![]() | 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. |
Previous: Talk page archive 2005-2006
Next: Talk page archive 07-NOV-22 - 09-APR-15
Replied to your post at Domestic pig#Needs Attention.
:)
-- Alf 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
At last, I have met another biologist here, who is also sceptical about Ecdysozoa. It was rather hard to persuade Jefffire that to question this odd grouping is not just a POV by an old-fashioned Russian biologist. By the way, how many zoologists (if you know any, and for all I see, I suspect you do know some of them) support the Ecdysozoa hypothesis in your "intellectual environment"? Alexei Kouprianov 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No big deal, but I notice that this article has the US spelling of "behavior", which seems a bit odd if this bird is split from the NAm forms. Would you object to changing to the spelling standard in Europe? Jimfbleak. talk. 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis; I have uploaded a new picture of Melospiza melodia, Image:Melospiza_melodia_31766.JPG, that may be better than my earlier Image:Melospiza_melodia_01450t.JPG. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi ! I am sure you have seen the Livezey paper [1]. Wonder if bird can do with some updates. Shyamal 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for fixing and expanding the articles which I created about the new species. Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx) 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Boy, does that article need some expansion. Before that, please take a look at the argument I've made in favor of re-reverting to Columbina on Talk:Inca Dove. I won't re-revert until we've come to a final consensus, but I've simply followed the AOU / SACC lead on this, and, well, they're the authorities on the matter, not I. Thoughts? -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 09:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey mate. Do you know if any family name is in the works for the Hihi? I mean, the page is kind of wierd at the moment, the family is 'monotypic' and the cat is still honeyeater. It looks kind half finished. (As a boastful aside, Stitchbirds are one of my study species for my PhD! I hope I can get a photo of them doing the face to face breeding for the page!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please remove the categories from User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox7? I am working on cleaning up categories for North American animals, and this sandbox page is very distracting. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I'm trying to raise Bird to feature article status from its present good article classification. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated............Thanks.. Pmeleski 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dys,
I know that you are leaving for a trip soon, but you seem to be our go-to guy when it comes to fossil birds. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team is planning to send Archaeopteryx to FAC soon, and, quite frankly, this article is a bit of a mess. I do understand that you are incredibly busy now, but when you do have an opportunity, could you give the article a quick glance to see what we're missing? Since this is the only article we've extensively reworked which overlaps into the WikiProject Birds area, comments from someone more familiar with fossil avians or avians in general is crucial. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello I have a little problem whith this statement:
EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna
The EFBC Act listed Zosterops albogularis as extinct since 2000. But Birdlife is knowing of least two confirmated sightings in 2003 and 2005. So how can a goverment body say that this bird is extinct? -- Melly42 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I liked your contribution at bunyip. I was going to try to include those points myself. Do you think the link Aboriginal mythology might be better further down? Perhaps where you differentiate between the folk and indigenous myths. Regards, Fred 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning to spend a bit of time in the next couple of weeks or so trying to improve Slender-billed Curlew, with the aim of bringing it up to GA status. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated at the article's talk page. Thanks SP-KP 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it you're back from your field trip, hope it was fun (or at least tolerable). I'm sure you noticed that we ignored your advice and went ahead and took on bird. As part of it I split out bird evolution today so that I can hack down and reorganise the section in the main article (a task I am not looking forward to). It's just the old section at the moment, but I'll try and work on it, and since you're our best taxonomist/evolutionist I thought I'd better flag it up. Incidenatlly, have you see this paper ...
and the related bun fights, I mean, replies? Quite interesting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I split the Wandering Jew pages up like you suggested. Double check if you want to, but I think I did it correctly. Dark jedi requiem 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever know that you're my hero? and ev'rything I would like to be? I can fly higher than an eagle, 'cause you are the wind beneath my wings. Seriously though, amazing work. Looks like we have some more family pages to create and write. I did one of the finches today, and I'll hunt down some info on the Hyliotidae tomorrow. I saw one of those in Uganda and the guide book stated that it was an oddball lumped in with the warblers for no particularly good reason. Nice to get a little resolution on that. Nice little bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a paper that uses this name? I have Fuchs (2006) which talks about the deep split but I can't find a ref on the name. He doesn't propose it in the paper as far as I can see. Maybe we have a Stitchbird like situation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the page be moved to Sylviidae and Old World warbler. No disagreements here, tomorrow's Anzac Day so I should get extra time to work on some of those families. Are you a syop, can you do the move? If not it can be proposed at WP:BIRD and Jim or Cas can do it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a copy of the Pasquet paper ? Shyamal 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis, I have opened a small conversation about your recent edit to the wedding article. You opinion would be very welcome. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be even better if you would do more in-line references. Snowman 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can you correct the following sentence please:
