Talk:Australasian swamphen

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Biota Low‑importance Australasian swamphen is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Birds Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Well seeing as this isn't a very popular topic, and because I have many pukeko living near me I thought that I'd put more work into this topic. Probally in the next day or two I hope to have done some formatting work, making it easier to add information pertaining to this topic -- Faded_Mantis 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done some major formatting, however as far as the content goes I've just copy and pasted the article text, I (or someone else) shal get around to editing the sentence structure at a later date. -- Faded_Mantis 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with Pukeko is this. I can see that it makes sense to list the local name for species which are endemic or near endemic to a country, and this applies to many species in New Zealand. I have no problem with giving the non-English name in that situation.

However, this species has a huge range over virtually all the warmer parts of four continents, so it is difficult to see why Maori should have a special status. Dozens of languages (if not hundreds) are spoken within the range of this bird, and each has as good or better a claim to be listed as Maori, which is not even the principal language of NZ. Purple Swamphen is also not originally a native species to NZ, being introduced by humans.

I'm reluctant to see this article becoming a polyglot dictionary, as has happened with some other, and faced with the choice of all or none, I'd go for none, with an interwiki to the maori version of the article if one exists. This article currently reads at first glance as if the species is a NZ endemic.jimfbleak 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voicing this. I found the use of pukeko in the opening sentence in an earlier edit, and when typing pukeko into WIkopedia this was the page that the re-direct came to. I'll remove Pukeko from the opening line but I will however leave the later paragraph in, as it has been there for several edits. I know you don't want a polyglot dictionary of terms, but if the paragraph about the Maori name was given a catagory heading like "Multilingual names" then the native names from it's country could be listed there, as long as each entery is kept short, example "Pukeko - Maori name is now the more commonly used in New Zealand", do you agree? (I was also starting to think that maybe I was the only one who had this topic on my watchlist) -- Faded_Mantis 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to have any of the non-Eng names, but what you suggest is a reasonable compromise. I watch the articles for all the species I have seen (like this on) or where I have made a significant inout to the article. Unfortunately, I've not been to NZ yet, but my daughter has and she had a wonderful time, so it's on the wishlist. jimfbleak 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the section which said that the Purple Swamphen was introduced to New Zealand by humans. This is nonsense, the bird is listed as a native in all NZ bird books and websites. The bit about them being able to thrive because of the ecological vacuum left by the extinction of the Takahē is also dubious. One or two Māori tribes have traditions that their ancestors introduced the Purple Swamphen to New Zealand from tropical Polynesia, but such traditions are not scientifically supportable. The context is that there are quite a few endemic plants and trees that have similar traditions attached to them, such as the Karaka tree, an absolutely endemic NZ tree. The 2 Takahē and the NZ Pukeko or Purple Swamphen represent multiple introductions, most likely from Australia, but most definitely no human intervention was involved. Kahuroa 07:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated mention of the name used in New Zealand English for the bird. New Zealanders would have no idea what a Purple Swamphen was Kahuroa 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About self introduction - I think that the bit about them arriving after humans had erradicating takahe is supported by the fossil evidence. Other species self introduced after humans modified New Zealand and removed potential competitors, the Marsh Hawk and the Whiteeye. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the Pūkeko being self-introduced, but I doubt that the fossil evidence can be quite so clearcut about the sequence of arrivals - Takahē, people, Pūkeko, as you say, or Takahē, Pūkeko, people. These sources [1] and [2] (see section The State of Our Indigenous Birds) suggest that the Pūkeko arrived within the last 1000 years, which roughly coincides with the arrival of humans and the subsequent decline of the Takahē. But both birds may have been here already when humans arrived. The White Eye is commonly known to have arrived in the 19th century - the name of the White Eye in Māori is Tauhou meaning 'new arrival'. New birds self-introduce to NZ quite regularly, others that have established are the Spur Winged Plover and the Welcome Swallow. Kahuroa 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not the exactness of the timing that implies that the pukeko arrived late, it's the relative absence in older fossil beds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. There is this 1996 paper, available as a PDF at [3]: "The presence of pukeko also supports the young age for the fauna, as this species is unknown in natural sites older than about 1,000 years in New Zealand. The earliest pukeko fossils are found in Poukawa, where 410 bones were recorded from layer 1, and four from layer 2 (Horn 1983). Layer one was defined as above 7 cm above the Taupo Ash: therefore, probably all pukeko fossils postdate the Taupo Ash (c. 1,850 yrs BP, Froggatt & Lowe 1990) at Poukawa." and "Their absence in the extensive late Holocene faunas from around Waikari strongly suggest that pukeko Porphyrio melanotus, swamp harrier Circus approximans, and shoveler duck Anas rhynchotis were not part of the prehuman New Zealand fauna." Kahuroa 20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little "off" to be the opening paragraph, but I'm not sure exactly what to do with it.

