Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 33

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is Animal world a source for wiki articles? It has been recently used on the

Sure, for pet-care and related information. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have some adverts and a forum. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say no. There's no indication as to where they've gotten their information, so no way to prove if it's correct or not. MeegsC | Talk 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I also, would say no. There is no need to use what might be considered "desperation" sources, when there is a plethora of much more authoritative, and vetted, informational sources around. This is a layman's site and as such pleasing I am sure to those making recourse to it, but of little validity as a final source.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just spent some time looking at the website. I found a webpage of the team and one of contributors. I also found a statement saying "... To this end, Animal-World.com will strive to provide accurate and timely information." I found no indication as to where they were sourcing their information. I think it may not fulfil all the requirements to be source for the wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

certainly wouldn't be accepted at GA or FA, full of pov, no sources jimfbleak (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was the guy who used that site as a reference on

Panama Amazon, which at the time was identified as a separate species, Amazona panamensis. Figuring that the creator of the article probably knew what they were talking about in this case (and being unfamiliar with the bird in question myself), I attributed the lack of good online refs for the species to the taxonomic soup surrounding the Amazona ochrocephala complex and I resorted to a site that looked reasonable-ish as a source for one fact. FWIW, I only used it as a ref for the fact that the Panama Amazon is endemic to Panama (as expected) and Colombia - if that makes things any clearer. I won't be using it again. Thinking as I type - I *may* actually have used that site as a reference in the past on one or two more occasions. My bad. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk

) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I see some online pages as interim/stop-gap measures to suggest notability or non-hoax nature until better ones are found. I have been saddened to find biology articles speedily deleted and the editors gone in the past. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So why not start an appropriate review discussion to get them undeleted? Snowman (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One was the common garden plant Pandorea pandorana which I began editing for a DYK, noticed it had deleted edits, so undeleted them. Note the original editor's contribs - Special:Contributions/Lacunacoiled. I restored his (or her) material as I didn't think it warranted a speedy deletion and was relevant to the article (and yes, I went further to multiply the original text by five). I can't recall others off the top of my head but would have restored them if valid species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the range map could be improved by separating the range into different ranges for the subspecies and also by indicating the pathways and times of the migration. I think that this could be a good one to show how migration routes can be illustrated. Unfortunately, I probably will not be able to help much with the maps, but I have found a good photograph of one flying with a fish today on flick and uploaded it to commons. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest weakness of the map is that it doesn't show where the Osprey is a summer breeder, where it is a winter visitor, and where it occurs year round. The subspecies issue is less important since it is broadly continental, but if that could be added without too much clutter, that would be good too. Times of migration I think would be in the text, since it varies with latitude, northern birds fleeing first, and this would be difficult to show concisely on a map. I'm no good at maps either jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting one for discussion - according to our cleanup listing at

I reverted it but thought better of it and was intrigued as to what others think:

the phrase is:

All birds winter in Africa, which makes the large, bright Greenland race leucorhoa one of the most impressive ^{[neutrality is disputed]} long-distance migrants.

Clearly the issue is the word "impressive" - how do other wiki-birdos feel - ok with it, or if not, how to rephrase? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What about "visually distinctive"? Maias (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it means impressive WRT distance flown for such an itty bitty bird..Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's clearly subjective (=POV). We need to find an objective way of phrasing this, something like "leucorhoa undertakes one of the longest migrations of any passerine //source//" SP-KP (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, only just seen this, I've changed it unilaterally to highlight the transatlantic crossing jimfbleak (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Right then, we can mark it as  Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the modified claim needs a cn. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it a long distance for a migrant? Does anyone have a list of distances travelled (possibly compared to body weight). Grantus4504 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the reference is Snow, D.W. (1953) "The Migration of the Greenland Wheatear", Ibis 95:376-378. It's quoted in The Migration Atlas as 'birds of the race leucorhoa undergo what is probably the longest transoceanic migration of any passerine' p.515 Grantus4504 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What date is the atlas? Snowman (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note only partially germane to the above questions. Putative races rostrata, and virago, are submerged by most authorities (if not all, but I have not checked all lists) in race libanotica (as is the sometimes cited race nivea). My information does not have all race leucorhoa wintering in Africa. A certain percentage would appear to winter in SW Europe.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the offending sentence to this:

Birds of the large bright Greenland race leucorhoa may make one of the longest transoceanic crossings of any passerine. Spring migration of this race follows the usual Africa, Europe, British Isles, Iceland, Greenland migration route. However autumn sightings from ships suggest that birds make a direct crossing of the North Atlantic from Canada and Greenland to South West Europe (a distance of up to 2500km) ^[1]. Grantus4504 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what other passerines take the "usual Africa, Europe, British Isles, Iceland, Greenland" migration route?! Doesn't sound very usual to me!!  ;) MeegsC | Talk 23:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence sounds weak. But it is a big migration route for waders (shorebirds), ducks, geese, swans etc. The thing is that the 'Greenland' Wheatears don't take the usual route in the autumn, they just fly straight from North America to Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantus4504 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Among chats and thrushes that migrate long distances the Common Redstart and Nightingale are smaller. Some of the warblers are much smaller; such as, the Common Whitethroat, Reed Warbler, and Willow Warbler. The Northern Wheatear is about a foot long, so should it be called a medium sized bird? Weight is 21 to 41 gms which seems small. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