I'd do it myself but I don't know what you're trying to say. Thanks. Mwng 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In view of your recent taxonomic changes, could you have a look at this article please. Also, although I've written it with the name above, Fairy Flycatcher is currently its usual name. Should I move it? Jimfbleak.;; comment here 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you moved up the bird parvorders to infraorder status. Granted, whether some of them are parvorders or infraorders depends upon the taxonomy used as a reference, I was wondering whether the change was made due to anything more than personal preference. I didn't notice anything on WP:BIRD about a change. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, I added them to the article. TimVickers 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous user has hacked at the entry's systematics and taxonomy and left the following edit summary added reference; corrected prejudicial, unprofessional, and erroneous assertions. Don't know much about that order, what are your thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I noticed your changes around articles pertaining to Neoepiblemidae. You cite a source via comments in Phoberomys, but would you mind writing out the complete source in a references section somewhere? Perhaps Neoepiblemidae would be most appropriate. The articles need references to begin with, probably McKenna and Bell, 1997, but this is particularly true now that there appears to be some controversy and changes. -- Aranae 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have a pdf you could email me of the paper (Pasquet et al (2006): The fulvettas (Alcippe, Timaliidae, Aves): a polyphyletic group. Zoologica Scripta 35: 559–566.). I've been waiting for this article for a while now and I'm hopeful it'll make the polyphyletic Alcippe situation a little clearer. Love what you've done with Old World Warblers and Babblers by the way. Great stuff!! -- Deargan 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So is the new Capitonidae split mostly geographical or is it another big shock. Would love the reference for this as well. Shyamal 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Done! (except for ref) Now to the African guys... the reason I originally came here. Dysmorodrepanis 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have commented here on Guinea Pig FAC - I am keen for others input, either to support if they think I'm nitpicking or to comment/help out etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis, just seen your makeover on the back of my fiddlings. Are there any layouts or pages you'd prefer I didn't drastically alter? It would save me a lot of effort if I knew beforehand.-- Deargan 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Somehow the image Image:Gaviidae Distribuzione.jpg has disappeared from the Loon page. Any idea what happened to it? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 02:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. Common Raven is now at FAC and needs a ref for the following paragraph: "In the Faroe Islands a pied colour-morph of this species occurred among all-black birds; known as the Pied Raven, it eventually disappeared in the mid 20th Century, probably due to selective collection for its unusual plumage." Would you be able to supply a ref for it? The sources at Pied Raven are in German and Danish, languages I don't understand, so I'm not comfortable citing them myself. Kla'quot 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, wonder if you might be able to help obtain a free photo of a bird skin or a tray full of them to illustrate the article on ornithology. thanks. Shyamal 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You added this as a comment embedded in one of your edits. What do you mean by this? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The stuff I've added here is not part of a 'to do' list so if your agreeable I'll shift them all to the relevant talk pages. Deargan 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis:
I'm working on a flight feathers article (tying together several stubs we now have floating around) and would love to get some references to cite for the species and rectrices numbers you provided in the current Rectrices article. Can you help with information on where you found the Ostrich, grouse and domestic pigeon counts? Thanks much! MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi E ! since you are in a butterfly mood, maybe we should get some of these articles in order. I pulled up butterfly a bit, but there are still some related articles like the one on migration - Butterfly and moth migration that need to be overhauled (not to mention the article name). Thanks for the many fixes on the Indian species lists ! Cheers. Shyamal 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice job, thanks! Are you "caretaking" this article? If so, would you consider one of us (you or me) resequencing the list taxonomically (as it was when I finished the list without the headings), or do you think that the differences between the European and North American taxonomic sequences make that unhelpful? Cheers— GRM 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, was the verification tag for the female alone ? I would have few reasons to distrust the label information from a museum source like that. The only problem can be taxonomic changes, but the image has a subspecies and location noted. Shyamal 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You undid changes to Satyrinae by Carlosp420 but did not give any reason in article talk page or edit summary. User:Carlosp420 is a lepidopterist and member of WikiProject Lepidoptera. Could you please explain the reason for this? AshLin 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, please see [3]. Would you make more clear your statement about "the only known occurrence of the Alcini tribe outside the Atlantic"? Extant Uria are found outside the Atlantic. I'd like to understand what you meant to convey. Thanks, 68.121.161.71 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Have at it! I already added an example, though, and there are a couple on the Talk page that I could add.
My criterion so far has just been whether the examples are cool and show the breadth of meaning of "polymorphism", but we may have to give some attention to how the examples section is organized (it's time for sub-heads) and what fits in the organization. — JerryFriedman 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I sent you an email, hope you received it. Shyamal 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to thank you for your efforts on various Ediacaran organisms! They're much appreciated, as Wikipedia's coverage of these critters is remarkably poor!
I would just take issue with your confident designation of them all to kingdom animalia. This is rather POV and there's no consensus on their true home - better perhaps to use the eukaryote colour (#e0d0b0) for the taxobox and discuss affinities in the text?
Thanks a lot,,
Verisimilus T 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen this paper? Bradley C. Livezey (1996) A Phylogenetic Analysis of Geese and Swans (Anseriformes: Anserinae), Including Selected Fossil Species, Systematic Biology 45, No. 4. pp. 415-450 Seems that placing the moa-nalos with Anas might be wrong. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"Come again? This is not Scansiopteryx. It's a basal oviraptorosaur (or oviraptorid?), and these have been around long enough that 90% of scientists agree that they're sister to either Avialae or Paraves. I'd call that "mainstream opinion"... ...such a statement might clarify things for people who haven't read any of the more recent papers on theropod systematics and evolution, but just one of the G-raptor media reports... "
(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That anonymous contributor on Strigogyps and Sophiornithidae got me to thinking... So, is Strigogyps a sophiornithid or a gruid? I can't find much information either way. As such, I've started work on reconstructing Sophiornis proper... Are the legs ok?-- Mr Fink 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Mikovsky says in J.Ornithol. 139: 247-261:
The tarsometatarsus is very stout, trochleae are open in distal view, and external hypotarsal ridge is blunt. In these features Palaeobyas
differs from the Tytoninae, and agrees with Sophiornis and Berruornis, which are placed in the family Sophiomithidae (Mourer-
Chauviré 1987, 1994). Hence, Palaeobyas should be removed from the Tytoninae, and placed in the Sophiornithidae.
