Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#IUCN map reliability

WikiProject Birds
General information
Main project page talk
Naming and capitalization
 → Article requests
 → Spoken Article requests talk
 → Photo requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project portal talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Featured topics talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Country lists talk
Bird articles by size talk
Hot articles talk
Popular pages talk
Task forces
Domestic pigeon task force talk
Poultry task force talk
edit · changes

User:Pvmoutside

[edit]

I just noticed this old discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians#Pvmoutside - wonder if anyone knew him or contacted him personally? If so, someone should consider adding in a short memorial blurb at Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians. Shyamal (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Archive 3#Pvmoutside. I recall that the Wikipedian edited taxonomy and American birds. There are kind words at User talk:Pvmoutside, his user talk page. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scolopacidae subfamilies

[edit]

The pages for 4 (perhaps more) of scolopacid genera have subfamilies given. There are a couple of things which seem off about these.

  • For Prosobonia the subfamily is given as Calidrinae, and for Arenaria as Arenariinae, but the cladogram at Scolopacidae has these two genera plus Calidris in a trichotomy.
  • For Limosa the subfamily is given as Tringinae, but the genus is the second basalmost branch in the cladogram, distant from Tringa.

Reference to Google Scholar finds Cheser et al, Fifty-seventh Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds (2016) with 5 subfamilies, Numeniinae, Limosinae, Scolopacinae, Tringinae and Arenariinae (Arenariinae has priority over Calidrinae; Phalaropodinae is sunk in Tringinae).

Remove the subfamilies from the taxoboxes? or revise Scolopacidae to document the Cheser et al classification and modify all the genera taxoboxes in line? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subfamilies are often problematic as they are not listed by the IOC and different sources sometimes use different subfamily definitions. In addition, major phylogenetic studies sometimes ignore subfamilies altogether. Against this, when families have a large number of genera, it is convenient to split them up into subfamilies.
Chesser et al 2016 was published before the big study by Černý and Natale in 2022. In this case I think it is safer to remove subfamilies from the Taxonomy templates. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the cladogram in the article, which I assume to be based on Černý and Natale (2022) seems to line up with the Cheser et al subfamilies, i.e. all 5 subfamilies can be identified with non-overlapping clades in the cladogram. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, there isn't an obvious reliable source explicitly assigning all the genera to the different families (and Černý and Natale have one genus ambiguously placed). I presume that the [TiF Checklist (a personal website) doesn't qualify for Wikipedia purposes. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a shame the active global checklists don't use subfamilies. H&M use them, but that is rather dated now so can't be used without corraboration. The plans for online H&M5 seems to have been delayed or abandoned; the families they briefly published did have subfamily revisions. The Birdlife checklists had subfamilies based on the HBW series (updated in two volume summaries), but I recently noticed that the latest version (9.1) dropped the subfamilies. So subfamilies have to be got from more specialist studies.
Funnily enough I was looking at Scolopacidae subfamilies yesterday afternoon. The five subfamily revision in Chesser et al (2016) is discussed in this Proposal Set 2016-B, which has the cladogram they used as evidence (from Gibson & Baker, 2012). The SACC also opted for five subfamilies in SACC Proposal 555. H&M4 has the same subfamilies, apart from using Calidrinae Instead of Arenariinae, but their tribes are not consistent with the newer phylogenies. The Černý and Natale (2022) confirms the validity of 5 subfamilies as clades, and places the two genera not included in the Gibson & Baker study: Prosobonia in the Arenariinae clade and Lymnocryptes in Scolopacinae clade (they don't call them subfamilies, though). The sequence in AviList-2025 is also consistent with the five subfamily system. In short, I think we can use the subfamilies citing Chesser et al and Cerny & Natale.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purple swamphen splitting

[edit]

