Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Data requests (sources, media, ...)

You may have noticed that I have started to add references I have heard of but not yet reviewed as <!-- annotations --> in source code. If someone does a project/major contribution, this should be helpful. But in the latter cases, this can also be collaboratively. So here I made a section for us to ask for data needed to do some edit. Or maybe if people will have the opportunity to go someplace where they can take nice pictures for articles, they could here offer it.

Songbird phylogeny papers

If anyone comes across phylogenetic studies regarding the following birds,

let me know on my talk page, Dysmorodrepanis 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, can someone who has the HBW volume with them check out the bibliography for phylogenetic studies of:

Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that those familes haven't been covered yet, but I'll have a look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Those families/subfamilies are due to be covered in Volume 13, which is scheduled for release in 2008 (according to the HBW website). MeegsC 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think one of the latest MolPhylEvol papers places the last with the Muscicapoidea. Dysmorodrepanis 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Megascops sources

I am looking for sources about the split of Megascops from Otus scops owls. The AOU split justification only gived the Owls book by König/Weick/Becking of 1999, but there should be some peer-reviewed paper I guess. It's not unheard of for OR to be published in such a monograph, but it's very rare. Dysmorodrepanis 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I sent an email to the Global Owl project re: the above, and got the following email back in response...
"The 2nd edition of the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) Check-list (1895) recognized Megascops for the Screech Owl and Flammulated Screech Owl, the only 2 species of Otus covered by the CL at the time. These species were placed in Otus in the 3rd edition (1910). All subsequent treatments by the AOU and other authorities have continued to recognize Otus for New World + Old World species, with Megascops as a synonym.
On the basis of vocal differences, Marshall and King (1988) divided Otus into two main subgenera: Otus for Old World (Old World) scops owls with slow notes; and Megascops for New World (New World) screech owls with fast trills. They also recognized several other subgenera, including: Ptilopsis for O. leucotis (Old World); Pyrroglaux for O. podarginus (Old World); Macabra for O. albogularis (New World); and Gymnasio for O. nudipes and O. lawrencii (New World), the latter also placed in the genus Gymnoglaux. Species in Pyrroglaux, Macabra, and Gymnasio all lack erectile ear tufts, unlike other members of the group. Of these New World subgenera, only Megascops and Gymnasio occur in the Check-list Area.
In addition to temporal aspects of the song, New World and Old World Otus also differ in having one vs. two fundamental song types (König et al. 1999). With the exception of O. flammeolus, New World species have two song types, including a primary song ("A-song") used for territoriality, and a secondary song ("B-song") used in courtship and male-female duetting; the "A-song" typically consists of a long trill orsequence of single notes in fairly rapid succession, while the "B-song" is relatively short and often given in a characteristic rhythm. Old World species have only one song type, which is never a long trill like that of New World species; this song is used in both aggressive situations and in courtship during duets with females. The Flammulated Owl (O. flammeolus) also utters a single song type (not a trill) and thus is more similar bioaccoustically to Old World Otus than to Megascops.
Wink and Heidrich (1999) showed with cytochrome b sequences (17 species) that New World and Old World Otus are strongly divergent genetically, and suggested elevating Megascops to full genus (although in their book, they maintain Otus with Megascops as a synonym). In their analyses, members of Otus appear in at least three different clades, making the genus polyphyletic: Ptilopsis forms a clade with Asio otus, whereas Old World and New World Otus form divergent monophyletic clades; all of these have strong bootstrap support. Old World and New World Otus are separated by uncorrected genetic distances of 12-16%, which is comparable to values between other genera of owls that they examined.
Additional aspects on the materials submitted to the AOU CLC (which voted to accept the proposal) can be seen at this link, with comments by ornithologists and the like: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCProp58.html
  • Amadon, D. & J. Bull. 1988. Hawks and Owls of the World: A Distributional and Taxonomic List. (with the Genus Otus by J.T. Marshall & B.F. King). Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Color plate of island endemic scops owls by A.E. Gilbert. 64 pp.
  • König, C., F. Weick, & J.H. Becking. 1999. Owls of the world. Pica Press.
  • Wink, M. and P. Heidrich. 1999. Molecular evolution and systematics of owls (Strigiformes). In: Owls of the world (C. König, F. Weick, & J.H. Becking, eds.), Pica Press, pp. 39-57."
I hope this helps! MeegsC | Talk 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, he also sent a PDF of the Wink & Heidrich paper, if you can't find that locally... Let me know if you need it. MeegsC | Talk 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally cool! I had the Wink/Heidrich around already, but with only the main work (König et al) being cited in my sources, of course I couldn't find it, or even thought to look it up... Thanks so much! Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A tough one for all penguin fans