Hi. Could you please give your opinion concerning this matter: Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest. (Related to this one: Talk:Rodrigues (island)#Soapbox)
Thanks in advance. Aeons | Talk 07:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've finally got round to dealing with the referencing issues in this article which you raised earlier in the year. Can you look at it and let me know if you're comfortable with the outcome? I didn't include the article in the Auk in the taxonomy paragraph, as I didn't think it was that relevant to the specific point under discussion, but it does look interesting and should be definitely mentioned in the article as an example of research on the genus. SP-KP 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know (to avodid duplicating or losing efforts) that I'm working on a new list of honeyeaters for the article. the current species list misses well over half the species and has some genera missing too. If you want to have a look it is at User:Sabine's Sunbird/making a point. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to get technical about this, but Engel's revision is the definitve work on honey bee CLASSIFICATION. Arias & Sheppard's paper assumed that the named taxa they examined were valid, but they are not, and no one has yet published a newer classification refuting Engel. Furthermore, it is not a paper on classification (taxonomy), but on taxon relationships (phylogeny); it is true they argue in the discussion that nuluensis and nigrocincta should be categorized as species, but no one has yet published such a nomenclatural act. They are ARGUING that genetic divergence is enough to make something a species, but the taxonomic community has yet to agree with this premise. There is no established "cutoff" for the genetic divergence of a species from a subspecies. For the time being, these taxa are all subspecies. Until such a publication raising these taxa to species status appears, the WP article should reflect the accepted classification, otherwise it constitutes "original research". There is nothing wrong with mentioning that Arias & Sheppard believe that these subspecies deserve species status, but the WP article should portray this dispute accurately. Dyanega 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the bird stubs this bot has been creating? It's made a bunch of stubs of your Malagasy warblers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I was assessing some previously unassessed bird articles tonight, and discovered this weirdness in the Short-toed Treecreeper article. I'm not sure how to fix it, because I'm assuming you added the bit about the close relationship to North America's Brown Creeper based on the article you cite (which I don't have access to). However, the next sentence no longer makes any sense, since the two don't occupy the same continent. (Here's the diff file, so you can see where the problem is.) I don't want to just revert it, because obviously you put some work into finding the reference, but I'm wondering—is the Common Treecreeper not closely related? Would you mind taking a look to see if you can sort it out? Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis, I'm out of town right now so it will take me at least a week to get the picture scanned. I think what I'll do is scan it at the highest resolution I can and e-mail it to you; you can then reduce the resolution as needed. Please let me know if this will be a problem. Sounds like a good book :) Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The photo Image:Painted Lady - Vanessa cardui - large.JPG was taken in England. I've added that to the image description, but I'm not sure how to change the taxobox at Painted Lady so I'll leave that part to you :) -- Tarquin 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. As you might have seen (or you'll see) at the WP:BIRD discussion page, I'm wondering why you put that citation at two species in Ploceidae. Was it by any chance to support the choice of English name? — JerryFriedman 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. As yours was the most specific of the comments on my proposal to split up the above stub type, I thought I'd ask you to review what I've done so far, now that the immediate "oversized crisis" is over. I've tried to address your concerns about the "dustbin" families by only populating those with the narrow-sense genera as indicated on the corresponding articles here, though given the obvious caveats about Wikipedia as a source, that might itself be questionable. There's still rather a lot of articles left in Category:Passerine stubs (which should probably actually be Category:Passeriformes stubs, given that the permanent category's at Category:Passeriformes?), but I'm holding off on systematic re-sorting to Category:Passeri stubs, since that would appear to be by far the majority of the remainder. I could further re-split into Category:Passerida stubs (with or without the alleged sibling Category:Corvida stubs), but I'll hold off or doing or formally proposing that for now. Alai 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As a member of WP:BIRD you are invited to this month's collaboration
The current
WikiProject Birds collaboration article is
Preening (bird). The previous collaboration was: Tinamou. Feel free to cast your vote for next month's article |
Shyamal 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that some time ago you collapsed the species list to genus level. I'm not keen on this in general because it makes it less easy to use, but on the whole I can live with it. The problem is the red-linked genera, where the component species effectively disappear from view. I shouldn't have to do a full search of Wikipedia to find the species. The alternative would be to make the alphabetical list into a sortable (by English and binomial name) table. I know it can be done, because I saw it some weeks ago, but I can't remember where. Do you know how to do this? Jimfbleak 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:46:01 +0100 From: Roderic Page <r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk> Subject: [Taxacom] Bird supertree -- open source phylogenetics To: TAXACOM <taxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu> Message-ID: <D67EB50B-C8C2-4E05-A20B-B66058FD2845@bio.gla.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed We are building a bird supertree, and would like your help. Katie Davis ( PhD student in my lab ) has assembled a large number of source trees, constructed an MRP matrix, and has put online a first, very crude supertree. As an experiment we invite anybody interested to download the data and try their hand at building a supertree. We provide a form for uploading any supertrees that result, and a simple viewer to help navigate a tree of this size online. Our hope is to encourage a competition to find the "best" supertree. Participants will get credit in the resulting paper. For more details please visit http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/ ~rpage/birdsupertree/. Regards Rod ---------------------------------------- Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html iChat: aim://rodpage1962 reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Taxacom Mailing List Taxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
I came across this stub when working through list of bird genera. As a fossil, should it be in the list? Jimfbleak 13:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
First, let's get one thing straight, it is a content dispute, not vandalism (I am not doing this in order to disrupt Wikipedia, and neither do I think you're trying to disrupt WP either). Second, "calico" and "tortoiseshell-and-white" are variants of the tortoiseshell pattern, which is the subject here. The tortoiseshell pattern is characterized by both eumelanistc and pheomelanistic colors, so the cat in the current picture, especially given that its colors are brindled and not patched, is a tortoiseshell ("calico" or "tortoiseshell-and-white" entails patched colors). Finally, I looked up the standards of the FiFé and the GCCF, and neither makes a sharp distinction between tortoiseshell and tortoiseshell-and-white, so I would appreciate if you could supply some references that back your claim before it is accepted.-- Ramdrake 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm restoring the Species_problem page for the following reasons:
- So far as I know no species concept says anything directly about subspecies so including particular claims of the BSC and PSC regarding subspecies has the effect of bringing in issues that are not accessible to general readers
- There are other specific claims that one might include, either for the BSC or the PSC, that are of similar scope with regard to utility at the point you make. By making this particular one the article misleading suggests that the point is of primary importance. Understandably it is an important point for many, but for others there are other more important claims against the PSC (or BSC - take your pick)
- The article is not really about species concepts, but rather the place of species concepts within debates about species.
hope this is not a problem Karebh 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:Ichthyornis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:Ichthyornis has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:Ichthyornis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
06:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis! Question: what do you mean by your last edit to Crotalus atrox? Is it supposed to be a reference? If so, it should be expanded and added to the "Other references" section. -- Jwinius 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! Jauerback 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for a paper in the Bulletin of the BOC. Is this perhaps available in electronic form within your reach ? Ali,Salim (1980): India ornithology: The current trends. BBOC 100(1), 80-83
Even an abstract would suffice for my purpose. thanks Shyamal 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for including another meaning for emesis on vomiting. I have encapsulated it all in a {{ dablink}} template, to make the disambiguation header non-printable in skins that support printing.
I don't normally support disambiguation of articles that do not exist. Are you planning to write a page on emesis butterflies? JFW | T@lk 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, hi Dysmorodrepanis, I was just wondering what you're up to with edits like your recent ones to coffee [5], coffee in the global economy [6], grouse [7], etc. You seem to be adding references to articles without actually referencing them in the text or even telling anyone what they are or how they relate to the subject matter. I'm sure you have some brilliant master plan with all this, I was just wondering if you could share it? Thanks!-- Margareta 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this look too owl-y [8] for Sophiornis?-- Mr Fink 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please check out Special:Contributions/Luna_perige and see if the editor's contributions are genuine? I think they're hoaxes but I'm not an expert on birds. -- NeilN 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
His changes to ʻApapane and Iiwi might be OK (I don't have the knowledge to comment) but the rest were transparent nonsense. Lavateraguy 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I noticed. But the story behind it was interesting. Pretty good timetable too. Dysmorodrepanis 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dysmo. Great to see improvements at Grayish Saltator. Wait, Greyish? Why did you change the spelling?