Also, the bird is still known as "Purple Gallinule" by many, IIRC, it's not a "former" name but still a current alternative. - Aerobird 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a pic of a pukeko or a takahe. Looks like a short necked, heavily built takahe (Notornis hochstetter) to me so it should not be called a pukeko (Porphyrio melonotu) Carpenter0 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this image? It simply has retracted it's neck, but isn't thick-billed enough to be a Takahe. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really stocky and it's head looks a bit blunt. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.225.31 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks stocky because it's neck is retracted, the bill isn't nearly massive enough to be a Takahe. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that pukeko gets about 50% more hits on google than swamphen... It seems that the NZ name is most prominent. 203.97.106.166 06:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a brand in NZ? I'm sure I've seen a shop with it on Willis St here in Wellington. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's a number of organisations using "pukeko" as their name - e.g. pukeko.co.nz, pukeko.net, pukeko.org.nz etc, which really just shows how strong the word "pukeko" is in the NZ lexicon? It still seems to me that pukeko is a more common word than swamphen - I've never met anyone who's heard of a swamphen who isn't e.g. a taxonomist. 140.184.40.104 (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed redirect to

I'm assuming that there will now be discussion on the rename Kiore (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Purple Swamp Hen is the generic common name for the species, not this particular sub-species. Wikipedia generally uses the common name for the species, rather than the scientific name. Pukeko is the most commonly used name for this sub-species apart from the generic name for the species as a whole. The Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus sub-species is sufficiently distinct from other Porphyrio porphyrio to have its own page. Additionally the New Zealand population is significantly isolated from others of this sub-species for a size difference to have been noted, it also has cultural significance in NZ. All of which is to say it should have its own page. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Pukeko" is a notable article topic in the sense of the scope "Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus in New Zealand". After all we do have

Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus redirect would be deleted and the taxobox removed from this article. Melburnian (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Merge There are a large number of subspecies with their own page

Asiatic Lion

to name a few, so there are plenty of examples of subspecies with their own specific article on Wikipedia. As noted in the article and the preceding comment by Tony Wills the subspecies is sufficiently different from other members of the species and the New Zealand Pūkeko (A term that was removed from the article earlier today with the comment "This can't just be written for New Zealand") is measurably heavier and less inclined to fly than other members of the same subspecies.

I'm also concerned that this request for a merge seems to only be as a result of the recent inappropriate rename of the page having been reversed. The logic appears to be "

WP:COMMONNAME

requires a common name, New Zealand has a common name for the bird different from the common name for the species as a whole, nowhere else in the birds range is there a well known common name therefore the article must be merged".

Finally, looking at the history of this article, it seems it was originally about the New Zealand Pūkeko, that is, the New Zealand population of porphyrio porphyrio melanotus. There is considerable coverage of cultural importance of the bird and its history in New Zealand. Interestingly enough, there is also an article on Purple Swamphens in North America, another isolated community of porphyrio porphyrio melanotus. Perhaps it would be best to revert this article to being solely about the New Zealand population of porphyrio porphyrio melanotus and create a Purple Swamphens in Australia to cover that population. Kiore (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus in other areas, I would be happy to see an article dedicated to that sub-species or other distinct populations. It appears that there is significant material here that doesn't pertain to the bird elsewhere. Remember that this is not wiki-species, there are reasons to have an article other than being a distinct (sub)species (eg breeds of dog). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge or rename, per Kiore. Pukeko is a widely known bird in New Zealand with some cultural significance, both to pre-colonisation Māori and to modern New Zealanders. Material related to the subspecies in other countries is not essential to this article, and I don't mind if it is retained as background information, moved to a separate article or moved to the main Purple Swamphen article.-gadfium 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article is over representitive of New Zealand (much like

talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The article desperately needs a taxonomy section - it is not a subspecies, just the NZ part of the range of melanotus, and a taxonomy section could include the Takahe bit too. Assuming that it isn't rewritten as a subspecies article, it can't be moved to the trinomial name. Personally, I prefer Purple Swamphens in Australia, which is consistent with the NAM article and would come up in a search for Purple Swamphen, but I can live with the Maori name if that's preferred. Either way, the article needs trimming to be just for NZ as per Noodle snacks' suggestion, and a taxonomy section to put it in context Jimfbleak. Talk to me 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, Pūkeko isn't the Māori name; it's a

