Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 20

identification

File:Ausbird.jpg

Hi guys, my bird knowledge is close to zero; I took a pic of this in Melbourne, would appreciate if someone could help identify it. Apologies if it's a common bird, but... Chensiyuan (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Gull - nice photo :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you upload it to commons and place in category Larus pacificus. As much as I love the 'mug shot' in the taxobox on the Pacific Gull page, I think an all body shot is more appropriate and this one is probably the best we have though a little dark. Could you crop it a little and lighten it a touch and we could put it in the taxobox. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd do just that (thumb on right is new version). On another note, I also took the Kookaburra taxobox shot -- is it correctly captioned? Chensiyuan (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Nice shot! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the beak on that bird typical of the species? It looks huge compared to the beaks of the gulls we have in England - even that of the mighty Great Black-backed Gull. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that is the key feature of the Pacific Gull- we only have 3 widespread gulls here, the third is the Kelp Gull. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, does the Pacific Gull have a particularly strong bite in comparison to other gulls? I'm aware that large, powerful-looking beaks can sometimes have evolved simply for display purposes. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a predator on other seabirds, as well as being a scavenger. I have occasionally had to remove a Pacific Gull from a cannon-net, and you definitely don't want to get your fingers within range of that beak. Maias (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lorikeet identification (3)

The lorikeet on the right not the Rainbow Lorikeet on the left. I do not think it is a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet-necked Lory. Looks like riciniata, but could perhaps be an intraspecific hybrid. Rabo3 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought Violet-necked Lory was more likely than Blue-streaked Lory (Eos reticulata). What is "intraspecific hybrid"? Snowman (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A hybrid of two subspecies (as opposed to two species). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I meant to say: I thought Violet-necked Lory (Eos squamata) was more likely than Red-and-blue Lory, but I did not think it was Blue-streaked Lory (Eos reticulata). I have just looked up Eos squamata riciniata, which looks like the flickr photograph. Another image I put in the infobox has a lighter violet neck band. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another taxonomy

Some here will be interested in a DNA-based classification of all birds that appeared today (abstract). Biggest surprise that I know of: parrots and passerines as each other's closest relatives, with falcons closer to that group than to hawks. And though the authors say they've revealed the evolutionary history of birds, I'd say it's another reminder to us to say that taxa are placed together or considered to be related to each other, not that they are related. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a PDF of the study from one of the paper's authors that I've put up for others to download[1]. --Bytor (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Always thought something about falcons was very different to accipiters. Wow, would love a full-text of that one! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

and here's the tree...wow, some funny ones there...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuckoos close to bustards, cranes and rails? Bizarre! Maias (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, that one blew my mind too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The turacos are pretty weird too.

Here's a Flickr page with links to two more figures from the article, with captions. If I'd been awake last night, I could have posted that—sorry!

Here is a blog post on the article and here is another, with various comments, some of them skeptical (especially of the claim—I'm not sure whether it's from the article or the bloggers—that the position of the tinamous shows they evolved from flightless birds). Maybe especially interesting are these references:

Ericson, P. G. P., Anderson, C. L., Britton, T., Elzanowski, A., Johansson, U. S., Källersjö, M., Ohlson, J. I., Parsons, T. J., Zuccon, D. & Mayr, G. 2006. Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biology Letters doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0523

(passerine-falcon-seriema alliance)

Fain, M. G. & Houde, P. 2004. Parallel radiations in the primary clades of birds. Evolution 58, 2558-2573.

("Metaves": clade of grebes, flamingos, mesites, pigeons, sandgrouse, tropicbirds, etc.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Man, that is one crazy tree. Look at the Sunbittern and Kagu! I think they must be smoking the same stuff Sibley and Alhquist were! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, kind of. But the news reports as usual miss the really good stuff. Look at the sweet clades that they have verified - theck out clade H, the mighty seabirds, marvellous! And Charadriiformes still distinct (the fossil record makes it actually older than in this phylogeny)! And if you put the Passeriformes to where they usually are (between Piciformes and the true Coraciiformes, probably a bit closer to the former), Near passerine screams "clade" (the position of the trogons is especially satisfying).

So essentially, if you're into Linnean taxonomy, say hello to the neoavian superorders. Because that's what we are beginning to see, like I said last year.

About the weird stuff - there is some morphological evidence for seriemas and falcons being not too far apart, and the accipitrids have had their genome reshuffled like a deck of cards, so I am not surproised that they don't group with falcons. Passeriformes often come out as most basal Neornithes (which we know is wrong), so their placement with the falcons is likely to be off too.

The disadvantage of Science/Nature articles is that they usually don't include a thorough discussion. This paper should really have been a 20-sider in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution or Molecular Biology and Evolution.

They have a ratite study coming up in PNAS which I hear deals also with the tinamou weirdness we find in the present study.