Also, fui doesn't have an accent on the i (any more). Did you know the Dictionary of the Royal Academy is on the Web? Search for ser and then click the Conjugar button at the top.
I can live (though in pain) with ampersands, caps and small caps, and a lack of serial commas, but I can't live with footnotes before commas and periods. See the style manual.
If we need a bit of classification at the beginning, I suggest saying that this bird is part of the vast nine-primaried songbird assemblage and saving the family question for the Systematics section. — JerryFriedman 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are being very conservative about the Hieraaetus->Aquila and restricting the change to only the exemplars used in the research papers. It however appears that even Hieraaetus kienerii has become Aquila kienerii. See [9] Shyamal 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look on the Talk page of p/morphism article you'll see I've thought about two of your suggestions for examples, namely the fantastic mini-frog Leiopelina and the Gammarid Dikerogamarus. Both were well worth getting to know; but neither would make a really good example (I think). Dikero is clearly p/morphic, but authors have no idea how it relates to its ecology, or its genetics; and most of the mini-frog variants are geographical races. I've excerpted some stuff (from the web) which I used, and which you might look at; its placed in the same section as your refs. I do this, temporarily perhaps, since you offer no e-mail link and this is the only way I can show you what I've been looking at. Regards, Macdonald-ross 13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello there - thanks for your edits to Indonesia articles. Could you please use the term "Indonesian" rather than "Bahasa Indonesia" - we should stick to the English terms here on English wikipedia. Ie, we say "German", not "Deutsch". Also, please link it to Indonesian language, not Bahasa Indonesia. Any questions, please let me know. thanks! -- Merbabu 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a photo on the poa article. I've probably bungled the description as I don't understand glumes and spikelets. I was basically looking to post a photo showing why bluegrass is called bluegrass and I don't see any photos anywhere that catch it the right time. Today, I stumbled on a bunch of grasses that appeared at the right time. I have a bunch more photos I can post to Flickr if that would be helpful. Thanks. Americasroof 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. In Mountain Trogon, you added information from Herrera et al. that the altitudinal range is 600 to 1200 m, but Howell and Webb say 1200 to 3500 m. I have a feeling Herrera et al. made a mistake—under 1200 m seems too low to call a mountain (at least in Mexico and Central America) and too low for pine trees in the tropics. I added the Howell and Webb numbers with a note that they disagree, but what do you think? — JerryFriedman 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"En Honduras se le encuentra entre 600 y 1,200 m.s.n.m., en bosques de pino y pino-encino (Monroe 1968)" ("In Honduras one encounters them between 600 - 1,200 m ASL in pine and pine-oak woodland")
Did you take a look at the forward I made you earlier (Rodney Page) http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/birdsupertree/ There are some results here http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/birdsupertree/results.php
Do you know of any opensource/freeware that can read and allow manipulation of large MRP data (as provided there) ? Shyamal 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you are the one who added the reference to the Perica butterfly genus to the Perica article. I am curious about this genus, predominantly due to its name being Perica, and wish to find out more but know not where to look. Why don't you create a stub article for this topic? I would do it myself, but this butterfly seems to be particularly esoteric and I know not where to look for information, though by observation of your edit history I am given the impression that you are knowledgeable enough about such things. Thanks. — Hrvat4568 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeh same mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xolith ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a "more than" missing from the article? - it seems to me that the variation in larval morphology and ecology would have been cause to suspect the presence of cryptic species. Lavateraguy 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I translated European Robin into ヨーロッパコマドリ in Japanese Wikipedia. Please tell me. What is the source of your edit: "Although the authors conclude that both Tenerife and Gran Canaria populations are..." ? Is this your original research? -- Iceheron 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis: Just checking (since the reference I have to hand isn't specific on this)—does an individual bird have a single rectricial bulb, or one on each side of the tail? MeegsC | Talk 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You added a hatnote with a redlink in [10]. It's discussed at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Disambiguation. Are you planning to create the article or do you have any comments? PrimeHunter 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any current paleontologist scholar of the Blancan believes that it ended with the end of the Pliocene, although others would like it to fit nicely in the box. Read the cited sources. The dating dispute is all between ending dates within the Pleistocene. -- Bejnar 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Cyperus esculentus is listed in Cornucopia: A Source Book for Edible Plants as having edible leaves. That's why it's listed in List of plants with edible leaves. Do you have a citation that says that they're inedible by humans? I'd be happy to remove it from the database if so. Barring that, I think that we need to leave it on the page, since that's currently the most authoritative information we've got available. Thanks! Waitak 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup of Indian butterflies wikis. Much appreciated. AshLin ( talk) 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't sure what you were getting at in your message, so I thought I'd check - do you mean double redirects? If so, won't the bots pick those up? They seem to whenever I do this kind of thing usually? If you meant something else, let me know. Thanks. SP-KP ( talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently in North-West Greenland, in the town Upernavik. There I found this infected willow (probably Salix arctica, maybe Salix glauca) ( see also here). I noticed you are a main contributor to an article about bugs feeding on willow. Have you got any idea what hit this willow? I plan to upload the photos to Commons once I understand what is going on and can give the photos a meaningful name. -- Slaunger ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw your recent page move regarding this page. It showed up in the WP:PLANTS assessment log. Anyway, I just wanted to mention a couple conventions you may not have been aware of for future moves. 1) Regarding common names and article titles, it's been something discussed without consensus, so much like non-national topics and their British English vs. American English spellings, WP:PLANTS has never come to a conclusion and therefore considers the style of the first major contributor to be the one to follow. The larger convention, however, appears to prefer lowercase when it's not a proper noun. 2) That's all rather moot, though, since this species also falls under WP:NC (flora) which prefers article titles at scientific names unless it meets one of the given exceptions, which it doesn't look like this page does. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about those conventions so you can use them as you wish. Oh, and I've left a note at WP:RM for an admin with those capabilities to move the page to the species name title. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I'm sure you mean well, but what is the purpose of the vague references to "PacificScience61:36" that you recently added to Vipera ammodytes, Trimeresurus and Bothrops atrox? It looks like a reference to a scientific journal; have you found some interesting articles in it? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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. |
Previous: Talk page archive 2005-2006
Next: Talk page archive 07-NOV-22 - 09-APR-15
Replied to your post at Domestic pig#Needs Attention.
