kept for breeding purposes. Not that some might not be in trouble, but those in trouble are in zones so out of the way, and they might be so rare, and with such strict habitat requirements, well, you get the gist.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Metallic Starling moved to File:Aplonis metallica -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -head-8a.jpg on commons. Shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Chalk-browed Mockingbird Mimus saturninus --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Chalk-browed Mockingbird moved to File:Mimus saturninus -Paulinia, Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yellow-billed Kite. Maias (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Milvus aegyptius -Tsimbazaza Zoo, Madagascar-8a.jpg on Commons and shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the sign it might be Aepyornis hildebrandti, but I lack the knowledge to veri- or falsify this. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I can not corroborate that either. The elephant bird article implies that the taxonomy is controversial. Snowman (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sabine's Gull - pronunciation

Given the multiple different ways I've heard of pronouncing this species' name recently, I think it would be useful to include the definitive pronunciation, if there is one, in the article. Does anyone know of a reliable source on this? SP-KP (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was Say-bine, but then I met a girl called Sa-bin so now I'm all confused. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The on-line OED says /ˈsæbaɪn/. The NSOED (1993, p. 2260) agrees but prefers to transcribe the "cat" vowel as /a/. Do you want bibliographic information on that? Merriam-Webster on line says "/ˈseɪbaɪn/, especially British /ˈsæbaɪn/". (It mentions the people and the languages, not the gull.)
All pretty consistent, compared to "jacana". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, this is good - no source suggests the second syllable is pronounced "Been" then? I'll add the two alternative pronunciations to the article. SP-KP (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd always thought it was "say-been's" gull. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You could check Maquarie, if there's one around. (A copy of the dictionary, not a gull.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It is SAB-in. Rhymes with "tab in". Natureguy1980 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

IOC Clean Ups

To all Birdproject admins. The move bar is locked on all the species below. All need a capital letter after the hyphen to get consistent. FYI, The Peacock-pheasants may be acted upon today by requested moves looking at the schedule. I've just sent over the quail-doves yesterday.

Jim requested I send the requests here........(Thanks Jim)....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quail-doves done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Pheasants done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Grey-headed Quail-Dove → Grey-fronted Quail-Dove

Looks like the AOU split the Cuban/Hispaniolan endemic Grey-headed Quail-Dove into the Grey-fronted Quail-Dove and White-fronted Quail-Dove back in 2004. I've created the page for the White-fronted (Hispaniolan endemic). The move bar is locked to move the Grey-headed to the Grey-fronted (Cuban endemic). Once the page is moved for Grey-headed, I can change the text....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's moved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Griffon Vulture - lifespan of 118 years... hooey or not hooey?

Ended up at the Griffon Vulture article this morning and noticed that it currently states that 'the oldest death recorded in captivity is 118 years old'. Anyone able to find a reliable reference to corroborate this? At present it looks to me as though someone has just typed 'Life-span of Griffon Vulture' into Wolfram Alpha and then used a link to the search result (which doesn't state specifically where it got that number from) as a ref. I'm sceptical. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source is http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords/0303.htm which gives 41.4 years. Shyamal (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say that AnAge backs that up - but then I realized that its data for this species comes from the above link... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

IOC Clean Ups

A few more (move bars locked):

 Done. All of them. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

communal names for groups of birds

Does anyone have an opinion on the tendency of some people to dream up (to my mind ridiculous) names for groups of birds (or other animals), and the corresponding tendency of some editors to add such names to the articles here? You can usually find a corresponding citation, but does anyone outside of the writers of articles called "what do you call a group of..." actually use them, as opposed to just "a flock of ..."? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan but the subject does exist. Seems to be one of those things that non-birding trivia collectors know about. See List of collective nouns for birds where the cites are pretty thin. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There a a few that have real usage, such as "skein of geese". The rest, on the whole, are literary concoctions. I would revert if
  • there is no source
  • if the term is sourced, but misapplied to a whole group of species rather the British species to which it was originally referring. (eg "murder of crows referring to non-UK corvids).
II'd be inclined to revert sourced names for appropriate species as non-notable, but it seems to me that is the case we need to discuss. If we keep these, the text should make it clear that these are literary terms rather than words with real currency Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly shouldn't say anything like "The proper term for a group of ..." If the term is sourced and correctly applied, one possibility is "An old term of venery for a group of..." Or "collective noun". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There are only a handful there that I've ever heard in common use (a murder of crows, a gaggle/skein of geese, a kettle of vultures), FWIW. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's my understanding that a group of geese is only a skein if it's in flight. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "gaggle" on the ground
A "kettle of vultures"? Really? I've never heard that before and it sounds absurd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"kettle" I have seen, although it's not common. I've never seen "murder of crows" in any serious context. Love Jerry's suggestion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've also heard it said (may have been on a wildlife doc, maybe not - I honestly don't remember) that vultures are 'kettling' when they're circling in the air/massing around a weak or dying animal, just waiting for the right moment. When the term kettling first made its appearance in the media, I distinctly remember wondering to myself if this was a reference to the vulture behaviour. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've encountered "kettle" for flocks of migrating hawks (especially Broad-winged Hawks and Swainson's Hawks) and vultures (especially Turkey Vultures) as they circle and rise in thermals. According to Dunne, Sibley, and Sutton in Hawks in Flight it was originally a dialect term from the mid-Atlantic U.S.—see Hawk Mountain. The equivalent in New England is "boil". "Kettle" has spread to birders, wildlife writers, and the like around America. I'm not sure it's used anywhere else. I hadn't heard it for vultures circling around a dying animal, but then I might not have.
If I ruled Wikipedia, the articles on collective nouns for animals would distinguish between fanciful inventions, dialect terms, terms used by people in general, terms used by scientists, etc. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I'm sorry to bother you, if this isn't the right place for it, please do not hesitate to remove it :) I just came over from the German Wikipedia to translate the article Alison Styring into English and if you can spare the time, I'd appreciate if you checked it for grammar errors; English is not my native language. In this context, I also wanted to raise your attention on Styring's project Mapping a Bornean Soundscape. I contacted her via email and asked her whether she's willing to put her soundfiles on Commons. Today she answered and told me she would as long as her name's attached to the files (i.e. cc-by(-sa)). I think this is a great opportunity for us to get a huge number of bird sounds for our articles and it could be the only one in a very long time. So if you think this is a project worth supporting ... :) Oh, and please don't take the article as a means of advertising. She meets the notability criteria of the German Wikipedia and I thought she should at least have an article in her own language. Thanks for your attention and best wishes, Toter Alter Mann (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good place to ask for any kind of attention to a bird-related article. You can also request a copyedit by following the directions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests. I haven't tried that, but you might get a response sooner there than here.
I'm definitely in favor of getting sound files! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The en article should have a template to say that it has been translated from a German Wiki article, with the version number of the German article. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion, because I do not see anything in the article that would make it notable according to Wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:TOL#The biggest clades of them all...which ones belong on Wikipedia?

Please see the link above. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

More unreferenced bird diets

See 88.104.232.22 contributions, where IP has amended bird diets. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On the balance of probability and considering that he's hit Abyssinian Ground Hornbill before, I'd say that it was the 'diet of frogs and rodents' man. Reverted. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IOC Clean ups

These pages are locked:

Done this one. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that this one might be controversial - there's been discussion of the name of this (sub)species in various places before, IIRC. Probably best to wait to see what people have to say before moving this... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I would be very interested to see a thorough article clean up. I think "Un-cape Parrot" as a separate species is not well accepted. Is "Un-cape Parrot" better merged into the "Cape Parrot" article? Snowman (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, thanks for the input, I merged the Un-cape Parrot article into the Cape Parrot article, and made Un-cape a redirect. Hopefully that should take care of it....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IOC English names