16 cm is half a foot, no a foot. It's size is comparable to a Nightingale. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I got confused with wingspan. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that a 1953 ref on the page says that they migrate over the Atlantic from Canada to Europe, but I have a 1995 ref which has maps which indicates they all go from the east of Canada and Greenland to Iceland first and then go over the UK to Europe and then Africa. The ones on the West of Canada go a different way over Russia to Africa. It is interesting that Africa is where their ancestors lived. Or can a bird only half a foot long fly 2500 km over sea without stopping? Snowman (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Until they start making sat tags small enough for passerines a great deal of this info on the exact routes is supposition. But sat tags have shown amazing feats with godwits and shearwaters, so it is not unheard of. And teh simple fact of the matter is that these birds get from Greenland and anada to Africa across the Atlantic somehow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wernham et al. (2002) The Migration Atlas gives room for David Snow's interpretation. It's one of Snow's earlier papers, but he was a highly respected ornithologist. Grantus4504 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related subject, it's not at all clear to me that mkigration distance should be compared to size. Is there any reason to think small birds have more trouble covering long distances than big birds? In a somewhat analogous case, short and tall humans compete with each other in marathons. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabine is essentially right. Small passerines generally avoid long-distance uninterrupted oceanic flight because they simply are not physiologically capable of accumulating enough fat deposits that would allow this very flight. They will, however, follow migration routes that allow them to make stopovers. If the Wheatear migration totally over the ocean is verifiable, and I personally have not seen any extremely convincing evidence of this, then it would certainly be prodigious. I would be much more propense to contemplating a migration route from North America that island hops, e.g., Greenland, Iceland, British Isles, etc. Of course, there are certain bird groups, e.g., Trochilidae for which it is simply physiologically impossible for them to cross any sort of substantial expanse of water because their basal metabolic rate is so extemely high that they basically can not accumulate fats.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. I would guess that for non-stop flights more mass equals more fuel. But also more weight. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bar-tailed Godwit is much bigger 37–41 cm (over a foot in length) and weigh up-to 400gm at the start of their migration. Shearwaters are sea birds and could feed on fish or squid on the way, but my ref says that young birds probably can not find surface food in the open ocean. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Some large birds have wings suitable for soaring and using air thermals or using the wind from waves. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My point wasn't about the relative amazingness of the flights, it was a more general one about how sat tags show great things never before suspected. They are getting smaller and smaller too, maybe in 5 years there will be ones small enough to fit on the wheatears and cuckoos, not to mention other migratory wonders. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My original point was that a 1953 ref (apparently quoted from an Atlas) is apparently in contradiction with my 1995 Atlas, which shows no arrow going between Canada and Europe directly, but arrows going from Canada and Greenland to Iceland, over UK, over Europe, and then to Africa. There appears to be a contradiction in these sources. From your discussion, I presume that you are in agreement with the 1953 ref. Snowman (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. When I say crossing the Atlantic, that could easily mean island hopping. They could do it in one go, they might not. Until sat tags come along, we should couch any statements to reflect the uncertainty. I'd suggest putting more trust in newer sources overall, especially ones that aren't 50 years old. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. I guess it could be posed as some sort of hypothesis. Maybe I am just too professionally-deformed to not want hard evidence. I have read reports of hypothesizing long trans-oceanic flights for this species mostly based on fortuitous incidents of singleton birds landing exhausted on ocean-going ships. I have always considered these to be anomalous, and probably due to single off-course storm-driven birds. So, I guess anything is possible, but personally I would go about lending pondered credence to this with extreme caution, until such time as a coherent aimed study is conducted for discovering if in fact there are populations of Wheatears that habitually follow a trans-oceanic migration route that does not contemplate any feeding stopovers. Just my two cents.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that none of their other routes go over large oceans, but they go over large desserts and ice sheets. As for the ones that stop off in the Azores, I would be interested to know what a field guide to birds of the Azores says about all these migrating birds arriving for a rest on there only transatlantic stop off twice a year. Do they have rests in desserts, perhaps at night, or on a sheltered spot on a glacier? Do they rest on the sea, like a duck? Snowman (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They certainly don't rest on the sea for anything more than a few seconds—they'd quickly become waterlogged and drown. There are records of passerines (particularly swallows) landing in the desert overnight during migration; I don't know whether wheatears also do this, but it's certainly possible. As to small birds flying long distances overwater,

Blackpoll Warblers are known to migrate over the ocean for 2-4 days without stopping, on their journey from the eastern US/Canada to South America.Unsigned comment by MeegsC

of 11:24, 3 April 2009

Please source this last affermation (i.e. up to 96 hours of non-stop flapping flying over water)! As far as I know they start out from southeast US and do numerous rest stops on many of the islands between that point and NE South America.--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to source this myself. Since the evidence may still be considered in part open to interpretation, I will just give my impression of what I have read and sifted. I accept that at least part of the population leaving in particular from SE Canada uses a flyway that apparently passes over Bermuda (or immediate vicinity) without a stopover and that finally arrives to a stopover in the Lesser Antilles. This would appear to be the longest uninterrupted distance over water for this species. However, it would also appear that a certain portion of the population starting out from a more southerly position (down to about Virginia apparently) may take another route and hop along all of the Caribbean islands (in view of their being found on all of those Islands during this part of the year). I have read that there are those that maintain that these birds do not overstop on these islands, citing radar information. However, I have problems with this for several reasons, and they are, there is a thing called a "radar horizon" under which bird movements would not be discernable, and second, I do not believe that there is such a hermetic radar coverage of all surfaces of these many islands, and third, if they supposedly overfly without stopping on these islands, then why are these birds commonly found on all of these islands during this time of year. Certainly, the route from about Nova Scotia (the northerly jumping off point) and arriving finally to the Lesser Antilles, is a prodigious distance non-stop for a passerine as small as this one! [1] [2] [3] [4]--Steve Pryor (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that radar can identify the position of an aircraft, but not what sort of aircraft. I expect that radar can indicate where a flock is, but how can radar identify a bird species? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Snow, from what I gathered reading through this stuff, this objection was noted obviously, and the response was the rather thin, and I paraphrase, they are flocks of passerines, and what else could they be?, which probably is true, though not intellectually rigorous for many of us.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. Anyway, it seems we agree that some Blackpoll Warblers fly thousands of km over water.