There's this paper:

  • Simpson, George Gaylord (1975): Notes on variation in penguins and on fossil penguins from the Pliocene of Langebaanweg, Cape Province, South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum . Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum, 69 (4), 59-72

In it, a new genus Inguza is established. What are the museum collection numbers of the material assigned to it? Dysmorodrepanis 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific bird taxa (species, families etc) + ID requests

Bird ID

Image:Oropendola costa rica.jpg I found this great image of an Oropendola on Flickr on a free lisence. Anyone have a guidebook to Central America, its from Costa Rica. It will be a better example for the taxobox once we know which one it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a picture. It's a Montezuma Oropendola, Psarocolius montezuma. At least it's identical to the plate in Howell & Webb, and that species is found in CR. —JerryFriedman 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought it would be, its the same one I saw in Belize. Thanks! Man, it would be awesome to get a recording of the calls of these guys, they sounded so cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The song linked to at the article is pretty amazing. I saw and heard these birds in Mexico, and though they weren't as good as the one in the recording, I still enjoyed it. I agree that a recording of Wikipedia's own would be even better. —JerryFriedman 04:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


European curlews

Can some confirm that I've captioned Image:Curlews.jpg correctly, please? Andy Mabbett 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The front bird should be Whimbrel also. Eurasian Curlew image from same source is here. Dysmorodrepanis 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


ruby-throated hummingbird

Need more info in the "ruby-throated hummingbird" article. It gives only the very basics. Zantaggerung 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Added some information on it. If there's anything else you think needs to be added, feel free to say, or to do so. Hey jude, don't let me down 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Move request:Rainbow Lorikeet to Trichoglossus haematodus

Hi, I've made a suggestion for this as there is no generally accepted common name for the species complex with the many subspecies having different names. I know it is not standard practice to have bird articles under scietific names but if you can think of a better idea please come and discuss on the talk page. cheers cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reconsidered - see discussion on talk page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough on IOC they have split off Rainbow Lorikeet T. moluccanus and Red-collared Lorikeet T. rubritorquis, leaving Coconut Lorikeet T. haematodus on [Worldbirdnames].... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi! I thought you guys might want to help. If anyone knows blackbirds (Turdus merula) well, could you assure me that the picture of a female up for featured picture status is, indeed, a T. Merula? I love the picture, but looking at the page, I'm only convinced that people confuse their blackbirds. Now, the photographer seems to know what he's talking about, but I want to be completely sure that the ID on the bird is correct. The picture is at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Turdus_Merula_female. Thanks! Enuja 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a wild bird photographed in Germany then it must be T. merula, I'm happy with the ID Richard Barlow 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
me too jimfbleak 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
me too Dysmorodrepanis 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


The case of the two Orange-fronted Parakeets

OK folks, I've set up a place to discuss options before I set up a disambig page for Orange-fronted Parakeet.....

Lemme know what you think. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tchagra ID

Who am I?

Anyone got a birds of Southern Africa book handy? This is a Tchagra, probably a Three-streaked Tchagra, that I photographed in Botswana. I haven't got my notes from then with me and I don't have my book either (both back in the UK) so, uh, help? Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Three-streaked to me! From what I can see in the photo, the bird appears to have a brown crown bordered with black... MeegsC 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
SASOL has Brown-crowned and Three-streaked as synonyms; if they have been split, what is the difference between them? Jimfbleak.talk.12:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
According to an explanation in the foreward in SASOL, it looks like Brown-crowned is the new IOC common name for the species while Three-streaked was the name commonly in use in SA before the latest IOC revisions. However, I note that we have Brown-crowned and Three-streaked on our WP tchagra genus page with different specific names, so I may be way behind on taxonomic changes in the region! MeegsC 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a Brown-crowned Tchagra (Tchagra australis) in the picture. It was also known as Three-streaked Tchagra in Southern Africa but the name was changed to conform with West and East African usage and to avoid confusion with the Three-streaked Tchagra (Tchagra jamesi) of north-east Africa. Tigershrike 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I should have used the scientific rather than the common name in my posting, as I too thought it was Tchagra australis. That's why old Linneas invented those scientific names, I guess! Sorry for the confusion, SS. MeegsC 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratites splitup?

