Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 28

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Rabo3 in topic Birds for identification (7)

Cyclopsitticini

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I suggest that the genus page "Cyclopsitticini" of Fig Parrots or Fig-parrots be changed to "Fig Parrot". It is a WP:BirdTalk guideline that common names be used where there is a common name. Depending on comments here I might follow this up with a page name request on the articles talk page to enable the page move formally. Snowman (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

True about naming, but one of the species (Bolbopsittacus lunulatus) currently assigned to this clade is not a Fig Parrot. That is why I did produce a redirect to the clade, but not named them that way. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps this is not a good example. Snowman (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It will become, because Bolbopsittacus lunulatus is actually not really related to the fig parrots, but closer to the Agapornis and Loriculis (which are in two seperate tribes at the moment). It is waiting for someone to overhaul the Psittacidae systematically before we can resolve this issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be "Fig parrot" though, since it's a non-specific term (not "THE Fig Parrot"). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out capitalisation. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change de facto standard for Common names

Latest comment: 15 years ago73 comments7 people in discussion

The main page indicates that the de facto standard for bird names is Handbook of Birds of the World (HBW). I am sure it was the most up to date reference at the time of publication, but in the end, it is static snapshot of birdnames from before the time of publication. Unfortunately, the world is dynamic, and that has been recognized by the International Ornithological Congress (IOC), who for that reason maintains a up to date list of both scientific and common names. This list is updated regularly based on the newest insights, and therefore much more up to date than HBW. I therefore propose that this WikiProject changes its de facto standard to the IOC World Bird List for both common and latin names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the understood convention to use "Handbook of Birds of the World", and many editors have got access to it or their own copies. There are many other classification systems and anyone could suggest any alternative one at any time, but it is better to keep to one system. See WP:Recentism, which is a caution about using newly introduced ideas. Changing to IOC could have some unexpected unwelcome name changes to many pages. Some of the changes that you are proposing could be user unfriendly, and add to difficulty using the wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
To equate the slow changes adopted by the IOC to recentism, who generally only change when there is either clear consensus within the workgroup of the region covering that species, or obvious taxonomic reasons, is a misnomer. The IOC list (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/index.html) is general available to all editors, and not only to those who can afford the expensive HBW series. When something changes, that can be explained on the page and redirects from old names are cheap. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If this was a vote, I'd certainly vote for IOC. With very few exceptions, they've been very sensible in their choice of names. If anything, in most cases it would also be the opposite of recentism, as they've been more willing to accept local names (or tried to adapt them to fit into a worldwide level), whereas HBW and the various other worldwide lists I know all have several cases where they use a name that essentially never is used by people actually dealing with the birds. IOC's list certainly isn't perfect (and they have made their blunders), but it's a lot closer than the rest. • Rabo³ • 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm, now to check which list of names I like better...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW (and I know that this one is probably not going to fly - to pardon the pun), I'd personally be in favour of using the 'avicultural names' for birds which are most commonly kept as pets/aviary birds. I have no hard data to back this one up but I *think* that most people coming to the site looking for information about these species will be coming at it from that angle, considering that the majority of readers of enwiki are from the US and UK (AFAIK) - countries not particularly well-known for their free-flying native psittacines. I have personally been thrown by redirects to alternative names - Double Yellow-headed Amazon being a recent case in point for me. Just my $0.02. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, I have another proposal for guidelines for future situations like this.
  1. No unilateral pagemoves for bird species articles (I'm not suggesting that this is what Kim did in the case of Cacatua goffiniana - she posted on the talk page about her intention to move the page but no-one saw it, presumably due to Christmas)
  2. Any proposed bird species pagemove should be considered potentially controversial and listed at WP:RM - as well as being mentioned here, as a courtesy
  3. Each individual case is to be discussed on its own merits, regardless of precedent
  4. Take it slow - don't try to move lots of pages at once
I think that these are quite common sense-y for something knocked out in five minutes. Thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There are aready wiki guidelines that suggest that contraversial (or likely to be controversial) page moves should be discussed with a formal request for page move discussion, so part of this is already covered elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, a pointer to editors somewhere that there may be 'issues' with pagemoves in this particular area of the 'pedia and a suggestion to tread carefully might be useful. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that this proposal is probably suggesting 100s of page moves including FAs, and some of these moves may be unexpectedly odd or problematic. I think each page move should be considered individually. I agree that special consideration should be given to those birds widely known by well established other names in aviculture.Snowman (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that each page move should be considered individually. Not all page moves are controversial, these are generally limited to common aviculture species. My proposal has to do with the de facto standard that is prescribed for this wikiproject. If I would modify my proposal, it would become:

The de facto standard for common bird names is the World Birdnames List of the IOC(http://www.worldbirdnames.org). Changing a name to reflect the new de facto standard need to be discussed individually (or in small groups when appropriate). Controversial moves need to be listed here and at WP:RM

