Talk:Gymnogyps amplus

Birds Low‑importance

Gymnogyps amplus is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an a range map be included in this article to improve its quality.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Status?

I am not finding agreement in sources whether this is an accepted taxon or a synonym. I will continue checking sources about this, but what is the authority WikiProject Birds utilizes for extinct taxa? Roboraptor2 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual bird authorities don't cover prehistoric taxa, so it's up to what the most recent scientific sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I am still learning the process, so thank you for your patience in advance. This is my first time using the reference template on Wikipedia.

By your advice, I have identified the most recent peer-reviewed source (published 2023) which addresses the discussion on the status of G. amplus and concludes the fossil species to be synonymous to G. californicus.^[1] I am finding no further discussion of the fossil species status of G. amplus or a response by the resurrectors, Syverson and Prothero. I am unsure if a solitary article's conclusion of synonymy is enough to suggest merging the fossil species concept with the G. californicus article.

Thank you for your help. Roboraptor2 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, if a couple more recent sources with the same conclusion can be found, I think we have ground for adding a merge tag. And thanks for doing the research. It seems the California condor also needs to be updated in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of these 2022 articles treat the species as a valid chronospecies.--Kev min § 18:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, Emslie et al don't actually re-evaluate the fossils in a detailed manner. They have opted to take the stance put forth by Emslie nearly over 35 years prior (in 1988), that size and age are not acceptable reasons for the recognition of the fossils as a Choronospecies, and Emslie et al (2023) notes they are making an argument that is contrary to other avian paleontologists. I wouls hold off on the merge until other taxonomists weigh in on the paper, and instead update the article here to show the differing perspectives of these fossils as valid species, subspecies, or just big California condor.--Kev min § 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Emslie, Steven D.; Mead, Jim I. (2023). "Two New Late Quaternary Avifaunas from the East-Central Great Basin with the Description of a New Species of Falco". Western North American Naturalist. 83 (1): 33–50. doi:10.3398/064.083.0104. ISSN 1527-0904 – via BioOne.

[1] Emslie, Steven D.; Mead, Jim I. (2023). "Two New Late Quaternary Avifaunas from the East-Central Great Basin with the Description of a New Species of Falco". Western North American Naturalist. 83 (1): 33–50. doi:10.3398/064.083.0104. ISSN 1527-0904 – via BioOne.

[1]