Should we split up ratites into many orders? I fail to find a good model that supports keeping them together, let alone in Struthioniformes (see last sentence of article)! Dysmorodrepanis 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The main point is that the ratites are monophyletic, right? Given that, it doesn't matter too much to the general reader whether we call them an order or a superorder (subclass?), or what name we give it. And if they are one order, I don't know what's wrong with the name Struthioniformes in connection with the last sentence of the article. Is there a rule that type taxa should have split off early?
Never mind the first two sentences above. It seems you're saying they might not be (probably aren't) monophyletic. I don't think the article quite says that. —JerryFriedman 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they are probably monophyletic all right among crown paleognaths (not that there are many lineages left of these). But relationships are more easy to express if they are split up, and the divergences are deep in time. Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If I may disagree with you about something you know much more about than I do, I think saying the divergences are deep in time needs some qualification. They're probably deep in time. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. It basically boils down to assembling papers much as we did for Passeriformes. The case for a deep-time split is mainly borne out by combined molecular and morphological evidence. To wit: rheids - basal taxa, Miocene. Casuarids - basal taxa, Oligocene, crown taxa Miocene. Struthionids - basal taxa, Eocene. Lithornithids, apparently an Eocene (or generally Paleogene) group. So you have the casuarids already in much the present-day state when ostrich ancestors probably were still tinamou-like flying birds.
Very interesting, and could go in the article with just a little rewriting (and those all-important references). Crown=extant, right? —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The molecular data is no very helpful; it must be remembered that the "ratite" morphotype is as far as anyone can tell a paedomorphic homoplasy.
(It's nice to learn new words now and then. —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC))
The former issue has unkonwn consequences for molecular evolution, but it is likely to have some consequences. Similarly, with the NZ taxa, it's tough to say whether genetic drift due to the several megavolcanism events down there confounds molecular clocks, but it is quite likely that it did to some degree.
The best case I can presently make for a split is that a) it is far more flexible - who knows what surprises come up eventually?, and b) it allows for a more realistic placement of the lithornithids.
But it all rests on collecting papers. My resources on the issue are so much strewn about, it's not as neat as with the Passeriformes where few things published before 2002 or so are really noteworthy. One might start off on the refs collected on EvoWiki. Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand a lot of the systematics section of that article. I think I'm going to put some comments at its discussion page.
Yes, i wince at it too, even though I did a part of it. But that was only to plug the most major leaks :( Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In general I think changes in classification happen too fast. The result is changes getting reversed (you know who you are—yes, Northern Oriole, there's no need to giggle, and Great Common American Egret (Egretta Casmerodius Ardea alba), I don't want to hear anything at all from you), which should make systematists feel mortified but doesn't seem to. For our purposes, I don't think we should make changes unless there's a really compelling consensus.
Or develop one, by discussing primary evidence. Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure we should be doing that. For one thing, it's a lot like OR. For another, there are very few Wikipedians who are capable of understanding the primary evidence, so I don't see how we can have a meaningful consensus. Certainly a consensus among ornithologists means a lot more—and even that can get reversed in twenty years. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The difference between "stating the obvious" and OR may be a fine line to tread. My rule of thumb is "is it the consensus of the combined peer-revieved research (even if the conclusion itself has not been published)?" For example, the Parrot paper by the de Kloets is nice as regards phylogeny, but its molecular clock is roundly rejected by the fossil record (see also doi:10.1080/08912960600641224). Neither do the de Kloets discuss the fossil record in sufficient detail, nor does Waterhouse (2006) discuss the de Kloet paper. So although the conclusion that the spindlin molecular clock is way off has not been published in a scientific journal yet, it's something that forces itself upon anybody comparing these (IIRC) 2 most recent papers on the issue: the inferred model is incompatible with the material evidence, or parsimony is violated in a most outrageous way. The latter may still be the case, but the odds are slim indeed.
One person's "obvious" is another person's startling and probably suspect originality. I think the policy is not to put even obvious conclusions into WP if they haven't been peer-reviewed. I don't do it—any more. I'm not going to go back and change the obvious but sourceless things I've mentioned, though, so I'm not going to tell you not to do the same.
What would happen if you wrote a short and pithy ornithological article on combining the De Kloets with Waterhouse? —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In general, I noticed that almost nobody in the field (avian evolution) takes paleogeography into account, though one sees it increase in frequency. Paleogeographical data is basically "common" knowledge. Or rather, commonly accepted as proven fact and freely accessible, but in a disorganized manner as of now (though I hear this may change in the not-so-distant future). And if applied (e.g. in penguin evolution) it is the one thing that glues the strands of evidence together.
It is a very philosophical question, as you noted below, going as deep as "when is something proven beyond doubt". If there's one thing I learned from WP, it's thow many relativizing qualifiers ("most likely", "probably", "almost certainly"...) the English language has to offer. And of course WP's most popular word, "however". ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course this brings up the question of how we should handle classification. Should we follow some authority (HBW), or use our own best judgement? I can see advantages to both, and will only point out that you're one of the few people here who can use judgement on these matters. —JerryFriedman 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally use my own judgement to make the most sense of the evidence available. E.g. of course HWB 1-2+ are bound to be off after >1 decade. Anything peer-reviewed may go, consensus papers are published about 1-3 per year, and most of these are regional and summarize things generally accepted.
That's bound to create conflicts with the people who are going by HBW and HANZAB. In fact, I see a conflict that you didn't create: paleognathae treats the ratite families as separate orders, giving the placement in Struthioniformes (as in the rest of Wikipedia, I think) only as an alternative. But I can see why you don't want to use something that's ten years out of date. Maybe we should be following the ornithological unions that publish supplements every year or two.
I'd say the problem is that Wikipedia relies heavily on systematics, as for taxoboxes and categories, but classifications are all tentative until you can't imagine new evidence that will overturn them. For instance, genetic evidence will settle relationships when ornithologists have sequenced the entire genome of every relevant species (including a good understanding of intraspecific variation), when they know the rate of genetic change including how it varies randomly and in time and among taxa, and when they know the dreaded age at first breeding (and why not the typical age at last breeding?) of every relevant taxon throughout history.
I know we're far from the first and may never achieve the last breeding criterion. But until then everything is tentative. How do we deal with that at Wikipedia? In the writing, two ways: Make it clear that everything is tentative (as I suggested elsewhere on this page), and base everything on consensuses that are likely to be stable. For instance, if the ratites are probably more closely related to each other than to any other living birds, the discussion should start there.
In taxoboxes and taxonomic categories, I don't have a good answer, except that taxoboxes can often show more than one possibility. So when you use your judgement, following peer-reviewed articles and consensuses as you said, maybe you should also give alternatives when it makes sense to. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I find myself using a small "disputed" warning or a "see text" disclaimer in taxoboxes every now and then. It's better than to simply fill out the form and give the impression that these issues are settled. Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for ranting when we seem to agree so much. I don't object to anything you do with the ratites as long as you note that it's disputed. Especially if you make the relevant sections of ratite and paleognathae accurate and consistent. —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Misidentified picture?