Everyone, this is probably not a big deal, but some of the IOC english names (no tax changes) are only used by the IOC, and everybody else uses another english name. I decided not to change Galapagos Rail to the IOC Galapagos Crake, but some of the parrots have already been moved (Rose-crowned Parakeet IOC, everybody else Rose-headed Parakeet// Blood-eared Parakeet IOC, everybody else Red-eared// Ochre-marked Parakeet IOC, Blue-throated Parakeet everybody else). Is it worth it to change these back, or better left alone? I'm sure there are others...Pvmoutside (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I recall that many of the parrot names were changed at the time of an intense discussions on page names, so I think that it might be worth revisiting parrot names again. However, I think there would need to be good reasons with a clear consensus to change any of them back. As first sight you seem to have provided some good reasons. The controversial parrot names might have to be considered individually. Have you assessed the use of: Snowman (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Goffin's Cockatoo verses Tanimbar Corella? Snowman (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Tucumán Amazon verses Tucuman Amazon? Snowman (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sun Conure vs. Sun Parakeet? (if we're going to open a can of worms, then we might as well do it RIGHT!!!) :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose all, again. Snowman, can you stop nominating these in the hope we'll change our minds. I don't like some of the changes too, ut disrupting wikipedia to make a point isn't going to help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I think by far the best thing we can do is actually write to the IOC and point out discrepancies. I concede why many are unhappy about the word "conure" - "corella" I think works very well as a descriptor for cockies of the subgenus Licmetis - and the best thing here is to write to the IOC, not change ours. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
        • IMO, 'conure' used as a term for 'New World parakeet' (as it pretty much was anyway) would be appropriate - and certainly more descriptive than 'parakeet' alone. I was only being semi-serious when I mentioned the Sun Conures again. I know that this has been done to death here and is unlikely to change at any time in the foreseeable future - just poking you guys a bit. The Sun Parakeet/Conure naming dispute seemed to be the one to generate the most controversy over the years though, I guess because it's an iconic, distinctive and familiar parrot - wheras Snowman's particular bugbear seems to be the Goffin's Cockatoo - maybe he owns one? Dunno... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I didn't realize I was opening Pandora's box again. Thanks Snowman for the history. I was unaware of the previous discussions. On a related topic, I've added a number of species to a template created for the African Grey Parrot exception. If anyone want's a look, they can find it at Category:IOC name exception. I was leery of changing a number of species to the IOC name. They either didn't make sense to me, none of the other tax web sites were using the IOC name, or the move would create controversy. Let me know what you think....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
            • There are so many moves needed that I don't think it's a bad policy to personally hold off one ones you are unsure of, just get the no-brainers done. I have never moved Giant Forest Honeyeater to Yodelling Honeyeater, but I don't think it shouldn't be moved eventually. I simply have no desire to do it myself. I am leery of us granting too many exceptions, it undermines the point of the standard, which is supposed to reduce the constant arguing. But for example while I agree that Galapagos Crake is hideous, I'd move it because I don't think the case for not doing so is strong enough. The species isn't widely known outside birding circles, and no one who knows it would be confused if they found it at crake. African Grey Parrot however is a good example of a worthwhile exception because it is so widely known as that and is widely known outside of birding and even aviculture circles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I thought Galpagos Rail was a better name because it is sometimes considered conspecific with the Black Rail (which is not named as a Crake) along with moving back the Junin Crake to Junin Rail. I thought keeping them all the same (as rails) made better logic since they are all clearly closely related and Black Rail seems to be the superspecies...Pvmoutside (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
                • I agree for our reasons it is hard to see why the IOC went with Crake. Perhaps that is what it is called by English speakers in Ecuador who take the tours? The point is that we should be directing that kind of thinking at the IOC team, and in the meantime follow their advice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • RE: Rail/Crake. Historically, crake has been used for almost all small, plump and relatively short-billed rallids. This matches Laterallus where most species consistently have been called crakes and only a small minority rails. If you look through the entire family, you may notice that there are extremely few exceptions to this rule (in addition to the 3 Laterallus "rails", the main exceptions are the 2-3 Coturnicops "rails"). I'd bet IOC felt tempted changing Black Rail too, but knew that would be a losing battle because of the many US birders used to Black Rail and it would have needed an entirely new name to avoid conflicting with the "real" Black Crake of Africa. • Rabo³ • 20:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • RE: Conure/Parakeet. The earlier comment that "'conure' used as a term for 'New World parakeet' (as it pretty much was anyway) would be appropriate." deserves a reply. Please do remember that conure essentially is an aviary name virtually never used by people working with these species in the field/bird watchers. To favor the name Conure, let's check a genus that contains a large percentage of the species most frequently kept in aviculture: Aratinga. Based on google there are 6 species where Conure is most common (Sun, Mitred, Finsch's, Jandaya/Jenday, Golden-capped, Orange-fronted/Half-moon) and 16 where Parakeet is most common (Blue-crowned/Sharp-tailed, Green, Pacific, Socorro, Red-throated, Scarlet-fronted, Red-masked/Cherry-headed, White-eyed, Cuban, Hispaniolan, Sulphur-breasted, Dusky-headed/Weddell's, Olive-throated, Peach-fronted, Brown-throated/St. Thomas, Caatinga/Cactus). Not that a google search should determine where a species should be placed, but it indicates something about how common the names are. Additionally, there are numerous of the so-called "conures" that rarely–if ever–are kept in captivity. This is especially true for several Pyrrhura spp (Santa Marta, El Oro, White-necked, Flame-winged, etc), and the monotypic Leptosittaca and Ognorhynchus, so using an aviculture name for them would be highly questionable. Finally, there's a bunch of parakeets from the Americas that people in aviculture usually also call parakeets (not conures): Brotogeris and Bolborhynchus. In summary, one can present an argument for some species as conure, but there's a large percentage of the species where no such argument is possible. • Rabo³ • 20:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • Reasonable point. It was an ill-thought comment written in haste. I was thinking principally of Aratinga and Pyrrhura when I posted. Just as a matter of interest, is the statement at Conure#Scientific_Classification, "The word conure is an old term and was originally used as a descriptive name for the members of the no longer-used genus Conurus, which included the members of Aratinga and Pyrrhura" incorrect? Were these species never known as 'conures' by ornithologists? I was under the impression (no, not because of that line) that lots of these species used to be known as conures outside of aviculture too... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • In the most widely accepted form, Conurus was mainly used for some of the current Aratinga, Pyrrhura, Nandayus, Cyanoliseus, etc., but historically it also included some species from the Americas that are not called conures by anyone today (e.g., Red-shouldered Macaw, Brotogeris, a few Psilopsiagon), and a range of long-tailed species found outside the Americas (some Charmosyna, Psitteuteles, Cyanoramphus, Purpureicephalus, Neophema, Psittacula). As an English name it has, with very few exceptions (the most notable exception is arguably Thomas Arndt since he has worked extensively with Neotropical parrots; unlike some other people frequently listed as "worldwide" authorities on parrots), not been used to a greater extent among ornithologists/birdwatchers in the last ~40 years. I am less familiar with older works, and if you want a complete picture of the situation before that I'll have to dig out more sources, but Peters' work from the 1930s didn't include English names, Hellmayr and Conover (e.g., Cat. of birds of the Americas, 1918) variously used parrot or paroquet (an obsolete version of parakeet), Sclater (e.g., Argentine orn., 1889) just used parrot, and Latham (Gen. Syn. Birds, 1781) used parrakeet. The double "r" version can also be seen in other contemporary literature. However, in several other languages –most notably French, but also Italian, Norwegian, etc–, conure or a variant of that is the main name used for these by everyone. • Rabo³ • 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • RE: Tucuman/Tucumán: I was under the impression that IOC specifically have said pronunciation marks are left for out simplicity and they invite people to add them as preferred (see last sentence). Personally I prefer them because I'm used to speaking languages where they are important, but regardless of my own preference I'd never move a page on that basis alone. • Rabo³ • 20:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Common Buttonquail (current IOC name) versus older IOC name of Kurrichane Buttonquail - I see no reason for not following the new decision of the IOC which is and was the preferred name outside of Africa and Spain. This is tagged as an exception on its talk page - not sure if this tag is meant to be an indicator or an order for editors who are attempting to move the article. Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, many names that the IOC diverts from the more common usage have good arguments. Goffin's Cackatoo for example. The scientific name associated with the name turned out to be a synonym of a different species, and maintaining that name would split the Cacatua goffini from Goffins' Cockatoo. Anyway, Can we avoid this discussion and close it? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Great Black-headed Gull to Pallas's Gull

I've intiated a move from Great Black-headed Gull to Pallas's Gull on move requests seeing no comments on this move. Feel free to commenton the Great Black-headed Gull page....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Speckled Teal, Yellow-crowned Amazon Complex

