Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 35

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Raran75 in topic Birds for identification (21)

Chalcopsitta might make DYK

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have done an illustrated table for the Chalcopsitta genus. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Will dig up some material later tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Lots of unused space in the picture table; why not merge the taxonomic list into it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Forshaw doesn't have much at all in it on the genus as such. maybe Low does but I don't have the book anymore. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Onomatopoeic bird sounds...all agreed they are or should be italicized?

Latest comment: 15 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion

Anyone seen any style issues about onomatopoeic bird sounds? Italics or quotation marks - I would have thought italics. Anyone seen anything written on the subject? This recently came up at FAC and might be good to have in the italics section on the MOS page Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought quotation marks, because the birds sounds are being quoted. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Cas, I am somewhat confused of the intent. If you are talking about bird vocalizations, then that is one thing. However, the vast majority of bird vocalizations are so complex that there is no attempt to render them into one word suggesting the sound (i.e., onomatopoeic).--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at many bird articles - I agree that the vowels and consonants are often a poor approximation, but it doesn't stop bird guides trying. Looking at Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_face - the one that struck me was words as words or (humorously but maybe semiseriously) foreign terms as to why italics are used. I prefer them aesthetically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This might help. Since I think your intent is just a general question about how to render in writing bird vocalizations in general, then I will give you an example of how a very recent, and good field guide, does it. "Voice A soft, steady series of kwa notes at higher pitch than Collared Trogon (H&B, Collar). Series of up to 10 soft, cooing notes, cuu cuu cuu cuu or longer wu wh-whu-whu-whu-whu-hu-hu-hu, louder in middle (Hilty)."

Op.cit.: Birds of Northern South America, Restall, et al. Vol.1, P. 283 (referring to the voice of Trogon personatus)--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cas: I've only ever seen them italicized (in field guides and journal articles, anyway). I've never seen quotation marks used. MeegsC | Talk 14:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the bird sounds quoted above it looks like italics works ok. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I too prefer italics, but I don't think quotation marks are really bad, and I'd say there are far more important style problems on this encyclopedia, like dangling modifiers, or "summer months" for "summer", or dangling modifiers. (And there may even be more important problems than style, much as I like to copyedit.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This came up at my Tree Sparrow FAC from Sandy Georgia, as a request for clarification, rather than an objection. Italics are the commonest form in books, with quotation marks well behind. On Wikipedia, italics are very much the ‘’de facto’’ standard, and perhaps we can make this the agreed style. I said I would add animal sounds to the MoS page on text formatting under the italics subheading, but I haven’t done so because I can’t decide which heading it should be under – perhaps Casliber can sort it out, then we will have a definite policy jimfbleak (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
HBW and Oxford's Bird families of the world render calls in quotes not italics. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Heck Jerry, I didn't want to spend much time on it, just clarify it a bit - curse you SS for bringing in HBW and Oxford ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can it be in italics and quotation marks? Snowman (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose...overkill stylistically? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should pick one style (as a project) and make that the standard. Obviously, given the various examples, both are acceptable, but I agree with Cas: using both simultaneously would be overkill. Whichever we choose could then be added to our project guidelines, and the guidelines at WP:MOS. Do the rest of you agree? MeegsC | Talk 13:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Not only do I agree that italics and quotation marks together are too much, but so does one of the MOS pages, though in the context of double emphasis.
However, I'll register my usual disagreement with the idea that we need a standard for such matters. Wikipedia style has both unity and variety; for instance, we use different national varieties of English. On the question of where the balance should be, I like variety more than most here.
By the way, Cas, if anyone's planning to find all the quotation marks around bird vocalizations and change them to italics, I think that will take a lot of time. And advocating this at MOS might (I'm less sure) take a lot of time, including dealing with side issues. What about machine sounds? Should we follow Sibley in using italics for sooo seeeeeee dididi dididi dididi but quotation marks for "Old Sam Peabody Peabody Peabody" in rendering the White-throated Sparrow's song? Etc. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If we are quoting someone else's rendering of the song do we not have to use quotes and attribute it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
MOS was quoted above. Italics and quotations marks would not "distract from the writing" and would seem necessary when used with italicised names of taxa, so I think that this sort of double emphasis does not absolutely contradict wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite true, now that you mention it. And I suggest that renderings should always be quoted to avoid OR, and so that in principle the reader has a basis for understanding them: one author's keer may be another's teeu. I tend to quote the source's description, too, e.g., "a sharp, flat un-nutha ch-like, un-nutha ch-like," since people describe vocalizations differently. (Trivia: What are my sources? Answer on my talk page if at all.) However, though I mostly avoid OR, I don't promise to take out reasonable OR wherever I find it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think italics are always carried over to a txt format, if the wiki is copied or transfered. I think quotation marks are. This is a good argument for the quotation marks. Snowman (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point, Snowman, which I hadn't thought of, but I'm more concerned about readers of the 'pedia than readers of copies, etc. Or are there people who read Wikipedia in a format without italics? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If we are voting, I vote for italics - much more easy they register when speed-reading, and I think also, simply more elegant.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia is not a democracy. I thought the most appropriate opinions are used and not the most popular. Is it more of a wikipedia style to consider the discussion (such as the one above) and see which is the best reasoned point of view. I think that the decision should not be decided by only a vote, although it could be taken into consideration. I think the views of all those that have participated in the discussion should be considered and not just those who voted. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but who decides which are the "most appropriate opinions"?! That's always the challenge, isn't it? Because there are clear examples of both styles—so maybe Jerry is right and there shouldn't be a standard!  ; ) MeegsC | Talk 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
At this juncture, to me, it looks like that there is no overall consensus to change anything in the above discussion. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a pattern; do the books that use italics for sounds also use italics for taxa? On the wiki genera and subspecies and so on are in italics, and I think that it can be confusing to see a lot of italics; for example, this subspecies makes this sound and that subspecies makes that sound. Some bird names are onomatopoeic which would add to confusion reading; for example, a Common Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus says cockoo, seems to me less clear than a Common Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus says "cockoo" or a Common Cuckoo, Cuculus canorus says "cockoo". So sometimes it might be easier to read if the sounds were in italics. Slightly at a tangent, if double emphasis is not allowed on the wiki, then genera should not be in italics and emboldened as often seen in the first line of an article. Snowman (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the discussion is probably missing a dynamic without detailed reference to what croped up at a recent FAC. The FA reviewers know a lot about MOS, and knowing what a reviewer said about how to write down bird sounds in a wiki article would probably inspire the discussion further. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Until Tree Sparrow, none of my FAs had attracted any comment at all on using italics for calls (which they all do), so it was de facto MOS. All Ssandy was asking was that the convention was formalised. jimfbleak (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