I'm convinced that this supposed Olive Thrush from South Africa is not an Olive Thrush. The bill color seems to be decisive. Anyone want to identify it? —JerryFriedman 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Posture, bill and head shape aren't very thrush (particularly Turdus) like either. My first thought was that it was one of the greenbuls. Could just be the angle though. But yeah, I think you're right that isn't an Olive Thrush. The original ID was by the photographer who thought this barbet was a Red Bishop. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a Sombre Greenbul (Andropadus importunus). I've corrected the name under the photo and added it to the Sombre Greenbul article. I don't know if it'll have to be re-uploaded with a better file-name, but as that's beyond my current wiki abilities, I'll let someone else be the judge of that. Rabo3 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. It sure looks like the Sombre Greenbul in Zimmerman et al. What you do to "change the name" in Commons is save the image to your computer, re-upload it with the new name and the previous description text, and tag the misnamed version with {{duplicate|''new name''}}. I just did that, with a link to this discussion. Now I'll link to the correctly named image at Sombre Greenbul, and a Commons admin can just delete the old image (which may not happen all that quickly).
By the way, if you need to change the name of a picture you uploaded, tag it with "bad name" instead of "duplicate".
The picture is from Flickr and misnamed there. (See the description page for the link to the original at Flickr). I can let the photographer know the correct id (he also said a hoopoe was a woodhoopoe), or you can do it, Rabo3. Let me know. —JerryFriedman 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Want to identify a Kenyan bird?