Any objections in me splitting the Speckled Teal into Andean and Yellow-billed? (South American AOU and IOC have them as a split). Also was reading about Yellow-crowned Amazon on our page. Appears there is some conflicting info there. We lump. Everybody else (including the AOU-all species are North American) split. Looks like Rabo3 doesn't mind given his note. Anyone else?..Pvmoutside (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I am not sure what your plans are for the Yellow-crowned Amazon page. I think that User Rabo3 has made a good job of explaining the taxa there, and I would be reluctant to change it without asking User Rabo3's for his opinions on the specific changes that you are considering. I think that User Rabo3 could be a very helpful as a key member of the team working to enhance this article on Amazon parrot taxa, so may I suggest leaving a message on User Rabo3's talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure I see the point raised for the amazon parrots. Contrary to suggestion in the initial post, we don't lump (Amazon parrot#Classification, List of Amazon parrots, etc): We have Yellow-crowned Amazon (see also its intro), Yellow-headed Amazon and Yellow-naped Amazon as species. Are you suggesting that the taxonomic section only can mention the exact taxon of the article? That we can't speak about relations between it and other members of the group, i.e. that we should censor out potential conflicts between various taxonomic treatments? If so, the purpose of a taxonomic section disappears entirely; here and in all animal/plant articles.
    Or are you suggesting that we should split this complex further? As already mentioned in the existing articles, it is possible to split Tres Marías and Panama Amazons (we already have a page for the latter as a ssp, but none for the former – a split adopted by IOC). If people want to start a page for the Tres Marías Amazon, they should obviously feel free to go ahead. However, regardless of the taxonomic treatment used in such an article (sp. or ssp.), it should clearly mention that two taxonomic treatments are in use (cf. Panama Amazon article). • Rabo³ • 14:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My bad, after I read through them more thoroughly they looked pretty good. I'll touch them up lightly. Should be done in the next day or 2. I'll leave content essentially as is......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Is anyone getting the whiff of people trying to impose sentence case on us again? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is to write all the guidelines for species capitalisation in one place, and I think that this is probably a good idea. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
And yes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Albatross ID

I'll be uploading quite a few pics from a pelagic trip soon, but while I'm processing them I thought I'd ask about the ID of this guy. I'm guessing its a juvenile of some species or other, but I'm not sure what. Any suggestions? Wandering, Southern Royal, Yellow-nosed and many Shy Albatross were sighted on the day if that helps. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless Sabine's Sunbird says something different, I'd have this as Black-browed Albatross in a sub-adult plumage. The bill becomes paler as the bird progresses to maturity, so the other bird will be a younger sub-adult. Is this Kaikoura? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
About 25-30 km east of Eaglehawk Neck. I should be able to give it a half accurate geocode later - I recorded our position semi-regularly with my phone GPS. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with Jim's assessment. Nice pic! MeegsC | Talk 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

BOU changes

For anyone interested, the British Ornithological Union changes are out. Major changes are:

  • Water Rail split
  • Black-capped Petrel split
  • Kentish Plover split
  • Whimbrel split
  • Great Skua split
  • Sandwich Tern split
  • Sand Martin split
  • Hippolais warbler split and genus change
  • Siberian Thrush genus change
  • Luscinia genus change
  • Muscicapinae sequencing
  • Stonechat split
  • Greenfinch genus change
  • Eurasian Bullfinch split
  • Dendroica genus change

Some of the above changes have already been made on Wikipedia. Some of the changes have been only considered by the BOU. The full article is attached here: [1].....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, added Cabot's Tern to my list!!! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that these are only recommendations, and that the full committee has yet to vote to accept them. Check out the first couple paragraphs and the title of the article. If correct, any changes on Wikipedia could be premature. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Split Augur Buzzard

Any objections to split Augur Buzzard from Jackal Buzzard?....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Caps. Again.

Just in case you haven't been keeping up on the species name capitalization discussion, they've gotten around to what we all knew they'd get around to — demanding the WP:BIRD "get on board" with making all name references lower case because "that's what everybody else does". Sigh... MeegsC | Talk 12:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Called it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    They want us to "get on board"? Tell them to "jump off our boat"!! "That's what everybody else does", well, to reiterate an aphorism used and disabused by my father "if somebody jumps off of a cliff, does that mean you do too"? I do not understand why there are always some people that would wish to impose a regimented conformity, obviously, somehow, at least for someone of my limited mental capacity, for the greater common good. To rope in a rather abstruse erotema I might ask such people "Who is John Galt"? There is absolutely no good reason why there must be standardization in naming conventions across the entire gamut of biotic entities. Finally, in Ornithology we are now starting to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, and finally getting our act together as far as our naming conventions. They are absolutely free to muck things up to their hearts content for other things, but leave the birds out of it!Steve Pryor (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    Obviously, I can't speak for everybody dealing with the naming conventions of birds, however, I did dare to give them a piece of my mind at least, in the Two Cents section.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    Why, yes, you did Steve... and as I suggested there, please review WP:CIVIL. Also, grow up. Btw... for everyone else who has remained civil, the comments I made that helped spark the discussion did not say that this project should be forced to conform. Instead, I merely pointed out that our inconsistent use of case reflects poorly on the encyclopedia since other encyclopedias use only one case for all species. I merely suggested that we should conform, either on sentence or upper case. But, clearly, people are willing to take this nuclear (as Steve demonstrated), suggesting this will remain yet another one of Wikipedia's unresolvable issues. In the meantime, we'll just stick with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Personally, I'm tired of trying to start civil discussions about major issues on Wikipedia and getting attacked for it. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No Visionholder, you didn't say that. But several others who posted later surely did. And since we here at WP:BIRD been fighting this same fight over and over and over and over, we're all getting more than a little tired of it! So yes, some of us may be losing our tempers. Because, despite the fact that we show increasing numbers of reputable journals doing exactly what we're doing, it's not enough. Apparently. MeegsC | Talk 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (who's also tired of trying to hold civil discussions with people who can't be bothered, so can certainly sympathize)
(edit conflict)Yes, I did say that:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Other encyclopedias use sentence case for all common names, including birds. Whether it be sentence or upper case, I suggest the same approach: consistency. It makes Wikipedia look much more professional. – VisionHolder « talk » 8:11 pm, 16 September 2011, last Friday (7 days ago) (UTC−4)