By the way, Snowman, there are no thermals over water (or not enough to make a difference to birds). Thus raptors, and maybe other soaring land birds, don't cross large bodies of water. As you note, there are seabirds that soar over water using wind-speed gradients.

Apparently what I said there isn't strictly true (though it has sources). Where the

trade winds blow in the tropics, there are thermals, and frigatebirds rely on them. These updrafts are slow, but frigatebirds can exploit them because of their low wing loading [5]. —JerryFriedman (Talk)

14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Another small bird that probably makes a long over-water migration is the

Least Sandpiper, "with eastern populations likely undertaking nonstop transoceanic migrations of 3,000 to 4,000 km from the Gulf of St. Lawrence and New England to wintering grounds in northeastern South America." BNA. Also, a few seem to winter in Hawaii [6]

. It's 13–15 cm long and has a mass of 19–30 g, both about the same as the Northern Wheatear. Of course it's got different proportions and might be more suited to long flights than passerines.

Anyway, I still haven't seen evidence that bigger birds can make longer non-stop flights without eating. The known record-holder is that

Bar-tailed Godwit, a medium-sized bird. Unless there's a clear trend that bigger birds are better at it, it doesn't make sense to say things such as "a remarkable flight for so small a bird", and we should restrict ourselves to things like "one of the longest non-stop flights among the passerines", where we have good evidence for it. —JerryFriedman (Talk)

22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess: It might be "U" shaped or "J" - perhaps minute birds and very large birds are disadvantaged at long non-stop migrations. Perhaps medium sized birds are migrate the longest distances. "J" shaped rather then "U" shaped because small birds can migrate a long way in continuous hops. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• On a similar note, how does this line from Cuckoo sound?

The Long-tailed Cuckoo which breeds in New Zealand flies migrates to its wintering grounds in Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia, a feat described as "perhaps the most remarkable overwater migration of any land bird";[4]

In this case I am quoting from a journal which considers it a remarkable feat, rather than stating that it is one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine (except that you need a comma after "Cuckoo" and one after "New Zealand" to show that it's the Long-tailed Cuckoo [which breeds in New Zealand], not the one that breeds there as opposed to the Long-tailed Cuckoos that breed other places). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For reasons of greater clarity, the local name Long-tailed Cuckoo, is normally changed to Long-tailed Koel (v. English Common Names of genus Cercococcyx). All the other congeners of Eudynamys are called Koels, and it is better this way. I imagine that a note could be appended specifying that within New Zealand (or immediate adjacent zones) it might be called the Long-tailed Cuckoo.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that relatively large Canadian passerines like

Jim, they may. The question is not if they go across the North Atlantic, the problem is that there is still a total lack of hard information about the route they might take. With the information presently available, if I were writing up something about it, but I am a notorious stickler, I would probably only say that the occasional mid-north atlantic records of ship-landing birds of the species is seductive, and it might portend some sort of non-stop trans-atlantic migration of at least part of the population of this Wheatear, but hard evidence in direct confirmation still lacks. In other words, until such time as an aimed investigation is conducted for the purpose of unveiling why there are these occasional shipbound bird records, the question remains open, and not resolved.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, who's doing distribution maps these days, now that Jude's retired? MeegsC | Talk 23:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made a few in the past. I need to get a painting programme for my mac though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can make maps, if I have a svg image available and know nwhat needs to go where. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have put maps on my list of TO Do's speednat (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Both

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Maias (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• 170. Small yellow bird in Serra do Cipó, Brazil. Snowman (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

male

Saffron Finch, Sicalis flaveola jimfbleak (talk

) 09:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

uploaded to File:Sicalis flaveola (male) -Brazil-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• 171. Small orange bird in North America to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Adult male

Hepatic Tanager Piranga flava jimfbleak (talk

) 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Subspecies P. f. hepatica unless the Americans disagree jimfbleak (talk)

Hi Jim, I will try and find time to dice out the current taxonomy. There has been a recent tendency to want to split the Hepatic Tanager sensu largo, into three race groups; hepatica; flava; and lutea if my memory does not fail me. I do not know off the top of my head if this interpretation has found confirmation, and if these groups are to be considered good species of a superspecies. If it has, then the flava group, would contain only races associated to the so-called Lowland Hepatic Tanager, ranging in Surinam and Guyana. I will try and take a look at Van Remsen's SACC Baseline List, and see what their position is on any changes, if any. If the tendency to split takes hold, then I presume, and I repeat, I am presuming, that the races ranging in the US would be collectively called Northern Hepatic Tanager, and the scientific binomen could be Piranga hepatica.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Have now checked. For now the status quo, as per Jimfbleak above, still obtains.

The SACC offers only: [7] V. footnote 3.