Press-ups "WP:ENGVAR exists for the sole purpose of pointing out why discussions like this are an utter waste of everybody's time. Every single fluent speaker of any variety of English can search for either name, read the opening words ('A press-up, also known as a push-up...'), and get on with the rest of the article, enjoying the swathes of unsourced text with no impairment to comprehension. The title is a complete non-issue with respect to this article." (Knepflerle). I'm not 100% sure if Jimfbleak is suggesting a new article or a rename. I'm pretty sure he means a new article, if not, renaming it to Purple Swamphens in Australia would miss the point that the article is about the bird in New Zealand.Kiore (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please try and understand that this bird isn't found in just Australia and New Zealand. My problem is that only information on the New Zealand instance is present, and that the addition of wider material seems to get reverted. I don't really care what the article is called, I would just like an article about the bird without each paragraph starting with "In New Zealand "

talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is evident that for P. p. melanotus to redirect to Pukeko is plain wrong. There needs to be an article for the subspecies (Purple Swamphens in Australasia? Or by default the trinomial) with all relevant biological information going there, including a taxobox. At least summarised cultural info about the population in New Zealand should also go there. If there is really a large amount of cultural info specific to the NZ population, then it could form the basis for a separate article called (possibly) Pukeko. It seems that this situation has only come about because of the lack of a proper subspecies article, which Pukeko is not and should not try to be. Maias (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if a separate subspecies article is started for Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus (Purple Swamphens in Australasia or other suitable title) then that will become a better defined article for the subspecies and this article can focus on the Pukeko in New Zealand. Melburnian (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with Maias & Melburnian. An article for the subspecies Purple Swamphens in Australasia (if that covers their range) would be fine (we don't need to spend endless hours deciding on what that article should be called, it can always be renamed ;-). Copy any general non NZ/Pukeko stuff to that page, and hopefully there will be enough left for a stand alone article on the Pukeko population (it can no doubt be expanded :-). But please build the sub-species article before trimming this one :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "It is a native of New Zealand, Australia and Tasmania ... also found in Indonesia, Mollucas (Indonesia), the Aru Islands and the Kai Islands (both located in Mollucas, Indonesia), Papua New Guinea (PNG), Milne Bay Islands south east of PNG, Louisiade Archipelago south east of PNG, Taluga Island in PNG, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands ... Chatham Islands ... and the Kermadec Islands" so if it isn't to use the trinomial, and assuming we wish to eschew Purple Swamphens in Aru Islands, Australasia, Louisiade Archipelago, Mollucas, New Guinea, Norfolk, etc ... the article would need to be named something like Purple Swamphens in Oceania; of course if this range overlaps other subspecies it would present its own problems down the line. It might just be easier to bribe a zoologist to publish a paper declaring P. p. Novaseelandia (or P. p. Novaehollandiae for that matter) to be a separate subspecies :) Kiore (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Australasia covers most of that

, and even if it doesn't why not let future generations fight over that one, for now, if a sub-species page is agreed upon, just pick a name, any name (other than Pukeko ;-), and create it. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge for several reasons. The name Pukeko is English, but it is just a local name for a very wide ranging species, and I think I speak for the whole wikiproject birds when I say that we are not about to start splitting articles to pander for different varieties of English. That way lies madness. Moreover there are no appreciable differences between the various subspecies, unlike some other subspecies. Most of the information is duplication, or is just region-specific (the times of year of breeding are always going to be variable in a wide ranging species. There is more information for this subspecies because it is a)better studied here than elsewhere and b) someone cares more about Pukekos than the rest of the species and put more effort in. There is nothing here that woul;dn't be a good contribution to Purple Swamphen. Make Pukeko a redirect to Purple Swamphen, mention the cultural importance of Pukekos in NZ in that article, and merge the whole thing away. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address your points: 1) No one has here has suggested "splitting articles to pander for different varieties of English". 2) There is 'an appreciable' difference - they look different and are restricted to a regional area. 3) We could not merge all the NZ specific info from this article into the species article without making it very unbalanced. 4) There are reasons to have an article other than its relation to the taxo-tree, this is not wiki-species. For the record that equals a Strongly oppose merge :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments above are conflicting and inconsistent (all the arguments, not specifically yours, Tony). To address further some of the points -