As for my earlier comments to which Steve replied, I think comments both on that page and above demonstrate my point exactly: "They want us to "get on board"? Tell them to "jump off our boat"!!" Once any group is given the rights to set their own rules, they rarely give that right up without a fight. I just didn't want the other projects hunkering down like you guys do. In other words, if some agreement is to be reached—possibly with the other projects adopting upper case—we shouldn't be talking about having them lock their policies in place now while a more general consensus can't be reached. All it will do is allow the other side to become deeply entrenched, and then compromise isn't possible. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Visionholder, with comments like "grow up", I would suggest you read WP:CIVIL. • Rabo³ • 13:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Lol! First of all, no comment from you on Steve's remarks. Does this mean you endorse his comments? Second, did you read what he wrote? "purview of some sort of self-elected intellectual elite arrogating themselves as arbiters"... "intellectual socialism"... all the kind of crap you find on Tea Party politics forums... which are certainly not civil. And best of all, he came back here to thump his chest about what he wrote. No, someone who does that has maturity issues. I'm just calling a spade a spade. I will apologize of course—as I always do—but somehow I don't see any apologies coming from this side. (Every time I apologize on Wikipedia, the other person and their supports never do the same.) So this time I will withhold my apology until Steve recants. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did read what he wrote and you had already pointed him to WP:CIVIL (twice! Here and here). Why should I do it again? The only person who still needed a pointer was you; you were evidently familiar with the policy before this, but it appears you forgot it is valid for everybody, including people that respond to what they perceive as incivility. • Rabo³ • 04:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
MeegsC, can you point me to some analysis showing that increasing numbers of reputable journals capitalize? Or even better, that most RS capitalize? It's great that WP:BIRDS backs up its style convention that is different from the rest of Wikipedia and normal written English with the reference to HotBotW—and maybe that's enough—but I think it would go a long way toward shutting down these calls for consistency if it was demonstrated clearly that in scholarly literature, or perhaps in RS in general, that yes, in fact, birds, and only birds, are usually capitalized. I'm unable to find this evidence myself, but you obviously know more about this than I do. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Visionholder, the question has become redundant, and too often recurring. It begins to seem like some would wish to win the point through a war of attrition. Do not be surprised that people lose patience with it. Once reasoning has failed, once patience runs out, once we continue seeing the same refried beans, well, do not be surprised that people become less civil. It might be cogent that you ask yourself the reason that such a response was elicited. As is evident from the first part of the response, there was talk of "rights" given, and "rights" being rescinded, and with no apparent consideration of why those contributing to the wiki bird project have consistently taken what might appear to you personally, as a hard-line stance. Personally, given the past history of this subject, the proposition made me bridle! I found it certainly not uncivil, however, I did find it minimizing, and presumptious respect to the very good reasons that we have considered at length, and after much discussion amongst ourselves, before taking a position in merit. As written, it is evident that our rationale is simply not to be considered, is obviously irrelevant, and that the wiki bird project, and its contributors needed to be whipped into line, as it were.
I just reread my posting, and do not find it uncivil. I find it a forceful peroration of a viewpoint held by many dealing with ornithology. If you find it personally uncivil then it is because you wish to define it thus, and win points in this manner. When I actually want to be uncivil, I am quite capable of being so, but do not do so on public fora such as this. Therefore, I do not agree that my posting was uncivil. Exasperated, impatient, forceful, yes, uncivil, no. As for recanting I will decline. As for talk of apologies, I find the subject out of context. We simply are in strong disagreement on a point of order, that of wishing to maintain bird naming conventions acquired with much compromise, and after many years, and to not cede them to the needs of others for the sole purpose of conformity. From my viewpoint, I took issue with a thesis of forced regimentation, and attacked this position, and attacked nobody personally. The only indications that I have seen personally attacking somebody is in your comments towards my evident immaturity, my supposed political affiliations, and my obvious incivility.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Steve, I am relatively new to this debate. All I know is that other professional encyclopedias are consistent, and our lack of consistency only confuses new and existing editors. I knew you guys were entrenched—I had been warned. But since you likened the idea of conforming with "intellectual socialism", what would you say happened with Encyclopedia Britannica? No doubt their paid writers faced the same dilemma. Do you think they went through what we go through—a protracted series of disputes with plenty of name calling? No, the managing editor probably weighed the arguments from both sides, saw standardization as more important to the professional appearance of their encyclopedia, and then dictated to his editors that they would use sentence case. Something that you (and many Americans) should keep in mind: You can't call democracy "democracy" when you get your way and "socialism" when you don't. If you had read on, I was not suggesting that this project alone be forced to conform. Yes, I favor sentence case. That is my vote. But unlike you guys, I'm willing to discuss it and even compromise. If we have to make all other projects adopt upper case, then so be it. Unfortunately, we don't have a managing editor to squash these infantile disputes (referring to both sides, past and present), so we have to settle this like adults. Saying that "we're tired of hearing it" and using that as justification for launching verbal assaults when you engage the discussion does not promote civil discourse. Yes, the horse has been beat to glue... but that's how democracies work: Every point gets rehashed from time to time as new situations arise and opinions change. Democracy is not Old Testament: we can't expect to lay down laws that will last for thousands of years. Times change, arguments change, and the needs of Wikipedia change. I'm just suggesting that it's time we consider the importance of consistency—either sentence or upper case—for the sake of our professional appearance. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Alex, unfortunately we do not have the luxury of being able to discuss (referring to the situation of Encyclopedia Britannica) our differences behind closed doors. We are constrained to discuss them here, in a public forum. The reference to intellectual socialism has nothing to do with my personal politics, rather it has to do with my personal opposition to attempts at regimentation by those not intimately involved with a specific subject, such as is ornithology. I have no knee-jerk opposition to conformity when I can understand a rationale and consider it valid. Certainly, I have never been what is called politically correct. I consider obediance through what is essentially brow-beating to be not conducive to free thought and expression. Since I do not want to speak for others, I will just restate my own position on the question. For the first time in history there is a chance that there will be a stable homologation of the english common names of birds. It was the collective decision by the Wiki Bird Project, in accordance with an ever-increasing number of reputable national, and regional bird listing organizations, ornithological periodicals, etc., that we underwrite the initiative in this sense as it was presented to us, and as it is still being refined, by the IOC. The information is available here: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ What is being asked of us by you, and by others before you, is essentially to abdicate this intention. Personally, I am unwilling to do so as it would be to vitiate a valid initiative. If this, unfortunately, makes others uncomfortable, and if there are some such as I decidedly am, that are unwilling to follow the indications of others, for the most part not even closely involved in ornithology, to a conformity deemed necessary by others, but not by us, then, it is again unfortunate. As for being professional, well, I would imagine that most of us contributing on the wiki bird project have other professional activities, and they earn nothing from giving their free time and expertise when contributing to the wiki. Our mandate is to be intellectually rigorous at the least, and to the best of our ability. It is also this the sense of keeping faith with a nascent set of naming conventions for birds. To do otherwise would be to break faith with ornithology as an evolving field of study. The purpose of the wiki bird project having adopted the IOC indications as the naming standard is specific. That purpose is to provide the wiki users the common names of birds as they will be found increasingly not only in ornithological journals, but also as they become integrated into the normal parlance of birding as these same IOC conventions are increasingly adopted in the years to come. This is not just an irrational decision on our part.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No, Steve, what is being asked by me is that we all sit down and renew the discussion in a civil tone, with both sides being willing to compromise. I am asking that we all consider the importance of consistency for all of Wikipedia, not just one project. Yes, I would vote sentence case. I am not trying to call a vote where the bird people would be out-voted so that I can "get my way." Please stop stereotyping me. As I have said before: I am perfectly willing to accept upper case as the standard. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Alex, I have not been stereotyping you personally. I have been attacking, as I have stated several times, an attempt at a forced conformity, that may not be in conformity with the standard that the wiki bird project has already given itself for the common name naming conventions of birds. A position of compromise, as you put it, that does not contemplate the faithful adoption of the naming conventions of the IOC, already itself a work of much sweated compromise among the various international bird listing organizations, and for the sole purpose of some sort of standardization with the viewpoint of others on the wiki, is tantamount to rescinding the collective intent of the wiki bird project contributors in this sense. It would be effectively a substitution of the IOC conventions, for the wiki conventions, apparently for the sake of standardization felt by others. There simply is not any wiggle room for us. The mere fact that this discussion exists means that we would be called to compromise, otherwise the entire discussion would be pointless. To compromise is to disavow the IOC naming conventions, for conventions of others that do not have the field of ornithology in its continuing evolution to the fore.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Blanket stereotypes are just as bad, because they are taken personally... as you have seen. "Attacking" (as you put it) people who are trying to discuss the issue rather than engaging in civil discourse is, by definition, being uncivil. Also, Britannica—a more respected encyclopedia in the academic world—has gone on to do just what you oppose, and I haven't seen any uproar (or insistence that they follow the naming conventions of the IOC). But like I said, I'm very willing to adopt upper case for the sake of conformity, so I'm not targeting the IOC and spitting in their face. This is a biology-wide issue. And btw, I have written to the directors of The Auk and The Ibis to get their input on the situation, not just on Wikipedia, but on other encyclopedias as well. I will post their replies when/if I receive them. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I will not be put on the defensive by your insistance of personalizing my opposition on the question. Sooner or later, we will be asked to compromise, and certainly the wiki can forcibly do whatever it wishes to coerce acquiescence in editorial decisions. If this happens, some will take umbrage. Others have left and no longer provided their expertise for that which are basically the politics of the wiki. This may prove to be another such question.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I see... so you can say whatever you want, and if its tone and word choice offends, that's because the other side is wrong. (To quote Sabine's Sunbird above: "Called it!") – VisionHolder « talk » 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Visionholder, the Called it was because one member of the project suggested that Anna's table was only being done to codify existing project guidelines, and wasn't necessarily going to lead to an attempt to change anything. The rest of us knew better!  ;) MeegsC | Talk 18:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if there was a discussion you could point people to whenever they brought this up that demonstrated that reasoning. If it made the case clearly that according to Wikipedish ideals like reliable sources/etc bird species ought to be capitalized, then that should go a long way toward silencing this kind of discussion. The reference at the bottom of WP:BIRDS is a great start! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Erik, here's a partial list of RS using capitals; I'll add to it as I get the chance (I have a real job, which precludes me spending as much time here as I might like):
Well, this is interesting. This is a list of Ornithologist journals that (I'll take your word for it, I looked for The Condor's guides and couldn't find it) prescribe capitalization of bird species common names in prose. As far as I can tell, though, most of the time, when scholarly journals write about birds, they do not capitalize species names. For example, this paper (plos one). How much weight should the specialist's guidelines have over use in RS? Is that the question? thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, Erik, I'd argue that the "specialist" journals are RS too! (You've said "How much weight should the specialist's guidelines have over use in RS?", but perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment.) Yes, those I've listed so far are ornithological journals; how about British Wildlife, which isn't? And as for having to "take my word for it", far be it from me to make you do that!! Here's a link to a free online version of every copy of that journal through 2000 — and many other journals as well — hosted by the University of New Mexico. Please feel free to look for yourself! MeegsC | Talk 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"I'd argue that the "specialist" journals are RS too!"—oh absolutely! I need to clarify my question. It seems that roughly 70-80% of journal articles/etc discussing any given species using the common name will write it lowercase in running text. However, here is a list of 8 specialist journals whose style guides call for uppercase. It does make sense to defer to specialist guidelines for a given topic—so if the argument being made here is that those should carry the day against the 80% of RS in general, then that is a reasonable position. I'm just trying to clarify whether that is, ultimately, the main question we're debating. If so, we can discuss that and do a more exhaustive search to make sure that most ornithology journals really do promote this style and my 70-80% claim is really true, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, other encyclopaedias use either BE or AE to the exclusion of the other variety. Why aren't the "consistency" fanatics pushing for standardisation there, should be much more important than caps? Of course, which ever you enforced, we would lose half our editors. This is a voluntary effort, not a commercial encyclopaedia, you need to cut some slack Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but please expand the "BE or AE" acronyms. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
BE = British English; AE = American English MeegsC | Talk 19:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case, in response to Jimfbleak, I also feel that BE/AE should be standardized... although I don't see it as a "much more important" issue. Also in regards to that issue, I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the other encyclopedias standardize on AE or BE based on their publication location. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not American or British (or Canadian or Australian...), and since our editors come from multiple English-speaking countries, this makes the issue more difficult and sensitive. Would I push for standardization for BE and AE? Yes, I would. (And please stop calling people "fanatics"... I'm sure you would be offended if I referred to you in the same tone.) The same (especially) goes for citation styles—another important issue in consistency... particularly since templates like {{cite doi}} can now create conflicts on multiple pages for individual citations. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimfbleak, WP:ENGVAR is only slightly less safe than WP:V. If at some point in the future this changes, I'll be first in line to vote against it. I'm an American, and I'd favour writing BE if the alternative is what we have now. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
See, this is where we agree to disagree. I find the whole caps, BE/AE/CE/IE, etc. etc. issues of little to no distraction at all. Perhaps it's because I've lived and worked in multiple countries. Perhaps it's because I write for a large number and variety of publications, all of which have their own idiosyncratic styles. Perhaps it's because I'm less "hung-up" on the method of presentation than others are. I don't know. What I do find "amateurish" about Wikipedia (to use others' words, not mine) are the vast numbers of articles with no sources. Or egregious mistakes. Or woefully incomplete prose. Or misidentified photos. And every time we (as a group, all of us editors) have to take time out to debate (ad nauseum) the same arguments over and over and over is yet another day/week/month that those more important issues (in my eyes anyway) don't get done. And as you are probably all aware, we end up losing editors on all sides of the "arguments" who decide it's just not worth the hassle. And that can't be good for Wikipedia, because we need every editor — regardless of how they feel about whether we should be using capitals or lower case, British English or American English, etc. etc. — if we're ever going to reach our lofty goals of providing the sum of "all human knowledge". I've always been accused of being an unrealistic idealist. Guess I'll continue in that vein! MeegsC | Talk 20:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we agree more than you realize. The only difference is that on these "trivial" issues, I'm willing to discuss and compromise. Do I want protracted, heated discussions? Hell no! Am I willing to concede my favored stance so that the issue can be resolved and editors move on (rather than having newer editors revisit the issues, sparking situations like this ad nauseum)? Yes. And let me say it again: By this I am not implying that this project should concede, only that they participate in a civil discussion. Who knows... maybe upper case will walk away victorious. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not sure I believe that you don't care about this issue. In any case, yes, I think we can all agree that sourcing is more important that style. But some people care about style, too. I believe consistent and correct style confers some legitimacy and professionalism, and vice versa. This legitimacy will ultimately attract more and more serious editors, making Wikipedia even better, so I, at least, disagree with your argument that this discussion is a waste of time. I respect and understand that many believe it is a waste of time. Those people should not spend any time in discussions like this one, I guess? I certainly hope we can conduct these discussions in a manner that won't lose us editors! It's curating vs. adding information. I think the latter is more important, but I've certainly spent way more of my time here doing the former, which is also important. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but I didn't say I didn't care. I said I wasn't distracted by the mishmash!  :) MeegsC | Talk 20:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I assumed by distraction you meant something to spend time on. I don't think anyone is saying that they are a distraction as in they make articles difficult to read. You did say you didn't want to waste your time in these debates? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, ErikHaugen, I'm strongly opposed to standardization on things like British versus American English. I like seeing articles in the variety of English that's appropriate to the topic. I like seeing one article that was clearly written by enthusiastic teenagers (who followed core policies), another in the most formal tones, another with original phrasing and sly wit, and another with a few acceptable quirks from people whose first language isn't English. I've opposed attempts here to create a standard organization and section heads for bird articles because I think that depends on the topic and the editors' preferences. So I like Wikipedia better when it follows no standards except the really necessary ones, such as verifiability and neutral point of view. And of course, clarity—when the Mexican Jay is one of eighteen species of jays found in Mexico (and not one of the seven Mexican endemics), preferring "Mexican jay" is unhelpful. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In the ornithological/birding community, this is not up for discussion. The practice of capitalizing species was settled long, long ago and is now a recognized (and dare I say, celebrated) convention. (Speaking as an editor of a American Birding Association publication, I can honestly say there would be massive upheaval if I suddenly stopped capitalizing species names.) There is a big difference between a blue jay (of which there are dozens) and a Blue Jay (which is a particular species). But speaking to the larger point, why is this discussion even happening? If these people don't have even a basic understanding of bird naming conventions, which is obvious, why do they even care? Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing this as an abstract topic, the key is proper nouns versus common nouns. Birds, have centralized common names (IOC: World Bird Names). Once names are standardized, it becomes a proper nou, and those are capitalized. So, can we close this discussion now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of this idea that standard lists confer proper noun status; can you give a pointer to more about that? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No idea about where such a thing might be formalized, although this is one of the arguments at the Wold Bird Names website. The WBN website is the authoritative source for bird names worldwide and the leading source for names here at Wikipedia. Originally, I was told this rule by our science editor who edits many of the manuscripts before they get submitted. I take her informed opinion any time above the average non-science editor here at wikipedia.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
My Sandbox with list of authoritative sources with caps. I invite anyone to provide a list of more authoritative bird sources without caps. • Rabo³ • 04:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
There are old discussion in the literature such as [2], [3], [4], [5] [6] etc. that are worth examining before starting repetitions of this debate. Have added a couple of journals and links to their guidelines to MeegsC's list above. Shyamal (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

