Talk:List of birds of Puerto Rico

Accidentals

The two type of accidentals, human introduced and natural are lumped in one category, and budgies are just not making it on themselves. Maybe that would be a good distinction. I preferably would use small on all those escapies that do not have estabished them) or make a seperate list. The parrot list would then look like:

Budgerigars, Parakeets and Parrots

Order: Psittaciformes Family: Psittacidae

File:Amazona vitatta.jpg

Puerto Rican Parrot, an endemic species and one of the 10 most endangered birds in the world.

• Budgerigar, Melopsittacus undulatus (Esc)
• Red-masked Parakeet, Aratinga erythrogenys (I)
• Hispaniolan Parakeet, Aratinga chloroptera (Esc)
• Brown-throated Parakeet, Aratinga pertinax (I)
• Orange-fronted Parakeet, Aratinga canicularis (I)
• Nanday Parakeet, Nandayus nenday (I)
• Monk Parakeet, Myiopsitta monachus (I)
• Canary-winged Parakeet Brotogeris versicolorus (I)
• Hispaniolan Parrot, Amazona ventralis (I)
• Puerto Rican Parrot, Amazona vittata (E)
• White-fronted Parrot, Amazona albifrons (I)
• Red-crowned Parrot, Amazona viridigenalis (I)
• Yellow-headed Parrot, Amazona oratrix (I)
• Orange-winged Parrot, Amazona amazonica (I)

Just ideas..... Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly this would be a bit hard to implement right now since I don't have references that distinguish human from natural. I could do this by inspection but I prefer to have a reference to back me up. If/when I find one I will consider the suggestion. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some are obvious, budgerigars are from Australia, so that can only be escapies. Other species might be more difficult, and should be left as they are untill there is a god source backing it up. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduced species

I changed all entries in which introduced species are mentioned. Introduced species are not Porto Rican species (by definiton), and that is likely to confuse people. For that reason, I think it is better to make clear that they are present, but not of the country. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the escapees since as I sadi above it is impossible for now to account for all of them. Also other lists usch as List of North American birds, List of Florida birds, etc. use only introduced species. Joelito (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that, the point is, they are just not accidentals, which does have a specific meaning in ornithology. The other main point is sill standing however, and that is that introduced species are not always considered a native species, and generally are refered to as a species of their original country, or area. It is not a Puero Rican budgerigar, but it remains an Australian budgerigar. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can explain better what I mean. This will take me to my own work on fruitflies. One of the most common species in the US is Drosophila melanogaster, and introduced species from Africa. In the literature, you will only encounter on occation that it will be called an american species, most of the time, they avoid to give the origin, or refer to it as an (American) population of the African species. Currently, we are tracking the expansion of a newly introduced drosophilid species, Zaprionus indianus, which is an species from Africa/India. This definatly is not an American species.

If you want to go a bit further, only the endemics are Puerto Rican species, the rest are Caribian, North-American, Central-American etc species. The way I would go aroun this is to refer to the Puerto Rican avifauna, and use a sentence like: "Five species are found on Peurto Rico", or "Five species are found on Peurto Rican avifauna". For native (non-endemic) species, I personally think the common language is to refer to them as Puerto Rican species, and I have no big problem with that. However, I think the labeling of introduced species as Puerto Rican species is incorrect. (Ok, enough rambling about semantics)Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have understood your concern since the beginning. I have just been following the conventions used in other lists. For example List of Florida birds includes as Florida species all introduced parrots. To avoid having to rewrite a lot of the family descriptions maybe a footnote explaining the difference between true Puerto Rican species and introduced species which occur in Puerto Rico is a good solution.Joelito (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my reaction would be as follows. Should this page repeat errors of other pages? You requested peer-review for this page. I have not gone read every detail to do so, but if this was an article that I would review professionally, it would be send back with the recommendation of accpetance with monir revision, aka, the fixing of the terminology and the confusing language. And yes, it is a lot of work, but I think that just running through it one time and fix it will cost less time than us discussing here. :-) Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. So, change everything to "There are x species world wide and X species which occur in Puerto Rico"? That better right? Joelito (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be perfect, as it is clear and non-confusing. I think I said it before, you have done a very good job on this article!!! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Informal peer review

I have not judged it on content (as in are all species on the list or not), because I assume that people can reproduce a list. The rest of the text seems fine to me. I made some small changes to clarify stuff. I think the article is in very good shape, and is a usefull addition to WP. The article has referneces, but it would be good to link them using <ref> Text here. </ref>, which is pretty much a requirement for a good article. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The references I used a general references so there is no need as of yet to have footnotes. Joelito (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to add them everywhere, but I would add it as a footnote and provide the user with the option to directly jump to it in stead of that they have to guess that the references are given at the very end. We as regular editors knwo that, but someone who comes in with a google search not so likely. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

I think List of Puerto Rican birds is politically incorrect. species don't have nationalities, it maybe better to name it List of birds in Puerto Rico. Any thoughts?--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 2018 species additions

Adding more introduced/escaped species based on a recent paper is fine. However, the method used is flawed for several reasons. (1) The introduction states, "Unless otherwise noted, the list is that of Bird Checklists of the World as of January 2018", so the entries which are not on that list need to be individually cited. This can be done using ref name=. (2) The stated source of common and scientific names and the sequence of species is 2018 Clements, so additions must follow that taxonomy. In particular, cockatiel and the lovebirds are not New World parrots but a cockatoo and Old World parrots respectively, so they were placed in the wrong family. In addition, Clements calls the species of genus Amazona parrots, not amazons. (3) I suggest that the sentence added to the introduction "In the case of Psittacidae, the list of bird species was updated based on Falcón and Tremblay [5]." be revised to something like "___ [whatever the count is] of introduced cockatoos and parrots have been added based on Falcón and Tremblay." Craigthebirder (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

July 10, 2020 revisions

Because of the number of changes necessitated by the update to the Check-list of North and Middle American Birds which the American Ornithological Society published on June 30, 2020, the revisions to this article are presented here rather than in a series of edit summaries. Changes are per the AOS unless otherwise noted.

• Revise the references, counts, and text in the introduction.
• Add 2 species and delete 1 per Lepage.
• Revise 1 English name.
• Revise 2 genera.
• Revise multiple families' common names per Clements.
• Revise the sequence of species in family Rallidae (Rails, gallinules, and coots).
• Revise the sequence of species in family Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants and shags).
• Revise the sequence of species in genus Progne (Swallows).

Craigthebirder (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2021 revision

These are the changes made to update this list to the 2021 Check-list of North and Middle American Birds published by the American Ornithological Society (AOS) on June 29, 2021. In addition, one species was added per Avibase and two species known only from pre-European settlement remains were deleted.

• Revise the sequence of families in Order Passeriformes.
• Revise the binomials of cormorant species.
• Revise the sequence of waxbills and allies.
• Revise the genus of Java sparrow.
• Revise the genus of Antillean euphonia.
• Revise text, counts, and references as appropriate.

Craigthebirder (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)