Note that you can get the "tentative consensus" paleognath phylogeny (tinamous vs OZ/Melanesia/NZ vs rheas vs ostrich) by shifting the node where the paleognaths attach to the other Neornithes. This is not possible in any phylogeny. So if you uproot the paleognaths, you have relationships that have reasonable odds to be right... whatever that means. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to re-read the paper; I was only looking at Fig 4 - but fig 2 has the trogons in a completely different place. Hmmm, fig two really makes the storm-petrels seem paraphyletic also. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we have a referenced: "Cytochrome b DNA sequence analysis suggests that the family is paraphyletic and may be more accurately treated as distinct families." and I guess you put it in yourself. So we're prepared for whatever may come. (That is actually what I have been doing in the Passeriformes - building a no-regrets baseline that will allow us to implement future changes rapidly. We can't implement what hasn't been published, but we can note down uncertainties and peculiarities, anticipating what is going to be published :-) )

The trogons are "jumpy" - that's why we haven't got a fix on them yet, but the view that they represent the most basal of the living near passerines is gaining in support. If the parrots don't go one step further out, which is possible.

In either case, it would make the near passerines the clade "where strange things happened to the toes". You won't find as much dactyly diversity and other toe adaptations (like the perching-lock of Passeriformes or the toe reductions of Picidae and Halcyonidae) gathered together anywhere else in all the Aves.

Just like most seabirds are the bulk of a clade (which in turn is part of a "higher waterbirds" clade), or like most birds with extreme metabolic adaptations are cypselomorphs. The larger neoavian "superorders" each seem to near-monopolize particular adaptations... this is very very satisfying from a systematic and evolutionary standpoint, because the first major diversification of the neoavian mega-clades took place in the post-Cretaceous wasteland. It's as if each survivor radiated into the many different niches that were open to its particular adaptations. So most niches that demanded a very resilient metabolism were filled by cypselomorphs, and most niches that demanded ability to cope with saline water were occupied by the seabird clade and so on.

It is nice to see that just like with Archaeopteryx, it is the guys with feathers that arrive in time to help evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference in the trogon positions—in both figures, it looks to me like they're the sister group of the coraciiform-piciforms.

However, Fig. 4 greatly de-emphasizes the close relationship between mousebirds and owls shown in Fig. 2. Even if the authors were willing to ignore the caveats you mention above about accipitridae, trogons, and passerines, they may have had some doubts about this idea. Is a mousebird-owl clade original to this paper?

This article has strange things happening to the toes outside the near-passerines, given the gruiform-cuckoo clade and and the mighty seabird-turaco clade. (I want to change the lead of Turaco to "The turacos are fruit-eating, arboreal seabirds, widely distributed in tropical Africa.") —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 691 of the articles assigned to this project, or 5.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a useful tool (no real down sides), so I'll go ahead and add the template to subscribe. MeegsC | Talk 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

B. Wolterding (talk · contribs) has run the cleanup listing for us—results are here. The list can also be accessed from the main project page; I've put the link at the bottom, near the references section. Looks like we've got a lot of work to do! ; ) MeegsC | Talk 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great heads up this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

When will the bot next to a run to update the list? Snowman (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's generated once a month, but I'll ask B. Wolterding ... There's certainly plenty to do on this one! I've corrected all the broken citations (1) and revived all the dead links (8), and have started trying to find references for some of the information requesting sources. I've been marking the ones I've completed, so that it's clearer what remains to be done. I think this is going to be a really useful tool! MeegsC | Talk 08:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the listing here, the list is run every 1–2 months. (I imagine it takes an age and uses lots of computer resources.) So we may get a "clean" version later this month. It would be great if it were smaller! : ) MeegsC | Talk 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been a bit lazy but I have Forshaw's Parrots of The World, the Lendon book (Australian Parrots in Field and Aviary), and a few books on Oz birds, so should be easy to fix a few. Surely a few DYKs beckon....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to this in the nav box that is on the right of the screen. Does any one want to write the header? - see red link at the top of the cleanup page. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing photograph and request for photograph template/image

Should WP Birds have a template to say; "The wiki does not have an image of this species. If you have a free image, please upload it? The template could provide appropriate links and contain a small simple bird image.Snowman (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No! I hate those in the biography articles. Hate hate hates them I doo, the trixy little hobbitses... okay, sorry, but I just wanted to convey the sense of distaste I have for them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No - I couldn't have put it better myself jimfbleak (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions. Surely hobbyists can contribute worthwhile bird photographs. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides. The other issue at present is the large number of pages with a photo and little text, so I am trying to concentrate on those for the time being (in between FAs, GAs etc.). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of special requests for a particular subspecies or species to make up sets, rather than universal application. Anyway, sometimes good images inspire further work on articles. Snowman (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowman, are you thinking that some readers don't know they can upload their own pictures? Or don't know where to do it if they do have pictures? Because while I don't see the need for a template per se—surely people realize we don't have a picture if they don't see one in the article—I can certainly see the advantage of having an easy link to the upload process for those who don't know where/how to do so. In that regard, a simple template might be something worth considering... MeegsC | Talk 11:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify, I have no problem with articles with small amounts of text and lots of pretty pictures. I just dislike self-referential templates. As a matter of course when approaching people for images directly I make sure I only ask for images for articles with large amounts of text - I feel cheeky asking for an image for a stub. I suspect people are more likely to contribute to a well written article as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion but I have to agree with Snowman, I've deliberately uploaded images on to pages with little content and am amazed at how quickly it will become 'populated' with text, I believe the quality and quantity of our articles seems to have increased since I joined (....I certainly cannot claim any responsibility for the written-content!) I'm also looking forward to seeing some new New Caledonian stuff! Aviceda talk 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Greater Crested Tern