More locked IOC changes

And by the way, there are a number of locked pages above not moved yet mentioned a couple of topics above, should I go back to listing them on requested moves page???.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done these, and some (not all) of the older ones above as indicated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

British Birds archives now on-line

The first 100 years of British Birds magazine is now available on-line, free (login required). I've asked Zotero to add a translator to collect metadata from its article-pages, for use in citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

above is 1907 to 2007, I have subsequent if needed. the rarity committee is also providing access to documents back to 1958 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone provide an example of how we could link to the online copy of an article? As Andy hints at, there are already lots of BB articles used as references throughout Wikipedia, and it would be good to be able to click through to the original text. SP-KP (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly can find and link to the articles without logging in. Issues from before 1923 are also available on the Biodiversity Heritage Library (I've found links to these issues lacking before, and I'll add a link on the journal's article). —innotata 14:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean to say "can't"? I tried logging out and then re-pasting the URL and was taken not to the article but to a generic BB articles content page. SP-KP (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The links should go to the specific page, though the title and maybe the first few lines are all that can be seen without logging in; I've added links to tree warbler if you want an example. —innotata 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
One of my favourite pages - so thanks for that; linking to the abstract page does seem to be about as good as we can get. I think there's a convention that we add the text "requires registration" to references like this - at least, I'm pretty sure I've seen that used on many pages - I'll check what policy says. SP-KP (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Off topic

We had an enjoyable single day birding the LA area at the end of Feb, our only western NAm birding to date. We thought we would go back in spring next year for (probably) about two weeks. I wondered if anyone could suggest sites in California (SW Arizona? S Nevada?) that we ought to put in our itinerary. We won't be camping, or doing 40 mile drives over rough roads, so fairly dude really. Any suggestions, please email me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You should post to BirdChat. http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
San Francisco area - be sure to head to Monterey to do a pelagic bird trip (and see some Sea Otters), as well as Point Reyes Seashore (depending on the time of year) for migrants. You can also see lts of seabirds on a trip to see the Farallon Islands, along with whales. Klamath Basin in the north is a good place to grab a mix of wetland birds and near-desert birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all suggestions, not sure if Monterey runs in the spring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Life histories of North American petrels and pelicans and their allies