The latter in parenthesses is added for name changes such as xxxxx Fig-parrot to xxxxx Fig Parrot. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversial name page moves are not mainly limited to aviculture birds, but to any popular bird with a widely used common name. For example is it "House Martin" or "Common House Martin"? Snowman (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there are more than just aviculture related names that are controversial. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps something a bit more watertight for the last sentence: "Moves that are controversial or may be controversial need to be discussed on the WP:BirdTalk page and at WP:RM". According to the consensus reached the page name is either kept or moved. This proposal does not supersede general wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand what "de facto" means. This is the en:wikipedia and there is no need for expression in Latin or another language. English throughout would be clearer. I can not agree to anything written partly in one language and partly in another. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
de facto is currently used in the sentence dictating HBW. I think if we would change it to preferred, becoming The preferred standard..... it would actually better as it is slightly weaker. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"De facto" is in English-language dictionaries, and I don't see it as inferior to any other borrowings from Latin, such as "motor" or "remiges" or, for that matter, "inferior". It's the perfect phrase for the kind of guideline that we had for HBW: what people were doing in fact, not the result or debate or consensus. If we do reach a consensus here, "de facto" will no longer be the right description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the wiki should be easy to understand, and it seems to me that using words that people have to lookup on the projects main page is not a good practice, especially when an alternative phrase can easily be used. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps something a bit more watertight for the last sentence: "Moves that are controversial or may be controversial need to be signposted on the WP:BirdTalk page and WP:RM and discussed at a dedicated area, on the relevant article talk page or under a heading at WP:RM. According to the consensus reached the page name is either kept or moved. This proposal does not supersede general wiki guidelines." Snowman (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
IOC does not provide nomenclature for genera, but it would be sensible for the wiki to use a system that does both genera and species. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No such system with genera names exists. HBW doesn't provide it, IOC doesn't provided it, and the various other lists don't provide it. It might exist on a local level (e.g. lists for South Africa or alike), but not on anything that even remotely approaches a worldwide level. Of course there are numerous cases that are obvious even without that, but there are also cases where genus name is the only possibility unless violating WP:NOR. On a somewhat related issue: While I know this is secondary, it has been mentioned briefly above, and therefore I think this would be a sensible place to get a discussion over aviculture names. First, the above assumption that "majority of readers of enwiki are from the US and UK" and most of these will be looking for the aviculture names when it comes to parrots is just plain wrong. Birding has many followers, and has become a major business with thousands travelling abroad each year simply to look at birds. Based on the discussions I've seen in this group, I'm also fairly sure you'll find more members of this group that are in it from a birding rather than a avicultural perspective, and that alone is a hint. Nevertheless, while I dislike the aviculture names as they are guaranteed to result in a lack of consistency over genera (different "group-name" applied to members of a single genus, e.g. Pyrrhura and Aratinga. I've mentioned this several times elsewhere), I do understand that there is a case to be made for them in a number of species. So, in the cases where it can be shown that one is far more popular than another, e.g. via google (yes, I know google at best is questionable for this usage, but it's been used before as a significant argument for moving a page; Sun Conure). Here I'm speaking about a significant difference (e.g. one name only gets 2/3 the results of the other name). In the cases where it is closer or if there only are a few hundred results it loses its value as an argument (even if one has, say, 600 results while the second only 300 - that difference may appear significant, but it's a far too small sample for judging anything; we'll need to get well into the 1000s). Examples of pages that would be changed following this basic "popular" rule, are White-eyed Conure that should be moved to White-eyed Parakeet (aviculture name --> name used elsewhere), while Pearly Parakeet should be moved to Pearly Conure (name used elsewhere --> aviculture name). Before suggesting a move, it is of course important to check that the "new" name actually matches the taxonomy used on wiki. I know all this may seem rather trivial to most members of this group, but the aviculture names are already used some places on wiki. If they are to be used, at least I'd suggest there are some rough guidelines (even if not "official") on where and when, as the current version seems rather random and depends more on a user that prefers "a" over "b" has stumpled upon the page at some point. • Rabo³ • 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This suggestion is quite favourable to starting a discussion on aviculture page names, whatever the final outcome, I think. It may be that using ornithology names for some and aviculture names for others is likely to cause inconsistency. Sometimes the aviculture name is the same as other common names; for example, the Senegal Parrot; however, a committee may be getting ready to create a wave and suggest a new name for Senegal Parrot, perhaps the "Grey-headed Yellow-and-green African Parrot", on the grounds that is is more descriptive and the parrot is from a wider range than just Senegal. To overview the topic and for reference, it might be interesting to make giant sortable table (or several sortable tables) of parrot names according to different systems, one being for the aviculture names. It could be like the list of parrots page. I am not suggesting that anyone in particular should make a table, unless they were very interested, because it could take a long time. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a genus box might help placed at the bottom of parrot pages - several names could be included in the genus box across the genus, so the name at the top of the page becomes less important because navigation is partly with the genus box. As far as I am aware the largest parrot genus box would be about 32 species and that would be for the Amazon parrots (I think that is capitalised). I might start a simple one soon, perhaps for the poicephalus parrots. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What actually is the "taxonomy used on wiki" at the present time? Snowman (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabo, each name should have redirects from each possible name anyway, which will facilitate the finding of species also. Combined with your genus box idea I think it is far more consistent to use a single unified naming scheme such as IOC list that actually gets updated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Kim, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, for names I would rather follow a single list, preferably IOC, too, and yes, all names should always redirect anyway. However, there are members of this group that strongly prefer the aviculture names, and there are already several places where they are in use as the "primary" article name (Sun Conure, White-eyed Conure, Jenday Conure, Green-cheeked Conure, Golden Conure, etc. - even more messy, what approximates individual accounts for some of the species have been started in Conure, something that at best approches WP:POV fork considering that they have their own individual articles, too). My previous comment was therefore an attempt of finding a compromise with the people prefering the aviculture names. • Rabo³ • 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabo, I know, and it was one of the reasons I left wikipedia for a long time. I am very much in favour of splitting the aviculture aspect from the remaining articles, and let them have their names. Mind you, I come from the aviculture myself originally, but I get fed up with the conservatism at one hand and the frivolous making new names at the other. My approach would be to use one list as a basis, and have individual discussions for the problem cases. I think it will work. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
IOC says that is it "Common House Martin" not "House Martin". I am not sure what HBW says. What is the choice of the ornithologists and birders? This project can not maintain names for FA articles that are not in line with this projects guidelines, and also insist that aviculture pages follow the guidelines. If bird FA articles do not follow the guidelines, then all name rules are optional. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