I'd welcome any additional information that any one has, in particular, there must surely be a population estimate for Australia at least? Any known predators of adults? Also, of course, any thing else you can add, comments also welcome. jimfbleak (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've seen (and got poor images) of a Crested Tern being taken by a Whistling Kite some years back, will ask on our Birding-Aus Mailing-List later today. Aviceda talk 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen them getting harassed by Eastern Reef Egrets in the style of Frigatebirds. I'll see if I can find anything to conform that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Received the following info from B-A readers Dave Torr and Chris Baxter: HBW Vol 3 says 500,000 pairs in Aus and 50,000 pairs outside Aus (for Gt Crested), Chris Baxter says I have seen White-bellied Sea-Eagle taking nestling Crested Terns off of summit of Inner Casuarina Islet, Cape du Couedic, SW tip of Kangaroo Island, SA, during summer breeding season. Sea-Eagle had nestlings to feed in eyrie about 1 km away. The following reference might be worth a look at re: population estimates etc. The Status of Australia's Seabirds. 1996. Ross, G. J. B., Weaver, K and Greig, J. C. (eds). Proceedings of the National Seabird Workshop, Canberra, 1-2 November 1993. Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia, Canberra. Aviceda talk 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ref, I'll see what I can find. Have you got a page number for HBW? Sea-eagle looks like OR, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim,Dave Torr sent me a couple of scanned pdf's of HBW Crested Tern articles, is there a method of sending them to you as attachments (email?) Aviceda talk 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandwiches anyone?

I wonder if anyone fancies running Sandwich Tern to GA/FA. It already has a map, good images of two of the three ssp and a hand-tailored cladogram, and given its extensive range, inc Europe and NAm, there's masses of material out there. I don't particularly want to do it myself, too much like Greater Crested Tern, but it looks like an easy GA/FA if any wants a go, or I'm happy to chip in to a collaboration. jimfbleak (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...and one good tern deserves another...oh sod, did that joke already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL -I've modified the map to remove French legend and added English titles, not sure if the colours are accurate enough matches.

FAs requesting citations

For those who haven't yet had a look at the cleanup listing that B. Wolterding created for us, there are several FA articles which have been tagged with "citation needed", "verification needed" or "clarify" tags. These include Kakapo, American Black Vulture and King Vulture. Perhaps those who lead-authored the articles are best placed to respond? MeegsC | Talk 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

God I f*****ng hate citation tags. What's wrong with asking in the talk page first rather than littering them through the article like confetti? I'll see what I can do about Kakapo today. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. And the stuff being tagged is—in some cases—mind-numbing. I just checked White-tailed Lapwing, where someone had citation tagged the adjective "elegant" with the edit comment "who says this and where".  ?!??! The things some people worry about! MeegsC | Talk 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Small parrot in painting idnetification

Image:Georg Flegel 005.jpg Small parrot in painting by German artist Georg Flegel (1566 - 1638). Snowman (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Lorikeet comes to mind...hey there's another article to expand...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say that the picture is called "Still life with Pygmy parrot". It is difficult because the colours might have faded, but I do not think it is is Little Lorrikeet. What about Buff-faced Pygmy Parrot or the genus Micropsitta? Snowman (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Another vote for Little Lorikeet. Rabo3 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have taken the liberty of removing it from Micropsitta. If it is a a species of Micropsitta (which I doubt) the illustrator really messed it up. Rabo3 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In-the-round it does resemble the Little Lorikeets that I have seen in a few photographs and one video. I am not completely ready to dismiss the name that the artist gave it, but it appears to have been painted about 200 years before any of these parrot species were given binomial names. I wonder if he had a living one to see when he was painting it, and I wonder if the parrot did eat part of the almond seen in the food bowl. I think that when it was painted, about 400 years ago, few people went to Australia. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, possibly them yoo. agree about timing issue too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Lorikeets are 15 cm long and the bird in the picture looks smaller than that. Snowman (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. People are often surprised how small birds (or vice versa) really are when they're lucky to get close-up views. The ever-repeated example is people seeing a buzzard up close and being absolutely sure they've seen an eagle (it was MASSIVE!). TL of 15 cm. That's the size of a House Sparrow. I see no way this could be turned into any species of Micropsitta, and if I am wrong, it would be so misleading that it would be entirely useless and unrepresentative, except perhaps in an article dealing with how problematic (sometimes even funny) some old animal illustrations are. Rabo3 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Red-faced Lovebird too, perhaps the female. They were imported into Europe in the 16th century. Snowman (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just found this page says it is a Red-faced Lovebird Agapornis pullarius. Perhaps, pygmy parrot was a bad translation. Perhaps, Australian parrots did not reach Europe in the sixteenth century. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GA/FA update