:)
-- Alf 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
At last, I have met another biologist here, who is also sceptical about Ecdysozoa. It was rather hard to persuade Jefffire that to question this odd grouping is not just a POV by an old-fashioned Russian biologist. By the way, how many zoologists (if you know any, and for all I see, I suspect you do know some of them) support the Ecdysozoa hypothesis in your "intellectual environment"? Alexei Kouprianov 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No big deal, but I notice that this article has the US spelling of "behavior", which seems a bit odd if this bird is split from the NAm forms. Would you object to changing to the spelling standard in Europe? Jimfbleak. talk. 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis; I have uploaded a new picture of Melospiza melodia, Image:Melospiza_melodia_31766.JPG, that may be better than my earlier Image:Melospiza_melodia_01450t.JPG. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi ! I am sure you have seen the Livezey paper [1]. Wonder if bird can do with some updates. Shyamal 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for fixing and expanding the articles which I created about the new species. Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx) 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Boy, does that article need some expansion. Before that, please take a look at the argument I've made in favor of re-reverting to Columbina on Talk:Inca Dove. I won't re-revert until we've come to a final consensus, but I've simply followed the AOU / SACC lead on this, and, well, they're the authorities on the matter, not I. Thoughts? -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 09:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey mate. Do you know if any family name is in the works for the Hihi? I mean, the page is kind of wierd at the moment, the family is 'monotypic' and the cat is still honeyeater. It looks kind half finished. (As a boastful aside, Stitchbirds are one of my study species for my PhD! I hope I can get a photo of them doing the face to face breeding for the page!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please remove the categories from User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox7? I am working on cleaning up categories for North American animals, and this sandbox page is very distracting. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I'm trying to raise Bird to feature article status from its present good article classification. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated............Thanks.. Pmeleski 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dys,
I know that you are leaving for a trip soon, but you seem to be our go-to guy when it comes to fossil birds. The WikiProject Dinosaurs team is planning to send Archaeopteryx to FAC soon, and, quite frankly, this article is a bit of a mess. I do understand that you are incredibly busy now, but when you do have an opportunity, could you give the article a quick glance to see what we're missing? Since this is the only article we've extensively reworked which overlaps into the WikiProject Birds area, comments from someone more familiar with fossil avians or avians in general is crucial. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello I have a little problem whith this statement:
EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna
The EFBC Act listed Zosterops albogularis as extinct since 2000. But Birdlife is knowing of least two confirmated sightings in 2003 and 2005. So how can a goverment body say that this bird is extinct? -- Melly42 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I liked your contribution at bunyip. I was going to try to include those points myself. Do you think the link Aboriginal mythology might be better further down? Perhaps where you differentiate between the folk and indigenous myths. Regards, Fred 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning to spend a bit of time in the next couple of weeks or so trying to improve Slender-billed Curlew, with the aim of bringing it up to GA status. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated at the article's talk page. Thanks SP-KP 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it you're back from your field trip, hope it was fun (or at least tolerable). I'm sure you noticed that we ignored your advice and went ahead and took on bird. As part of it I split out bird evolution today so that I can hack down and reorganise the section in the main article (a task I am not looking forward to). It's just the old section at the moment, but I'll try and work on it, and since you're our best taxonomist/evolutionist I thought I'd better flag it up. Incidenatlly, have you see this paper ...
and the related bun fights, I mean, replies? Quite interesting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I split the Wandering Jew pages up like you suggested. Double check if you want to, but I think I did it correctly. Dark jedi requiem 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever know that you're my hero? and ev'rything I would like to be? I can fly higher than an eagle, 'cause you are the wind beneath my wings. Seriously though, amazing work. Looks like we have some more family pages to create and write. I did one of the finches today, and I'll hunt down some info on the Hyliotidae tomorrow. I saw one of those in Uganda and the guide book stated that it was an oddball lumped in with the warblers for no particularly good reason. Nice to get a little resolution on that. Nice little bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a paper that uses this name? I have Fuchs (2006) which talks about the deep split but I can't find a ref on the name. He doesn't propose it in the paper as far as I can see. Maybe we have a Stitchbird like situation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the page be moved to Sylviidae and Old World warbler. No disagreements here, tomorrow's Anzac Day so I should get extra time to work on some of those families. Are you a syop, can you do the move? If not it can be proposed at WP:BIRD and Jim or Cas can do it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a copy of the Pasquet paper ? Shyamal 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis, I have opened a small conversation about your recent edit to the wedding article. You opinion would be very welcome. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be even better if you would do more in-line references. Snowman 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can you correct the following sentence please:
