Talk:Dodo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Harv errors

This is throwing some harv errors. When the kaka of the TFA run is over, ping me and I'll fix them for you.PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you'll rewrite what you are talking about in English, we'd all be thankful. This reads as gibberish. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky means the big red error messages like "Harv error: link from #CITEREFLozoyaValledor2003 doesn't point to any citation", which only appear if you have installed this script. These error messages indicate that clicking the immediately preceding bluelink doesn't take you anywhere. I fixed four, but two remain, see #Last remaining inline refs below. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Both are now fixed; see below. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the Dodo was flightless

The article says "The Dodo lost the ability to fly due to the lack of mammalian predators on Mauritius". The supporting citation is to Errol Fuller. The following sentence says "The DNA obtained from the Oxford specimen is degraded, and no usable DNA has been extracted from subfossil remains, so these findings still need to be independently verified". I presume "these findings" mean the cladistics rather than the size or flightlessness. If so, the sentence should be moved and I will do so after a suitable wait in case of comment.

The sentence about evolution of flightlessness is summarised in the introduction as "It is presumed that the Dodo became flightless because of the ready availability of abundant food sources and a relative absence of predators on Mauritius". The phrase "it is presumed that" strikes me as unencyclopedic. We ought, perhaps, to ascribe the presumption to the person making it - in this case Fuller. Fuller has written more than one book on the Dodo, but his Wikipedia article makes no mention of any qualification in evolution. I think such a bold statement deserves a more academically qualified support. It is possible that the book itself provides a further reference, but I don't have a copy to check. For the time being, I suggest we adopt the wording used in the Guardian review of one of Fuller's books "the island's lack of predators allowed the dodo to become large and flightless" (Guardian book review). I propose to alter both the main text and the lead to this effect, once again allowing time for comment.

Fuller did not propose it, he is just the citation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book. Who does he say did propose it?

It is a pretty general explanation for flightless birds on predator-free islands, not unique to the Dodo. I think Quammen proposed it, but he was likely not the first. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another suitable sourse: "Ecology of a Changing Planet" by Mark B. Bush (see page 323 [1]). Ashmaker (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not exactly a controversial issue so I don't get why another source is needed? FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese "Pinion"

Julian Hume wrote ("The History of the Dodo Raphus cucullatus and the Penguin of Mauritius", p.67): The use of the name penguin is interesting. The Portuguese used the name fotilicaios for Cape Penguins Spheniscus demersus in the 16th century (Ley 1960), a species they encountered before reaching Mauritius, so the meaning of the name is probably not derived from the birds that we call “penguins” today, but may be in reference to Portuguese “pinion” (clipped wings), in reference to the small inadequate wings of the Dodo. In the article "Dodo" sense of these words are clipped too much (The meaning may not have been derived from penguin, but from pinion(=>pinioning), a reference to the small wings) and as result truth suffers. Ashmaker (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose? FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Something like that: "But in the 16th century the Portuguese encountered African Penguin only and used the name fotilicaios for it. It's possible the word “penguin” came from Portuguese “pinion” (clipped wings), like a reference to the small ones". Ashmaker (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of text for a conjecture from a single source, especially when we have multiple reliable sources (actual etymologists) at Penguin#Etymology. WP:UNDUE suggests that we keep it brief. Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There are many other facts in the article that could be elaborated more, but one has to draw a line somewhere. And in this case, much of it is just speculation anyway, so there's not much gained from going into extreme detail. FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No catastrophic event

Hello! The article ("Extinction") informs: A 2005 expedition found subfossil remains of Dodos and other animals killed by a flash flood. Such mass mortalities would have further jeopardised a species already in danger of becoming extinct (ref #80). But according to Rijsdijk et al. (2009): geomorphological, taphonomic and botanical evidence excludes a catastrophic event, such as a tsunami or volcanic eruption, as the cause for the accumulation (see Introduction: http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/18486/1/vz_meijer_naturwissenschaften_2012.pdf). Ashmaker (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is "dodo" capitalized? It is a common name, like "zebra." I cite [discussion here] and the [Manual of Style,] I was fixing every single mention of the bird in the article, when suddenly I lost the courage of my convictions. What think we? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it just for the moment. I agree that lowercase is probably best per the MOS, but there were a few mistakes and it wasn't consistent. Hopefully others will chime in shortly. Feel free to revert if it's decided to go with lowercase. Woodroar (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is a common name. It is capitalized in Alice in Wonderland because it is the proper name of the bird. It would be capitalized if it were the name of the genus, but, as we can see, it is not the name of the genus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be lowercase except when referring specifically to the Alice in Woderland character, as in the picture caption. Awien (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a convention of the bird Wiki project. All bird names are capitalised on Wikipedia. Don't change it here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked sparrow, pigeon, parrot, crow: none, and no other species mentioned in the body of those articles, are capitalised except in the title.