• Appreciable differences - Would be plumage. Not a reason for a split on its own. There can be plumage morphs within a species or even subspecies, not to mention seasonal and sexual morphs. Most subspecies have slight differences in plumage, oes this mean that every subspecies deserves an article of its very own? When these plumage morphs can be handled all on one page (see
  Pacific Robin#Subspecies
  for an example of a highly dimorphic species with multiple subspecies)? Hardly.
• differences in range - yeah, pretty much all subspecies inhabit distinct regional areas. They are all allopatric, so again this doesn't qualify as a justification. Or it justifies splitting out every subspecies.
• We could not merge all the NZ specific info from this article into the species article without making it very unbalanced - the only bit that would be unbalanced is cultural and distribution, reflecting the expanion into NZ (and the rest of the pacific which I could add) and cultural. The biological stuff is all fine and should be in the Purple Swamphen article. It is not remotely unusual for a species, or genus or family for that matter, article to have a slight unbalance in favour of first world sources and information. This simply reflects the fact that more people study them in first world countries. It isn't ideal, and we should strive to find sources on African woodpeckers and Middle Eastern swamphens and South American Barn Swallows to balance the info we have on first world, but sometimes we can't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't include the information we do have, and it doesn't mean we have to split the article off. Moreeover, even if we split the article off for the subspecies the article is still unbalanced in favour of NZ - ignoring the birds in Indonesia and Australia.
• Purple Swamphens in Oceania - Great precedent. I look forward to Barn Swallows in London, Kingfishers in Africa and Silvereyes in my backyard (cute little buggers).
• No one has here has suggested "splitting articles to pander for different varieties of English". What are you all suggesting?
  Pukeko
  is just such a article. Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus isn't, and isn't quite the same as Purple Swamphens in Oceania. I am struggling to see what article you are all after here. A subspecies article? A regional article for a species? A New Zealand specific article?

At the end of the day a subspecies article is to my mind only justified if the parent article is huge and warrants further splitting. At present all the information that is in this article should also be in the rather short main article. The species is best studied here in New Zealand, and therefore the main article should reflect that greater scholarship. Once you have moved that information there the question remains, why the need for duplication? I have seen no arguments that explain that need, therefore I see no need. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One further point. If this wretched article is kept, it should be kept at Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus. There are no established names for subspecies, and certainly not for this subspecies (there are in fact two conflicting choices, neither of which mean much to the other "side"). As for Purple Swamphens in Oceania, yeah, well, I explained why I don't like that above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, I would favour a subspecies article. However, that may not not be so easy at the moment as the taxonomy is in flux. Just had a look here; without having followed it up further so far, Clements apparently has 13 subspecies, with melanotus restricted to eastern Australia and NZ, plus Norfolk and LHI, with a resurrected bellus restricted to south-west Western Australia. It also refers to a proposal by Sangster in Dutch Birding in 1998 to split the complex into six species (not sure how the ssps would be divided up). Maybe (very likely) someone has better info than me. Maias (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sabine's Sunbird, The arguments against are many and varied, take your pick :-). Appreciable differences - it was stated that there were none, when there mainifestly are - whether a wikiproject considers them irrelevant, is another matter. Many "merge" arguments are of the 'slippery slope' variety (eg it is good to have doctors, the more doctors the better, therefore everyone should be a doctor). We are not lawyers or judges arguing precendents: "if we do such and such here then we will have to do it everywhere" is not arguing the case on its merits. I repeat no one here has suggested "splitting articles to pander for different varieties of English" - we are arguing about the retention of the article Pukeko as a seperate article.
• I suggest that if we try to merge this article (I say 80% NZ Pukeko specific) we will get a small riot, and most of it will be deleted, it would look like a take-over of the species article. When I say NZ specific, take for example the section "Defence and behaviour" - the content of this section is pretty irrelevant to the species across its range, in most habitats this behaviour is hardly worth mentioning. Whereas in the NZ context, where due to isolation most native birds are extremely susceptible to invasive species, it is noteworthy that the Pukeko is not.
• I think the retention proposal is to have this article without a taxo-box, and for it not to be a sub-species article. It is simply an article about the subject 'Pukeko'.
• The discussion has been somewhat confused because we are discussing more than one thing at a time (renaming this article, having a sub-species article, merging this article with either of the fore-going, and whether NZ is taking over wikipedia ;-). If people want to pursue a 'merging' perhaps someone could draft a merged article (as a subpage somewhere) so we can discuss the real ramifications of merging and deleting this article. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments are confusing, because as you say there are several ideas all being discussed. Your proposal is the worst possible one to my mind, because the Pukeko (not subspecies) is "splitting articles to pander for different varieties of English", or more accurately forking. It is an article on a subpopulation of a subspecies of a species the only notability of which is the distinctiveness of the name. The other information you mention is not subspecies or population specific. The defence aspect is not remotely suprising because the species is a recent arrival in New Zealand. What is interesting about the New Zealand Swamphens is that they have recolonised the islands after a closely related specie decended from themselves went extinct at the hands of man. This is not, however, remotely unique to New Zealand, Purple Swamphens (of two subspecies) have done this across the Pacific. It is an aspect of their biology which is true of the whole species and is rather unique and very interesting (the only other species that have done so to the same extent are the Banded Rail and Swamp Harrier). I suggest that if we try to merge this article (I say 80% NZ Pukeko specific) we will get a small riot, and most of it will be deleted, it would look like a take-over of the species article. I doubt it, some of it may already be duplication and could probably go anyway, some would need some further additions to even it out a bit. As a rationale for supporting the continued split it seems pretty weak, and can easily be counteracted by keeping a close eye on the article and having a few editors do a little work once the merge occurs.
• Perhaps it would help things to actually state where people stand and what people are suggesting. The below proposals are justr what I have seen so far, if you don't see what you think should happen add your idea. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With three options, I'd rather use STV (Australian voting system) and give a first and second choice.Kiore (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge article to
  Purple Swamphen