I'd do it myself but I don't know what you're trying to say. Thanks. Mwng 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In view of your recent taxonomic changes, could you have a look at this article please. Also, although I've written it with the name above, Fairy Flycatcher is currently its usual name. Should I move it? Jimfbleak.;; comment here 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you moved up the bird parvorders to infraorder status. Granted, whether some of them are parvorders or infraorders depends upon the taxonomy used as a reference, I was wondering whether the change was made due to anything more than personal preference. I didn't notice anything on WP:BIRD about a change. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, I added them to the article. TimVickers 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous user has hacked at the entry's systematics and taxonomy and left the following edit summary added reference; corrected prejudicial, unprofessional, and erroneous assertions. Don't know much about that order, what are your thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I noticed your changes around articles pertaining to Neoepiblemidae. You cite a source via comments in Phoberomys, but would you mind writing out the complete source in a references section somewhere? Perhaps Neoepiblemidae would be most appropriate. The articles need references to begin with, probably McKenna and Bell, 1997, but this is particularly true now that there appears to be some controversy and changes. -- Aranae 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have a pdf you could email me of the paper (Pasquet et al (2006): The fulvettas (Alcippe, Timaliidae, Aves): a polyphyletic group. Zoologica Scripta 35: 559–566.). I've been waiting for this article for a while now and I'm hopeful it'll make the polyphyletic Alcippe situation a little clearer. Love what you've done with Old World Warblers and Babblers by the way. Great stuff!! -- Deargan 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So is the new Capitonidae split mostly geographical or is it another big shock. Would love the reference for this as well. Shyamal 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Done! (except for ref) Now to the African guys... the reason I originally came here. Dysmorodrepanis 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have commented here on Guinea Pig FAC - I am keen for others input, either to support if they think I'm nitpicking or to comment/help out etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis, just seen your makeover on the back of my fiddlings. Are there any layouts or pages you'd prefer I didn't drastically alter? It would save me a lot of effort if I knew beforehand.-- Deargan 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Somehow the image Image:Gaviidae Distribuzione.jpg has disappeared from the Loon page. Any idea what happened to it? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 02:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. Common Raven is now at FAC and needs a ref for the following paragraph: "In the Faroe Islands a pied colour-morph of this species occurred among all-black birds; known as the Pied Raven, it eventually disappeared in the mid 20th Century, probably due to selective collection for its unusual plumage." Would you be able to supply a ref for it? The sources at Pied Raven are in German and Danish, languages I don't understand, so I'm not comfortable citing them myself. Kla'quot 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, wonder if you might be able to help obtain a free photo of a bird skin or a tray full of them to illustrate the article on ornithology. thanks. Shyamal 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You added this as a comment embedded in one of your edits. What do you mean by this? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The stuff I've added here is not part of a 'to do' list so if your agreeable I'll shift them all to the relevant talk pages. Deargan 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis:
I'm working on a flight feathers article (tying together several stubs we now have floating around) and would love to get some references to cite for the species and rectrices numbers you provided in the current Rectrices article. Can you help with information on where you found the Ostrich, grouse and domestic pigeon counts? Thanks much! MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi E ! since you are in a butterfly mood, maybe we should get some of these articles in order. I pulled up butterfly a bit, but there are still some related articles like the one on migration - Butterfly and moth migration that need to be overhauled (not to mention the article name). Thanks for the many fixes on the Indian species lists ! Cheers. Shyamal 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice job, thanks! Are you "caretaking" this article? If so, would you consider one of us (you or me) resequencing the list taxonomically (as it was when I finished the list without the headings), or do you think that the differences between the European and North American taxonomic sequences make that unhelpful? Cheers— GRM 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, was the verification tag for the female alone ? I would have few reasons to distrust the label information from a museum source like that. The only problem can be taxonomic changes, but the image has a subspecies and location noted. Shyamal 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You undid changes to Satyrinae by Carlosp420 but did not give any reason in article talk page or edit summary. User:Carlosp420 is a lepidopterist and member of WikiProject Lepidoptera. Could you please explain the reason for this? AshLin 07:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, please see [3]. Would you make more clear your statement about "the only known occurrence of the Alcini tribe outside the Atlantic"? Extant Uria are found outside the Atlantic. I'd like to understand what you meant to convey. Thanks, 68.121.161.71 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Have at it! I already added an example, though, and there are a couple on the Talk page that I could add.
My criterion so far has just been whether the examples are cool and show the breadth of meaning of "polymorphism", but we may have to give some attention to how the examples section is organized (it's time for sub-heads) and what fits in the organization. — JerryFriedman 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I sent you an email, hope you received it. Shyamal 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to thank you for your efforts on various Ediacaran organisms! They're much appreciated, as Wikipedia's coverage of these critters is remarkably poor!
I would just take issue with your confident designation of them all to kingdom animalia. This is rather POV and there's no consensus on their true home - better perhaps to use the eukaryote colour (#e0d0b0) for the taxobox and discuss affinities in the text?
Thanks a lot,,
Verisimilus T 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen this paper? Bradley C. Livezey (1996) A Phylogenetic Analysis of Geese and Swans (Anseriformes: Anserinae), Including Selected Fossil Species, Systematic Biology 45, No. 4. pp. 415-450 Seems that placing the moa-nalos with Anas might be wrong. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"Come again? This is not Scansiopteryx. It's a basal oviraptorosaur (or oviraptorid?), and these have been around long enough that 90% of scientists agree that they're sister to either Avialae or Paraves. I'd call that "mainstream opinion"... ...such a statement might clarify things for people who haven't read any of the more recent papers on theropod systematics and evolution, but just one of the G-raptor media reports... "
(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That anonymous contributor on Strigogyps and Sophiornithidae got me to thinking... So, is Strigogyps a sophiornithid or a gruid? I can't find much information either way. As such, I've started work on reconstructing Sophiornis proper... Are the legs ok?-- Mr Fink 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Mikovsky says in J.Ornithol. 139: 247-261:
The tarsometatarsus is very stout, trochleae are open in distal view, and external hypotarsal ridge is blunt. In these features Palaeobyas
differs from the Tytoninae, and agrees with Sophiornis and Berruornis, which are placed in the family Sophiomithidae (Mourer-
Chauviré 1987, 1994). Hence, Palaeobyas should be removed from the Tytoninae, and placed in the Sophiornithidae.