For anyone wishing to remain abreast of any changes in status of neotropical bird taxonomy or nomenclature, here are a couple of links: [ http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html], [8]Steve Pryor (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Piranga flava -North America-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• 172. Redpoll probably on Iceland. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea islandica jimfbleak (talk

) 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim, you will have to help me out on this one. I would have said this to be hornemanni. Relatively, little flank streaking, and overall lack of dorsal coloration (lots of white) on the nape, and mantle. Vent looks very white, but any streak pattern on undertail coverts is not visible. If hornemanni, I do not have good differentiative information for discerning race, i.e., deciding if something is the nominate, or exilipes. Almost forgot, the location is from a suburb of Reyjkavik.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't go to the stake on this id, and I did wonder about

Arctic Redpoll. Clements, Harris and Davis Finches and Sparrows says of islandica that pale individuals of this variable race are very frosty, with only lightly streaked white underparts and can closely resemble C. h. hornemanni. However, islandica is the common local breeding form, whereas Arctic is an accidental, so unless you are sure of your id, I'd think the former is much more likely - certainly an interesting bird, and I'd welcome further opinions jimfbleak (talk

) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is another one in the same flickr photostream; I expect that you have already seen it. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for me it doesn't really make any difference to this tricky bird jimfbleak (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• 173. Babblers probably on Sri Lanka. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned -

Turdoides affinis Shyamal (talk

) 14:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it the local subspecies? Snowman (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, race taprobanus. Separated from the southernmost indian peninsular nominate, by the presence in the latter of a darker lateral head and lighter crown, overall darker bird, and conspicuous mottling on the throat and upper breast.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Turdoides affinis (pair) -Sri Lanka-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question spelling - is it "taprobanus" as above or "T. a. taprobanusi" as on wiki article? Snowman (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Snow, I checked a lot of sources for this. Turdoides is considered of feminine gender in the review of these generic name gender assignments by David & Gosselin (2002). The Clements lists taprobana, but I am so used to seeing screw-ups for the approximate manner in which the new tax group has gone about its' business(now associated to Jared Diamond & the Cornell Bird Laboratory), that I rarely use it. There must be some sort of over-riding taxonomic protocol that intervenes here in keeping the subspecific name desinence in the masculine gender (according the the ICZN Taxonomic Naming Protocols), since the Howard & Moore, 3°Ed., the HBW-12, as well as the more recent and certainly more meticulous review done before publishing the Ripley Guide, all list this as taprobanus, in the masculine. I have found taprobanusi only on certain indian, or sri lankan sites. Therefore, I would say that taprobanus is the correct spelling in this case.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the taprobanusi typo/meme on WP seems to have been replicated by bloggers. Have fixed the spelling. Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• 174 Vulture in Spain; and quite a nice series of shots of them. A couple of other Basque birdies as well. I wish my birds of Europe book wasn't in, well, Europe. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabine,don't worry, I have a copy of the Collins. It is a subadult Gyps fulvus (

Eurasian Griffon).--Steve Pryor (talk

) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Gyps fulvus -Basque Country-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• 175. Amazon Parrot for identification. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazona ochrocephala tresmariae -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• 176. Parrot for identification. Snowman (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they are

Red Shining-parrots, but they are in dreadful condition. Sabine's Sunbird talk

19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I had not thought of that. I was thinking of one of the King Parrots. I am not sure yet, partly because one of the King Parrots has not got a photo on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The next parrot in the sequence is the

Blue-crowned Lory, both species occur in Tonga and Fiji, though they are caged so I doubt that is relevant. The shape of the parrots makes the Prosepia to my mind, and teh Crimson species is much redder. Sabine's Sunbird talk

21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have got that one uploaded at File:Vini australis -capive-8a.jpg some time ago. I have uploaded most the the interesting ones in the photostream, but there are a few that I am trying to identify. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I recall it's been suggested in the past that a parrot's image shouldn't be uploaded because of its condition, and I think the same shoul happen here. We already have a photo of the Red Shining-parrot; also in captivity but as the photographer I can at least vouch for its welfare, it was well looked after. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are jumping to conclusions. Please do not make allegations when you do not know all the facts. They were photographed in 2003 when digital cameras were not as good which needed flash photography. I have noticed that flash photography distorts the bird colours probably an effect of interference of light due to the minute structure of feathers. The cage looks big enough for them. I see no signs of illness. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The middle one is missing its tail, teh tail of the one on the left is short and the one on the left is quite frayed. It is the lack of fetahers around the eye that bothers me, not the overall plumage (which certainly has a texture that is typical of the genus). It implies they are either young or sick, but the quality of the image isn't good enough to tell. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the apparent differences in the length of their tails could be a parallax effect. It think that the image quality is too poor to give a judgement on the feathers around the eyes. Anyway, if any feathers were missing or shortened this could have happened in a previous aviary and not the current aviary. I would have like to have seen a round perch, but there may be one in the area of the cage not seen in the photograph. Different sized perches help the birds feet, so the flat surface of the square perch may help the birds open there feet at times and a round perch would open there feet differently. They have a large nesting box attached to the side of their cage and they may have been in a nesting box and got the ends of their tails a bit dirty. I see nothing illegal with their current living conditions, even if they were in the UK, where rules and regulations for animal keeper are probably amongst the best in the world. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One of them has a blue lower back, not the green lower back of a Red Shining-parrot. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I first thought the same as Sunbird, but it kept nagging. after some digging, I lean more towards juvenile

Moluccan King Parrots.... (ducks and runs) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

22:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for you to reply with such trepidation or "duck and run"; please explain your idea in more detail. If they were adults they would be easier to identify, because the adult "Red Shining-parrot" has a large black beak, not like the beaks seen in the photograph. I am still thinking about the appearances of the juveniles. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They are Red Shining-Parrots saw them on Taveuni, Fiji in June last year. Aviceda talk 07:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have uploaded a rather poor image on Commons [[9]] Aviceda talk 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• 177. Small brown bird probably in north America to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to

Lucy's Warbler article. Snowman (talk

) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• 178. black bird probably near Seagull Lake, Minnesota, USA. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Juvenile