And I would suggest you watch your manners, FunkMonk. You are an editor on the same footing as the rest of us, and are out of line attempting to issue orders. Awien (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those are species, but higher taxa (families, orders, etc). Common names for bird species are always capitalised on Wiki.[2] And I have no idea what you're talking about in the last part of your comment. FunkMonk (talk)

I'm not at all sure what you say about the names of birds makes any sense, and I'm very sure that bird articles are inconsistent anyway, but I'll look into it further. Meanwhile, in the unlikely event that your last sentence isn't disingenuous, "Don't change it" is an order. You are not empowered to issue orders to other editors. Awien (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the rule on capitalization of common names almost reverses the rule on capitalization of scientific names. The scientific names of genera and higher-ranking taxa are capitalized, while in scientific binomial names of species, the name of the genus is capitalized, but the name of the species is lower-case. The rule on common names appears to be specific to birds and not other classes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm citing project policy, not my own opinion. Common names of bird species are always capitalised here. If you want that changed, bring it up on the project talk page, not here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk is indeed quoting policy that IOC common names of bird species are capitalized in ornithology-specific articles, and this is an ornithology-specific article. The reason why sparrow, pigeon, parrot, and crow and not capitalized is that they are not specific names. By contrast, Rock Pigeon and Seaside Sparrow should be capitalized. As to issuing orders, the way he said it was abrupt, but any editor does have the right to demand that other editors follow policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ALL FunkMunk needed to do, assuming good faith on the part of editors who were clearly demonstrating it already, was to inform us of the policy in question. It was not necessary to demand anything. It is also not necessary to again ORDER people to "bring it up on the project talk page" as opposed to TELLING us that it could be discussed there.

Robert McClenon, thank you for the explanation of the project's arcane capitalisation conventions.

Awien (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It really is a weird rule, especially since it is contrary to the rule for scientific names, and it doesn't apply to mammals or reptiles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, common names are not scientific names per definition, so there's not much reason to compare. It is arbitrary, yes, but a choice has been made, and all our articles adhere to it. And if this decision is to be overturned, the discussion needs to be centralised, and not take place on the article of a specific bird. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that any discussion should be on the project talk page, not here. There is probably a reason for the rule, which probably reflects the practice of professional ornithologists when they use a common name in publications. If so, that is our reliable source. I agree with Awien that you are abrupt in the way that you stated the policy, but we should follow our own policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say I'm trying to be concise rather than rude, but that seems to be up for interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how or why the rules of English apply to mammals, but not to avians. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because an arbitrary choice has been made by the IOC, which the Wikipedia bird project follows. Nothing more to it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would they want to violate the Wiki Manual of Style and the basic rules of English? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, ask them, or look at their archives. Again, it is not a discussion that should be had here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My aren't you concise! Thank you for taking the time to tell us what we may discuss. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

See [3], it has been discussed at length many times. It does get a bit tedious. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I read all that the other day. In any case, it is not really possible to teach everyone to write properly. Excessive capitalization is simply a pet peeve of mine, one that I must let go.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read it, you should realise the problem isn't with Wikipedia, but with mainstream ornithologist literature. Is it really that baffling that we follow their example here? FunkMonk (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it baffling. Nature doesn't. Maybe because it is not an ornithologist journal? Why should Wikipedia, also not being "ornithologist literature", approach the subject any differently? More importantly, why should it be inconsistent with itself? It is quite baffling. And to be pedantic, I don't think there is any policy prohibiting lowercasing bird names. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emperor_Penguin#Requested_move FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mauritian rupee needing citation

It was added that the Dodo appears a sa watermark on the Mauritian rupee, which appears to be correct, but there is no source for it. Anyone able to find a citation? FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.e-allmoney.com/banknotes/afr/mauritius.html. Ashmaker (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• There are many images of rupee banknotes here (http://www.banknoteworld.it/mauritius.htm) and dodo's heads are visible too. Ashmaker (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Cool, not sure how to format that ref though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 12 November 2013

Please change all instances of "Dodo" to lowercase "dodo," except of course for headings, titles, and where they begin sentences. Dodo is a regular, non-proper noun, and Wikipedia style indicates lowercase for regular nouns, even when they are the subject of the entry. Thank you.