1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Qualified support for at least a part merge, including all significant biological and other information, pending taxonomic clarification of subspecies or potential split to P. melanotus. I have no objection to a "Pukeko" article containing NZ specific cultural and historic material if it is surplus to requirements at Purple Swamphen and if there is sufficient to justify a link in "Purple Swamphen" such as "For cultural and historic aspects of Purple Swamphens in New Zealand, see main article at
   Pukeko", but it should not have a taxobox and should not masquerade as a taxon of any kind. Maias (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Per Maias.
   talk) 09:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Per Maias too. I haven't been involved in the debate, but having read it, it makes sense. If the Kiwis insist on keeping the Pukeko article, it seems only right to restrict it only to the cultural aspects of the "Purple Swamphens in New Zealand" or similar, and refer to that from the main article. Best to keep the article that relates to the physical aspects of the bird as the most generic, inclusive and possibly scientific name. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain article as subspecies article for whole subspecies (please specifiy where article should be)

1. This is my first choice under name Pūkeko, but Pukeko is an acceptable alternative with argument as per Tony Wills "Wikipedia generally uses the common name for the species, rather than the scientific name. Pukeko is the most commonly used name for this sub-species apart from the generic name for the species as a whole. The Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus sub-species is sufficiently distinct from other Porphyrio porphyrio to have its own page. Additionally the New Zealand population is significantly isolated from others of this sub-species for a size difference to have been noted, it also has cultural significance in NZ. All of which is to say it should have its own page." Kiore (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Pukeko is the most commonly used name in New Zealand only. I call them that (because I live in New Zealand), but that is not the same as the name being the most common name for the subspecies. Moreover I am getting sick of people saying that the New Zealand population is distinctive or isolated. It is not. The species arrived here relatively recently, and are not different enough to even warrant subspecies status. That makes them not distinctive. Again, because I seem to not be getting this through, if they were distinctive that would warrant an upgrading of the subspecific status at least. The only distinctive thing they have is the Maori loanword name and their cultural significance, the non-trivia aspects (as in, ohhh, Genesis uses it for its adds, How encyclopaedic!) of which is pretty much only Maori as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a sub-species of chicken, that everyone else just calls "chicken" (lack of imagination, or they only believe there is one type of chicken), but a significant group call "Sables superb fowl", do you call an article about it "chicken" or "Sables superb fowl"? Yes the trivia can be excised, but I'm not sure what the dismissal "pretty much only Maori" signifies, could you expand ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't dismissive. The species is genuinely important to the Maori in ways it isn't to the Pakeha. That information is way more important than the status of mascot for some energy company is my meaning. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would be happy with this, but of course the obvious name for the article is Pukeko as this appears to be the most common name for this sub-species apart from the generic name for the species as a whole (aka purple hens that live in swamps)--Tony Wills (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet it a) isn't used by half the people who use it and b) apparently irritates the Aussies who see it as favouritism towards Kiwiland. The Trinomial, on the other hand, is neutral and accurate and describes the whole subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I expect the Aussies will get over it, perhaps if they came up with a distinctive name for the subspecies it would help (may I suggest, I don't know, something like Pukeko ;-). The naming convention is to have a common name for the article and latin names as redirects. I'm not crying fowl (sic) over having an article called
  Southern Boobook instead of Ruru or Morepork (even though the species name contains novaeseelandiae), and given the number of Kiwi in Oz, there must be a significant proportion of the population who know what a Pukeko is :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Bird species names follow ornithological conventions. That said, these are already bent to a great degree over New Zealand's endemic birds (Kereru instead of New Zealand Pigeon, Rock Wren instead of South Island Wren etc). But New Zealand birders need to learn to play nice when they share species. We use international naming systems (HBW, but we may shift that soon to Gill and Wright) precisely because people get so complainy when their regional preference is not used. Using Pukeko is exactly the kind of favouritism we strive to avoid. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain article as
  Pukeko
  about the Pukeko only