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula methinks jimfbleak (talk

) 10:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the species, but the light iris makes it an adult. The tail looks like the right length for a female. From the site of the photograph, it would be Q. q. versicolor. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I should say I'm not 100 percent sure about the sex. I hope someone can settle it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• 179. black bird probably near Seagull Lake, Minnesota by same photographer as bird 178. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Same species, too. This Common Grackle is definitely an adult male. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• 148. Red bird for identification. Previous identification is here. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What prompted the re-asking? A quick flick through my Sibley shows me this looks exactly like the breeding variant (a bit more orange, a bit of colour on the median coverts). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone prompted me on my user talk page on commons. The photograph appears to be taken in a zoo in Denmark. What is the image in the

Brazilian Tanager infobox? Snowman (talk

) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good eye. I hadn't noticed t was in a zoo. Yeah, you're right, the bill colour is more typical of teh Brazilian Tanager (that bicolour grey and horn rather than the overall horn colour of the scarlet). Since I don't have a book of tanagers I can't rule out other potential birds, but it is closer to the Brazilian than the Scarlet. More likely that the Brazilian would be in a zoo too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I missed the question when it was first posed. This bill is peculiar only to certain species of genus Ramphocelus, including the Brazilian Tanager (Ramphocelus bresilius), which this is, an adult male. Not all Ramphocelus have it, but when you see it, it is Ramphocelus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of file File:Piranga olivacea -perching-8.jpg is under way (but might take a week or two to happen), and link will turn red when file is deleted. Re-uploaded to File:Ramphocelus bresilius -zoo-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As a head's up, I just nominated

• 180. Grey bird on Zebra in South Africa. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Red-billed Oxpecker. Sabine's Sunbird talk

22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Buphagus erythrorhynchus, an adult.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Buphagus erythrorhynchus -Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• 181. Small brown bird probably in Delaware. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Arrrggghhhh!!!! It's an empid! Note to non-Americans, empid = Empidonax, a genus famous in America for being ridiculously difficult to tell apart, even in the hand. Distribution can help guide a choice, but the best way to ID one of these guys is by call, obviously not possible here! I'll have a look at my Sibley when I get home but this one may not be possible to ID. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that it is an empid? It doesn't appear to have wingbars and the bill seems to be all black, plus no eye ring. I would call it an

Eastern Phoebe. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk

) 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah, I think you're right. I would have noticed once I got the book out (I hope) Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Eastern Phoebe. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Sayornis phoebe -Delaware -USA-8.jpg on commons.

• 182. Small brown bird with spots probably in Delaware. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a

Vesper Sparrow. I'm not particularly good at sparrow ID, so could someone else take a look? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk

) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But they're your cousins!

The size of the bill and shape of the head are making me lean toward thinking it's a strangely streaked

Lark Sparrow. —JerryFriedman (Talk)

01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A commentator at Flickr has identified it as a

Song Sparrow. I asked at BirdChat and got 6 responses saying it was a Song Sparrow, one adding there was not a subatomic particle of doubt, and 2 agreeing with RCS that it was or might be a Vesper Sparrow. I don't know where that leaves us. However, the yellowish color that threw me off was apparently a lighting effect. If someone uploads the file, they should mention that. —JerryFriedman (Talk)

14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Melospiza melodia -White Clay Creek Park-8.jpg. The subspecies can be added to the image description if known. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• 183. Small brown bird with long tail probably in Delaware. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tufted Titmouse. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk

) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• 184. File:Pandion haliaetus -fish -Texas-8-4c.jpg. To identify subspecies. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a shot! The only subspecies recognized by BNA in the U.S. and Canada is carolinensis. The nearly complete lack of dark breast markings suggests a male, though I gather one can't be sure. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Subspecies added to image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• 185. New Zealand-looking bird museum specimen. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Huia, male. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Do we need another Huia picture? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a good photograph and the commons always has room for good photographs in my opinion. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Male Huia Delaware Museum of Nautural History.jpg. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 186. Hornbill from the Philippine Eagle Center Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Aceros leucocephalus. An adult male.--Steve Pryor (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Mindanao Wrinkled Hornbill Aceros leucocephalus captive.jpg Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 187. Hawk from the Philippine Eagle Center Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like in the Nisaetus group. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Always tough separations. I know from experience. I agree that this is not Pernis, nor Accipiter trivirgatus. Also not Spizaetus [Nisaetus] cirrhatus [limnaetus]. Certainly, one of the two associated to philippensis. Allow me to look further with the adjunct of my DB when I get home from work. This may be the incipient split, pinskeri.--Steve Pryor (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to dig for this one. It is, as I had suspected, an adult Spizaetus [Nisaetus] philippensis pinskeri. This may be the only photo in existance of the adult of this race. Though it had been proposed as a split species, the last I heard the idea has not taken hold, and at least one proposal disallowed.[10]--Steve Pryor (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Hawk at Philippine Eagle Center-8a.jpg. Image description and category on commons might need checking. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• 188. Nepalese bird of some description Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wagtail, without checking I will suggest that the yw in te title may refer to a Yellow Wagtail. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea. The breeding ones usually have a black throat. Shyamal (talk

) 03:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Shyamal. Weak supercilium, yellowish rump. Winter Grey Wagtail.--Steve Pryor (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea melanope) winter.jpg Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 189. Australian thornbill?
  • Streaky underparts suggest
    Brown Thornbill. Maias (talk
    ) 05:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks a bit too 'long' for a thornbill, I would go for female Rufous Whistler. Aviceda talk 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a hard one - agree it looks a little too 'substantial' for a teeny thornbill, but the beak looks a bit thin for a whistler (????) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Immature