Hi. Could you please give your opinion concerning this matter: Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest. (Related to this one: Talk:Rodrigues (island)#Soapbox)
Thanks in advance. Aeons | Talk 07:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've finally got round to dealing with the referencing issues in this article which you raised earlier in the year. Can you look at it and let me know if you're comfortable with the outcome? I didn't include the article in the Auk in the taxonomy paragraph, as I didn't think it was that relevant to the specific point under discussion, but it does look interesting and should be definitely mentioned in the article as an example of research on the genus. SP-KP 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know (to avodid duplicating or losing efforts) that I'm working on a new list of honeyeaters for the article. the current species list misses well over half the species and has some genera missing too. If you want to have a look it is at User:Sabine's Sunbird/making a point. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to get technical about this, but Engel's revision is the definitve work on honey bee CLASSIFICATION. Arias & Sheppard's paper assumed that the named taxa they examined were valid, but they are not, and no one has yet published a newer classification refuting Engel. Furthermore, it is not a paper on classification (taxonomy), but on taxon relationships (phylogeny); it is true they argue in the discussion that nuluensis and nigrocincta should be categorized as species, but no one has yet published such a nomenclatural act. They are ARGUING that genetic divergence is enough to make something a species, but the taxonomic community has yet to agree with this premise. There is no established "cutoff" for the genetic divergence of a species from a subspecies. For the time being, these taxa are all subspecies. Until such a publication raising these taxa to species status appears, the WP article should reflect the accepted classification, otherwise it constitutes "original research". There is nothing wrong with mentioning that Arias & Sheppard believe that these subspecies deserve species status, but the WP article should portray this dispute accurately. Dyanega 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the bird stubs this bot has been creating? It's made a bunch of stubs of your Malagasy warblers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I was assessing some previously unassessed bird articles tonight, and discovered this weirdness in the Short-toed Treecreeper article. I'm not sure how to fix it, because I'm assuming you added the bit about the close relationship to North America's Brown Creeper based on the article you cite (which I don't have access to). However, the next sentence no longer makes any sense, since the two don't occupy the same continent. (Here's the diff file, so you can see where the problem is.) I don't want to just revert it, because obviously you put some work into finding the reference, but I'm wondering—is the Common Treecreeper not closely related? Would you mind taking a look to see if you can sort it out? Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis, I'm out of town right now so it will take me at least a week to get the picture scanned. I think what I'll do is scan it at the highest resolution I can and e-mail it to you; you can then reduce the resolution as needed. Please let me know if this will be a problem. Sounds like a good book :) Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The photo Image:Painted Lady - Vanessa cardui - large.JPG was taken in England. I've added that to the image description, but I'm not sure how to change the taxobox at Painted Lady so I'll leave that part to you :) -- Tarquin 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. As you might have seen (or you'll see) at the WP:BIRD discussion page, I'm wondering why you put that citation at two species in Ploceidae. Was it by any chance to support the choice of English name? — JerryFriedman 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. As yours was the most specific of the comments on my proposal to split up the above stub type, I thought I'd ask you to review what I've done so far, now that the immediate "oversized crisis" is over. I've tried to address your concerns about the "dustbin" families by only populating those with the narrow-sense genera as indicated on the corresponding articles here, though given the obvious caveats about Wikipedia as a source, that might itself be questionable. There's still rather a lot of articles left in Category:Passerine stubs (which should probably actually be Category:Passeriformes stubs, given that the permanent category's at Category:Passeriformes?), but I'm holding off on systematic re-sorting to Category:Passeri stubs, since that would appear to be by far the majority of the remainder. I could further re-split into Category:Passerida stubs (with or without the alleged sibling Category:Corvida stubs), but I'll hold off or doing or formally proposing that for now. Alai 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As a member of WP:BIRD you are invited to this month's collaboration
The current
WikiProject Birds collaboration article is
Preening (bird). The previous collaboration was: Tinamou. Feel free to cast your vote for next month's article |
Shyamal 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that some time ago you collapsed the species list to genus level. I'm not keen on this in general because it makes it less easy to use, but on the whole I can live with it. The problem is the red-linked genera, where the component species effectively disappear from view. I shouldn't have to do a full search of Wikipedia to find the species. The alternative would be to make the alphabetical list into a sortable (by English and binomial name) table. I know it can be done, because I saw it some weeks ago, but I can't remember where. Do you know how to do this? Jimfbleak 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:46:01 +0100 From: Roderic Page <r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk> Subject: [Taxacom] Bird supertree -- open source phylogenetics To: TAXACOM <taxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu> Message-ID: <D67EB50B-C8C2-4E05-A20B-B66058FD2845@bio.gla.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed We are building a bird supertree, and would like your help. Katie Davis ( PhD student in my lab ) has assembled a large number of source trees, constructed an MRP matrix, and has put online a first, very crude supertree. As an experiment we invite anybody interested to download the data and try their hand at building a supertree. We provide a form for uploading any supertrees that result, and a simple viewer to help navigate a tree of this size online. Our hope is to encourage a competition to find the "best" supertree. Participants will get credit in the resulting paper. For more details please visit http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/ ~rpage/birdsupertree/. Regards Rod ---------------------------------------- Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html iChat: aim://rodpage1962 reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Taxacom Mailing List Taxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
I came across this stub when working through list of bird genera. As a fossil, should it be in the list? Jimfbleak 13:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
First, let's get one thing straight, it is a content dispute, not vandalism (I am not doing this in order to disrupt Wikipedia, and neither do I think you're trying to disrupt WP either). Second, "calico" and "tortoiseshell-and-white" are variants of the tortoiseshell pattern, which is the subject here. The tortoiseshell pattern is characterized by both eumelanistc and pheomelanistic colors, so the cat in the current picture, especially given that its colors are brindled and not patched, is a tortoiseshell ("calico" or "tortoiseshell-and-white" entails patched colors). Finally, I looked up the standards of the FiFé and the GCCF, and neither makes a sharp distinction between tortoiseshell and tortoiseshell-and-white, so I would appreciate if you could supply some references that back your claim before it is accepted.-- Ramdrake 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm restoring the Species_problem page for the following reasons:
- So far as I know no species concept says anything directly about subspecies so including particular claims of the BSC and PSC regarding subspecies has the effect of bringing in issues that are not accessible to general readers
- There are other specific claims that one might include, either for the BSC or the PSC, that are of similar scope with regard to utility at the point you make. By making this particular one the article misleading suggests that the point is of primary importance. Understandably it is an important point for many, but for others there are other more important claims against the PSC (or BSC - take your pick)
- The article is not really about species concepts, but rather the place of species concepts within debates about species.
hope this is not a problem Karebh 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:Ichthyornis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:Ichthyornis has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:Ichthyornis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
06:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis! Question: what do you mean by your last edit to Crotalus atrox? Is it supposed to be a reference? If so, it should be expanded and added to the "Other references" section. -- Jwinius 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! Jauerback 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for a paper in the Bulletin of the BOC. Is this perhaps available in electronic form within your reach ? Ali,Salim (1980): India ornithology: The current trends. BBOC 100(1), 80-83
Even an abstract would suffice for my purpose. thanks Shyamal 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for including another meaning for emesis on vomiting. I have encapsulated it all in a {{ dablink}} template, to make the disambiguation header non-printable in skins that support printing.
I don't normally support disambiguation of articles that do not exist. Are you planning to write a page on emesis butterflies? JFW | T@lk 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, hi Dysmorodrepanis, I was just wondering what you're up to with edits like your recent ones to coffee [5], coffee in the global economy [6], grouse [7], etc. You seem to be adding references to articles without actually referencing them in the text or even telling anyone what they are or how they relate to the subject matter. I'm sure you have some brilliant master plan with all this, I was just wondering if you could share it? Thanks!-- Margareta 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this look too owl-y [8] for Sophiornis?-- Mr Fink 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please check out Special:Contributions/Luna_perige and see if the editor's contributions are genuine? I think they're hoaxes but I'm not an expert on birds. -- NeilN 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
His changes to ʻApapane and Iiwi might be OK (I don't have the knowledge to comment) but the rest were transparent nonsense. Lavateraguy 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I noticed. But the story behind it was interesting. Pretty good timetable too. Dysmorodrepanis 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dysmo. Great to see improvements at Grayish Saltator. Wait, Greyish? Why did you change the spelling?