1. (Actually it should be
   Pūkeko, but that's a minor matter) This is my second choice. The article was originally about this bird and was later expanded to include information on the other birds in the same subspecies in different places. There is a lot of information in the article that is only relevant to the New Zealand population that probably wouldn't fit in a merged article about the species as a whole. Kiore (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. This article should be about the New Zealand bird, and not about a subspecies. Accordingly, the taxobox should go. Those parts of the article dealing with the subspecies can be merged to Purple Swamphen, or to an article on the subspecies.-gadfium 21:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am also happy with this, but you're still left with the question of what to call the sub-species article if you ever want one. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

That vote isn't exactly decisive but I think the following satisfies 6 out of 7 voters:

1. ) Do not create a page for the subspecies Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus, by any name, at the moment
2. ) Merge some info ( Distribution, Breeding and other non NZ Pukeko specific) into Purple Swamphen article
3. ) Leave Pukeko/Pūkeko article with content about cultural and other NZ specific info about the population there, but not as a sub-species article (ie remove taxo-box) and see if it can stand by itself. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, that seems to be the consensus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable.
  talk) 07:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Fine by me. Maias (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Seems to be the consensus. Kiore (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. As it stands, there is a link on the
  Pukeko - little bit biased given the subspecies is not synonymous with Pukeko, as we've concluded. Is the suggestion that we unlink it as per the other subspecies which don't have articles? If so, what would link to Pukeko? NZ culture-related articles only? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Purple Swamphen which should also include the Purple Swamphens in North America Kiore (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• While there is a absence of any evidence by the keepers for any biological notability of the Pukeko, I am satisfied that the consensus is in favour of retaining an article on the cultural and economic importance, as well as mentioning its recent colonisation caused by human extermination of its relatives. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Article Name Retention

Retaining the article name as "Pukeko" is not logical.

• Firstly, "Pukeko" is not an English name but a Maori name borrowed into English. The original English name for the bird (used for centuries) was and still is "Purple Swamphen".
• Secondly, the purple swamphen flew across from Australia a thousand years ago and they still exist in Australia and throughout oceania (see the purple swamphen distribution map).
• Thirdly, the purple swamphens in Australia look virtually identical to their counterparts in NZ. I have visited Australia and I see no difference between them at all.
• Fourthly, Australians living in Australia do not use the word "Pukeko" and since the human population and the purple swamphen population in Australia outnumbers the human and 'pukeko' population in NZ, therefore the wikipedia
  Common name
  guideline would be in favour of using the article name "New Zealand Purple Swamphen" or "Purple Swamphen in New Zealand" as opposed to "Pukeko". In the etymology section, the word Pukeko can then be mentioned.
• Fifthly, there is already a Maori wikipedia so the New Zealanders can naturally use the name "Pūkeko" there without question.
• Lastly, the words "Kiwi", "Kakapo", "Kea", "Kaka", "Tui", "Weka", "Huia", "Moa" and "Takahe" etc. exist because those birds are no longer found in other parts of the world or their most distant relative species are substantially different in appearance, features and size. But this logic obviously does not apply to "Pukeko".