Greater Crested Tern at GAN, Nuthatch still at FAC, soon to be now joined by Puerto Rican Amazon jimfbleak (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Scope of the Project

I noticed that there have been some adjustments to the scope of the project. Should the scope also include articles on famous books/papers in the history of ornithology? For example an article on Willughby's Ornithology?--Onorio (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Added "ornithologists and their works" - ornithologists sensu lato to include bird artists. Shyamal (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Good redefinition. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Woodpecker identification?

File:WoodpeckerWithRedCrest.jpg

I was hoping you lovely bird-wise folks could help me identify the type of woodpecker in the image to the right. If the article on whatever kind it happens to be needs a picture, I'd like to get it there, but unfortunately, I know very little about birds! (Hopefully then I can also rename the image more appropriately) Any help is much appreciated. It is from the Northeast United States (Vermont). Thanks! -- PenelopeIsMe 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a female Pileated Woodpecker jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That was fast - thanks! Lots of pictures there - at least I know what it is, now! -- PenelopeIsMe 10:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bird vision

I was thinking of making bird vision a stand-alone main-articled from bird or bird anatomy or both. Should I hive it off straight away or work in bird until there's a decent amount of content? If anyone wants to collab on this, great. jimfbleak (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say hive away! And I'm happy to help; I'm home for a few weeks and sort of have time... :P MeegsC | Talk 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Given how visual birds are. My take would be to duplicate the section (i.e not remove per se) first so both the section and the new article are the same, then gradually increase the new article, and consider how to reduce the section a bit later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, It'll probably be a day or two before I get started. jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New images

Good news Snowman, Tun Pin Ong Tunpin.ong photographer of the Horned Parakeet has just joined and should be able to upload some quality images of rarely-photographed species. If there any of mine that you would like uploaded, let me know (I haven't heard much more from those that I emailed last-weekend) Aviceda talk 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking for several days on how to get these uploaded and how to get the permissions formalised. Commons is probably a better place to discuss this. See your talk page on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Eeeekkk! A photographer who's been to New Caledonia! Wantwantwantwantwant! And there is an Ueva Parakeet! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now Uvea Parakeet is destubbed and looking lovely with its new picture! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bird vision

I've done a rough stub, just to get us started. I'm not committed to the structure, content or even the article title, but at least there's something to work on. There's a huge amount to do, but I think this could be a great collaboration, and we could end up with something really worthwhile. jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a stub? Wow! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work! One thing that jumps out at me is that perhaps the Raptor section is too broad. Owls are covered in the next section, Nocturnal Birds but they are raptors too. The Raptor section says that raptors probably have color vision similar to humans but the Nocturnal Birds section contradicts this by saying that owl's high concentration of rods, rather than cones limits their color vision. It seems owls need to be excluded from the raptor section somehow. Perhaps call it Diurnal Birds of Prey? Also with regard to the name of the section Nocturnal birds, many owls such as the Barred Owl are actually Crepuscular and not nocturnal though the adaptations for low light vision described still apply. Would it be appropriate to call it "Nocturnal and Crepuscular Birds" instead? Then again, what you are getting at is low light situations since you also have the cave info as well. Tough call. Kirkmona (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Owls are not in the same order as hawks and falcons; so while they are considered "birds of prey" in the lay community, they are not closely related. In addition they occupy entirely different niches. Their vision being one example of divergence. Treating the two separately is fitting as they illustrate different aspects of the evolution of vision; and there would be no benefit to treating them as the same. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added "diurnal" to birds of prey, since that can only clarify. Nocturnal is trickier - hopefully we will have more on nightjars, potoos etc, so not just owls. Crepuscular spreads the net too wide and introduces an unfamiliar word to the heading. Rather leave as is for now, since even day-flying owls like Short-eared have eyes that can cope with low light levels. jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tern

Greater Crested Tern passed GA, but can't go to FAC yet since Nuthatch hasn't finished, although likely to fail (two support, two oppose) so I've sent the tern to peer review jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic order