House martin is a group name and should address the existence of three species of House martin, but now a redirect to House Martin. Just like most people in the world will call it a Crow, not the Carrion Crow or American Crow or whatever local variant is there. But this naming dispute is the result of ruling by majority, both on the project as well in how to decide names. In fact, by dictating that [[XXXX]] is used to indicate the [[Common XXXX]], it actually skews the encyclopaedia towards European species, and hence to a disproportional weighting of regions, something not wanted at Wikipedia as well. It becomes even more interesting when we deal with Robin and region.... ;-)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If I have followed that correctly (it is not very clear), you a putting an case for using "House Martin" (not in IOC name system) and so all your ideas about using IOC have just gone out of the window. I do not see which part you are suggesting is impossible? "House martin" could be a dab page that includes the species, the bird group, and a pop group. This would be in line with the naming rules. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I just raised some points, not expressed a preference. In general, I am in favour of using Latin names for article titles. If not, at least a single common style, by for example using the IOC list as a general rule (because it is dynamic and follows changes rather than HBW that is frozen in time with the prevailing opinion from the late 90's.
So, I would be VERY much in favour of Common House Martin over House Martin, which I think should be a redirect to House martin that addresses the existence of three different species of House martin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I see now, that is a consistent approach and that is easy to understand. "House martin" being a dab page? Snowman (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, something similar as Crow or Parakeet that are common vernacular names used for non-specific taxonomic groups. Broad-tailed parrot is heading that way as it is not a single taxonomic unit. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
IOC says is it "Common Blackbird" not "Blackbird". Snowman (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
To raise a separate issue, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) guidelines are menioned in context with FA's etc, but as there is a more specific guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)) that states:
If the article is about an animal belonging to a group where Wikipedia editors have agreed on a standard for choosing among two or more common names, follow that standard:
With this in mind, if we would settle to deal with this in a better way, it automatically trickels down to the wikipedia guidelines oin this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Other wikiprojects have the same rules and some choose the scientific names, so that there is no misunderstanding. This is usually ok, except when people want to use a common name "Shingles" or "Herpes zoser", but the WP project prefered nomenclature prevailed here. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP:Bird wikiproject is currently a project that does not follow its own name rules for a few of its FAs. If the project is serious about official names then why not tackle the FA class pages first, rather than a Start class parrot page. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Lets first see if we can agree on what names to use, and whether or not to let google counts rule common usage of names, like in Sun Parakeet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If all the bird FAs had names that followed the WP:Bird's own prefered system, then there would be less scope for negotiation on the name of bird articles, and names could be changed without the impression that someone stumbled on a bird article and decided to change the name because they did not like it. In the case of the "House Martin" and the "Blackbird" pages there was discussion on each article's talk page at the time when the FAC was in progress, and so the FA went through in full knowledge that the pages did not use WP:Bird's own preferred names. FA are the best of the wiki, and so it implies that it is perfectly acceptable for any bird article to use a popular name in preference to an official common name. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A few observations -
  • not only to those who can afford the expensive HBW series The HBW list is not the same thing as the HBW series, it is a list found on the HBW's website, which was, before the IOC list's publication, the only universal easy to access list.
  • The Birds of the World: Recommended English names is not without its critics ([http://www.notornis.org.nz/contents.php?volume_issue=n53_3 subscription needed).
  • If bird FA articles do not follow the guidelines, then all name rules are optional. No, no, no NO! That is fatuous reasoning. What it means that there is leeway in the guidelines to ignore them if there is a good reason. As opposed to policy, which doesn't have that leeway. But if a consensus emerges to ignore the guidelines for Blackbird that does not give an automatic pass to ignore the guidlines on the Mitred Parakeet, what it means is that consensus can then decide if it too should be changed. Consistency is a good argument for keeping both of them at Common Blackbird and Mitred Parakeet - whereas there are other arguments in favour of their being at Blackbird and Mitred Conure (simplicity and common usage in one case, aviculture in the other). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I had the wrong emphasis with "optional", so I have put a strike through my comment above. I find your own version entirely logical and well written. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, HBW has since the IOC lists exists, used that list to name the species in their book. http://worldbirdnames.org/reactions.html -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I advocated a move to the IOC list before, and I probably would support a move again (though the Notornis article was pretty damning in places). Perhaps we should take the time to list the pros and cons of each approach. It is also important to note that we will never fully agree with one list or another as we pretty much have our own taxonomy now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There is some mileage in keeping what we have got, it is the work of dozens or hundreds of editors, and perhaps it would be disrespectful to upset a traditional apple-cart with new pages names. Page names are a well ploughed field here and evolved over a several years. Implementing IOC names is going to take a lot of work and I guess it will involve 100s of pages, with potential for many unexpected name changes, and much discussion. The current names work ok, so why change them. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there would be work, a point in favour of sticking to what we have. But there are numerous problems with that approach. Firstly, what we have is a mishmash of HBW and Red-list names. For example Goffin's Cockatoo is called the Tanimbar Cockatoo by the HBW - a name that isn't even on that species' page (though possibly because of the confused taxonomy of the species). The megapodes of the genus Megapodius are called scrubfowl on the Megapode family page but mostly megapodes on the species pages. The reasosn for this are the creation of so many articles by PolBot - which used the slightly different IUCN species name list, the creation of family and genus articles using other sources (in some instances before the standard was introduced), and the fact that the HBW list online no longer matches the one used in the books. Throw in the fact that the taxonomies sometimes don't match between taxonomic levels (Greater Striped Swallow is Hirundo on its species page and Cecropis on the family page) and we need to do an overhaul anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Snowman, I do not think anybody (at least not me) is advocating to use this adoption of IOC names to immediately force change all names without regard of anything.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sunbird, see http://worldbirdnames.org/reactions.html for many who do accept the standards:
  • Tree of Life - Aves, Neornithes
  • Avibase
  • BirdStack (from David Ringer)
  • BirdJournal (from Justin Caldicott)
  • Global Raptor Information Network (GRIN) (from Lloyd Kiff)
  • British Ornithologists' Union (from Chris Perrins)
  • Wilson Journal of Ornithology
  • Handbook of the Birds of the World (from Josep del Hoyo and Andy Elliott, editors)
  • Adopts IOC names guidelines (including capitalized bird names) as master list for Birds: The Definitive Photographic Guide (2007).
  • African Bird Club (Forwarded by D. B. Donsker)
  • AOU Checklist of North American Birds
  • Birds of Africa: South of the Sahara (From Sinclair and Ryan's introduction, see also Kaestner review in Birding, 39 [3], page 86)
  • BirdLife International
  • Checklist of the birds of Switzerland (Der Ornithologische Beobachter 103: 271-294 (2006)
  • Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World , Sixth Edition 2007 (from Preface by Fitzpatrick)
  • Danish Ornithological Society/BirdLife Denmark
  • German bird list (from Peter Barthel)
  • Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World (from E.C. Dickinson, Ed.)
  • Passerine Birds of South America (UTexas Press, in press) (from R Ridgely)
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a list of organizations that have accepted the IOC list; it's a list of those that have reacted to it, as you can see at the site. Some have accepted it willingly, some grudgingly or with exceptions. Avibase has put adopted it as one of the lists it recognizes, on the same level as many others. The BOU has accepted it but continues to also use traditional British names, such as "Blackbird", in British contexts. ("The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.") The AOU has rejected it but will consider individual changes case by case. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, my bad for not reading each and every entry in full detail..... :-( -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already said I like the IOC list... Even if New Zealand got short thrift. I just say we need to have a full discussion. Like, how much work are we going to have to do? We should take a few taxa and see how many changes it will entail. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IOC names at FA/GA articles