A C Bent's book is online and seems to have some interesting b&w photographs. Assuming the US National Museum is federally funded this is probably in public domain. Shyamal (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Bent's works would be public domain as government works, but this volume is, since it was published before 1923. The two volumes published before it, Diving Birds and Gulls and Terns are also public domain, and I've uploaded the djvu file and an image of an egg from Diving Birds. —innotata 16:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (129)


Confirmed. Not as easy as one would initially believe. The species is incredibly pleiomorphic. It appears to be an adult due to the brightness of the plumage coloration. Generally considered to have a green morph, and a brown morph. This looks to be something in between.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Snow, this will have to be, per force, a judgment call as to the age. It is certainly female. It can not be an immature male because there is just not the blotchy redness that would be expected for the sex. However, considering the non-brightness, the non-redness, and the non-blackness respectively of the two mandibulae, it would appear to be not adult. Also, the color of the iris appears to be intermediate, to me at least, of the juvenile brown turning to the adult yellow. My best guess is that this is an immature female bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Irises look yellow to me. The beak is partly dull yellow, which to me is the clearest sign that this is an immature female. Update: described as an immature female. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Can't help here. Not an oologist. A valid assessment might be had from someone doing field work in the range of this bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed. The confusion species here is gentilis, and this is not gentilis [strength of bill, narrow streaking and barring ventrally (thicker, sometimes almost blotchy in juvenile gentilis)].Steve Pryor (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Snow, looks adult to me. The throat does not demonstrate any buffiness, and the pectoral is too well demarcated to coincide with descriptions of the juvenile birds.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
An easy confirmation.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Another easy confirmation.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Easily. An adult nominate.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Will look later. There might be enough to guess on this one. They are Aratinga chicks of some sort, and the peach colored frons might help us out.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
An educated guess. Fledgeling Aratinga canicularis eburnirostrum. Snow, I don't know anything about the wiki politics in merit, however, many sites that I am involved with (unless specifically involving aviculture) disallow such photos. Here, I would hazard a guess (without however, hazarding much!) that these birds were harvested from the nest holes to put onto the bird market. Here there are at least two combined clutches. On a personal note, unless these sorts of photos are being used to motivate why the wild bird trade is absolutely deleterious, I find them to have little if anything salvific in their nature justifying their use. The scant didactic value that may be accrued from having photos of surely identified bird fledgelings must be measured against the devastation wrought in further impoverishing our already degraded home planet. Steve Pryor (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I found it somewhat distressing and sad to see such young parrots in a market in Mexico, and it makes it even worse to think that they might have been taken from the wild, where they could have thrived undisturbed. The parent parrots would also have been distressed loosing their chicks. I agree with you on giving the right impression and an appropriate image description on Commons can be informative. I see no need on the Wiki to censor the fact that parrots still suffer illegal kidnapping from the wild, as these may or may not have been. I suppose it could be one clutch with the chicks spanning an age range due to asynchronous egg hatching. The chick at the back looks the youngest, probably 3 weeks old, and I think it would struggle to maintain its body heat with such a sparse covering of feathers - lets hope it can huddle with the other chicks to keep warm, and that they are given the right environment and are all individually hand feed with enough special parrot rearing food with supplementary vitamins and calcium; although, I fear that they are likely to have been bought by someone, who may not be aware of their needs, and I fear that these poor parrots are likely to die a horrible death, due to hypothermia, starvation, vitamin deficiency, calcium deficiency, or aspiration pneumonia (due to inhaling and chocking on ineptly given semi-liquid foods). I have already added that these chicks are too young to crack nuts and feed themselves to the image description on commons. I will think about what else to add, and I might add something about CITES and parrot protection. Incidentally, it would be illegal in the UK to sell parrot chicks that are not fully fledged or are not old enough to feed themselves. The image might be useful, with appropriate captioning, on a page about parrot protection to enhance awareness of crimes to wildlife and to underline the importance to act against and reduce such crimes. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: moved to File:Aratinga canicularis -Central de Abastos market, Oaxaca, Mexico -chicks-8a.jpg on Commons. Identification given to species level. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a Roller. Will do the ID if really required, however, it is an absolutely atrocious photo of whatever it is.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I first thought "roller" but it doesn't look like any particular rollers in my memory … yes, it would be likely be good to have the ID (for the project that uploaded it and so we clear it out from the unidentified images), so if it's not that much trouble can you find it? —innotata 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a Purple Roller (or Rufous-crowned Roller) . It is the only roller where the the white line above the eye continues (somewhat discontinuously ) around the back of the head and the only white-browed roller to have a brown head. The extensive brown on the wings is right too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Corrected and renamed to File:WLA hmns Rufous-crowned Roller.jpg. —innotata 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Beak

Snowman and I have been trying to figure out how much "mouth" detail should be put into the Beak article. What's the general thought about internal "beaky" things? Should detailed info on tongues and salivary glands and taste buds, etc. be included? Or does that belong elsewhere—and if so, where? I think we're both tending towards inclusion, but obviously it will make for a much longer article! MeegsC | Talk 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've not contributed to this article, so feel free to ignore my uninformed comments.
  • There is much technical detail in the article, and I wouldn't want to see the suggested topics added, especially as the article name would then be inappropriately named. Perhaps better in a separate bird mouth.
  • The "Function" section doesn't include feeding, which I would have thought fairly important. Unless I've missed something, that needs to be mentioned, along with a brief discussion of the relationship between bill shape and feeding, especially as there is a related image.
  • I'm not clear why "Billing" is a separate section from "Function#Communication". It's clearly a function, and identical in purpose to bill-clapping.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim: I haven't done much on the Function section yet; much of that (except the subsections) was there before I started on the article, and I started with the things people mentioned on the talk page. Obviously, feeding is the most important thing, so that will take up a large portion of that section once I'm done. (Feel free to dive in too!)
We do have the article "gape". Since the hyoid arises close to the bill at least in woodpeckers and is involved along with the beak, it certainly seems like worth a mention. Some of the other aspects should perhaps go into bird anatomy - a skull section there would seems to be worth creating - hardly any information on skull pneumatization for instance. And we still lack coverage on a lot of physiology. Shyamal (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, gape is one of the smaller articles I was thinking of merging; I've already merged cere and culmen. Even if I don't merge it (and I'll ask for comment first), I'll certainly add a section on gape. See the "To do" list on the talk page for more... MeegsC | Talk 17:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Look in my mouth...
Do we have info in any of the articles about the nature/purpose of the linear, serrated-looking structures in the roof of birds' mouths (see pic for example)? I recall that someone was asking about them on the refdesk once. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No info yet, but if/when I get around to the "Bird mouth" article Jim suggested higher up, there will be lots!  ;) Many birds have specialized structures on the roofs of their mouth and/or their tomia to help them handle/manipulate food items. These are typically keratinized epidermal layers. MeegsC | Talk 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not something I've ever really thought much about - but that Starling chick picture reminded me. Also see File:California gull - Larus californicus screeching.jpg for some back-raked 'spikes' on that California Gull's palette. Oh yeah - while I'm here, does anyone have a cite for gulls being able to unhinge and pop out their jaws (like a snake) when consuming large food items? It's currently mentioned in the gull article - I'm pretty sure that it's true, but it would be useful to add a reference for it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kurt, just from memory, it is true. Not comparable however to the situation with a snake that has no medial symphysis of the two lower mandibular rami, and then have an extra bone near the hinge, plus an ever more extensible system of ligaments. In certain Gulls, and I don't think all of them, the mandibular condyle (on the skull itself) is cylindrical and seats within a simple groove on the lower mandible. There is a certain amount of extensibility of the articulation due to elastic ligaments.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a large gull swallow a rat or a rabbit whole? When they do that, it's pretty obvious that they can do *something* with their jaws that allows them to open wider than usual. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing about this in HBW. I'll check some other references, but given its omission in HBW, it's looking unlikely. MeegsC | Talk 12:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen that written; since it's always mentioned for snakes, I'd be wary about that. If the article is extending to mouth structure in general, there are also the peculiar finch mouth markings, as with Fiji Parrotfinch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Jim, you might want to have a look also at the mouth markings of nestling Viduidae (apparently a system of recognition of the brood members, and a defense against feeding the young of species practising brood parasitism). Indeed, even in some adult Viduidae (the extremely similar black-to-violet Indigobirds in particular, the internal mouth markings of the adults are used when you have the bird ITH for identification purposes among similar species.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