Clevername75 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No. See the section on capitalisation above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Of etymology of Raphus

There is a source of etymology of Raphus: "Sigismond Galenius ayant trouvé dans Hésychius le nom de ράφος , dont l'application n'étoit point déterminée, l'appropria de son bon plaisir à l'outarde; et depuis, MM. Moehring et Brisson l'ont appliqué au dronte, sans rendre compte des raisons qui les y ont engagés". de Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc "Histoire naturelle" // Œuvres complètes. — Paris: Rapet et Cie, 1818. — Vol. 9. — P. 259. (See: http://books.google.ru/books?id=sj9UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=Sigismond+Galenius+hesychius&source=bl&ots=ieLsNj_HtF&sig=vVvU4WOl-cPP1drv8lwniHqIe94&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=CFPNUbq6AuKn4gT28ICYCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sigismond%20Galenius%20hesychius&f=false) Ashmaker (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• What does it say? FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Something like that: Sigismond Galenius met name ράφος with unclear definition in Hesychius's book and used it for bustard for his pleasure; later M.M. Moehring and Brisson applied this name to dodo with no explanation of any reasons. To get more exact translation ask your French lang. friends:)) Ashmaker (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Doesn't seem to give much more resolution than what's already in the article. It basically just says the reason for the name is unknown?FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Scientists often invented sonorous and senseless names for animals and plants just for their pleasure, e.g. after ancient mythological characters. Ashmaker (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • In the article there are many infos about origin of many other "Dodo-words", but nothing of Genus name.Ashmaker (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It says it is a reference to bustards. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Faulty statement @ Subfossil specimens

The statement "A barber named Louis Etienne Thirioux also found many dodo remains around 1900, which are now lost" [my emphasis] is utterly wrong. Thirioux in fact discovered the only complete skeleton of an individual bird, and his specimens are still on display in Mauritius. May be I'll edit it after dinner. Chhandama (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there, but he found the only remains of a juvenile dodo, which are indeed now lost. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Source never cited

Not sure if the reference to this listed source was dropped, but there is currently nothing referring to it: Kallio, H. (2004). The Dodo and Mauritius Island. England: Dewi Lewis Publishing. —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, removed it from the text, because the info I cited was pretty useless. And then one of course has to remove it from the reference list as well, argh, I hate this citation style... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2014

I think the section on culture should contain a reference to the dodo's depiction in the Looney Tunes cartoon Porky in Wackyland. 174.124.241.73 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 174.124.241.73 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The "dodo" in "Porky in Wackyland" is a dodo in name only. As per WP:POPCULTURE, listing trivial or in-name-only appearances is recommended against.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What makes you say that? It clearly is meant to be a dodo, albeit a stylized one. Taz is mentioned in the Tasmanian devil article and he could be said to be a devil in name only. The cartoon was voted #8 in 50 Greatest Cartoons and is preserved by the National Film Registry so its not insignificant. 174.124.241.73 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Among other things, Taz the Tasmanian Devil looks like a mammal. The Wackyland dodo, on the other hand, doesn't look anything like a bird, let alone like an actual dodo. I mean, how does the Wackyland dodo significantly affect the public's perception of the dodo?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Compared to the other things mentioned in the culture section, this one seems to be fairly less significant. FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Article reads: "Today, the dodo appears frequently in works of popular fiction and is used as a mascot for many kinds of products." That is enough coverage for all obscure references. We don't need every instance from every sit-com when somebody got called a dodo. The Tasmanian Devil is a cultural icon, so not a fair comparison to an obscure reference.Gaff (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting material

Unfortunately on a not so professional-looking site - https://sites.google.com/site/dodologistsmiscellany/ by Jolyon Parish. Shyamal (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Heheh, I've seen it, took some images from it. And it seems he has in turn taken some images from Wikipedia! It is an appendix to his book, but it seems the most interesting parts have not been published yet. The painting on the right here was apparently unrecorded in Dodo literature until I notified Julian Hume about it and uploaded it to Commons:https://archive.org/stream/parishdodomisc3aa#page/n43/mode/2up FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• On interesting material, this archive linkdead link] has a very interesting video which was once linked to in the aerticle, but the NHM link is now dead, so the archived one would be a good replacement. The Archive.org site does not contain the videos either. But for some reason, I can't add it due to some filter...[4] Anyone know what to do? FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dodo's wake up?

the french article has a section about research aiming to re-create the dodo from DNA parts from doodo's remain and non extincted close parents https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_%28oiseau%29#Le_r.C3.A9veil_du_dodo_.3F so er... is it worth adding such a section here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.99.5 (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Until something is actually done (no indication anyone is even working on this specifically), it is just speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Help to translate

Hello. I'm translating this article to portuguese and I need some help. It's hard to understand old english phrases, if somebody write this text in modern english it will be very important to me.