It looks like all the subspecies of Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) were prematurely elevated to species in 1998 based on an article published in a Dutch birding magazine.[1] The article based this action on poor understanding of a previously published genetic study by a different author. Notably, this previous study only looked at mitochondrial DNA which is not reliable for species delimitation, especially in birds. Newer papers have rejected elevating the subspecies, and more recent phylogenetic studies such as [2] still treat them as subspecies, noting only that “several subspecies and subspecies groups may represent species-level lineages.” The recently published AviList also rejected elevating the subspecies and remarked that:

The Porphyrio porphyrio complex is treated as a single polytypic species pending further research. Sometimes treated as six species based largely on mitochondrial-dominated DNA data (Sangster 1998; Garcia-R & Trewick 2015; Verry et al. 2023) that indicate deep divergences and paraphyly with respect to the two species of takahe, P. mantelli and P. hochstetteri. Available nuclear DNA data (Garcia-R & Trewick 2015) are mostly uninformative and mtDNA divergence times may be over-estimated. Further research incorporating denser sampling of nuclear DNA will be needed to determine species limits in this complex.

On Wikipedia, we currently treat all six subspecies as separate species. This seems to be in conflict with the current consensus of ornithologists and I think we need to change them back into subspecies in their respective articles. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus: Just for a bit of clarification - the Garcia-R & Trewick 2015 paper didn't "reject elevating the subspecies"; it was published before IOC and others formally split them; the splitting was actually based largely on that paper. - MPF (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The split was implemented in 2015 by the now sadly deceased Pvmoutside, so we can't ask him for the logic behind this decision. I'm not opposed to re-merging the articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't know they died. If there is no current scientific consensus for splitting, they should be merged back, unless we somehow find it worthwhile to keep the subspecies articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, we follow the IOC World Bird List (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/References) when it comes to such questions, and that list seems to list them as separate species. Other sources like "Birds of the World" also have them separate. I think we are good here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new collaborative AviList (see above) relumps them. I would expect the next IOC (15.2, due in July or August) to do so, as IOC members were major players in creating AviList. If so, that will be the time to combine the separate pages. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to keep them as per IOC 15.1 at least for the time being but mention the subspecies options on their respective pages; it would be a lot of nuisance to lump them all into one page and then have to re-separate them all again in a year or two when further research proves they are distinct after all . . . MPF (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, wait for now. eBird still separates them at the moment too (which I learned getting the Grey-headed as a lifer this year). Note that this lump hasn't been tabled for the next update either]. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone wants to read it, here's the Garcia-R & Trewick 2015 paper in The Auk (generally considered a highly reputable journal!); it's quite a bit more than just that 1998 Dutch Birding article. Must admit I was surprised when I saw the swamphens were getting relumped. - MPF (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be cautious about remerging the separate articles. Also, even if relumped, I suggest that Australasian swamphen has enough material for a standalone subspecies article. Maias (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Western Swamphen. Some of the others are still very brief, though. - MPF (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checked out Verry et al. 2023 (free access here); it too supports the paraphyly of Porphyrio porphyrio s.l. with respect to P. hochstetteri (Takahe) and P. mantelli. Makes it even stranger that Avilist proposes relumping; it surely won't last. - MPF (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: For what it's worth, IOC, Clements, and BirdLife International have all committed to transitioning to AviList.[3]. Verry et al. 2023 adds nothing useful to the species vs subspecies debate as it too relies completely on mitochondrial DNA, which is not reliable for species delimitation due to mitochondrial introgression. Nosferattus (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the Drama? album visuals

[edit]

Hey everyone. You are invited to a discussion on Talk:Am I the Drama? about whether the birds in the album's cover art (as well as the birds in the album trailer and the bird she brought to a recent fashion show) are ravens, crows, or blackbirds. This is a bit of an unconventional request for the WikiProject, but entertainment sources aren't exactly reliable for science-related things, so input from members of the WP is appreciated. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 03:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done; it's a Rook (Corvus frugilegus) - MPF (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Red-tailed hawk

[edit]

Red-tailed hawk has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeons in New York City

[edit]

Project members are invited to help the newly created Pigeons in New York City. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]