<--outdent Steve, have you got a reference to go with your recollection of some gull beaks being "expandable"? I can't find anything in the references I've checked (HBW, BWP, Howell's "Gulls of North America", Olsen & Larsson's "Gulls", Grant's "Gulls"), so unless you've got something concrete, we should probably remove that information from the gull article! MeegsC | Talk 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Meegs, I wish I did. I too tried to find something in my Gull books but came up with nothing about it. I even did a Goggle search and always found the same-worded thing mentioning "prophylactic unhinged jaws" in some Gulls. If I can find an e-mail, I might just send a note to Olsen or Larsson, and simply ask them about it. I did however look through some bird skulls to ascertain just how the two mandibles articulate.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Meegs, I just sent a note to Dr. Hans Larsson (a vertebrate paleontologist). I decided on asking him because it is much more likely that he is on top of what is obviously, if the phenomenon exists, an ability that has its raison d'etre in the osteological topography of the mandibular articulation itself. Will let you know if he responds.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that some gulls can open their mouths wide without dislocating the temporomandibular joint (or the bird equivalent of this) and also that their throats are naturally large. I think that it is likely that the ligaments around this joint in birds have some laxity, but not enough to permit physiological dislocation. Note that the human temporomandibular joint allows the mandible to open and also some sliding of the mandible backwards and forwards on the articular surfaces. In humans dislocation occurs when the jaw movement is beyond the articular surfaces and the jaw becomes stuck in the open position. It can be painful and a physician in the emergency department would generally find it easy to reduce using the correct technique. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ibis paper on WP Birds

Don't know if this has been brought up... but... our first peer-reviewed citation :D http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2011.01135.x Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And an extremely favorable one! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
For the previous discussion here see; Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_55#Article_in_Ibis_that_you_all_might_find_interesting... Snowman (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Can someone move Speckled Teal to Yellow-billed Teal, page is locked. I've split from Speckled Teal..... Northern Caracara should be moved to Northern Crested Caracara per IOC. That page is locked also....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the utterly confusing use of the name Speckled Teal (has been used for both A. flavirostris sensu lato and A. andium), I would suggest it is changed to a disambiguation page. Since all the info about the Yellow-billed Teal is on the Speckled Teal page, it should still be moved, but afterwards Speckled Teal can be changed to disambiguation. Speckled Teal has never been used as an alternative name for the A. flavirostris sensu stricto (=IOC taxonomy).
Please also be careful with "previously" and "superspecies". As long as there are significant authorities that maintain a treatment, it is not "previously", which–to me at least–indicates that no one uses a treatment anymore. Superspecies ≠ species under any species concept (in this exact case it is further confused by the fact that the A. flavirostris/andium only traditionally has been considered a superspecies when also including A. crecca/carolinensis). I hope that explains this edit. • Rabo³ • 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If I may amplify that, in my opinion we should always be careful not to treat classification as objective fact. Thus a species is placed (or classified) in such and such a genus, or many authorities consider this form a separate species. And NPOV requires that when there's any legitimate controversy, we mention both sides, preferably with mentions of current trends and what kind of evidence is involved, and with references. I realize this is a lot of work, which I haven't been doing for some time, but the alternative is to be misleading. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition to above, Asian Drongo-cuckoo to Asian Drongo-Cuckoo, Philippine Drongo-cuckoo to Philippine Drongo-Cuckoo, and Large Hawk-cuckoo to Large Hawk-Cuckoo, all locked.......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC) checkY
Many other pages including the birds by country lists would also need updating with IOC names. I have been putting all of my IOC page name moves (except a few short bird names that would match additional species) in regular expressions so that I can run semi-automatic software over the "birds of xyzland" lists at a rapid pace. I think I could write the regexes, if you give me a lists (with the former Wiki page names and the new page name) of species by genera you have worked on. I can usually fit most of a genera in one regex and then add others species of the genus that do not follow the same pattern in their own separate regexes. If you do not know how to write regexes, you can get unexpected results. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd give you the list, but it' getting to be quite extensive and not sure what good it would do considering all the other page moves have been done outside of ourselves.......Pvmoutside (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been listing page moves done by various editors, when I hear about them on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

More locked pages:

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have duplicate articles of the following (locked):

Snowman (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Other issues:

Speedy deletion requested on Sunda Scops Ow, because it is not a credible page name. Snowman (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet more locked pages:

Done screech owls Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more locked ones:

Remaining missing IOC names

I thought I'd see how we are getting on with the missing IOC names. Good progress, it seems. Here is the list of those remaining. One last push? SP-KP (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've removed those which now exist. Any help anyone can offer with the remaining ones would be appreciated. SP-KP (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

English

Scientific

All done! Thanks everyone. SP-KP (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon - some of the Hs went astray. SP-KP (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hartlaub’s Babbler • Hawaii Amakihi • Henderson Reed Warbler • Henri's Snowfinch • Himalayan Goldenback • Hinde's Babbler • Hoffman's Woodcreeper •

AOU changes

Perhaps this has already been discussed and I just missed it while out of touch in the field, but what (if anything) are we going to do about the recently released changes in the AOU checklist? For example, based on DNA work done by Lovette and others (DOI:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.07.018), the AOU has completely reshuffled the New World warblers; six genera disappear completely, and additional species in some of the remaining genera have switched genera. Do we wait for other researchers to verify these results? Or do we assume that if it's good enough for the AOU, it's good enough for Wikipedia? MeegsC | Talk 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:BritishBirder edited the warbler-genus articles to mention the new AOU taxonomy. That seems to me like a good way to handle it. I think we can wait for other studies or other authorities before changing our taxonomy—not that I know anything about the scientific issues involved. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (130)

  • Bird 1300. File:Aviceda subcristata -Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia-8.jpg | Pacific Baza probably in Australia. Is it male, female, or juvenile? Snowman (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Adult, sexes alike. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
      • ^conditionally. Ferguson-Lees & Christie offer that the adult female (respect to the adult male) is more rufous ventrally, and browner above. A rather cryptic description, however, by experience reading through these guide books I interpret this to mean that the field on which the transverse barring is laid is either white (the male) or with a slight rufous wash between the barring. This looks to be decidedly whitish between the barring. Incidentally, a mention about the taxon involved might be in order. Some contemplate a putative race (njikena) in NW Australia different from the nominate subcristata subcristata further to the northeast. For those accepting this viewpoint, this particular bird would demonstrate the characteristics of an intergrade. However, most do not accept the validity of njikena (subsuming it within race subcristata). In object, and the reason for the erection of njikena is the coloration of the transverse barring ventrally. In Queensland, the transverse barring is decidedly more rufous than in the northwest. The most probable interpretation is that there is one race, subcristata, but that as far as the coloration of the ventral barring in the adult, that the more rufous in the east darkens to being blackish in the northwest, i.e., a clinal characteristic.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Steve; it's definitely not a Rough-winged Swallow — bill, legs and feet (and plumage details) all wrong for the latter. MeegsC | Talk 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, got out the Madge & Burn. Confirm the species (and I had no doubts on that really, just on the age). Prout Madge & Burn, there are eight races. The description of the juvenile nominate is "slate-grey or blackish-grey all over (depending on race), except for ill-defined whitish malar stripe. Bill has pale fleshy base. By first winter much as adult"
On range, I have P.c.obscurus ("coastal Washington south to north California...Juvenile like nominate but more sooty-brown"), and; P.c.griseus ("Vancouver south to central Oregon and north-east California. Juvenile like nominate, but more sooty-brown"). Now, I would not consider Mt. Rainier to be coastal, so I would guess that this is race griseus. I would consider the bird in the photo to be a late juvenile. The juveniles start out with all-dark heads (and they are also darker on the throat, breast, and belly), and then the malars and frons clear up and become whitish (and they also progressively lose the darkish coloration of the ventral aspect of the bird).Steve Pryor (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Just checked the HBW interpretation. For them, race griseus, which this would be around Mt. Rainier, is an invalid taxon, considered synonymous to and submerged within race obscurus. To note, however, that though we are using the IOC to now only for the common names, that they contemplate nine races, including a race griseus different from obscurus.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a Gray Jay. As for age, it's definitely not a juvenile. Once the bird start molting out of juvenile plumage (which, by not being dark gray all over, it obviously has), it by definition ceases to be a juvenile. It may be in some intermediate immature plumage, but I'm not convinced it's not an adult. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Exception noted. This is just the way that I define things. Unfortunately, the lack of true parameters for assigning judgments as to age-related plumages is well known, and I can certainly be as subjective as others. In the spectrum running from fledgeling > juvenile > adult, there is, unfortunately, a lot of leeway. Rock solid definitions might be contemplated only in the case that age-related bird plumages changed in a quantistic manner, e.g., one day an unchanging typical juvenile equal to all other juveniles of the species, and the next day, abracadabra, a typical adult. In other words, what I might consider a late juvenile, is an immature for another, or a young adult for yet another, and not to mention then terms such as sub-adult which by convention, not definition mind you, is again subjective usually meaning adult plumage save one or two plumage features, but how many then, one, or two? I even find myself sometimes using terminology such as "juvenile in transition to adult plumage", which I consider also woefully inadequate and subjective. The use of "transition" is somewhat more applicable when we are dealing with already adult birds that undergo seasonal phasic plumage changes, e.g., in birds that have definite alternate and basic plumages related to the reproductive cycle. I venture to say that just about all of us would gladly leave out the subjectivity as much as possible if there were actually unequivocal signposts of when to call a bird in one way or in another.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Michael, I accept that by your parameters my above explanation would not seem adequate, therefore to illustrate the subjectivity of some of the terminology intended to clarify, but sometimes not particularly unequivocal I will excerpt the two definitions germane to this question in the only text ornithological dictionary that I have: The Ornithologist's Dictionary, Erritzoe, 2007.
"juvenal: Am. for a bird in its juvenal plumage (prior to moult into the first basic plumage), or a bird in its first plumage after the downy plumage in the pullus stage. Largely equivalent to juvenile."
"juvenile: Eur. term for a young bird in its first non-downy plumage, usually of a somewhat looser texture than subsequent plumages and partly moulted in the first autumn. We propose the term changed worldwide to a young bird that is out of the nest and able to care for itself. Note, many authors use the terms immature and juvenile as synonyms, meaning any fledged bird that has not yet attained adulthood."Steve Pryor (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Juvenal" has (thankfully) nearly fallen out of use here in North America, where it was never a catch-all word as described above; one was used for plumage, and the other for a bird with that plumage. No one could remember which was which (juvenal vs. juvenile), so the former is almost never used anymore. Immature, in my opinion, is a much more general term that encompasses any plumage between down young and adult. If this bird is not an adult (of which I am not convinced), immature would thus be an appropriate description.
Michael, here is a typical adult of race "obscurus" (up on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington): http://10000birds.com/gray-jay-perisoreus-canadensis.htm
To note that the lighter brownish color scheme is an indication of immaturity also in this race (both race obscurus and griseus have juveniles that are sooty-brown) Though the adults will never be the lighter grey of many other races, they will acquire a grey-brown to slate-grey dorsally. Also to note the more well demarcated white frons, and the pale feather shaft streaks on the coverts of the adult. The bird in object is just too light brown for an adult, and the frons is still mixed.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks, Steve. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Assuming it's an Oz bird, looks like Whistling Kite --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. An adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't help the wiki article. In the grey morph (which is the normomorph): male: darker, greyer, markings bolder, more marbled; bill longer. female: plainer, browner, less marbled, some washed rufous." Op.cit.: The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, Pizzey & Knight, 2003, P. 308. If you want to see a normomorph adult female, then examine the photo that is already uploaded to the Tawny Frogmouth article on the wiki, that is an adult female! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Podargus_strigoides_Bonorong.jpgSteve Pryor (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Bird 1304 has bright orange/yellow irises, but the bird in the infobox has brown irises. My old edition of Pizzey says that the Tawny Frogmouth has yellow irises. My guess is that the one with the brown irises is a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow, you could be right. My edition of the Pizzey makes no mention of age-related iris color change. It has only (for the adult) eyes yellow to orange-yellow. This is probably a case of the juveniles demonstrating female-like characteristics (I speak of the rufous wash ventrally, and up around the neck near the shoulder), and I probably jumped the gun on assigning a sex for it. Generally speaking, the adult females are less demonstrably greyish ventrally, and they usually have a rufous wash under the chin, and on the wing coverts, and an even slighter rufous wash on the breast and belly.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • My old Pizzey does not go into age related iris colour changes. I have looked for images on the internet and found this image on Flickr, which looks like it shows a parent and juveniles. The central bird, which I assume is a parent, has slightly yellower irises than the others. Can anyone confirm that juvenile Tawny Frogmouths have browner irises than the adult? if so, I could amend the image description of File:Podargus strigoides Bonorong.jpg, which has rather brownish irises. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • On the flickr photo, I would agree with the photographer as to the sex of the central bird - do you see the rufous suffusion ventrally and the rufous flecking on the wing coverts? I looked through the HBW and they give no help textually. They indicate nothing about the iris color of juveniles. However, they do have a couple of photos (this is HBW-5), first on P. 276, and again on P. 279 that have juvenile birds with apparently yellow irides, and indistinguishable for color from the parent bird (both photos have also the parent).Steve Pryor (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have also noticed from looking at a range of images on the internet, that some juveniles appear to have yellow irises. Adults can change the colour of their irises to red, which can warn other frog mouths in territorial disputes (see google books). Note the reddish periphery to the mostly yellow irises of Bird 1304. Can an adult have brown irises? Snowman (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
in my annual Lynx Edicions order, and they usually send all the books that are not the HBW volume as they have them all in stock. I will try and remember to look at this item when I do receive the volume. A thought just occured to me. Ask around among the wiki Editors if somebody has access to HANZAB. Personally, I never bought it because for being just a regional book series, for however estimable, the price is just too steep. Another thought. Sabine's Sunbird is in accademe in New Zealand. He might have access to an institutional copy!Steve Pryor (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to hearing from editors, who have access to HANZAB. Snowman (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, Cleere's book on nightjars, etc. (mentioned by Steve above) doesn't say anything at all about iris color. MeegsC | Talk 11:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Update:I have moved File:Podargus strigoides Bonorong.jpg out of the infobox and selected Bird 1304 for the infobox image. The old infobox image (a Featured Picture) is now shown lower down the page, and I have informed the photographer. This is because the old frogmouth image does not appear to be typical of an adult, because it has brown irises. Explanations of why a Tawny Frogmouth would have brown irises is welcome (see above). Snowman (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sure it is an adult b/c it was captive. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Some notes from HANZAB 4 (1999) regarding Tawny Frogmouth iris colour. Under Feld Identification: “…pale yellow to orange irides…” and “Iris typically yellow but varies from pale yellow to orange”. Under Bare Parts: Downy young: “Iris, pale brown, gradually turning orange”. Under Bare Parts: Juvenile: “Similar to adult” (no other information). Under Sexing: “Irides said to average paler in males (Schodde & Mason); this difficult to assess owing to geographical variation, but not supported by data in Table 3. Nevertheless, irides reported as consistently yellow in males and more orange in females in se SA (T. Keens), suggesting possible localised differences”. There is some mention of iris colour under Geographical Variation, but always about yellow v. orange, nothing regarding brown. Maias (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
        • To me the image has an overall brownish hue, so I have asked to photographer about any image editing that that he may or may not have applied to the image. I think that it would be interesting to see the original unmodified un-cropped image on commons as well. Snowman (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Could this bird's diet in captivity explain its brown irises? Snowman (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a Mexican Jay. This and the Transvolcanic Jay have recently been split, and the latter has retained the original scientific name Aphelocoma ultramarina. MeegsC | Talk 14:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mexican Jay moved to File:Aphelocoma wollweberi -Madera Canyon, Arizona, USA-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, nominate race of course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Image selected as the infobox image in en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
File description on Commons enhanced. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope. That's a Fieldfare. MeegsC | Talk 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree, adult Fieldfare. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: moved to File:Turdus pilaris -Kosice, Slovakia-8.jpg on Commons. Sometimes most of my concentration goes on the process of uploading images. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed as to species. Subspecies a bit problematic. HBW says "B. v. subarcticus: Mackenzie and NW British Columbia E to Hudson Bay, S at least to Wyoming and North Dakota; possibly this race, or intermediates between it and pallescens and/or lagophonus, or unnamed race, S to Arizona, New Mexico and SW Texas (Guadalupe Mts.)" To me, this says the taxonomy is so confused, it might be best to ID it to species level only. Since subarticus is typically a very pale subspecies, with a white facial disc, I think it's safe to say it's not that. MeegsC | Talk 14:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Meegs, don't worry, I wasn't able to come up with anything more specific either. I looked it over using the newest edition of the Konig and Weick. They disallow subarcticus calling it saturatus (they consider other putative races as being synonymous - heterocnemis; algistus; and lagophonus). If somebody stuck a gun to my head I might think it one of the darker-colored pallescens that they speak of in the volume. It is certainly a smaller race, smaller than I would think saturatus/subarcticus to be.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_57&oldid=1046362363"