Talk:Cockatoo/Archive 1

Cockatiels
Who ever wrote that cockatiels are non-destructive has never owned one. They have big beaks just like all the other 'toos and can chew through wire, wood, paper cardboard, thin plastic, cork, etc. They also have beaks that constantly grow, so they *need* to chew things.

http://www.cockatielcottage.net/basics.html "Cockatiels find toys that can be chewed on, shredded apart, moved, tossed around, pulled apart, interesting . "

"Since cockatiels are inquisitive, they enjoy exploring rooms. Exploring is done with their beaks and this also means chewing. Cockatiels will chew on paper, cloth, wood, rubber, metal and anything else that catches their attention. Chewing is instinctive behavior and has to be watched carefully." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.104.204 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Parrot taxonomy
Parrot taxonomy is a turnup! The Australian cockatoos are correct per the latest HANZAB list. Unfortunately, HANZAB does not cover New Guinea or the islands of South-east Asia, nor does my wonderful big Australian Parrots book, and I'm reduced to on-line sources. Doubtless there is an authoritative site out there somewhere, but the ones I've seen so far do not inspire confidence. The rule sems to be if anyone, anywhere, has ever described something as a parrot, or maybe just vaguely like a parrot, then lump it in and hope for the best - and if that leaves us with 1759 different species, all with at least three alternative names, then so much the better. Anyway, from the last-mentioned Australian species (Sulphur-crested Cockatoo) on down, my list is mostly guesswork. Improve it if you can. Tannin 13:56 27 May 2003 (UTC)
 * @Tannin: Hello, Tannin. Do you know the sites and  ? Both refer to a study by Brown & Toft (1999), the second reference shows a cladogram. According to this, Nymphicus, Callocephalon, and Calyptorhynchus should be placed in the same group. If this should be named Nymphicinae or Calyptorhynchinae is a matter of priority. --Franz Xaver 16:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a ICZN rule for subfamilies and not being able to find a reference when Calyptorhynchinae in the previous sense, I'd go with Calyptorhynchinae based on earlier description of the type genus; Brown & Toft seem to agree. As any supporter of phylogenetic taxonomy will be eager to tell you, above-family systematics are a mess in the Linnean system. This holds especially true for parrots; the subfamiles were held to be tribes for most of the 20th century and it may well be that a good definition is missing for either subfamily. At any rate, the fact that Nymphicinae would always have been defined to include the cockatiel and the cockatiel only and any definition was necessarily a listing of this species' synapomorphies, I'd say that it may be not certain who the authority for the new Calyptorhynchinae is, but that the taxon name Nymphicinae must be sunk the sooner the better. An excellent case to explain the whole paraphyly-parsimony-cladistics shebang, BTW, and I shall add it there.
 * A very good paper BTW, as it does take into account all present evidence and manages to pound into a phylogeny that cannot be really objected on any grounds anymore. To see (paleo)biogeography considered is always a good sign. Suddenly, even the cockatiel makes sense when you look at the calyptorhynchine plesiomorphies. Dysmorodrepanis 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Like it or not, the correct names are hyphenated. It is not a Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, for example, it is a Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo. Personally, I dislike the hyphenated second part, but the bird's correct and official name is indeed the bird's correct and official name. I don't see how we at Wikipedia can change that. Hell, I call Magpie-larks Mudlarks. Does that mean I should change that too? Tannin 11:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * The BOU and HBW/BirdLife hyphenate, the AOU doesn't, learned that some weeks ago courtesy of Sabine's Sunbird Dysmorodrepanis 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is a parrot? or, Are cockatoos parrots?
Contribute at Talk:Parrot Nurg 09:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intelligence
The following annecdote should be included in the text. I came here to look for more information on the alledge intelligence of cockatoos after reading "treaded"'s comments on slashdot:


 * I keep Cockatoos. I never intended to have such large birds as pets, and would most certainly not encourage it. I landed up with them as a “gift” as the previous owner found them too difficult.


 * I would put their overall intelligence at around the 4 or 5 year human. With the addition that they are the most expert lock pickers.