The article on

If you wish to make a formal request for a page move, see

WP:RM.-gadfium 05:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In the long term, it deserves to be merged into a new article name called "Australasian Purple Swamphen", just as

New Zealand Pipit is redirected to the Australasian article. There is no DNA difference between the New Zealand and Australian species. The scientific name is identical. --BrianJ34 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you read the discussion and rationale for the articles existence? "Purple Swamphen" has virtually no usage in New Zealand, there is no such bird. This is an article about "Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus", known as Pukeko in New Zealand, and their relevance to New Zealand, it is not a bird species article, it is not about "Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus" anywhere else in the world (including Australia). --Tony Wills (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following text - The Pūkeko is beginning to lose its ability to fly, according to Britannica ^[1]. No other source supports this, and some contradict it. I could find no journal articles that suggest the Pukeko is losing its flight, and the HANZAB entry for this species, under the heading geographic variation, makes no mention of it (or even much difference in size, which it suggests may be happening in New Zealand and Tasmania, but can't prove). In fact the measurements it gives suggest that the wing of New Zealand birds are ever so slightly bigger (albeit not significantly so) which directly contradicts the assertion made by Britannica (wing length reduction is a classic symptom of flightlessness). Given that Britannica is not infallible and more reliable and authoritative sources don't support it I think we should not repeat our rivals mistakes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Britannica respond to requests for references, or have a bibliography showing who compiled their articles? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it has been hunted since it got here I can think of no reason why it would lose the ability to fly. Just being highly terrestrial doesn't make them flightless. According to HBW Spanish birds in Andalusia possibly migrate on foot at night! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to include a reference to the Britannica article along with the analysis (with refs) of why the hypothesis that it is becoming flightless is unfounded. That way if people have heard that hypothesis from other sources and come here to check out the facts ( :-), they will get an answer - just what a good encyclopedia should do :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tony Wills. Sabine's Sunbird: Are you able to cite the references you quote? The only paper I could find on-line says "pukeko, banded rail, and two crakes normally give the appearance of being weak fliers, but the rails are visibly strong fliers once airborne" Distributions of New Zealand Birds on Real and Virtual Islands (J M Diamond 1984) Kiore (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite? Sure, have done so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so you have. Thanks Kiore (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the value of including the sentence "If it were not for humans and introduced predators (eg. stoat, rat), the Pūkeko would appear to have little need for wings and would possibly evolve to become heavier and perhaps more like the Takahē over millions of years". It is purely speculative, and quite untestable given that its preconditions no longer apply. It reeks of a teleological view of evolution that no scientist would accept today. Maias (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that were one to dump Purple Swamphens on an island like New Zealand sans mammalian predators they might increase in size and lose their flight. But it is at this point speculation, and speculation that won't be tested for, oh, at least 10,000 years after we clear the mammals away from NZ (10,000 years being the fasted recorded rate a species of rail has lost its ability to fly on an island). As speculation for wikipedia goes it is worth noting that without humans to clear away the Takahes they probably wouldn't have ever established (and obviously not in the timeframe since their arrival). Which makes me agree that the sentence has no value. In fact, the timeframe is yet another piece of evidence suggesting that flight is not being lost, at least yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, could we steer free from Original research here. If there is no good cite, leave it out. To claim that a sub-population of a subspecies differs with this respect to the remainder of this subspecies requires a clear and obvious cite. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that we are trying to cite a difference but a lack of one. The reason for wishing to do this is that there are a number of reasonably well respected websites, including Brittanica, that make the claim that the pūkeko is evolving towards flightlessness, a claim that appears to be unsupported by the literature.Kiore (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Ignore the preceding please. I missed that we had moved from the citing of the lack of developing flightlessness. Kiore (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand fairy tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked the cite: Worthy & Holdaway 1996 New Zealand Journal of Zoology 201 volume 28 Page 23? Volume 28 was published in 2001, not 1996 for a start... There is a 1996 Worthy and Holdaway paper, but in 'New Zealand Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand Volume 26, Issue 3, 1996 275-361' What actually is intended? 130.123.96.22 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)J McNeill[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Purple Swamp Hen Wollongong.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 2, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The

Aru and Kai Islands), as well as in Papua New Guinea, Australia, and New Zealand.Photograph: Toby Hudson

Archive – More featured pictures...