There are many articles with lists of species in a genus and some with lists of subspecies in a species, but there is no explanation of what "taxonomic order" is, where you might expect to find it, on the "taxonomy" page. Does a taxonomic order apply to subspecies? How do you find out what the taxonomic order is? More comments on this topic are welcome. Snowman (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See taxonomic order. SP-KP (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The term is in vogue but there really is no unique and defining procedure to produce a consensus linear sequence, leave alone a consensus tree. Perhaps what you seek is a modification in the form of in the order followed by X (X standing for Voous, Peters, S-M or other standard list authors). Shyamal (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, the "taxonomic order" page could be expanded. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with access to Mayr E & W Bock (1994) Provisional classifications v standard avian sequences: heuristics and communication in ornithology. Ibis. can help. Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly "taxonomic sequence" produces more relevant ghits. Shyamal (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Taxonomic order" can be misleading. Anyway, {{doi:10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00211.x}} might be of interest too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved the article to "Taxonomic sequence" but the number of redirects is large and hopefully one of the bots will fix them on the next pass. Shyamal (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Moa plurality

Can those who know the Moas look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Genus.2Fspecies. Shyamal (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated cleanup listing

B. Wolterding has generated us an updated "cleanup list"; it's available here. Jude's fixed the broken citation, and I've updated the dead link, but it's "all hands on deck" for the remainder. I suggest we put a done checkmark (or something similar) next to the one's we've fixed, to save the next editor the hassle of going through an already-fixed article looking for the problem! MeegsC | Talk 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the link in the navbox at the top right on the right of this page. The link will automatically go to the latest list. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Free photos from Flickr?

Is it possible to make a bot that would scan Flickr for Commons compatibly licensed photos for all the species in Category:Bird articles needing photos? The problem is avoiding photos that aren't actually of birds. Perhaps searching through the images in each category (they're called tags, but they're categories) like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/<binomial name> we could get something that could offer potential photos that could then be investigated by a human and moved to Commons if suitable, that would be very good even if it had the odd false positive. Moving images to Commons from Flickr is amazingly quick and easy, but finding the image in the first place can be a challenge. If a bot could cut down on the time it would make it easier.

I suspect we could actually get through all the suitably licensed pictures pretty quickly though; begging would be the next phase. What other ideas do we have for cutting through the pile of pictureless articles? Richard001 (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several difficulties with Flickr - the preponderance of images incorrectly identified or simply untagged - which can produce results for the patient. I use several tricks; when I find a photographer with an interest in birds and a tendency to Creative Commons his pics I bookmark them and check back regularly. With regards to begging, I find I have an 25% success rate, and better luck with better articles. Photographers who already have their images on some kind of creative commons liscence are also easier to hit for images as it isn't as big a jump. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As you indicate, the process would need manual input but a bot could speed up the process. The bot could exclude images less than a certain size especially if larger images are available. The output could be in tables of 100 at a time with two columns for different editors to enter "yes" or "no" and a third column to say uploaded or rejected. I think the bot may have only some partial success as many pages with an image could do with better images and images of different views (and of chicks, juveniles, nests, eggs) of the birds. Have you already made the bot? Snowman (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking for a image might be worth trying more often. How to you go about asking a flickr contributor? Snowman (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a account, so I can send Flickr mails to ask. I'm not sure how else you can contact people on Flickr. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't really. The profile pages are usually fairly bare. But the default setting sends a message via email when you get a flickr mail, so even people who don't visit often should be aware you've asked. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You can ask via private mail (which I think is probably best) or by a comment on the image page. I haven't actually had a person yet say 'no', although some have probably seen the mail and ignored it. You have to be pretty specific too. There's one guy who I have asked to make one of his images CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but he didn't seem to get that it has to be one of these licenses and not just any CC. I haven't made a bot and wouldn't know how to, but I think it could help out, at least initially, with searching Flickr for photos on almost any subject. Richard001 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a flickr account and send emails using this "flickr email template" that I cut and paste from here. I have only been doing this since the beginning of June basically, and have almost 80 successes, not all of them birds. You get some ignores, but its well worth doing, and you do form the odd ongoing connection which can be very useful. Kahuroa (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the template... think it should be added somewhere outside your user page space (though not at template: space, of course, since it isn't used within Wikipedia) to help others get into the requesting swing. Richard001 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lovebird identification

Image:Black-cheeked Lovebird (Agapornis nigrigenis)9.jpg Does anyone think that this is not a Black-cheeked Lovebird? Snowman (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They are yellower than you wold expect for a Black-cheek and too red around the face for a Yellow-collared. I'd say they are more Black-cheek than not, but the amount of yellow may suggest possibly a hybrid? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if there was too much yellow for a Black-cheeked, but it was not totally inconsistent with some images on the internet. There are photographs of several of them in an aviary on flickr. Can they have that much yellow or is it a hybrid? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just working with HBW's lovebird plates. I don't know how much variation there is, although if what I have seen with Cyanoramphus parakeets holds for the order then they simply could be domesticate colour morphs (Red-crowns that are all yellow? Why!?). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In-the-round, I think that has too much yellow for a wild-type Black-cheeked Lovebird, and the red on its forehead is not like a wild-type Masked Lovebird. I have put into an "unidentified category" on commons, while awaiting more opinions. I guess that it will be difficult to identify a particular colour morph or a hybrid, without specialised knowledge. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do remember that several species of lovebirds can hybridize quite freely. I suspect this is a Fisher's X Yellow-collared, but with all the strange mutation you see in this genus in captivity, I can't say I'd be able to exclude that possibility beyond all doubts. But the bird on the photo discussed here certainly doesn't look anything like a wild-type Black-cheeked. • Rabo³ • 08:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation. I think I had "wishful thinking" that they would be a pure line or a recognisable form, and I jumped to a conclusion when I first saw them. I think I can see those same two species mixed in there too, especially after inspecting the variability in the captive flock. Without knowing the history of the flock the definitive answer is problematic. I will change the file names, and add speculation in the descriptions (and/or) have some of them deleted over the next few days, and I think I will start new categories on commons for hybrid, mutant, and unidentified lovebirds. I am glad I brought them here for discussion. Snowman (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ID confirmation for Cyanerpes lucidus