Also, fui doesn't have an accent on the i (any more). Did you know the Dictionary of the Royal Academy is on the Web? Search for ser and then click the Conjugar button at the top.
I can live (though in pain) with ampersands, caps and small caps, and a lack of serial commas, but I can't live with footnotes before commas and periods. See the style manual.
If we need a bit of classification at the beginning, I suggest saying that this bird is part of the vast nine-primaried songbird assemblage and saving the family question for the Systematics section. — JerryFriedman 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are being very conservative about the Hieraaetus->Aquila and restricting the change to only the exemplars used in the research papers. It however appears that even Hieraaetus kienerii has become Aquila kienerii. See [9] Shyamal 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look on the Talk page of p/morphism article you'll see I've thought about two of your suggestions for examples, namely the fantastic mini-frog Leiopelina and the Gammarid Dikerogamarus. Both were well worth getting to know; but neither would make a really good example (I think). Dikero is clearly p/morphic, but authors have no idea how it relates to its ecology, or its genetics; and most of the mini-frog variants are geographical races. I've excerpted some stuff (from the web) which I used, and which you might look at; its placed in the same section as your refs. I do this, temporarily perhaps, since you offer no e-mail link and this is the only way I can show you what I've been looking at. Regards, Macdonald-ross 13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello there - thanks for your edits to Indonesia articles. Could you please use the term "Indonesian" rather than "Bahasa Indonesia" - we should stick to the English terms here on English wikipedia. Ie, we say "German", not "Deutsch". Also, please link it to Indonesian language, not Bahasa Indonesia. Any questions, please let me know. thanks! -- Merbabu 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a photo on the poa article. I've probably bungled the description as I don't understand glumes and spikelets. I was basically looking to post a photo showing why bluegrass is called bluegrass and I don't see any photos anywhere that catch it the right time. Today, I stumbled on a bunch of grasses that appeared at the right time. I have a bunch more photos I can post to Flickr if that would be helpful. Thanks. Americasroof 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. In Mountain Trogon, you added information from Herrera et al. that the altitudinal range is 600 to 1200 m, but Howell and Webb say 1200 to 3500 m. I have a feeling Herrera et al. made a mistake—under 1200 m seems too low to call a mountain (at least in Mexico and Central America) and too low for pine trees in the tropics. I added the Howell and Webb numbers with a note that they disagree, but what do you think? — JerryFriedman 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"En Honduras se le encuentra entre 600 y 1,200 m.s.n.m., en bosques de pino y pino-encino (Monroe 1968)" ("In Honduras one encounters them between 600 - 1,200 m ASL in pine and pine-oak woodland")
Did you take a look at the forward I made you earlier (Rodney Page) http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/birdsupertree/ There are some results here http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/birdsupertree/results.php
Do you know of any opensource/freeware that can read and allow manipulation of large MRP data (as provided there) ? Shyamal 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you are the one who added the reference to the Perica butterfly genus to the Perica article. I am curious about this genus, predominantly due to its name being Perica, and wish to find out more but know not where to look. Why don't you create a stub article for this topic? I would do it myself, but this butterfly seems to be particularly esoteric and I know not where to look for information, though by observation of your edit history I am given the impression that you are knowledgeable enough about such things. Thanks. — Hrvat4568 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeh same mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xolith ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a "more than" missing from the article? - it seems to me that the variation in larval morphology and ecology would have been cause to suspect the presence of cryptic species. Lavateraguy 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I translated European Robin into ヨーロッパコマドリ in Japanese Wikipedia. Please tell me. What is the source of your edit: "Although the authors conclude that both Tenerife and Gran Canaria populations are..." ? Is this your original research? -- Iceheron 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis: Just checking (since the reference I have to hand isn't specific on this)—does an individual bird have a single rectricial bulb, or one on each side of the tail? MeegsC | Talk 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You added a hatnote with a redlink in [10]. It's discussed at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Disambiguation. Are you planning to create the article or do you have any comments? PrimeHunter 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any current paleontologist scholar of the Blancan believes that it ended with the end of the Pliocene, although others would like it to fit nicely in the box. Read the cited sources. The dating dispute is all between ending dates within the Pleistocene. -- Bejnar 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Cyperus esculentus is listed in Cornucopia: A Source Book for Edible Plants as having edible leaves. That's why it's listed in List of plants with edible leaves. Do you have a citation that says that they're inedible by humans? I'd be happy to remove it from the database if so. Barring that, I think that we need to leave it on the page, since that's currently the most authoritative information we've got available. Thanks! Waitak 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup of Indian butterflies wikis. Much appreciated. AshLin ( talk) 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't sure what you were getting at in your message, so I thought I'd check - do you mean double redirects? If so, won't the bots pick those up? They seem to whenever I do this kind of thing usually? If you meant something else, let me know. Thanks. SP-KP ( talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently in North-West Greenland, in the town Upernavik. There I found this infected willow (probably Salix arctica, maybe Salix glauca) ( see also here). I noticed you are a main contributor to an article about bugs feeding on willow. Have you got any idea what hit this willow? I plan to upload the photos to Commons once I understand what is going on and can give the photos a meaningful name. -- Slaunger ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw your recent page move regarding this page. It showed up in the WP:PLANTS assessment log. Anyway, I just wanted to mention a couple conventions you may not have been aware of for future moves. 1) Regarding common names and article titles, it's been something discussed without consensus, so much like non-national topics and their British English vs. American English spellings, WP:PLANTS has never come to a conclusion and therefore considers the style of the first major contributor to be the one to follow. The larger convention, however, appears to prefer lowercase when it's not a proper noun. 2) That's all rather moot, though, since this species also falls under WP:NC (flora) which prefers article titles at scientific names unless it meets one of the given exceptions, which it doesn't look like this page does. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about those conventions so you can use them as you wish. Oh, and I've left a note at WP:RM for an admin with those capabilities to move the page to the species name title. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I'm sure you mean well, but what is the purpose of the vague references to "PacificScience61:36" that you recently added to Vipera ammodytes, Trimeresurus and Bothrops atrox? It looks like a reference to a scientific journal; have you found some interesting articles in it? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |