Talk:Bananaquit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Subspecies

I'm not sure this great long subspecies list I found on the Catalan Wikipedia belongs here (especially until it can be found where each ssp occurs), so I'll add it here.

• Coereba flaveola alleni Lowe, 1912
• Coereba flaveola aterrima (Lesson, 1830)
• Coereba flaveola atrata (Lawrence, 1878)
• Coereba flaveola bahamensis (Reichenbach, 1853)
• Coereba flaveola bananivora (Gmelin, 1789)
• Coereba flaveola barbadensis (Baird, 1873)
• Coereba flaveola bartholemica (Sparrman, 1788)
• Coereba flaveola bolivari Zimmer & W.H. Phelps, 1946
• Coereba flaveola bonairensis Voous, 1955
• Coereba flaveola caboti (Baird, 1873)
• Coereba flaveola caucae Chapman, 1914
• Coereba flaveola cerinoclunis Bangs, 1901
• Coereba flaveola chloropyga (Cabanis, 1850)
• Coereba flaveola columbiana (Cabanis, 1866)
• Coereba flaveola dispar Zimmer, 1942
• Coereba flaveola ferryi Cory, 1909
• Coereba flaveola flaveola (Linnaeus, 1758)
• Coereba flaveola frailensis W.H. Phelps & W.H. Phelps Jr, 1946
• Coereba flaveola gorgonae Thayer & Bangs, 1905
• Coereba flaveola guianensis (Cabanis, 1850)
• Coereba flaveola intermedia (Salvadori & Festa, 1899)
• Coereba flaveola laurae Lowe, 1908
• Coereba flaveola lowii Cory, 1909
• Coereba flaveola luteola (Cabanis, 1850)
• Coereba flaveola magnirostris (Taczanowski, 1880)
• Coereba flaveola martinicana (Reichenbach, 1853)
• Coereba flaveola melanornis W.H. Phelps & W.H. Phelps Jr, 1954
• Coereba flaveola mexicana (P.L. Sclater, 1857)
• Coereba flaveola minima (Bonaparte, 1854)
• Coereba flaveola montana Lowe, 1912
• Coereba flaveola nectarea Wetmore, 1929
• Coereba flaveola newtoni (Baird, 1873)
• Coereba flaveola oblita Griscom, 1923
• Coereba flaveola obscura Cory, 1913
• Coereba flaveola pacifica Lowe, 1912
• Coereba flaveola portoricensis (H. Bryant, 1866)
• Coereba flaveola roraimae Chapman, 1929
• Coereba flaveola sanctithomae (Sundevall, 1870)
• Coereba flaveola sharpei (Cory, 1886)
• Coereba flaveola tricolor (Ridgway, 1884)
• Coereba flaveola uropygialis Berlepsch, 1892

Maybe the IBC will have a list. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merged from "Talk:Coereba bahamensis" on 18 Feb 2010

I am serving as wiki authority on the bananaquit species complex. If you have any questions please post on my talk page. --Famedalupi (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Okay kiddos, edit warring is not the solution. So, I protected all relevant pages for a week. Discuss the issue here and find a solution. O, and consider m:The Wrong Version-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think a major copyvio is enough to edit this "wrong version"? There is a whole paragraph copied from an important source. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, copyvio's need to be dealt with. I assume you point at the quote from the article in the subspecies pages? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ja. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio material removed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Species Splits

Following phylogenetic studies of this species (Bellemain, Bermingham, and Ricklefs et. al. 2008) and given the proposed species (PS) status for two of the subspecies, C. flaveola bahamensis and C. flaveola bartholemica by the IOC, I have created two additional pages for these species. C. bartholemica is a binomial that currently includes 4 of the previous C. flaveola subspecies including bartholemica, dominicana, martinicana, and sanctithomae forms. Only the the bartholemica and bahamensis forms have been declared eligible for species status so other promising species candidates such as portoricensis will be retained as subspecies of flaveola for the time being until further studies are done. I was going to consider adding a Bananaquit complex page but maybe for the sake of simplicity that will be retained as the original C. flaveola article with an explanation of the current phylogenetic understandings. I will add the full listing of subspecies as per Innotata.--Famedalupi (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Edit**

I went forward with creating the genus page. This should be sufficient. --Famedalupi (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The pages now need a bit of cleaning up. I said that I wasn't certain the ssp list was accurate, and it would be good to compare it with that at the Internet Bird Collection (which is operated by the publisher that makes the Handbook of the Birds of the World. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait! They are only proposed species, on a non-taxonomic checklist, so I'll probably merge the pages. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to maintain the proposed species pages for Coereba bahamensis and Coereba bartholemica because of the inevitability of the taxa to be recognized as distinct species in the future. Please see Bellemain et al. 2008. Contrary to the lack of resolution by committees, it is still knowledge of significance and still deserves recognition. Incertae sedis placement of the genus will be maintained to reflect the lack of any concensus, but there's no logical reason to hold off on article creation for taxon on the road between hypothetical and scientifically distinct. If you think it is necessary, the proposed species pages may be organized by the name of their Coereba flaveola ssp. form, as has been done with the Somali Ostrich which is more or less reflective of a similar situation (studies support the splits but the move is considered an upheavel by ornithological standards), so union/committee acceptance is, as a result, slow and obstinate. I think it's important for us to allow the Coereba genus page. It doesn't do any harm and allows for a proper representation of the phylogeny of a complex without overwhelming a current article with what should be pertinent information on just that one species (C. flaveola).--Famedalupi (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I will now bring this up at the bird talk page. I've already stated everything I have to say. At the bird articles we tend to be fairly cautious, and we've never considered splitting species with such weak support. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you just undo my edits? I changed a lot besides the species treatment. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We do tend to hold off on creating new articles until species have been formerly described and or recognised. Lots of splits are proposed that never come to anything. Splits are not always universally accepted either, and sometimes splits are re-merged (or lumped). So there is no need to hurry. The information regarding the splits can be presented here, with information on which forms may be distinct. Once they are accepted we can split out the various species and this article can become the genus article. But resist the urge just to revert, it leads to edit wars and if you revert more than three times admins come along and get all block-y. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't revert any further; the three revert rule is one I remember. I did not just revert to begin with, but adapted and cleaned up what had been added. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No one had, it was just a friendly reminder directed into the whole thing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

After checking IOC and Bellemain et al., creating species pages is obviously premature. Bellemain does not suggest splitting as far as I have seen scanning through it. What I do think can be done is discuss the situation in this article so that anyone interested can find it. And please, stop going back and forth on this article, I hate to have to protect it from editing because of editwarring! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read the paper, I must agree with the last comment by Kim van der Linde. However, we do have subspecies pages (e.g. Panama Amazon) and that remains a possibility for the Bahamas Bananaquit and Lesser Antillean Bananaquit, as long as the taxonomic info on spitting versus not splitting is balanced (which it presently is not). Bellemain et al 2008 do not recommend a novel taxonomic treatment, and consequently it does not support some of the things it currently is used as a reference for. Note also that while the Bahama Banaquit is relatively isolated per Bellemain et al 2008, the situation for the Lesser Antilles is far more complex. Based on mtDNA, the Greater Antillean taxa are actually far more divergent than the Lesser Antillean. Not all Lesser Antillean individuals are part of the same clade in nDNA, and if combined with mtDNA it is questionable the Lesser Antillean population is a species following the biological species concept. Quote:

"... the mixed nuclear and mitochondrial genomes in the Dominican Republic and the remnants of old Dominican Republic nuclear lineages in the Lesser Antilles suggest that expanding bananaquit populations mix with resident populations during expansion phases. Thus, genetic compatibility is maintained over periods exceeding three million years and perhaps much more, despite morphological and song differentiation."

Finally, the earlier comment where it is called inevitability that the taxa will be recognized as distinct species in the future is WP:Crystal. • Rabo³ • 07:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to discuss this here, but there is little to say. It doesn't seem the pages should be split, as discussed above. I incorporated the information added, cleaning it up and copyediting it and removed a long quote which is probably copyright violation (can some admins remove this, if indeed it is, for now?). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it might be premature to create a "species" page, however if ther is enough information for a sub-species page to stand on its own, that might not be a bad compromise. There are many sub-species that have their own pages and many more that if they did could be larger that many pages on some species. speednat (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It would require more content than is currently on the existing pages, since all the species page are just fragments copied off of this page. I think it would be more helpful to keep it all here, since a discussion of the differences between the dozens of subspecies is needed (I had just been getting to that when my merging was undone) and would be best coherent. If other editors want this sort of compromise, though, I am fine with it; all I really want to work is the behaviour section. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have pone problem there, and that the subspecies pages are actually clusters of subspecies. How do we solve that?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

forgot to point it out. Don't care. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, this was not actually a response to you but to those who advocate subspecies pages. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with pages for subspecies groups, which potentially would be fitting for the Bahamas Bananaquit (bahamensis + caboti, i.e. not "endemic to the Bahamas" as claimed in Bahamas Bananaquit wiki article). At least if people think enough info specific to this population exists to justify a separate page. I'll leave the judgement of this to others. However, I am far less convinced about the Lesser Antillean; both because of the things mentioned in the earlier comment, and because I am not convinced this is what IOC are considering as a possibility. They simply list Coereba bartholemica as a potential split (without a common name) and this really could be anything beyond C. flaveola sensu stricto; especially as Bellemain et al. 2008 do not make any recommendations. Why the people that started the wiki page for C. bartholemica decided this equalled the Lesser Antillean taxa is unclear (and it also unclear why portoricensis is an "Additional hypothetical species" as claimed in the wiki article). I could just as well claim the proposed C. bartholemica includes oblita and pacifica as subspecies, or, more likely (and supported by Bellemain et al. 2008), all except the divergent taxa from the Bahamas (bahamensis group) and Greater Antilles (flaveola group). Regardless, based on the limited info on IOC's proposed split page we have no way of knowing exactly what their C. bartholemica includes (beyond bartholemica itself, of course). • Rabo³ • 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anybody mind if I just restore this revision of this page with corrections suggested above, and merge the other pages, and then continue to add info on taxonomy from Bellemain et al.? I did not undo Famedalupi's edits to in these revisions, but just incorporated what he added.

Note: Famedalupi posted the comment below, added some personal attacks to his and my userpages, and has been temporarily blocked for this, so it will not be likely for any communications to be made. The user EllisD, who may be a sockpuppet (though this probably doesn't matter, now) has also stopped editing. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

note: the other pages contain nothing not in this page. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will lift the protectiong as it was to avoid further edit warring. However, it is obvious that two parties have left the house and are not contributing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to do the merger and restoration, and I'm adding some of the corrections above. Can Lesser Antillean Bananaquit be unprotected and redirected here, as it is now a double redirect (or, on consideration, it would probably be better to delete it, as nobody has ever used this name—it is original research. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bananaquit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618055751/http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-PS.html to http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-PS.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)