I have obtained Image:Cyanerpes lucidus.jpg (Shining Honeycreeper) via request from Flickr. Can someone confirm this is the right species, if possible? It looks very similar to the related species and I'm no ornithologist or taxonomist (the legs do look to be a different colour). Richard001 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. • Rabo³ • 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

tiebreaker needed

The collaboration nearly time - need a tiebreaker vote or three. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Following one more vote today Ara (genus) is voted this months project July to August 2008. Snowman (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ara (genus) got the extra vote. In the event of an equal count of votes, I thought that the first nominated article would be the winner. In this case it would also be Ara (genus) on this basis too. Anyway, is the date of nomination considered? Snowman (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. Eminently sensible but not really exciting enough for me :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mute Swan

Hey all, I have been tinkering with this article Mute Swan, which still needs more refs converted to inline, isbns found etc. I rearranged the headings and began inlining but it was interesting as someone had obviously done alot of work early on..Fairly meaty article really which wouldn't be too far of GA with some core material added...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Poʻouli... erhm what?

Could an administrator un-do the recent entirely undiscussed page-move [2] by user Kalathalan? Surely, it is generally agreed upon that page moves, unless the original name is an obvious mistakes (typos, etc), should be discussed before doing them, and (s)he managed to move the entire page to a name that, whatever (s)he claims, is essentially un-used (a google search [3] gives an astonishing 39 results for the suggested Poʻouli... virtually all of which are wikipedia or wikipedia copy pages!). Of note that the reference (s)he cites actually suggests poʻo.uli (or poʻo uli), and his/hers claim about the lack of hyphens in Hawaiian words is incorrect according to a search in the exact same database for another Hawaiian bird; [4]. Not to forget that this is English wikipedia, and while these names may have originted as Hawaiian, they've been modified to English for us mere mortals trying to pronounce them correctly. Brought up here as I presume it is of importance for the entire project (or at least all the Hawaiian birds). Rabo3 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Birdlife, Gill & Wright's World Bird Names and HBW (our default) says Poo-uli and IUCN says Po'o-uli and birds of North America says Poouli. So which is right? I could move it back, but I think a discussion first would be good. I'm personally not bothered, but once a choice is made I can do the move. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I apologize for not discussing the move first; a bad judgment on my part.

Now, I might point out that the Hawaiian Dictionary, from which poʻouli and the mentioned ʻulaʻaihāwane come from, states that the hyphens "...have nothing to do with pronunciation, but are useful to those wishing to know the meaning of the names". It is also later stated that the "marking system [of dots and hyphens] is not a change in the spelling system", but rather (the dots) are to "guide the placement of stress in pronunciation". This also falls in line with the proposed Hawaiian spelling guidelines which indicate that Hawaiian words should be spelled without hyphens. We also have this webpage mentioning that poʻo uli was the former suggested name, with a recommendation later proposing that the space be removed.

Also, we have the FWS [5] using poʻouli and more Google results using po'ouli than po'o-uli (though I realize that Googlehits aren't the best arguments).

While I now see that poʻouli may not have been the best choice, given that this is the English WP and the Hawaii WikiProject MOS recommends using the common English name where applicable (shying away from ʻokina wherever possible), I still believe that po'ouli or poouli are better choices. —Kal ^(talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiian originally had no such things as hyphenation. But modern written Hawaiian makes extensive use of it. Consider the following nice case which Pukui/Elbert give: Ka-wena-ʻula-a-Hiʻiaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele-ka-wahine-ai-ʻhonua ("the-sunriseglow-red-of-Hiʻiaka-from-the-bosom-of-Pele-the-woman-eating-Earth"; probably the most complex way in the world to say "incandescence of a volcanic eruption"). Briefly, terms that further define a base term are not hyphenated (e.g. hale ʻōhiʻa, "Ironwood House" near Volcano Village) while word components may be, or they are written as one word. Regarding Google searches, be careful because Google may not register hyphens (to increase the number of results). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Neogaeornis

I'd appreciate comments Jcwf (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In brief, rocks beat clocks. The alternative would be to presume that a handful of Late Cretaceous/Earliest Paleogene taxa were 100% convergent to basal "higher waterbirds". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Macaw identification

Image:Zwei Papageien.JPG. Macaw identification problem. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pair of Military Macaws? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What indicates that it is not a Great Green Macaw? Snowman (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which it was, I originally thought that Millitary Macaws lacked the yellow on the tail, but I was wrong. On second thoughts, the amount of bare skin below the eye is larger than you'd expect for a Military. Below the line of small feathers there is alarge patch of really bare skin. That suggests Great Green. The other differences are subtle shade and size ones that are impossible to tell from this photo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO most likely a Military, but here I'm relying on details of the colour hues that easily could be messed up by shadows, photoshop, camera settings, settings of my computer screen, etc. • Rabo³ • 02:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Aggression in birds

I recently created a new category at Commons commons:Category:Animal aggression. I have also just created a subcategory for birds, though we don't seem to have many images on this subject (all I know of at the moment are two I uploaded myself from The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals by Darwin, and the cockfighting category. I think an article on this subject (aggression in birds) would also be appropriate; general articles like that are probably more important than articles on any particular species as they describe common patterns across all birds. However, we don't even have an article on aggression in animals at this point (and aggression leaves a lot left wanting ethologically). If anyone knows of any more pictures or aggression in birds, please add them to the category. We definitely need more new uploads too. Richard001 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have an article on bird behaviour yet, and that would be a natural place to start describing aggression. Either that or bird sociality. I'm not sure if bird aggression is really needed as an article, at least until we have those two articles. I do have an image to two pheasants fighting which I can upload though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bird behaviour, phew! Although I do have a book with that very title... jimfbleak (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a hell of an undertaking for sure. But I think we'll have to do it one day. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, bird behaviour and animal aggression are more important, though you don't have to use a top-down approach. Writing more specific articles is often an easier undertaking as it requires less knowledge and research, and their existence makes writing a more general one easier. I have added bird behaviour to article requests. Richard001 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Interested in buying an Amazon parrot

Is there much of a difference in terms of behavior and care needs between the different breeds of Amazon parrot? Or is it just a question of choosing the breed that you like the color of best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.189.66 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:General disclaimer for reason why wikipedia isn't the right place for this question. I'd recommend you get some good books on the subject of Amazons in captivity and get in contact with a club dealing with aviculture (shouldn't be a big problem, as I can see your IP is based in London). I'm not a birdkeeper, but I do know there are a lot of things you should consider before even considering getting an Amazon (e.g. Amazons can get very old - easily 30+ years; they're intellingent and consequently easily misthrive; some are noisy; some are highly endangered, and I'm sure you wouldn't wan't to contribute to the extinction of a species). • Rabo³ • 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Term usage

Skylarking_(birds) - an article without citations. Has anyone heard the term? If so, can the article be improved or redirected elsewhere. Shyamal (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I always thought skylarking was what kids did. Never heard of it in an ornithological sense. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know and in any case English isn't my native language, but this is what an online dictionary says, hence supporting Sabine's Sunbird, but on the other hand several of the results a google search gives for skylarking display birds suggest it also is used in the form described in the wiki article. • Rabo³ • 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference to R. T. Peterson's use of the term, which could conceivably come in handy. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon parrot identification

Image:Amazon parrot at Jungle Island.jpg: Amazon parrot identification problem. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Red-bellied_macaw.jpg: Mealy Amazon. • Rabo³ • 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the wrongly named file that you have linked on commons, and I have already tagged it for deletion. It has caused confusion on other language wikis where it appears on the Red-bellied Macaw pages. It is possible to specify the subspecies of the Mealy Amazon? Snowman (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than saying that it is one of the South American ssp's that would be difficult (well, near-impossible really). • Rabo³ • 09:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And the file with the misleading file-name no longer appears on other wiki's (I've removed them). • Rabo³ • 10:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to use an external link for a commons image. Now reformatted (without changing meaning) and it now shows as a red link indicating that the bad-name file has been deleted. I have uploaded it again from flicr and given it an appropriate name (blue link above). Snowman (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there are some differences between the subspecies detailed on some websites, but the size of the parrot is not clear from the photograph. I guess that it might be the nominate, and I would like to see more images of all the subspecies to be more sure. In-the-round, because of doubts at this juncture, I am not going to add a guess at the subspecies to the image description. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A brief addendum, as I hadn't noticed the last replies: Yes, I know about the linking from commons. However, the link I gave (which was changed) was not "just" a link to the photo, but a link to a page showing the edit differences between two versions, where the latter showed the ID having been added a few days before the initial Amazon identification question was posted. There might be a way to link such "edit difference pages" with wiki links instead of external links, but I haven't found it (or looked for it, for that matter). Secondly, while perhaps not needed as you saved it without specific subspecies, there's absolutely no way of separating the South American ssp's with any level of certainty from a photo like this, as there's a lot of individual variations + these being subspecies, they hybridize absolutely freely, resulting in somewhat blurred geographical boundaries. To take a quote (emphasis mine) from Thomas Arndt's Lexon of Parrots which describes the situation quite well: "Amazona f. chapmani: as farinosa, but usually without or with very few scattered yellow feathers to head; on average slightly darker; larger." • Rabo³ • 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link above after the commons page had been deleted, and I forgot that in linked an edit. It makes little difference now because the page deletion turned it to a red link. Anyway, your observation are noted above. Actually, there are two photographs of this amazon parrot on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FA/GA news

Greater Crested Tern now at FAC, along with Puerto Rican Amazon and Willy Wagtail: Indigo Bunting at GA jimfbleak (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture/audio requests

What happened to these? The project page should at least have a link to the picture requests page for birds somewhere. Richard001 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ara (genus) is new collab from 21 July to 21 August 2008

Has three votes and the next highest was two votes. Snowman (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Images of the "Red-bellied Macaw" and the "Glaucous Macaw" would help some of the supporting pages to the "Ara (genus)" page. Contributions of photographs or illustrations will be appreciated. Snowman (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a photo of a Red-bellied Macaw on photobucket. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

Nice, though the Wallcreeper is not really well-placed in Sittidae. It's basically a taxonomic artefact from the last thorough study, which was 50 years ago and completely unblemished by any hint of concepts like "plesiomorphic" and "apomorphic" and presumed that the Certioidea excluded wrens but included titmice. At least the tail cannot be used as evidence; the white sides seem plesimorphic for Certioidea as a whole. See also here, where you'll find the true rationale why the Wallcreeper has been placed in Sittidae:

Perhaps (and this view has been suggested to me by an observer who is familiar with the three genera in life) Tichodroma should be elevated to the rank of a full family. This treatment might be the closest approximation to the truth, but it is generally conceded that it is not wise to recognize full families among the passerine birds if these families contain only one species.

Which is still correct today, except if it contradicts the phylogenetic hypotheses. Regarding which, F. Keith Barker (the F. Keith Barker) says:

The relationships of yet another member of the group, the European wallcreeper Tichodroma—which has been allied to both the Certhiidae and Sittidae in previous classifications—remain obscure even after the collection of over 7000 bases of nuclear DNA sequence.

Which is what you can well expect from something that parted company with its closest living relatives in the Early Miocene.

I also have seen Certhioidea so often in recent papers that I have moved it between Muscicapoidea and Passeroidea in the Passeriformes article. This necessitated changing some photos, so I threw the waxwing out and added a nice nuthatch climbing head-down and linked to the FA from there.

I have also outcommented the phylogeny for the reasons above - basically, I think (apart from the fact that even many biologists will intuitively read phylogenies wrong) that cladograms ought to be used only if:

• there are no nodes with less than 70-75% (ML) or 85-90% (MP) support, and ideally all nodes are supported 100%
• morphological and molecular data, considered together qualitatively, yield a nice scenario for character evolution
• neither fossil record not biogeography (which are material evidence and beat any statistical assumption hands down) contradict. Otherwise, a statement in the intro ("its closest living relatives are..." is about as concise and correct and helpful to the average reader as it'll get.

Procellariiformes is a case where a robustly resolved phylogeny exists for example. But ultimately I think bottom-to-top "fanning" phylogenies ought to be used. Because the comminly seen tree is just as it is because most cladistics software cannot draw it any other way. And that restriction does not apply to an artist who draws the tree from the data. It also looks nicer and it is harder to misinterpret it. Unresolved or actual polytomies are also more readily apparent. And a MAJOR drawback of the Wiki code - one that comes close to telling untruths in some cases - is the inability to signify uncertain nodes, like here. If something is not resolved with very high confidence in a cladistic analysis, to represent it as if it were is BSing the reader who does not know better (and luckily the Creationists have no understanding of evolution, or they would be all over us for that ;-) )

It might be a good idea to start transforming some cladograms into SVGs. The whole iconography can be used in that format: thin double-lines (paraphyly), dashed lines (alternate relationships), gaps with question marks (weak support/unresolved polytomies) etc. And SVG scales lossless, writing will be clearly visible, but is not restrited to horizontal left-to-right (I will in the next months revamp the Ciconiiformes-Pelecaniformes nexus I think, and that would be a nice case where the advantages can be used to good effect - the Shoebill and the Hammerkop are probably Pelecaniformes, but there still has to be a nice fat question mark at the point where they meet the pelican lineage) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can merge Sittidae back into nuthatch then. Shouldn't be too much work. With an new family FA as a bonus. The whole taxonomy of birds business makes writing family articles a daunting process though, you never know when your article is going to get split (like happened to barbet after I started expanding it). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had waited for you (or someone) to start it so there would be some material to put in the newly-split articles ;-)

We should outcomment the Sittidae info (and the Wallcreeper info from Nuthatch rather than deleting it though when making the redirect. It is 1/3 of what we need to start Certhioidea. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage

Seeing as how this article is going to be on the mainpage tomorrow we probably need to make the changes quickly as they will be noticed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)