Grey Shrike-thrush? There doesn't seem to be a contrast between the throat/head, and the rump looks too white for a Rufous Whistler. Sabine's Sunbird talk

05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Take your point, but can't see the rump on the pic, and the bill doesn't look too thin for me, I'm still certain that it's a female Rufous Whistler, is it worth posting a query on Birding-Aus? Aviceda talk 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I happily defer to you on Oz birds. For me, it doesn't have the bill strength for Colluricincla. I was thinking, however, that there must be better than this photo to be uploaded. It is just not a good photo.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Steve, can't see any point in uploading it either. Aviceda talk 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Organisation of "birds for identification"

Thank you for participating in the "Birds for identification" series. To keep the edits organised and easy to follow, could people who have listed a bird for identification upload it to commons when it has been identified, and provide the link to the uploaded image on commons for completion and so that the image description and other details can be scrutinised. Comment welcome. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This article -yellow is a collaboration rticle - was hoping some bio poeple had good sources of yellow in nature to rewrite Yellow#In_biology more like Green#In_biology. Anyone keen? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is

Hypothetical extinct species are based on descriptions of descriptions. In this case, there are bones, so there is nothing hypothetical. If having bones makes them hypothetical, all animals based on bones only become hypothetical. I am sure you do not want to eradicate the whole field of palaeontology? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

13:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To add. In the case that bones are not sufficient, various other extinct parrot species should be labelled hypothetical, including the

Réunion Parakeet and others . -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint Croix Macaw: I think a few bone fragments were found on different islands. As far as I am aware, the claims made in the latter paper that these bones represent an extinct macaw have not been formally reviewed. The claims have been replicated in the wiki article. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Olsen & Lopez do address the issue. See article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer an evaluation of the paper independent of the authors . Generally speaking, I think that some circumspection is needed, when there is a single claim of a new species. The wiki does not have content to cover every report of a new species, without putting it in perspective and putting forward alternative views. As far as I can see, you have completely edited out the traditional view that the Saint Croix Macaw is (or was) traditionally regarded as a hypothetical extinct species. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any references to the fact that this species is considered a hypothetical species. So, as far as I can tell, it is

original research to claim so. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to Olsen & Maíz López's paper, it would have been reasonable to question this species simply because so little was known about it and there had "and there has been no further evaluation of the species". But that's what Olsen & Maíz López did. We have an authority of the subject reassessing the material, assigning an additional, more complete collection to the species, and discussing two other, unassigned specimens that have been assigned to Ara. In addition, they make mention an actual hypothetical species, Ara guadeloupensis which, if memory serves me, was based simply on reports of birds and not properly published or typified. Come to think of it (and I'm no expert; I may be totally wrong here), I don't think that you can call a properly published, typified species "hypothetical". It may be reduced to synonymy, but assuming that Wetmore published a valid diagnosis, it's real. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have the volume, Extinct Birds, by Fuller. If anybody needs a look-up on something, let me know.--Steve Pryor (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What edition is it? Snowman (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any information on the taxonomy or the existence of the parrot? Snowman (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Snow, I have the second edition (2000), the same as the Compton book american clothback printed in 2001 and called the revised edition. As far as this possible parrot: It is not even included on the Fuller list of hypothetical parrots. From all that I can gather, one tibiotarsi of an immature bird, was found in a cave on St. Croix, and which, by the way, assignment even to a genus without any equivocation was not possible. It was also not possible to exclude that its' presence (the bone's) on the island may not have been due to, to use improperly a word, an iatrogenic event, i.e., a captive parrot of some type, brought to the island by sailors. For me, this is simply not enough to hypothesize that there was an insular endemic Ara on St. Croix. I need more than this type of seductive guessing, but then I am scientifically deformed and used to dealing with facts, rather than illation. If it is up to me, I don't put it in simply because there is a lack of support for afferming that a bird surely Ara existed on the island, and that it was surely endemic to that island. Wikipedia should deal with facts, and not guessing and folklore.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• As far as this possible parrot: It is not even included on the Fuller list of hypothetical parrots.

  OK, but you realise that (a) Fuller is (according to the Publisher's Weekly review of his book on Amazon) an artist, not a palaeontologist or ornithologist, and (b) not a time-traveller (it's hard to judge a 2008 paper when you're writing in 2000 or 2001).

• From all that I can gather, one tibiotarsi of an immature bird, was found in a cave on St. Croix, and which, by the way, assignment even to a genus without any equivocation was not possible.

  The Olsen & Maíz López paper is available for free online, you should really read it. Wetmore described the species based on a single bone (not readily attributable to any known species), but Olsen & Maíz López discuss several bones found on a separate island.

• It was also not possible to exclude that its' presence (the bone's) on the island may not have been due to...a captive parrot of some type, brought to the island by sailors.

  As Olsen & Maíz López discuss, the discovery of a hitherto unknown macaw from the mainland in PR and St. Croix would be far more unlikely than would the alternative that there was a second native macaw in the Greater Antilles which happened to go extinct before European discovery. (And, of course, if there was another such species, presumably Wetmore's determination would still have priority, and it would still be Ara autochthones.)

• I need more than this type of seductive guessing

  I'm the first to admit that I don't understand palaeontology, but that doesn't make it "seductive guessing". Olsen is a senior scientist at the Smithsonian and seems to be a respectable enough member of his field.