I think FAs and GAs would be a good place to start, being a sample of a mixture of birds types. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, shall we start with Blackbird? Given above, should it be at Common Blackbird, given the Raven is at Common Raven, and the archetypal Robin at European Robin? Unsigned commonet made by Casliber (talk . contribs) 12:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets do FAs and GAs alphabetically and then none will be missed out. It starts with "American Black Vulture", which I think is IOC "Black Vulture", I think "Blackbird" is the next one that is different with IOC, but do not take my word for it. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have started a list here: User:KimvdLinde/FAGANames. Feel free to add to this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, shall we place a proposed move template on the talk page of Blackbird and discuss there? Now to check what its name is in HBW..certianly a disambig page for all the species known as blackbird would be a good thing (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Blackbird is a particular good example, as there are at least a 20+ species that are all called blackbirds, covering two or three not so related groups. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
HBW uses Common Blackbird, but unlike the wikipedia article they also consider Tibetan (T. maximus) and Indian (T. simillimus) as separate species. As do IOC, but of course taxonomy is not their primary objective, even if it is pretty hard to avoid when wanting to name something... after all, you need to know what you name. • Rabo³ • 23:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Should wiki article content be checked to see it is in line with its new IOC name, and amended if needed? How does one know what IOC has named? Snowman (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC).
In this particular case, it isn't too important. In cases where it is, it unfortunately isn't straight forward in all cases, as it requires a level of familiarity with the taxa of a specific group, i.e. knowing beforehand if a species commonly is split/merged, and then specifically check the list. This potential problem, however, is not limited to IOC, and is the same for other lists, though some, e.g. HBW, do include a brief taxonomic note, but considering that most here probably don't have direct access to HBW anyway, that doesn't help. In any case HBW is a static list, and taxonomy is anything but static (to take an example, HBW doesn't mention the possibility of rather fundamental changes in the Pyrrhura picta and P. leucotis complexes, as these really weren't anticipated when the HBW volume dealing with parrots was published in 1997). In any case there are few cases where this presents a problem. Where it does, there have usually been significant changes proposed recently, and (for the most part) wiki articles dealing with such species get a brief note on the recent taxonomic change rather fast, meaning that it should be apparent from the text. • Rabo³ • 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well Blackbird is a good start, as both HBW and IOC have Common Blackbird as name, and a good disambig article with all birds termed blackbirds and their relationships to each other can be made. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So, as we are starting with GA and FA articles, then the rename for Goffin's Cockatoo (Start class) is called off. What is the point of making an agreement to start with the FAs and GAs beginning with Blackbird and then voting at the same time on an IOC name change for Goffin's Cockatoo? Snowman (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It is agreed to start on FAs and GAs, so can everyone who has voted in the rename of Goffin's Cockatoo (Start class) act on what has been decided appropriately. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No reason to stop already running discussions. This are two seperate discussions, and one drove the other, but that does not mean that the other can inhibit the one. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the spirit of the agreement in this discussion is to start on FA and GA articles before changing any other articles. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Then I misunderstood the idea, and I withdraw my support. In that case, I am in favour of staring those discussions anyone feel is appropriate looking at the evidence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding from this discussion is that it is appropriate to look at evidence for changing the names of FA and GAs to IOC names. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kim. The point is to look at whichever articles need title changes, and while FAs and Gas area good place to start, there is indeed no reason to stop ongoing discussions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
A few personal preferences on this discussion—with no links, which I won't have time till I'm back from a short trip.
  1. If we adopt the IOC list, I hope we'll consider revising their decision to mostly eliminate the word "island". For instance, I think "Christmas Frigatebird" is nowhere near as good as "Christmas Island Frigatebird.
  2. Likewise I think we should consider revising their elimination of hyphens. I greatly prefer "Wilson's Storm-Petrel" to "Wilson's Storm Petrel", as the former reminds the beginner that storm-petrels aren't the same thing as Procellariidae petrels. This, by the way, was the main issue mentioned in the AOU vote against a proposal to adopt the IOC names in toto. Even the IOC, so far from reaching a consensus on this point, never agreed on it.
  3. I too don't think "Blackbird", "House Martin", etc., are not good names for an international encyclopedia.
  4. The compromise of going by Google counts (when there are clear and significant majorities) for birds in aviculture is a good one, but I'd still rather not compromise. My suggestion is not to have "conure" in the primary name of any species article, as it seems to be unusual in ornithology (though it certainly exists there). Even if far more people know certain species as conures, probably far more people call say "buzzard" than "Turkey Vulture" and "crow" than "Chihuahuan Raven", but we use the names used in science.
  5. On a related subject, I would prefer not to have splits between ornithology/birding articles and aviculture articles about the same species. Some have said that the two don't go together well, but I simply don't see the problem.

See you in a few days. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to the Island an hyphen issues, as I think we should not wade in that discussion, it is not to wikipedia to resolve those issues. The BOU uses the IOC names for international oriented publications, and the British names for Britain. I personally do not like google counts either, and conure is a major misnomer. As for the aviculture sections, does anyone knows a aviculture section that actually is good? Sure, we can leave them in, but in general, the quality is dropping coinsiderable in those sections. And to be honest, if the aviculturists are not willing to actually put the effort in it to actually make an encyclopedic section about aviculture for that species, I think they should shut up about the name as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And another thing. :-) I'd prefer not to change FA and GA names till active 'pedians who were heavily involved in the articles get a chance to comment. In the case of Blackbird and House Martin, Jimfbleak comes to mind, though I think he'll say something I disagree with. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, maybe a note on some other pages to alert for discussing Balckbird, and leaving it open a good, long time will be helpful. TIme for some canvassing more input :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To island or not to island? Christmas Island Frigatebird but Christmas Shearwater. (To add an extra layer of confusion, different Christmas Islands!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, aviculture page name changes should also be given more time to enable more input. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spheniscus

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I suggest that the genus page "Spheniscus" of Banded Penguins be changed to "Banded Penguin". It is a WP:BirdTalk guideline that common names be used where there is a common name. Depending on comments here I might follow this up with a page name request on the articles talk page to enable the page move formally. Snowman (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

agree. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Are genus names capitalised? Is the page about banded penguins or Banded Penguins? I think it should be lower case. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand, no, as it is not a proper noun. Easy rule, when it is a single species, it is capatilized, when it is a group, it is not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised no one noticed my typo sooner. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Does IOC do genus names as well? Snowman (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It does not do common names for genera. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of uncontroversial move. Moved. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nestoridae at DYK

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Ok, Nestoridae is currently the lead entry of WP:DYK-- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the phylogeny is based on very suspect data. As usual, they didn't take the fossil record into account; the new Danish parrot fossils don't really fit in there, and to work, the Pseudasturidae and Quercypsittidae would either have to be something else entirely, or Psittaciformes would have to be older than Galloanseres, shorebirds, procellariiforms... (at least they don't claim the Cretaceous ovoraptorosaur mandible to be from a parrot, as far as I can tell).
In brief, any mol-phyl study on parrots that does not extensively discuss doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 is probably not worth the paper it's printed on... see also doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03451.x for why the basalmost position of Nestoridae might simply be an artefact of genetic drift must be treated with caution, and doi:10.1017/S1477201906001957 for the actual prehistory of NZ parrots as far as it is known fact and not a statistical assumption. This is one possible case of "Popperian" OR conflicts: how do you appropriately reference the absence of evidence? None of the sources pertain to the case of the Nestoridae, but taken together, they make it reek like a month-old red herring.
It did not affect the DYK though. 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
See this is where WP can excel by presenting both sides for the popular reader, so the above is ideal material to add. I have always fealt WP is an ideal place to start educating the public about seeing two sides of every story, and the jigsaw of fossil evidence is frustrating but fascinating. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the first article is not around on the Web. It's a shame, because this is one of the very best fossil-record reviews I have seen, with reconstruction drawings and everything. If anyone should ever happen to come across Mr. Waterhouse, he might want to put his work online. The scientific community has thus far ignored it, and it deserves to be cited very often. Waterhouse has co-described the Danish parrots with Dyke though, and thus the information is in good hands.
There was this Indonesian guy(?), Dwi Astuti, who is into parrot mol-phyl. Might pay to keep an eye open for any new works from there; what I saw to date looked very nice (they figured out much of the non-Nestorini phylogeny). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(BTW this is why I put the ref annotations on the main page: I tried using the Talk page, but it tends to be overlooked and eventually dumped in some archive. Putting them on the main page virtually ensures someone will come across them eventually, usually during a major overhaul, and in such cases it's often people with above-average access to ref material) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Casliber, I agree, see my response to Dysmorodrepanis below. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Dysmorodrepanis, it is easy to conflate several issues. The molecular phylogeny shows the relative position of the various clades with regard to each other. In the parrots, it is clear that the Nestoridae are a basal clade, relative to all other parrots, which include the Psittacidae and Cacatuidae. Unless one wants to downgrade the Cacatuidae to a subfamily (Cacatuinae), the two main other subfamilies are the Nestorinae and Psittacinae. The question of rank is effectively indepedent of the topology, and to a large degree subjective, although the age of a clade can be instumental in determining what rank to asign.
The available fossils for parrots are few and far between, and all early fossils are from the Northern hemisphere is I am correct. From all the articles about parrot fossils that I have read, including the one that you provided, but also others, (Mayr 2002, Dyke and Cooper 2000, etc.), early Eocene species are considered to belong to separate families (Pseudasturidae, Quercypsittidae), all sister clades of the Psittacidae. As far as I have seen, none of those has actually included Nestoridae or Cacatuidae species in their analysis, except for Mayr who inlcuded the Cockatiel. No-one is claiming that those fossils are actually the ancestral species of the current day Psittacidae. All fossils assigned to the Psittacidae are in concordance with the age of the family.
Or, as Waterhouse concludes:
The recent phylogenetic placement of parrots deep within modern birds, along with the latest fossil discoveries of parrot remains, implies a divergence time for order Psittaciformes of at least the Lower Eocene (possibly the Upper Cretaceous). However, as with so many of the problems in modern palaeontology and evolutionary biology, the only way to truly resolve the problem of the timing of parrot divergences is with the discovery of additional fossil material.
The problem is dating, not the phylogeny. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if anybody wants a copy of the Waterhouse reprint, I have it, please contact me by e-mail. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue of genetic drift as an explaining for the, implied by you, odd basal placement of the Nestoridae would pretty much put the world of phylogenetics up side down. The whole mechanism is based on genetic drift, which is is the accumulation of random events that change the makeup of a gene pool slightly, but often compound over time. Selection of any type makes phylogenetic reconstruction more difficult. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, for Dysmorodrepanis and others, I think setting upa to-do box on the talk page, and placing removed but useful material which may be introduced later is a good idea, that way it doesn't end up in talk page archives - see top of talk:major depressive disorder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, relevant discussion can be copied to the talk page, so it is archived with the articles talk page discussions. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Found 3 more papers possibly (but obliquely) relevant to this issue. (FWIW, assume the "Cretaceous Psittaciformes" hypothesis and the large phylogeny we discussed above are both correct.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review needed or not?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In case anyone did not notice, or was distracted, the FA on Kakapo seems to be a problematic FA, and it might lose its FA status if it is not tided up. See here. If anyone has any suggestions to improve the article, I suggest starting a discussion on the articles talk page? Snowman (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't worked on the article beyond providing a few refs. But I can review it next week (I'm gone for a week). It might also be worth having a look at all of our older FAs, like Albatross and Emu. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the featured lists might be a higher priority. The older ones have major problems like lack of references, not MoS etc. jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken IUCN (Birdlife) Links

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Is there an automated 'bot' that can fix broken-links in references? I've tried to access several recently and guess that the websites URL's have changed totally. Check out Birdlife 'References' on Orange-breasted Myzomela Aviceda talk 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the link on that page with this edit, but 1000s more need fixing. I expect that a bot could fix all the links, but I guess that the main difficulty will be getting a trusted programmer an an expert to write the program. The programme should be relatively easy given the standard lay out of the BirdLife webpages and the standard format of most links on the wiki, but mistakes could be disastrous. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about building a bot for this. Using binomial names should result in prefect matches and mismatches can be dealt with manually. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Same for gender fixes for the many species that have been updated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking how to do it. I would probably go through it in the numerical order of the pages on Birdlife, and pick out the bird name there to edit the appropriate wikipage. It has been a while since it did any perl or regex, and I would very much prefer is the script was written by someone who does programming for their living. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I do programming as part of my living (science programming) and there is a basic java class available (wiki.java). I would like to find someone who has already a java based bot for the code so I can modify it. Then, indeed, just fetch a BLI page on number, extract scientific name, obtain page based on Latin name following redirect to species page, check name in taxobox under binomial, if correct, replace template, success.log. If incorrect log to error.log and check manually. Many issues will be based on gender changes as BLI has incorporated those quite nicely and we not. Gives us also a list of species that have been changed gender wise that we then can run for changes at all pages using the search function. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sure there are many ways of doing it, but I only know a smattering of perl. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"If incorrect log to error.log and check manually" - Tagging them with some temporary category ("Category:Birdlife status update" or such), as subcategory of Category:Tree of Life cleanup, will make things easier; the tag would be removed in one sweep with the corrections, and when the category is empty it gets flagged for deletion.
Also, the "Database entry includes justification..." bit after the IUCN link probably should be removed with the update, as it's often not correct anymore since they changed to the new layout. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A new "Birds cleanup" subcategory seems appropriate, and might save sorting through a lot of other stuff. There is one for Category:Animals cleanup. I agree about reducing verbosity of the citation. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
O yeah, once the bot is there, we can use it for more jobs that need systematic browsing of pages. Let me first get arround making a bot, which will take at least several weeks more, because I do have a few more urgent real life thingies going on..... ;-)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Important bio that needs some WikiLove

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just tagged the bio of George Ord as being within this project. The guy was a pretty important American ornithologist and biologist, and the article is currently unreferenced. Steven Walling (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FA/GA update

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Northern Bald Ibis now at FAC jimfbleak (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (7)

Latest comment: 15 years ago40 comments4 people in discussion
Looks like a plain old B. striata striata. sundevalli is unmistakeable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That link to an unmistakable example is on a subscription only website. Having searched for lots of images elsewhere, I remain unconvinced either way. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
... and this is one of the problem individuals. Most clearly match standard B. s. striata, but what's going on with those dark cheeks? Compare the individual discussed further down in the subsection "Birds for identification (8)" (link to photo itself here). I have *never* seen dark cheeks like that anywhere among the mainland populations (supposedly the same ssp. as on Galápagos), where no B. sundevalli exists. On the contrary, such dark-cheeked B. s. striata occur with some frequency on the Galápagos. Does this indicate that we're dealing with a hybrid B. s. striata X B. sundevalli? I suspect yes, but I'm not sure anyone knowns for certain at present, and as stated in my comment further down, the situation in the Galápagos is not entirely resolved. • Rabo³ • 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 71. File:Audobon's Shearwater.jpg I am not sure about this; HBW indicates that P. l. lherminieri is the most probable choice, but the undertail is really light compared to the photos of stray lherminieri (or boydi???) here. That there is no location info does not help; the other birds in the Flickr photoset do not suggest it is a Pacific location. An Atlantic location, if I'm not mistaken, would mean that it can only by lherminieri simply by excluding any other species. (NB: we had another photo supposedly of Audubon's, but that was actually subalaris and thus I moved it from the Commons page) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Intergrade ("inca") of tucanus and cuvieri, leaning towards cuvieri. See also File:Ramphastos tucanus (intergrade) -Brazil-8a.jpg. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks typical of pure tucanus. If it had been an intergrade, we'd see black extending more into the brown sections, especially on the lower mandible. • Rabo³ • 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons image description updated. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No... the light the photo was taken in is bright enough (breast looks pure white), so a pure tucanus would appear like this or this. The variation in bill coloration involves 2 traits, not one; there are almost certainly at least 2 non-linked loci involved. One controlling the pattern - extent of the hypomelanic (red) zone from a center about halfway along the length of the bill. And the other(s) determining the color - overall amount of melanin in the hypomelanic zone; this might also be diet-related, but I don't think so. The animal here has the pattern of purebred tucanus but very much overall melanin, closer to cuvieri. You'll find pictures of all sorts of intermediates on Google. The "opposite" kind of intermediate would be something like this: a rather light red, but very limited in extent. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am ready to update image name when there is a consensus hopefully giving the correct answer. In the interests of accuracy, this will not be labeled as identified if there is a serious doubter. Sometimes, I add the difficulty with identification in the image description, so at least the genus or species can be given, if not the subspecies. Awaiting further comments and opinions. Snowman (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We can simply note that the bill pattern is of tucanus but the "red" part is very dark, making ID uncertain. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Dysmorodrepanis, a misunderstanding here. I have worked within the range of this group for years and therefore am very familiar with the variation, it having had a special interest for me (though I find the variation in the vitellinus group even more interesting, as even Haffer failed to grasp the full variation there, in part because some relates to colours of bare parts, which obviously are problematic when working from specimens). The intergradation doesn't involve darkness of the red/brown (which depends more on the light available than actual variations, though it is worth noting that juvenile tucanus are significantly darker-billed than adults, and the various mophotypes that have been described over time - e.g. "aurantius" with no black at base or tip of bill; a morphotype that has been documented on rare occasions in a wide range of localities within "typical" tucanus, and has been described under several other names than "aurantius", too). You can compare the typical tucanus here and here - most are from Suriname and French Guiana, i.e. well east of where you see intergrades (nearest intergrades are found around Rio Negro and Rio Branco in Brazil, and in regions south of Rio Amazon where individuals showing a level of intergradation can be seen virtually throughout, though most west of Rio Madeira resemble typical cuvieri and most east of Rio Xingu resemble typical tucanus). The intergrades solely involve variations in the pattern of black versus the reddish-brown, not variations between black, reddish-brown and various intermediate colours (cf. Haffer, 1974, and his numerous later publications on this group). So, in short, the bird featured on this photo is an 100% typical tucanus. Nevertheless, I fully understand that one easily can be mislead in this group, as even the authors of HBW vol. 7 managed to include two photos of mistakenly identified toucans in their Ramphastidae chapter (on a related issue, the photo currently featured in the taxobox for the Channel-billed Toucan was listed as a Cuvier's Toucan until I corrected it), and thinking that the intergradation also involves darkness of brown/red would be very easy, as it rarely is described in any detail how this intergradation actually manifests itself (and I'll admit that the forthcomming Brazilian field guide doesn't deal with this in as much detail as I perhaps would have preferred; that's certainly something to consider for possible later editions). • Rabo³ • 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As a brief addition: One should also be careful with using inca for the intergrades. If valid, this taxon, while quite possibly the result of an semi-stabilized hybrid population, is restricted to a relatively small region, and is not that variable in how it looks. In other words, inca far from covers the extensive bill variation shown in the intergrades, but it has a tendency to show more orange uppertail coverts (often not as deep as shown in HBW, though), and using it as a generalized name for them is therefore questionable. • Rabo³ • 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
File on commons updated with movement of the swingometer. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the primer, Rabo! I was not aware of the confusion, had thought that anything between the extremes would be dumped in inca (HBW in some respects is not a valid replacement for Peter's "Check-List"... ;-) ). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Pied Imperial-pigeon. Speaking of which, the article of that species not not reflect the split of the Torresian Imperial-pigeon, and it is that species that is in the taxobox. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ducula bicolor -perching on a branch-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd lean towards erythrozonus on account of the faint black breast spot. All other ssp have a large one like this. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what juveniles look like. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
According to HBW, more melanins (in concentration and extent, i.e. the breast spot is larger than in adults), less carotenoids (in concentration), and the "teeth" are not developed yet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Superb Starling. • Rabo³ • 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Lamprotornis superbus -London Zoo-6.jpg on commons, and also uploaded the next image on flickr photo-stream which was a close up. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Dusky Thrush. • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Turdus naumanni in tree-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Very odd looking bird. Probably an immature Chestnut-mandibled X White-throated. I've never heard of this happening as their ranges are greatly separate in the wild, but they're closely related, and considering the history of this genus, it would not be surprising if they can hybridize if given the chance in captivity... and I can't think of any other way of achieving a bird with a bill like a Chestnut-mandibled, an eye-ring like a White-throated, and a throat in between the two (when also taking into account that it's an imm.). Nevertheless, I don't know if you could mess up the captive food to an extend where a juv. Chestnut-mandibled would end up looking like this, so unless getting a more definitive answer I probably wouldn't recommend uploading it. • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am glad I asked. It looks healthy. Atypical zoo bird, so not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is so unusual, I have opted to upload it with a cautious image description mentioning hybrid. Some other species have hybrids uploaded. Now at File:Ramphastos (hybrid) -Bird Kingdom-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nominate Channel-billed. • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ramphastos vitellinus (nominate) -Wilhelma Zoo-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
2X Keel-billed. From the same set you might consider the Germain's Peacock-pheasant and male Papuan Hornbill • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ramphastos sulfuratus -Diergaarde Blijdorp-8.jpg and File:Ramphastos sulfuratus -Wilhelma Zoo-8.jpg. That is interesting, they have the same bill but the chest of one is yellow and the other white. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Extras uploaded:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_28&oldid=1066792755"