sharpish
File:Amboseli mystery bird2.jpg
fuzzy, but you can see the throat color

I can't even find the right page. Anyone? It was in Amboseli National Park, but I don't have any other information.

I have pictures of three other unidentified birds, but I think two of them are cisticolas and the third might be. Is there any point? —JerryFriedman 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Pratincole of some description. The only one I remember from Africa was the Rock Pranticole, but this one is probably a Collared Pratincole. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with collared too. Jimfbleak 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I should have thought of pratincoles! I have CP on my list for that day, and what I thought when looking at this picture was the same as what I thought when I saw the birds: "That looks like a swallow, but bigger, and it isn't one." Even if I'd found the right page, though, I'd still have been confused, because all the illustrations in Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson show the breast as being the same color as the back and wings. I see from Google Images that this isn't necessarily true, though, and that the illustrations in ZTP are too dark.
And what about the black line around the throat? All the pictures at Google Images, even the few that are at lower resolution than and as much blurry as my picture, show the black line as much more distinct, at least as distinct as the eye.
Anyway, there's a much better photo at Commons, so we don't need these. Thanks for ending my frustration, though. —JerryFriedman 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Monotypic Genera

While exploring recently (I'm a new Wikipedian and still finding stuff on the site), I discovered our "Genera of Birds" category -- and found that we're dealing with monotypic genera in a very uneven way. Some monotypic genera (i.e. Loddigesia) have a tiny stub entry under the genus name. Others redirect to the single species in the genus. Would it make sense to eliminate the genus entries (since they appear to be little more than a single line at the moment) and to redirect those genera to the appropriate species -- which should ALWAYS contain a sentence indicating that the species is in a monotypic genus? Dixonsej and I are willing to take on that task if it's something others agree is appropriate.


Potentially more confusing to a neophyte birder/biologist though, is the page that displays if you click on "Genera of Birds"; it's a hodge-podge of genus names and species names. I think it might make more sense to always display the genus name here, even if there's only a single species in the genus. Couldn't we then redirect to the appropriate species if we decided to eliminate the genus level for those entries? Comments/suggestions appreciated!

I've always made the monotypic genus a redirect to the species - I thought we all did that? Jimfbleak.talk. 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
When I first looked at Loddigesia, it wasn't redirecting. Now it is! James and I were in contact about this a few days ago, so he may already be cleaning things up... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MeegsC (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Usually, it should be to a) make one page only for species and genus in monotypic genera, such as Silktail, and to have the category tag under the scientific name, even if it is a redirect - in this case, Lamprolia (click on the small redirect link under "Silktail" to see). The species+genus article, then should go in the appropriate family category which in this case is Category:Monarchinae.
Using categories on redirects is not advocated on WP, except in cases where it would make the category listing inconsistent - such as here.
If no article exists for small genera such as Grallina but one species article does - Magpie-lark - I think it's also OK to categorize the single page under the higher category - here, again, Monarchinae - until the other pages are produced, as to avoid having too many empty categories which get deleted.
For groups of birds (not necessary monophyletic taxa!) with a well-known common name, in addition to the above, categories under the vernacular name exist, such as Category:Ducks. These go under the appropriate taxonomic category, in this case "Anatidae" because "ducks" are found in numerous Anatidae subfamilies. But this is not yet as consistent as the categorizing system that uses strictly taxonomic names.
The entire bird article categorization scheme is actually more complicated to explain than it is. As I see, you have already gotten the hang of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I have created a Category:Birds by common name. This is included in Category:Birds by classification and might conceivably also be placed elsewhere (would it be worthwhile to put it in Category:Bird instead and mention in in the "birds by classification" explanatory text?). Given that at least Old World warbler and possibly Old World babbler too should eventually become disambiguation pages similar to warbler and that we already have loads of categories such as "eagles" or "ducks", I think such an arrangement is better than obfuscating the taxonomic category tree with common-name categories. If there is no taxonomic hierarchy for a common-name category, it can now be simply created rather than moving/merging/deleting categories and pages. Dysmorodrepanis 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I note that a taxon author Hans von Boetticher is up for AfD. Jimfbleak.talk. 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neotropical bird coverage