• this is simply not enough to hypothesize that there was an insular endemic Ara on St. Croix

  The existence of one insular endemic Ara in the Greater Antilles is already well established. There's also a host of psittacines that are endemic to the Caribbean - many are actually single-island endemics restricted to areas much smaller than the Puerto Rican Bank (and, of course, Olsen & Maíz López speculate that it could well have been a Hispaniolan endemic in reality). Obviously the "common name" is misleading, but that's true of most common names. Guettarda (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the paper before from the point-of-view of my common sense and not as an expert. I note that the statistics for the length of bones that they used for comparison were based on very low numbers in the case of some species with bone lengths about the same as the "new species". For the An. leari five specimens are used, for A. militaris four specimens, and for A. glaucogularis bone measurements of two specimens are used to make a comparison with the length of the sub-fossil bones. I am not convinced. What sort of statistics is done on one or two specimens? It gives no notion of the standard deviations of bone lengths. I note that they compared their bones to the bones of an Amazon parrot, but to be water tight, should they compare it to the bones of every bird species that is likely to have been taken to the island? They speculate that the "new species" was kept and raised as a pet, and as far as I know hand-reared birds are smaller than those raised by their adults. I think that the paper needs to be reviewed, and its strengths and weaknesses discussed by experts, before it can be accepted unquestioningly onto a wiki article. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Snow, unfortunately, this is part and parcel of the effective lack in many cases of the raw numbers of paleontological samples, or of samples of birds for which there are effectively low numbers of anatomical remains. This happens even when we are talking about surely extant birds, but birds for which for various reasons the materials needed are scarse. Nowadays, we find this same difficulty with the determination of phylogenetic relationships among birds, because the required genetic material, when it even exists, exists in such meager sample numbers that it will always cause problems as far as the statistical confidence that can be endowed to results from low sample set numbers. It is just the way things are many times, unfortunately. However, I agree with you that this is a problem.--Steve Pryor (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why hundreds of measurements could not be made on pet parrots or zoo parrots for some of the species mentioned. Data could be collected for parent-raised birds and hand-reared birds and data collected to subspecies level or from defined geographic populations, if their local origins were known. The effect of growth retardation of by hand-raising birds needs to be fully discussed, because they mention that the these "new parrot" were likely to have been raised as pets. I presume, any effects on growth would tend to confound bone-length comparisons. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why hundreds of measurements could not be made on pet parrots or zoo parrots for some of the species mentioned - I can, money. Time. These are in short supply in the field of paleobiology. But Storrs Olsen is no rookie (his unwavering devotion to the birds aren't dinosaurs meme notwithstanding); if he says it is a new species I'm prepared to believe him until someone else comes along saying otherwise. It isn't like these people assign every bone to a new species every time they find one that doesn't match - Steadman found two parrot bones of unknown provenance on Easter Island, and they remain in his books as unidentified parrtos sp. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two pence worth of tar can prevent a boat from sinking. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda, I was speaking to the original premise of this question, i.e., the hypothesis that there was sufficient evidence to endow an insular endemic to the Island of St. Croix. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that there were other species of Ara in the Caribbean. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that there were not. It makes much more sense to me that in light of further evidence, always auspicable to flesh out the scant paleontological record of ancient psittacines, that there was one or more species of Ara with a wider range. My contestation was allowing an insular endemic to the extremely small island that is St. Croix, not to the wider question of there certainly having been other species of Ara, now extinct, and for which the record is still wanting. I have no reason to contest the finding of the paper for which you have provided a link, however here we have left behind St. Croix Macaw, and passed onto a much more reasoned, and reasonable, plane.--Steve Pryor (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the common name is unfortunate. As are far too many common names. Guettarda (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Who first reviewed this bird, and what did he say about the scientific species name? Because this should at least fix that matter...

As regards the matter at hand, I never got around to work on this, but it has the list of macaws and amazons from Matthews & Steadman, and a few bits more.Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised this paper without rigorous statistical analysis of bone lengths was published. Looking at the scatter of the 15 carpometacarpus measurements of the A. macao, which is from 59.3 to 68.1 mm and the scatter of the 19 measurements of A. ararauna (58.0 to 71.3 mm), I think that the single measurement of the "new parrots" bone 55.8 mm would not exclude it being An. leari (56.3-60.3 mm - five measurments), A. glaucogularis (53.4-57.6 - two measurments), or A. ararauna. The tibiotarsus bone lengths also have scatter and would not exclude the new bone being one of the known species from the mainland with similar bone lengths. The effect on retarding growth by hand-reading birds is also not considered and the "new parrot" could have been kept as a pet. Even parrots from the same brood are different sizes. There is no acknowledgement the a statistician worked on the paper. From a mathematical point of view I would reject the hypothesis that the bone lengths of the "new parrot" are significantly different from one, two or three known parrots species. In addition, because the bone were found with village waste and that parrots were kept as pets, the bones of the "new parrot" could have been a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So write a paper about it, have it published and we'll mention it in the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my point. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources The wiki policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. I think that this source needs treating with care and not by taking its interpretations on to the wiki without due discussion to put it in context. The wiki guideline is that it can only be used to "make descriptive claims" and not be a source for the interpretation that the bones represent a new species. I think that that this reference (about a new parrot - 2008) has been used outside of wiki guidelines, and amendments need to be made to the articles where it has been used, in order to follow the wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources . Clearly the 2008 papar on the "new Ara" fails this, and so it should not be used on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, [[primary sources are defined as:

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. (emphasis mine)

The bone artifacts are the primary source, the article of Olsen and Lopex is a secondary source, and a review article like the book you mention is a tertiary source. If we would use your definition, we have to eliminate many of the content in our articles, because we use a LOT of research articles that are not reviews. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The 2008 Olsen and Lopex article has the title "New evidence of Ara autochthones from an archeological site in Puerto Rico: a valid species of West Indian macaw of unknown geographical origin". It has new findings and ideas and is a primary source, in my opinion. This is the relevant section in the wiki guidelines about research articles: The wiki policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Snowman (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A journal article combines both primary and secondary sources, Snowman. If we were to take the results section of a journal article alone then we would be guilty of using primary sources only; but journal articles also have introductions and discussions, the job of which is to provide context and interpretation, aka the secondary sources you want. If the interpretation was as flawed as ypu maintain it would have come up during its peer review - decent articles by good scientists get rejected all the time you know. It has gotten past that stage, so for the moment there is no justification to omit the information or cast doubts on its verisimilitude beyond any doubts raised by either steadman's paper or that of Olsen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines mentions care due to the risk of misusing primary sources and this is what I am concerned about. To me the conclusion of the paper seems quite modest saying "... that there may have been only one other macaw in the Antilles apart from the Cuban Macaw Ara tricolor.", but this has been transported onto the wiki article to say that there was one other species. The conclusion lists a number of problems in interpreting the bones and these should be put in the wiki article too. The paper says: "birds could have been maintained in captivity in native villages through many other parts of the Antilles" and "it is altogether probable that macaws were likewise items of great prestige and value in the Antilles and would doubtless have been traded far and wide.", and "In northern Mexico and the American southwest, in areas where they do not occur naturally, macaws (mostly Ara macao) were an important item of commerce and ritual among Amerindians and large captive breeding facilities were maintained to sustain ritual sacrifices". The wiki article does mention transport of parrots between islands, but it does not mention the possibility of captive breeding. Captive breeding would raise the suspicion of hybrids among readers and possibly growth problems, and there were no bone lengths of hybrids compared in the paper. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't misuing a primary source, it's misusing a secondary source. So the issue is that there are caveats in the paper that aren't in the article? The solution is as obvious as it is simple, mention those caveats. As long as they are given the same weight in the article as they are in the paper that is perfectly acceptable. Incompletelness is hardly an uncommon problem here - we are few and we are trying to write thousands of articles. I haven't done more than glance at the paper, but it seems that even when presenting these potential problems they have still come down on the side that it is a valid species; so even though there may be problems we must to, for now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

<ri>Peer-reviewed scientific journals are generally considered far more reliable than mainstream newspapers, and are usually more reliable than university presses. Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the 2008 article as the view of the authors, so therefore I see it as a primary source. It contains phrases "we consider that it is probably ...", "we very much doubt that", "We may question even whether it occurred naturally on Puerto Rico.", and "we assume that Ara autochthones was a West Indian endemic." As far as I know, at this juncture a review article has not been published that includes relevant comment on the 2008 article. When an article for publication is peer reviewed prior to publication the reviewers appraisal is not published. Snowman (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/psit.html is specifically mentioned as a great source for taxonomy on the WP:Birds main page, but it only lists one extinct Ara, the Cuban Macaw. The list gives March 2009 as last update. I think that this view that there is only one extinct Ara should also be mentioned, as an alternative view to the "two extinct Ara" view. I do not know what is correct, the one or two extinct Ara view, but I think that both views should be mentioned, rather than putting only the two extinct Ara view of a 2008 research paper. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. Generally speaking, most taxonomic sources, even the most authoritative tax sources, do not generally list extinct species. You may sometimes find extinct species still listed if the date of the extinction is relatively recent. The description of extinct taxa of birds, is normally appanage of the scientific literature, and I have never seen an authoritative tax list update itself to include newly described, but already extinct, bird species. Most authoritative lists will update themselves in the contrary sense, i.e., after a certain number of years of having listed recently extinct species, they will eliminate their listing for a given extinct species. Lest I forget, this above is intended only as regarding bird taxonomic sources, for other higher vertebrates, e.g., Mammals, it is not unusual to see relatively recently extinct taxa described even within very authoritative works, v. Walker's Mammals of the World.--Steve Pryor (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Forshaw for example list both the Cuban and St. Croix Macaws. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What edition is it? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First and third. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit late I know. I do not see how the statistics in this paper can be considered problematic. They easily match those used in the majority of descriptions of long extinct species. At least when used in their context: It is true that the figures in table 1 for A. leari and A. glaucogularis are close to those of A. autochthones and that they are based on a small number of specimens, but these are species from central South America that based on zoogeography alone are highly unlikely to ever have inhabited any island in the West Indies. Trading is equally unlikely as there is no evidence of extensive trading between these far away regions. Not even in tools or artifacts which lack the high susceptibility of a macaw. Even if disregarding these things and assuming the figures indicated for A. leari and A. glaucogularis could overlap with those for A. autochthones there still are the structural differences described on page 218. That leaves A. ararauna with the statistically far more significant n = 19 and even the smallest there is ~4% from the figures for A. autochthones in both carpometacarpus and tibiotarsus, and disregarding size and robustness the carpometacarpus and tibiotarsus of A. ararauna are structurally similar to those of A. glaucogularis. If these differences are considered insignificant or the sampling is deemed too small you could say the same about >20% of all birds described on the basis of subfossil remains. I will leave the discussion over what exactly is a primary/secondary source per wiki logic to others but

WP:V specifically mentions 'Academic and peer-reviewed publications' as an example of a highly reliable source and I certainly agree. By default most scientific papers will present a new idea or information. Otherwise they wouldn't be published. Olson is not exactly a novice in this field and whatever comment he has about a long extinct species of bird is far more likely to be reliable and up-to-date than what can be found in popular science books. • Rabo³

• 01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)