vote

OK, let's !vote

Italics
  1. jimfbleak (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. MeegsC | Talk 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Quotation marks
1. Bearing in mind that taxa are also in italics, this is my second choice after "no standard". This is what I would probably use on a wiki article when birds sounds are juxtaposed with taxa. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No standard
  1. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (but if we decide to have a standard, I prefer italics)
  2. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. I do not know what cropped up at a recent FAC, and I think that this should have been explained at the start of the discussion. I looked at the FAC article and, to me, one section looked a bit of a mess with a lot of italics and I found it difficult to read. Snowman (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The big push

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It won't increase the total, but Tree Sparrow is now at FAC jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tree Sparrow had an easy passage through FAC, thanks for support/comments. Unfortunately, since it's a GA -> FA promotion, its still 99... jimfbleak (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have thrown Australian Magpie up at WP:GAN as I figured the map would not be necessary until FAC. Any other comments etc. much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
...and passed. 100 recognised thingies then... ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
....and now 50 bird FAs too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (20)

Latest comment: 15 years ago49 comments8 people in discussion
yes, painted s.l., but as that species has been split recently, I have to dig up how to see which species it is now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Rose-fronted Parakeet. • Rabo³ • 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I was puzzled, because the Pyrrhura roseifrons illustration in Forshaw 2006 (plate 89) has more red on the top of the head than is seen on the photograph. What about the bluish tinge below the top of the wings in the photograph in question? I guess that this is one where it is more complicated than is explained in books, and you will be able to explain more. It also looks a bit like the hybrid P. roseifrons x P. peruviana illustration in Forshaw. It is also similar to the illustration that Forshaw calls an Azuero Conure, P. eisenmanni, which has some blue in its wing, but the shade of red on the head might be different. There are so many types that look similar, so could more be classified as subspecies of one species? Snowman (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Following the taxonomy on wikipedia, it is Pyrrhura r. roseifrons. The amount of red varies both individually and depending on age. The blue you see on the wing are the blue remiges and primary coverts peaking through. The Azuero Conure/Parakeet (P. (p.) eisenmanni) is quite different, with a much darker red to the head that extends less onto the crown, paler ear coverts and less blue to the cheeks. If you check the external links section in Painted Parakeet there is a link to a photo. • Rabo³ • 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought that you might say that the amount of the red on the head varies. Does the image need a new name; if so, what? Snowman (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's open for discussion. I was under the impression that we generally don't make major novel taxonomical changes in commons as the photos may be used in other projects that still use the old (and in this case clearly out-dated) taxonomy. But I haven't spend much time in commons and may be wrong. If it is to be renamed, I would suggest sticking to the scientific names ("Pyrrhura roseifrons" or "Pyrrhura (picta) roseifrons" in this case) to avoid any issues that may be over the ambiguity of the common names with the changing taxonomy of this group. • Rabo³ • 05:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is the Austral parakeet (Enicognathus ferrugineus) as I cannot see the long beak for the slender-billed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
To me, it could be an Austral Parakeet, because of the smallish beak (not well seen) and the small area of red on face. But juvenile Slender-billed Parakeets look like this too. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Juvenile has white around the eyes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
To me, in the photograph the eye-ring looks greyish, not white and not dark. Snowman (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
To me, this does not look like a juvenile. But that is just my opinion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is an austral. • Rabo³ • 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. File rename under way to File:Enicognathus ferrugineus -captivity-4-4c.JPG. Snowman (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's a Sage Thrasher. Sexes are similar; no subspecies are recognized; so all you can say is it's an adult. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sage Thrasher uploaded to File:Oreoscoptes montanus -Minneapolis-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Common Moorhen - Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not know much about these. There are lots of photographs in the flickr photostream. It is the local subspecies in Taiwan? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No idea. Given how similar the species is to our own aussie Dusky Moorhen, I suspect the subspecies are very hard to distinguish indeed...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is on the List of birds of Taiwan, but it does not clarify the subspecies there. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the nominate (Eurasian) ssp G. c. chloropus, although eastern birds are sometimes split as G. c. indica jimfbleak (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Gallinula chloropus -Taiwan-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the two militairy macaws (militaris or ambigua), but impossible to distinguish without more information. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ara ambigua for me. No indication of bluishness on the crown, nape or neck. By the way, do not take into account (if you look at the pair of birds in one of the photoframes, of the peculiar greyishness of the breast - those feathers are devitalized and we are looking at some sort of dermatosis - probably from some sort of acarus.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The nape is very worn and I can still see a few blue feather tips. It is clearer on the less worn left bird on the next photo [1]. International species identification system lists only military for Whipsnade [2]. • Rabo³ • 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The worn chest feathers look like a feather plucking habit to me. Would you expect a mite infestation to spread to the other macaw too? I looked at the Zoo's website, but it did not have a full species list. I have been looking for blueish feathers in other macaw photographs. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, Rabo, did something that I should have, but in my haste, forgot to. Most threatened birds, and not only birds, are inserted into a sort of zoo (or in any case when being bred) stud book, and they are (or should be) listed in the ISIS Database (see Rabo's link).Steve Pryor (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
SP, Rabo3 has shown us that link before. Sometimes the zoo has some of the similar species listed too. Perhaps, I should have used that short cut, but I would like to write a short section on identification of these two parrots using some illustrations which means looking for identifying features on the images very carefully. I still can not differentiate them myself, and it is complicated because of several subspecies. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, about you earlier q: I don't think that's caused by mites. It's more likely 'boredom plucking' done by itself or its partner. Many macaws, amazons and cockatoos are very susceptible to it and once they started it easily gets chronic. • Rabo³ • 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Will be a toughie, if even doable. The bird does not appear adult. In addition, if a pet, it may be out of geographical context.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it looks difficult to identify. If identified, it would make a good illustration for a wiki article. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Foreground bird is certainly solstitialis. The other one, I want to check if the culottes of jandaya are ever this yellow. However, I presume this user knows his own parrots.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I modified the image description on the commons image. You can check its page history and view previous versions to see what the original description was. The image description previously only mentioned Sun Conures and the title only mentions one species. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure about that, SMR? The original userpage I found that pic on states that the birds are Sun Conures. The rear bird looks like a juvenile SC to me too. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure. I have just found the owners user page where he says he bought Sun Conures. The parrot at the back has yellow feathers over the top of legs, which would seem be me more like a juvenile Sun Conure. I will revert my changes of the image description on commons pending what is decided here. It might be worth mentioning why there is difference in their appearance in the image description. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The duller colouration also suggests juvenile Sun Conure to me (sorry for the delayed reply). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is mixed group of parrots here File:Aratinga jandaya and solstitialis.jpg. What are these? Snowman (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The two left-most are adult jandaya, the other one is an adult solstitialis.--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Both look like the same bird in spite of the distance of the dates. No location, no context. The genus appears to me to be Aratinga.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some input

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I wouldn't mind some input (good or bad) at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Streptopelia chinensis Tas.jpg. Thanks Noodle snacks (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a good photograph of the dove, but can you do anything about the fuzzy foreground that makes me attempt to focus and strains my eyes? Snowman (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd crop a bit higher jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I could crop it higher, but I was lying prone. The background and perspective would suffer if looking down at the bird (plus I'd scare it away). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chiffchaff

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If it isn't already on your watchlist, Chiffchaff is the main page article today, and it's taking a fair number of vandalism hits! MeegsC | Talk 12:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Order Struthioniformes

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Michaelprobe (talk · contribs) has recently made changes to rhea (bird), kiwi and cassowary to change the order (in the taxobox) from Struthioniformes to Rheiformes, Apterigiformes and Casuaniformes, respectively. I understand that bird taxonomy is something of a grey area, but these changes do not seem "non-controversial" to me, and I believe that some discussion is merited before making them. Any knowledgeable members of this project are encouraged to express their opinions at Talk:rhea (bird)#Order, Talk:kiwi#Order and Talk:cassowary#Order, respectively. Thank you! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

These are good hanges, and they should have been changed earlier. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is anything downloadable, without having to pay for it?--Steve Pryor (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What kind of bird is this

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I photographed this really nice picture of a bird i wanna place some where but i don't know what kind of bird it is, can someone tell me. thumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuy666 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, these are less confusing than the last one! Mourning Doves. You probably hear them going ooo, ooo, ooo sometimes. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks man <small>'''''RandomGuy666'''''</small> (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666

Conservation status for fossil birds

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This overlaps with the WP:DINO people but I already know what their position is on this so I thought I'd ask here. I've just removed the status field from the taxobox for Hesperornis as this should be deprecated in favour of Fossil_range (as per Taxo usage). I then thought that it would be unusual for such a high-profile extinct bird to be at odds with all the others so I checked a few more and lo! So, in case there's a really good reason why things should be this way, I'm alerting you guys* before I change a whole bunch of taxoboxes. Secret Squïrrel, approx 10:00, 21 Aperil 2009 (Earth Standard Time) * Guys includes Mans of both sexes ;-)

Just a comment, in my ignorance. I find it astonishing that someone thought to actually contemplate a "conservation status" for any bird so extinct that it is known only from actual "fossilized" remains. It is probably not likely that someone will go fishing in Kansas only to be confronted with the "thought extinct" Hesperornis cavorting in front of the boat. It just does not make intuitive sense to me. Is there something that I am missing?--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the article history, and the conservation status has said "Fossil" since the third edit on the article way back in June 2006. Not really appropriate, but perhaps that's how some WP editors used to indicate that a species was extinct? MeegsC |

Talk 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger, please weigh in

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

I'm going out on a limb here, but this is a preliminary survey of opinions before I formally propose a move. I'm going to suggest a move and merge of Anatidae to Duck. My reasoning is as follows...

  1. Duck is one of our most visited pages. As of the last count it was the 10th most visited bird page with over 2000 visitors last month. It deserves improvements.
  2. Thing is, duck isn't really helpful taxonomically. It describes all the members of the family Anatidae that aren't geese or swans. But many things that are ducks seem to be no more closely related, or distantly related, to other things called ducks than they are to things called geese or swans.
  3. The best thing to do is describe the family as a whole, as we currently do (rather incompletely) at Anatidae. The thing is, people don't visit pages with scientific names unless a redirect sends them there. People visit pages with names they are familiar with, like duck, eagle, warbler, parrot.
  4. To me the solution would be to have the family page at Duck - a name which describes most of the species, and thn have the intro and taxobox read Ducks, geese and swans. (MOS guidelines rule out using that as the page title, unfortunately). That way we can cover an important group in a position that might actually lead to it beig read.

Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabine, do you have a link for these MOS guidelines? Tried a cursory search, but did not find it. In any case, it would seem to me that a set of guidelines that makes things more difficult, rather than straightforward should be amenable to change. In my view, for this group, a main page for the group, to which everything should be linked, should carry a name which can include all branches of the group, i.e., starting from Anseriformes even if it means sticking in a lot of common names, i.e., Ducks, Swans, Geese, Screamers, and so forth.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd think it a good candidate for a merge as my impression was that the family was called Ducks for short, with the geese and swans assumed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, it is the use of plurals that is discouraged (so we use Bird not Birds), thus making it have to be the somewhat nonsensical Duck, goose and swan. And yes, Cas, that is pretty much what I think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But there are exceptions and I think "Ducks, geese, and swans" would make a good name for the wiki article on the family of birds. Nevertheless, I think there should be separate pages on each type of bird as well. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No merge. The interlinking between the wiki pages "Ducks", "Geese", "Swans", and "Anatidae" needs to be clear, and I think that the wiki needs dedicated page on ducks. Some taxonomy could be added to the page on ducks. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Goose and swan aren't going anywhere. I don't understand your first point, but your second point makes no sense. Duck is just the name given to any anatid that isn't called a goose or swan, that is a small one. Do we really need two pages, one for all anatids and one for all anatids that aren't geese or swans (and aren't even a distinct or monophyletic group)? Because that is all the duck page is now, an article on a group of birds linked by nothing more than the vagaries of etymology. For example the Egyptian Goose is closer to the Torrent Duck than it is the Greylag Goose. The Trumpter Swan is much much closer to the Greylag Goose than the Corsoba Swan. They are all ducks, even if not all of them have the word duck in their name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • My first point is that there should be easy-to-find wikilinks between the relevant pages for ease of finding related pages. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"And this isn't going to change. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • My second point is that duck is a popular search term (the 10th most popular bird on the wiki) and its popularity is a indication to improving it and not abolishing it. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing abolishing it. Are you being obtuse? Where did I propose abolishing it? I was proposing merging and improving it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Goose and swan are well known terms and they should have their own pages too. If the taxonomy is complex and there are borderline cases, then I think this is an argument for describing this on the relevant pages and not for abolishing the pages. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention moving or abolishing those pages either? Anywhere? No. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Your point 4: I do not think that there is anything wrong with a heading "Ducks, geese, and swans", if it is agreed by a separate discussion about the name of the page only. Actually, I think this is the best heading, because it is a WP:Birds policy to use common names where they exist. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have already proposed the merger this morning at 07:02 at about the same time you started the discussion here. It is a bit confusing to know where to discuss this topic. Discussion here seems to be duplication. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Update; a merger proposal was make by User Sabine's Sunbird at 7.02 this morning, see the discussion at Talk:Duck#Merger_proposal. Discussion here seems to be duplication. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Cas did, not me. I was going to wait.... Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, I will strike above out with wrong user mentioned. I did not notice that some of your discussion was copied to the talk page by this edit. Snowman (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I replied here, then moved my replies over there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Was there any liaison or confernment between User Casliber and yourself about this? Snowman (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Update; a merger proposal was make by User Casliber at 7.48 this morning, see the discussion at Talk:Duck#Merger_proposal. Discussion here seems to be duplication. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
To reduce duplication, I plan to use the articles talk page as the main area for my discussion and replies to any comments. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I wish I had done something cleverer there with moving it wholesale over and archiving here (sigh) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian Magpie - getting towards FAC

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK, nearing the end of the road -any suggestions or improvements welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (15)

Latest comment: 15 years ago54 comments11 people in discussion
Spotted Morning-thrush, Cichladusa guttata jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Cichladusa guttata -perching-8a.jpg on commons. Unless they have an alternative name, it is the first image of its genus on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have asked the location and we should be able to figure it out pretty easily after that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, awaiting precise location. Going on some of the other images in the flickr photostream it might be photographed in Queensland, near Rockhampton. This is the range of C. b. banksii according to a range map (might be out-of-date or wrong) I have seen, but the light colour of the bands in the females tail feathers might suggest C. b. macrorhynchus, which the range map suggests should be a further north-west. Because there is some pale-red/orange in the tail, I guess it is a C. b. banksii, and I guess it is photographed too far south-east to make intermediate forms (if they exist) unlikely. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting details of precise location. Snowman (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Juvenile Superb Parrot. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not think about it for long, but I did not immediately know what it was. After looking it up, I think you are right on the species, Superb Parrot or Barbarand's Parakeet. What indicates that it is a juvenile rather than a female? Snowman (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Polytelis swainsonii -pet shop-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Brown Iris, overall young look, and faint red breaking through, absent in females. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Clues from "Parrots of the World; an identification guide". Foreshaw.: Iris in adult is yellow-orange and brown in juveniles, and a brown iris is fairly clearly shown in the photograph. Females fore-neck is "variable tinged russet-pink", so the red breaking through in the image might not in itself indicate a juvenile as this could be the "russet-pink" fore-neck of a female. Snowman (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, based on descriptions, you are right, it is not obvious. But have a look here at various females. The brown iris however is sufficient. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that Forshaw's descriptions are very likely to be correct here. Take a look at the "variable tinged russet-pink" in these photographs which I presume are of females. [3], [4]. Snowman (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Forshaw is correct. I am too. Look here. Juvenile males are easy to distinguish from juvenile females based on the red showing through. I used to be a parrot breeder. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess the image in question could show the red breaking through in a young male. At what age does this happen? What do they look like before this? You never said anything about it being a male before, so I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were refering to "variable tinged russet-pink" breaking through and not the red band of a male breaking through and starting to form, so I was concentrating on the colour of the red zone rather than the margins of a possible red band. In the image in question, it seems to me that the red could be just starting to form a band especially by its vaguely sharp upper border, but I do not have much experience with this species and I have never seen one, and I guess that there are very few, if any, here in UK. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, we would sex young birds that way. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Collared Kingfisher, Southern vanatu subspecies have more cinnamon in their lower parts, including subspecies (tannensis and erromangae) just around the corner of where the image was taken. However, it still would be out of its range for the subspecies. Just my 2 cents. (Fry et al have all subspecies described)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what it was doing in Santo. It's a long way from Tanna. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't be the first vagrant in the world... ;-) The description firts really well with those subspecies, and is therefore in my opinion more likely than a hybrid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, but vagrants are more common (much more) in migratory species. Insular species rarely end up far from home. I agree that it is more likely than a hybrid. It is pretty damn unusual though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is indeed an unusual thing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The plot thickens. Another from virtually the same location. [5]. Does anybody have the Kingfisher monograph by Fry? Helpful would be the subspecific descriptions of races torresianus; tannensis; erromangae; juliae; and santoensis, including possible age-related plumages, and sexually dimorphic differences. This particular photo shot in 2003, shows an immature bird, a male in my judgment. While it cannot be excluded that we are looking at two photos, at the distance of five years, of the same bird, the photo first linked, and object of this thread, would appear to have conformational differences of the lateral head striping.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this thread whilst overseas, Collared Kingfisher in Fiji Isles is incredibly sexually-dimorphic, so I suspect this is the case with the bird from Vanuatu, see my image here [[6]], showing both sexes together Aviceda talk 10:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Tom, yes indeed. Certainly the Fiji Arch. constitutes a fine example of the conundrum that are the species (and race) associations of the so-called Todiramphus sanctus-chloris complex. There are many that await more information, and a consequent all-inclusive review of the whole complex. Personally, I have often wondered if some, or all, of the Fijian races might not be better collocated with sanctus. I am not the only one.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say the one on the left is A. a. aestiva and the one on the right is A. a. xanthopteryx --Ltshears (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


  • 155. Small bird with dark crest for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Red-whiskered Bulbul. Maias (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • PS. From the locality given, presumably the nominate subspecies. Maias (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
        • PPS. I have reviewed the photo, and I do confirm the nominate. It should be noted that this particular bulbul has entered widely into the caged bird trade, and therefore presumptions as to the race collocation must be confirmed by necessity even when the bird naturally ranges. The discrimination between races has to do with crest length, bill strength, relative strength of the upper red malar against the lower white malar, amount and lengthwise distribution of white on the rectrical tips, or its' total lack thereof, completeness or incompleteness of the black pectoral collar, and presence and distribution of a brown wash on the lateral breast insertion and flanks.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A question. Is there supposed to be some type of correlation to reality in the range maps for bird species? If there is, then the range map indicating the respective ranges of both P. leucotis, and P. leucogenys should be redrawn. The indicated ranges are grossly in error.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What's a good source for the range? (Not to say that I'm going to redraw the map, since I don't know how.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Jerry, the range map is affermed to have been generated from the ranges in the Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide. I have these volumes, and the range map does not correspond. As a general rule, one must not use a regional bird guide since they may show only that part of the range that corresponds to the scope of whatever region the guide is serving. I would use, in this case, the range maps as presented in HBW-10 (that dealing with Pycnonotidae), since they have a species approach, and not a regional approach, to their range maps. By the way, I wouldn't know how to draw one either.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pycnonotus leucotis -captivity-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's nothing like Banded Imperial Pigeon wand is out of range in Hongkong. I'll see if I can find this jimfbleak (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously not genus Ducula. Streptopelia c. chinensis (an adult).Steve Pryor (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, Spotted Dove, just came to that conclusion myself, jimfbleak (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Rename under way to File:Streptopelia chinensis -Hong Kong Park-8.jpg which might take several days. Links will change colour when move is done. Snowman (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 158. Cockatoo for identification. Photographed at Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It'll be Cacatua sulphurea - Lesser Sulphur-crested Cockatoo. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Tentatively, it might be a C.s.citrinocristata, however I would not risk a definitive on this photo alone.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that it could be a Citron-crested Cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea citrinocristata a subspecies of the Yellow-crested Cockatoo. It has curved orange crest and quite well marked orange cheeks. Black irises tend to indicate a male. I am a bit puzzled by its longish "whiskers". The location of the zoo might be a clue which might contain a local cockatoo. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In re: the puzzling longish "whiskers". Don't be puzzled. Those are just the malar feathers being erected near the beak insertion. A thermoregulatory mechanism of birds used to trap warm air and limit the dispersion of heat from their body.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
On thinking about it, I am somewhat more sure about its identity. Is this a barn door Citron-crested Cockatoo? Snowman (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Doug, it is rather hard to assess. The bird does not strike me as being juvenile (that tend to have brownish and not blackish crowns, paler cheeks, etc.). I presume the bird was shot in Jurong. Though I can not exclude the possibility of this being a juvenile bird of the red-vented races (there are more than one), I can also not exclude that this is simply an adult of the yellow-vented races (e.g., germani, the nominate aurigaster), further, more than one race can have the vent with color variation from yellow to reddish, e.g., schauenseei, or thais). As to the species ID, there is no question. This is a Pycnonotus aurigaster.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Steve, you're right, it's a recent shot from Jurong. Thank you for the ID, I'll post it accordingly. Dougjj (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

More bird idenification please

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I got another nice photo of a bird, but don't know what kind it is, can someone here tell me. If you can't find it, look by the bird feeder.

 
Please identify this bird.

<small>'''''RandomGuy666'''''</small> (talk)RandomGuy666

Probably a White-crowned Sparrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a Chipping Sparrow? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry—it looks more like a Chipping Sparrow; it has a slim black bill (rather than a bigger pink one) and thinner head stripes than I'd expect on a White-crown. MeegsC | Talk 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When you say can they be black, what part of them are you talking about? MeegsC | Talk 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If you mean the crown, it would be very strange for a Chipping Sparrow to have a black crown instead of a rusty-red one, if it's ever happened at all. But it wouldn't be nearly so strange for the crown to look black in a photo, especially one where the image of the bird is small. In fact, I think I can see some rufous color on the back of this bird's head at full resolution, though I could be wrong. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
And young birds generally show a streaky brownish crown, which also might look black in poor light. MeegsC | Talk 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That is definatly not a chipping sparrow.. I have plenty of those in my yard and know one when a see one.. I would lean more towards a white crowned sparrow --Ltshears (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree (and I have lots of experience with them too, having lived in Chipping Sparrow country with many at my feeders in NJ and PA for 20+ years). White-crowned Sparrows have big pink bills and a thick leading edge to the black stripe above the white supercilium (and that black stripe comes down to the side of the maxilla); this bird has neither. Check out images of both species on Google to see what I mean. Seriously though, and no offense to Random Guy, it's not really a clear enough picture to use in either article. MeegsC | Talk
The top of the head appears to be black. I have never seen a chipping sparrow with a black on top of the head.. The ones in my yard are red on top of the head. I don't think to image is clear enough to make a definate ID anyway. --Ltshears (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... When I blow the picture up to its largest size (keep clicking 'til you "can't click no more"), that crown sure looks rufous to me, but that may be because I expect to see rufous! :P Random Guy, I'm not sure cropping it is going to make much difference. At its highest magnification, the picture is pretty grainy—and given the disagreements between knowledgeable observers here, putting it on any page and saying "it might be this" seems a bit of a disservice to our readers! MeegsC | Talk 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gill and Wright's World Bird names update

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've just noticed that our deliberations on whether to adopt Gill and Wright's Bird List as opposed to HBW has been covered on their reactions page. Congrats to Kim for being the eloquent voice they quoted! Now if only we had actually decided anything... Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Gill et al. have also been very nice to listen to feedback and consider any well-supported changes and I notice that they have been gracious enough to acknowledge inputs from several of the WP:BIRD contributors here (at least 3 names there) ! Shyamal (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (21)

Latest comment: 13 years ago80 comments8 people in discussion
  • Also see bird 154 before it is archived - no comments so far. Snowman (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 210. Lorikeet and different view here probably at Nashville Zoo for identification. (This is the 300th bird in the identification series when added to the 90 birds in the "Parrots for identification" series.) Snowman (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
These two will be one of the non-Australian subspecies of Trichoglossus haematodus, but which I am not sure. I will see if I can add any info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So that narrows it down Rainbow Lorikeet subspecies, if you are correct. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have looked in Forshaw - the one on DSC_0468, and on the right in the other photo has a wider greenish patch on the nape, and the fact that this patch is line with red makes it subpsecies rosenbergii from Irian Jaya (not subsp. haematodus, unless another subsp. has it as well. The one on the left in the other pic lacks this red margin to its pale green nape and I think is subsp. haematodus but I am not good on these birds! Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, the zoo does have two T. h. rosenbergii (both unknown sex). Snowman (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The one on the left here: [7] looks to be the nominate haematodus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
yeah, that's the one I meant was haematodus too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Both images uploaded and cropped versions uploaded. Rosenberg's Lorikeet uploaded to File:Trichoglossus haematodus rosenbergii -Nashville Zoo-6a-2c.jpg. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are the subspecies that Nashville Zoo has "Caeruleiceps" "micropteryx" "moluccanus" "rosenbergii" "weberi" "haematodus" --Ltshears (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 211. Lorikeet with green on wing probably at Lowry Park Zoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like one of the Eos lories but the green wing throws me. I will pull out my Forshaw now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no green plumage in Eos. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, baffling it is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If this isn't something produced by somebody cooking in nature's kitchen, it might be a subadult Trichoglossus ornatus.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Lorius and Charmosyna have green. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Forshaw (2006) says T. ornatus juvenile has a green occiput, brown irises, pale grey eyerings - not seen in the image in question. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was not saying a juvenile. Sometimes, since you rarely have descriptions of all possible age-related plumages, what you do is look at what it most looks like. This most looks like an Trichoglossus ornatus. The yellowish half-collar on the ear coverts of the adult, are supposedly reduced or absent in immatures. The bill is red, so this is not a juvenile (bill is brownish). What makes this not coincide with the description for an adult ornatus is the absence of the yellow on the ear coverts, and the presence of red on the hind crown rather than purple. So, I can either hypothesize that somebody has been farting around with genetic selections, or I can fit these features to the most probable bird, and find reason for its' not totally coinciding with the typical description for the adult. There is always the possibility that with age, if this is a younger bird (i.e. subadult) that the red present on the hind-crown is replaced by purple. Of course, my reasoning can be off, but this is my best guess as to what this is. Any sensible alternative will be considered!Steve Pryor (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit like this hybrid File:Trichoglossus hybrid -Woburn Safari Park-8a.jpg, or at least that what is was called when it was listed as a bird for identification some time ago. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is an image of the same bird at lowry park zoo.. maybe this one will better help with ID [[8]] and here [[9]] and [[10]] --Ltshears (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have found this same bird here [[11]] list under unidentified parrot.. But when you open the image up to a larger view, they have it labled as a hybrid. --Ltshears (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I took the photo that Ltshears referenced, and I remember that bird because it was so unusual. The docent on duty told me it was a hybrid that was born in the zoo. Unfortunately, I don't remember which two species the parents were. Jeff Whitlock --raran75 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. The only reasonable explanation of the first link is an F1 Eos X Trichoglossus. That being the case we can presume that the initial photo also shows another product of an intergeneric cross, again presumably Eos, and Trichoglossus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC
Martial Eagle; adult. MeegsC | Talk 12:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Polemaetus bellicosus -Masai Mara-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 213. [12] and [13] both captives, possibly Derbyan Parakeets [[14]] ? Dougjj (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Doug, you are right. Adult male. The shortness of the rectrices might be due to captivity.--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Steve, uploaded as: File:Psittacula derbiana-20050502.jpg and File:Psittacula derbiana-20040821.jpg, added to Derbyan Parakeet - Dougjj (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 214. [15] Lillian's Lovebird [[16]] or a cross breed? Dougjj (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Doug, well, it looks like Agapornis. Beyond that, it is anybody's guess the parents. If a fortuitous cross by captive promiscuity, or somebody selecting for plumage variations within one species, is appanage of someone more used to breeding Agapornis. I pass on guessing.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I presume that you are indicating that the photograph on the external website is not a Lilian's Lovebird? Snowman (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No. I am saying that though I am sure it is Agapornis, that I would not like to guess based on the plumage characteristics if this is a pure species Agapornis.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I presume that you are indicating that the photograph on the external website does not have the appearance of a typical wild-type Lilian's Lovebird? Incidentally, several identification mistakes have been corrected on the external website recently. Snowman (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that this does not appear, to me at least, to have the plumage characteristics of what I would expect for a wild-type Lillian's Lovebird.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
And to me, the Agapornis parrot as seen in one photograph on the external website does not have the external appearance of a typical wild-type Lillian's Lovebird.
Doug, has this been helpful? If not, you might be able to get more information from the Zoo or owner about the lovebird that might assist you in choosing a better caption for it on your website. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I like the photograph, and some people on the wiki are keen on Agapornis and there is a dedicated category "Category:Domesticated Agapornis" on commons and specialised pages on lovebird genetics on the wiki, so it would be welcome on wiki commons with appropriate labelling and without mentioning any specifics of its pedigree until we are more sure. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a good and helpful discussion. The bird is a relatively recent shot from the African aviary at the Jurong Bird Park, I should visit the site this weekend or next and I'll speak with the ornithologist. Good idea Snowman, I'll upload and add as suggested, until and if we have trustable pedigree specifics. Thanks to all. - Dougjj (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded as File:Agapornis-20081223.jpg - Dougjj (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This bird is from a group that was acquired from a commercial breeder and is most likely a cross. A good discussion. - Dougjj (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Without a good view of the nape, this is not doable. There is more than one race that these could be from just the ventral view.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will get off from astride the fence, and say this is 95% T.h.forsteni.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, Newport Aquarium does have T.h. forsteni. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Image description amended to add Forsten's Lorikeet. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Photographs at the same zoo by different photographer: 1, 2, 3. Snowman (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The first photo looked quite dark or oddly lit. I am strongly leaning to moluccanus but there is still something unusual about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. In 215 (1) the one with head down with dark blue/purple nape being the T.h.forsteni, and the ones with short transverse orange striations on lateral chest wall and a green nape are the ones you have focused on. The new question is; "Is there a T.h.moluccanus there as well?" Snowman (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean, the other bird in the photo with the forsteni that is crouching down neck extended while feeding? If you do, I just did not feel like guessing on the other one without being able to see the nape. I think that I went through all of those links and identified the surely identifiable birds. I refrained when the position of the bird did not allow me to feel that I could surely do the ID from what was visible.--Steve Pryor (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify that? In 215(1) or 100_1333 I see a forsteni leaning foreword and downward drinking from a small plastic cup? This image shows the nape very well. It also looks like it is looking up and to its left while stooping down, and to me, it looks like there is a small amount of head extension on the neck and there no extension (or some flexion) of the neck on the thoracic spine. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, this one [17] I was trying to describe it without going back to the photo itself. Sorry, if I was not exact.--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The one higher up of the two with its head and neck in flexion; not enough of it is shown. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't be sure there is a moluccanus there. If we lack these, I can camp out in my garden as I have them nesting there in the summer. They are very common in Sydney. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be interesting to get a set of the adults, the nest, and a series of the juveniles when they fledge showing their development every month. Is there enough for the subspecies to have its own page? Snowman (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I identified two of those in the links (the three links one after the other) as being moluccanus. Cuckooroller, is just the moniker that I use on flickr.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Newport Aquarium-8a.jpg amd File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Newport Aquarium-8c.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Doug, ID confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, uploaded as File:Ara rubrogenys -20030516.jpg and added to Red-fronted Macaw. - Dougjj (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is one of the other subspecies. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, rather confusing, and I was not able to reach a definitive. I am of the opinion that at least part of the apparent (blackish) upper breast streaking are shadows and not streaking, however, at least part of that black streaking on the edges of the greenish hind-nape appear real (and this is confusing). I essentially attempted to do this ID by elimination. Three races are still standing at the end of it all, in order of decreasing probability, at least in my opinion, they are (1) mitchelli; (2) nigrogularis (and not excluding the putative brooki, usually associated, if not synonymous with nigrogularis)and (3) intermedius (the only reason intermedius is still of the game is that I have the worst photos of this race of all the races - however, from the text descriptions it should resemble the nominate as far as having a green belly - the photo that I have of it has a dark belly - probably just a bad photo). If I had to guess, and guessing is not something that I like to do, I would guess mitchelli, though there are certain features of these two birds that I still can not explain, but, I can not explain them for the other two either. Hopefully, someone can come along and check my thinking, and come up with a better idea.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Going only on the illustrations in Foreshaw (2006) the nape is wrong for a mitchelli, and it does not mention intermedius. It says mitchelli is similar and larger that caeruleiceps, which, for me, are both contenders. There may be other subspecies too. I will ask the person who identified it, who is a regular editor on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Newport Aquarium does not have those others 2 subspecies you mentioned.... I came to this conclusion by searching the the species at http://app.isis.org/abstracts/abs.asp . Seach each individual species and it will show which species which zoos have.. Newport aquarium has the subspecies of Trichoglossus haematodus forsteni not the other 2. I have images of the other lorikeet species their as well. --Ltshears (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of subpecies that newport aquarium has "forsteni" "capistratus" "moluccanus" "weberi". Those are the only subspecies they have. I have just uploaded a image of the "Moluccanus" at the same aqaurium, also taken on the same day here [[19]] I do not have an image of the "capistratus, however they have a yellow belly and wouldn't be a contender anyway. --Ltshears (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Tricia, there is apparently a group of five birds, not collocated as to race, that make up part of their so-called Trichoglossus haematodus <<<Group>>> Indonesia, New Guinea. I went through and looked at the numbers of the birds that they surely had race-assigned (at the Newport Acquarium) and the numbers do not seem to contemplate these extra five birds. I also went through and looked at what they had not race-assigned, and therefore I presume they are sure that they do not have, and excluding these from the usually accepted races of haematodus it would seem that this undefined group of five (5) birds might be from the following races (i.e., those not expressly excluded by them as their surely not having them), and they are, deplanchii, nesophilus, flavicans, and nigrogularis. Since the group is from Indonesia, New Guinea, we can further exclude the New Caledonian ranger deplanchii. So, you see in spite of the ISIS, the picture is still not as clear as it might be.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Newport Aquaurium Directly to ask them to ID The birds in my photo. I will let you know if i get a response. --Ltshears (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do undserstand what you are saying, because the back of the nape is not dark as it should be.. Maybe they are just Green-naped lorikeets. however, the lack of breast streaking made me think it wasn't. When i look at other images of green naped lorikeets, their breasts are very heavily streaked, which these birds are not.. --Ltshears (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In the UK sometimes I have phoned small zoos to find out about their parrots. Would it be prudent to put your image that is in question in the an unidentified birds category and amend the image description, at least temporarily? Snowman (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine. --Ltshears (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I did however put my image back in the main category Trichoglossus haematodus after you removed it,since it is still of that species even though the subspecies is not known.. Removing it from there and placeing it only in unidentified birds make the image not easily accessed by others looking for images of Lorikeets. If i can't get a definative from the aquarium, then i will request a name change on the file. So far i have not heard back from the aquarium... The description has been changed. --Ltshears (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, certainly you are now used to having to deal with taxonomic interpretations of different authorities. I had a quick look at how T. haematodus sensu largo (i.e. pre-split) is being dealt with on the Wiki, and it would appear that they have adopted the Schodde & Mason (1997) rearrangement of the species. The Howard & Moore, 3°Ed., reflects the same treatment. Taxon intermedius is associated to haematodus in both these treatments, and it is carried in the Juniper & Parr (2003), which however says in merit "T.h.intermedius (considered synonymous with T.h.haematodus), however to restate what I badly said above, I am basically eliminating intermedius from consideration for the reason that it should have a green belly, and the only reason that I did not unequivocally do so is because of that apparently bad photo that I have for the race. I do not have the Forshaw. The plate that I have for the mitchelli shows a dark bluish head while the description says it is dark blackish-brown with blue streaking on the forehead. The photos that I have of the race are not good, but the head does look dark, perhaps too dark for the bird in the photo. The caeruleiceps, which I am satisfied this is not, has a head blue that is much lighter in tone than these two birds. For only the head and crown color (including that sort of blackish hind-nape margin) seems to most closely resemble nigrogularis, however, this race is supposedly separable from the nominate by having a breast that is more orange! The breast of these two birds appear to me to be decidedly and unequivocally red. Hence, my confusion.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Newport Aquarium has other lorikeets that are not in breeding programs and not on the website. This is what we thought was the Forsten's: File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Newport Aquarium-8a-2c.jpg and File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Newport Aquarium-8c-4c.jpg. It has got a dark nape and very red breast. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I still think at least this is forsteni [20]Steve Pryor (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the other pictures, I'm leaning toward White-winged Dove—unless you'd be able to see the white on the wings in these shots. I'm not used to identifying Zenaida doves without being able to see the wings and tail, but I think a Mourning Dove should have spots on the wing coverts that would be visible here. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jerry. I am pretty sure this is macroura. Admittedly, there are no discernable blackish covert spots, but there is also no discernable white leading wing edge. So, we have to look at other harder to define things. First, this bird has a dark iris, not red (Z. asiatica adults), also the bill strength is consistent with macroura (Z. asiatica has it longer, and with even more terminal decurvature); lastly, the presence of the blackish postocular darkening, often seen in young adults (a vestige of the juvenal plumage)and not in asiatica unless I am grossly mistaken. Further, the retromalar black spot in asiatica is usually larger and more evident that this rather indistinct spot (also more consistent with macroura).Steve Pryor (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm convinced, particularly by the eye color, and I guess you can see part of the wing that would be white. I was confused by a white patch near the rear, but I think that might be down on the flanks. Yes, the bill also looks better for Mourning Dove. —JerryFriedman (Talk)
Several doves in the series uploaded to commons including File:Zenaida macroura -upper body-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I think it is difficult to tell between the Yellow-crested (or Lesser Sulphur-crested) Cockatoo, Cacatua (Cacatua) sulphurea and the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, Cacatua (Cacatua) galerita from a photograph taken in a zoo. It is not a Citron-crested Cockatoo. Snowman (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, the mentioned species are easily confused. This is an older image and it's unlikely reliable confirmation of species can be obtained, I suggest we leave it out. - Dougjj (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_35&oldid=1146654417"