Many impressive, common, or otherwise notable Neotropical species have no article. I have started writing articles on a few of these (Yellow-winged Tanager, Solitary Eagle, and Greater Antillean Grackle) I and am now writing an article on Brown-backed Solitaire. If anyone can help with these articles it would be appreciated. Vultur 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a product of several things - we tend to write about things we know, or want to know, we tend to write about things we're familiar with or have even heard of, and we tend to write about things we have information on to write a halfway decent article on. It doesn't hurt if there are pictures either. I guess its just a sort of systematic bias. That said, taking a break from working on bird today I rattled off Rufous Hornero, a common, well known national bird of South America. It'll take time to do every species, but hey, wouldn't it be boring here if everything were done? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking for some things to do, but I really don't know the names of any neotropical species. If you want to suggest a few to start articles on, I'd be glad to tackle them. Corvus coronoides ContributionsGo Blue 14:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
See List of birds of Brazil, for instance, or Furnariidae. I think it would be great to have a blue link or two in the long red stretches on that page. Say, one foliage-gleaner, one non-Synallaxis spinetail…
Speaking of national birds, Cuban Trogon is probably a good one to do (and a gorgeous bird). —JerryFriedman 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a complaint so much as a "hey, here's something to work on." Vultur 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want something to work on, my idea of a high priority is family accounts. For instance, Cathartidae has a summary of the taxonomic controversy (*yawn*--and I yawn despite having contributed to that section) but not a word about diet or morphology! Is that your favorite family by any chance?
Nevertheless, Brown-backed Solitaire is a fine choice, and if you don't have Howell & Webb, I'll add a few things from there. —JerryFriedman 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have Howell & Webb (in fact, that's my main source for these things). I also have used H. Lee Jones's "Birds of Belize". I'll go work on Cathartidae now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
That feels much better. It's a little scary for you to take my suggestions, though. As Dysmodrepanis says, work on whatever strikes your fancy. —JerryFriedman 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Animals collects just what the name says. There are some things Neotropical that might be built, or straightened out; perhaps something strikes your fancy. Dysmorodrepanis 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Neotropical bird ID

who am I?

Found this on Flickr, a Costa Rican bird taken at INBIO park ([1]) it may be an ovenbird or a antbird - in any event we are poorly represented in tropical American dull brown jobs photographically (as well as aricle-y), so it would be good to have an id on this fellow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And why not a cotinga or a bristle-less tyrant flycatcher? And no doubt you'll tell me why this is impossible, but the birds this looks most like in Howell and Webb are the Catharus thrushes, though I don't think it's any of the species in H&W. —JerryFriedman 05:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No I was actually more hoping than guessing. The extent of my Neotropical experience was 10 days in Belize and Guatemala where I saw no antbirds, no ovenbirds (except two woodcreepers, since they are now lumped). I guess I saw ovenbirds down in Argentina as a kid but that was years ago. Anyways, Catharus thrush is an excellent place to start looking. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A ha. Maybe its a Clay-colored Robin. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree Vultur 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. I'm convinced. Funny that I shouldn't have thought of CR's national bird. —JerryFriedman 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I added this picture to the Costa Rica article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_6&oldid=1242814666"