Here they taried 12. daies to refresh themselues, finding in this place great quantity of foules twise as bigge as swans, which they called Walghstocks or Wallowbirdes being very good meat. But finding also aboundance of pidgeons & popiniayes, they disdained any more to eat of those great foules, calling them (as before) Wallowbirds, that is to say, lothsome or fulsome birdes. Of the said Pidgeons and Popiniayes they found great plenty being very fat and good meate, which they could easily take and kil euen with little stickes: so tame they are by reason ý the Isle is not inhabited, neither be the liuing creatures therein accustomed to the sight of men.

Thanks. Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a more understandable version from another source, perhaps we should bring it back: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dodo&diff=632683046&oldid=632682401 FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Below is my best shot at retaining much of the phrasing and meaning, while making it intelligible for the purpose of translation.

Here they remained for 12 days to refresh themselves, finding in this place (area) a large number of birds [fowl] twice as big as swans, which they called Walghstocks or Wallowbirds [these are common names created by those finding the birds], having very good meat [the meaning of "good" in this description is not obvious to me, as the description of "lothsome or fulsome" directly contradicts all meanings of "good" that I am aware of]. However, since they also found a plentiful amount of pigeons and popinjays [antiquated term for Parrots], they chose to avoid eating more of the great [large and/or noble, depending on original meaning] fowl [birds], calling them (as mentioned previously) Wallowbirds, meaning [disgusting] and [excessive] birds.

Of the already mentioned pigeons and popinjays [parrots], the explorers found that they were plentiful, fat, and with good-tasting meat. The pigeons and popinjays [parrots] were easily captured by hand and killed with small sticks, due to being unaccustomed to humans because the isle was uninhabited by man.

[continuation of the passage]

Here they also found Raven Parrots and a huge abundance of fish; so many that two men were able catch enough for all five ships. They found tortoises so big that ten men could sit in and dine in one of their shells as well as being able to walk with two men standing on its shell. We searched the whole island for any human inhabitants, but none could be found, as it was entirely without people living there.

I hope this helps.

Thor214 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello !  :-) Is it possible that a few of these birds thought to be extinct live in Nicobar, a habitat of the Nicobar Pigeon ! Thank you !Vijay Chary (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that would be a bit too far away for a flightless bird... FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Popular media: Undercover Angel

I don't know if it's worth adding in the popular media section, but the Dodo (a toy and a cartoon character) are a major plot element in the TV movie Undercover Angel (film). AugustinMa (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think only very significant uses should be mentioned specifically, otherwise we will have an endless list of trivia. Appearances like that are covered by the sentence "The dodo appears frequently in works of popular fiction". But open for discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2016

Early explorers call the Dodo the "Devil's Chicken." Candyboy808 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not according to any sources I know of. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant, but at one point there's a typo mentioning the year "20011" instead of "2011". Tried to change it but obviously cannot due to the "devil's chicken".

Quite relevant, now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Extinction of Dodo

I believe the Dutch settlers/invaders had much to do with Dodo extinction as they started using it to replace poultry as it's meat was considered highly exquisite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.207.170 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think people ate Dodos, but I do know for a fact that Dodo eggs were eaten by invasive rats Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be a hard "fact" to prove since you probably weren't there in the 16th century. In the world of reality we call that "hearsay". What you claim to "know" you didn't witness. Maybe you read it somewhere and therefore it's not first-hand knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.12.162.211 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Humans did eat dodos, accounts and bones prove this, but the question is whether it contributed to their extinction. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917160155/http://web.mac.com/rajith/rajith/About_Me_files/What%20did%20the%20dodo%20look%20like%3F.PDF to http://web.mac.com/rajith/rajith/About_Me_files/What%20did%20the%20dodo%20look%20like%3F.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Early explorers called the Dodo the "Devil's Chicken." A source: Day, David (2012). Nevermore: A Book of Hours – Meditations on Extinction. ISBN 978-1-926802-68-8. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Never read that anywhere, sounds dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A citation: The Portuguese were the first Europeans to briefly encounter the Dodo, but the Dutch were the first to record its existance. Sometimes called the “Devil’s Chicken,” the Dodo’s desirability as food for sailors varied with the seasons. When fruit was abundant, it was succulent, but during the lean season, the flesh was very tough and ill-tasting. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Almost all old accounts are printed in Errol Fuller's dodo book, and none of them use such a name. We'd need a quote of the exact old source to confirm this. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)