Recent changes edit
I added a section on the taxonomy of the great barbet that was then heavily edited and shortened by user:BhagyaMani. I've reverted to my original version for the following reasons:
- It is worth mentioning in the article that Boddaert published a catalogue of Daubenton's plates.
- It is worth mentioning explicitly that neither Buffon nor Daubenton used binomial names.
- "The great barbet was subordinated to the genus Psilopogon in 2004" - this is strange English and it is not clear what it means.
- Wikipedia uses the taxonomy published by the IOC - and not that of HBW alive. See here Thus in my version the IOC was cited for the genus change from Megalaima to Psilopogonand also for the list of subspecies.
- Having a separate very short "Etymology" section is not necessary - the etymology naturally forms part of the taxonomy. Please look at any of the Featured articles on birds.
- I've now mentioned that the red-vented barbet is the most closely related species.
- Aa77zz (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- See the page Taxonomy (biology) for the definition of the term 'Taxonomy', and to understand that Buffon's description of the bird was NOT a classification in this sense. So the great barbet's taxonomy starts with Boddaert's scientific name!! Lots of species were described by Buffon and colleagues in the 18th century, but NOT classified. See the definition of Etymology to understand that this term is not a part of taxonomy. The Handbook of the Birds of the World is the proper source for bird subspecies, but NOT the IOC.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)