 * Imagine if you will the tantrums of a 4/5 year old, add that the 4/5 year can fly, has a set of tools like a combination hammer, ice-pick, file, and nut cracker, and absolutely knows which items dotted about are the most valuable to destroy.


 * Often one of them imitates the phone ringing as I am about to leave the house. I could swear the blessed  things are all sharing the joke.


 * I am often left pondering: who here is the pet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.33.75 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 April 2005 (UTC)

Gallery
More pictures could be added and make the page more interesting. The pictures could be kept tidy in a gallery of pictures. Snowman 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if a gallery will work or not. Perhaps the short-billed black cockatoo picture could me moved to its own species page. Snowman 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I put the image here as there was only one image in this article and currently there isnt an article on the short billed black cockatoo. Since this was only the second image added to the page there didn't seem to be any as yet reason to create a gallery, besides this image is on commons and instead of an image gallery i think a link to commons categories would be more appropriate if more images are to be added Gnangarra 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I probably did not get the gallery right. The images do not fall on the page in a tidy way. Snowman 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Image of black cockatoo (it is a nice picture) moved to its own page. Snowman 10:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

White cockatoo and black cockatoo
Can the phrases "white cockatoo" and "black cockatoo" be explained? Some cockaoos are grey feathers and some are have some pink feathers. Perhaps it would be good to have a picture of the black palm cocktoo (famous symbol) on the cockatoo artical page as well a white cockatoo. Snowman 10:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Until the issue can be fully discussed under hypopigmentism: If this here link turns blue, please someone change the article's "hypomelanistic" to point there. Thanks.
 * Having black pigment but not Van Dyck coloration (which makes you grey, brown, black, possibly with red/pink/orange/yellow ornamentation) is the state from which the earliest cockatoos started. Males and females differed, which may have been lost in the Palm Cockatoo or that bird may simply be too dark for anyone to recognize anything (perhaps you can see it under UV. Stranger things have evolved in birds). They early guys probably were on the darkish side and apart from that apparently just followed Gloger's Rule at first. Then the two subfamilies split, one lost most melanin, becoming the white cockatoos. As you can see in C. lathami, there probably always was an occasionally surfacing ability to deposit pink or reddish pigment all over the body feathers, which together with blackish grey base color will give lathami's brown or when patterned the scalloping of banksii females. Do away with the black and you have the Galah and Major Mitchell's which still retain the pink. This, then, also fell victim to evolution, and voilà enter the all-white cockatoos. That simple, really. Cockatoos are a group where you can quite accurately reconstruct even the color pattern of the (few) fossils there are. Dysmorodrepanis 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the ancestral cockatoos probably had a light bill. Dark bill color ís more often found in crown clades than in stem-derived offshoots. In fact, the black-billed cockatoos are either hypermelanistic (the Palm and the Calyptorhynchus males which have more derived characters than their mates in general), or young lineages (true white cockatoos). Especially the light bill of the dark Gang-gang and female Calyptorhynchus is a serious argument against black being primitive. Dysmorodrepanis 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Goffins may look white, but they have a lot of pink colouration, but much of the colouration is in the deeper layers of the feathers, which are covered by white parts of the feathers. Snowman 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cockatoo beak hanging.
No merge: Cockatoos can use their beak for lots of tasks and all of the tasks can not be listed. Other parrots do this as well ie black headed caiques and African Grey parrots. The article on beak handing is for AfD and sounds like original work. There are no citations on the ''Cockatoo beak handing page. Snowman 12:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)''
 * Oppose I see nothing within the article to suggest a merge into this article, with references if this is a species unique trait then maybe merge into a species article. Gnangarra 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
"The name cockatoo originated from the Malay name for these birds, kakaktua, which translates literally as older sister (from kakak, "sister," and tua, "old")." - is this 100%? "Kaka" means "parrot" at least in the Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family. and while in Bahasa Indonesia it is indeed "kakaktua", the form "kakatua" is frequently found in Bahasa Melayu sources. Dysmorodrepanis 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What I found were these links: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kakatua, http://www.asiamaya.com/dictionary/kakatua.htm, http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/pincers. It seems "kakak" means sister and "tua" means old. However, "kakatua" means pincers. Pincers would make more sence too. MichielD 10:38, 3 January 2007 (CET)

Aviculture WikiProject proposal
See WikiProject Council/Proposals. The purpose of this project is to help increase the amount and quality of content related to aviculture on wikipedia, and to maintain and organise articles relating to the subject, eventually bringing as many as possible up to good- or featured-article status. See WikiProject Council/Proposals. Snowman 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tribe of subfamily
Do we talk tribe or subfamily on this page? Snowman 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
There appears to be some original research in the Musical Ability section. I added a tag. 72.93.215.79 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't see how it was OR and have removed the tag. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pic in taxobox
I sorta had an idea the best species to have in the taxobox was the type species of Cacatua, whichever one that is...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
The Relationship with humans section needs a subsection on pest potential/issues. (Galahs and Sulphure Cresteds are the main ones in Oz, also Corellas). Sorry, just saw the sentences. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate family
I agree that there is widespread support for the family being treated as separate from the other parrots. But I think the statement Placement of the cockatoos as a separate family is fairly undisputed is inaccurate. As recently as 2003 the Howard and Moore checklist had them as a subfamily, and the IUCN and Birdlife still do. Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not backed by everybody, some still have one family for the lot and the latest genetic research might change things more...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism
Colour differences between the male and female in the Gang-gang Cockatoo and some of the black cockatoos is worth mentioning. Snowman (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many also have minute differences (such as eye colour) too. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct, but is it reliable to determine if a cockatoo is male or female? Snowman (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned it anyway. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly sexual dimorphism is one of the features which splits the genus Calyptorhynchus into its two subgenera. Not seen much wirtten elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aviculture reffing
Unfortunately, there is little on cockatoos as a whole in either the Lendon book I have (it just goes through all the species and is rather old now) or Forshaw. I will see what I can track down at UNSW library when there next as this would be terrific to really polish off an aviculture section well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Old spelling
Some old books have the genus Cacatua written as Kakatoë - this might be good to note, must be a reference somewhere. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Christidis and Boles 2008 place Major Mitchell Cocky in Lophochroa, noting Courtney 1996 who reported it has the most atypical food-begging display of all white cockatoos. Brown and Toft noted it was an early divergent lineage like Eolophus was, and made a case for the genus then. So..do we want to roll with this? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Other major headache which is left in 'too hard' basket it looks is that Cacatua sulphurea seems to lie within C. galerita. :P
 * What references do you have for this claim?


 * As for Major Mitchell Cocky, Schodde (1997) places it within the genus Cacatua, just like Brown and Toft (Auk, 1999). However, the latter argue that there are good reasons to split the genus along the three subgenera, but as far as I know, nobody has done tha except maybe Christidis and Boles 2008 (I would love to get a copy of the relevant pages for their arguments why they do so). Perosnally, I would agree with such a treatment, but as far as I can tell, this is not yet he norm in the literature (there are just a very few current references for Lophochroa leadbeateri and plenty for Cacatua leadbeateri.) So, I think we should make clear that the ideas are moving, but stick with Cacatua leadbeateri for the time being. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In Cristidis and Boles 2008 - p. 151 - Major Mitchell Cocky has most atypical food-begging call of all white cockies (Courtney 1996). Brown and Toft find Eolophus to be sister lineage to all other Cacatua, but tehy also found Major Mitchell Cocky to diverge early as well. B & T 1999 then argued if Galah was to be placed in Eolophus, a case could be made for MM in Lophochroa. Thus Homberger 2003 followed with MM in Lophochroa and so do C & B. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Page now here for galerita/sulphurea, and scroll up one page for MM Lohpochroa. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Kakatoe vs Cacatua
Kakatoe is evidently a synonym for Cacatua but, curiously, is an older term, the authority being Cuvier in 1800, while Cacatua comes from Vieillot in 1817. I can only speculate that Cacatua was designated the 'correct' generic name, and Kakatoe apparently suppressed and priority overturned for some technical reason, such as confusion over how Kakatoe was applied, a number of variant spellings (e.g. Kakadoe, Cacatoes) being used at various times, and the need for stabilisation. Perhaps the best place to sort this out here would be on the so-far-nonexistent page for the genus (Cacatua currently redirects to Cockatoo). There must be some decision recorded in the ICZN Bulletin at some time, if anyone has access to it. Maias (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that it is a forgotten name, and therefore suppressed. That does not require a action of the commission. BTW, it is also the way the Dutch spell the name as a common name, and if I am correct, it comes from Indonesian. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just been doing a little more digging into the origins of its use in scientific nomenclature. According to the Zoological Catalogue of Australia 37.2 Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae), by Schodde and Mason, 1997 (pp.88-89), it seems that Cacatua was first used by Brisson in 1760 (before the Linnaean base-line of 1766) but subsequently used by Salvadori in 1776. There have been moves subsequently to conserve Cacatua and suppress Kakatoe (and its many variants) but apparently these had not been finalised by the 1997 publication date and suppression is described as pending.  Any further news on the situation? Maias (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this might be better for a page on Cacatua when we get sorted what will be called what. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jakob Bogdani
Interesting. I got a ref for his depicting cockatoos...and see the pictures. Be nice to get one in the article really. He really liked cockatoos.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * one at the Hungarian national gallery


 * Why not? The images must be way out of copyright. Maias (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to early European records of cockatoos, it might pay to check out Antonio Pigafetta's narrative of his voyage around the world with Magellan in the early 16th century. They were about the first Europeans to visit the Philippines and Moluccas. Unfortunately I do not have a copy and have not read it, but Pigafetta is said to have written a comprehensive and accurate account of his travels, including mention of the flora and fauna. There may be even earlier depictions from China, if cockatoos ever reached there as trade items. Maias (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some material in http://www.archive.org/details/generalhistoryco10kerrrich and http://www.archive.org/details/transactionsproc29newz Shyamal (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * great leads - will follow up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cocky Bennett
I was musing on something about the longevity - when I was a kid I heard stories of "Cocky Bennett" who was a sulphur-crested who alledgeldy lived to 120 years. Googling him is interesting..finding a reliable source discussing the possiblity of his longevity may be a challenge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie
Cookie, a parrot that is at least 75 years old housed in Brookfield Zoo. There is a photograph on the Major Mitchell's Cockatoo page. Is this worth a mention? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Age records are always useful in the breeding section. What is important here is that it is in captivity and the species, not the cutesy name or the institution however. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree this article needs a longevity section as logenvity in cockies is highly notable, and have been looking for some. In Sydney there was a legendary bird called Cocky Bennett, who was allegedly 120 years old - I have been trying to find some reliable refs on him. I think he was a sulphur crested. I suspect there will be a few examples we can place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to HANZAB? That would be the place to look. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Python eating cockatoo
Times Online: Python eating cockatoo Green Squares (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What books say about keeping cockatoos
The HBW certainly doesn't mention much about the difficulties of keeping cockatoos, although their status as pets only really merits three short paragraphs in the "relationship with humans" section. Considerably more is said about the impact of the trade on wild species, and their status as pests in Australia. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well that is HBW's focus. Fact is as a group they are highly popular and notable aviary birds. If we can point out some of the problems and stop a person buying on and putting it in a tiny cage then all the better. There is some stuff on google books too, snippet views and somesuch, but I have a really busy Saturday looming...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Towards GAN
I'm happy to help move this towards GA status (and FA status eventually). I think there are some things that need to be dealt with first, some of these were stuff I never finished when I worked on the article a few months back....
 * Breeding is incomplete, no mention of incubation times and nothing about development after hatching or fledging.
 * Distribution and habitat is still rather brief and rather dominated by the introduced species section. At the very least some information about the nomadic nature of some species merits inclusion.
 * Pests - I'm not sure the way this is handled is optimal; it would be better to have paragraphs with examples rather than laundry listing every example. There are important points, such as subspecies and species listed as pests which are also vulnerable, whch are lost in the mass of examples.
 * Popular culture is kind of trivial in places - the Snowball ref probably would be better in behaviour and the rest can be pruned and moved into the general relationship with humans section.

Generally this is a pretty strong article and not too much work is needed to get it up to standard. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I have info to add on the first couple. The pests and aviculture sections still need cleaning up I agree...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be worth mentioning Australia's rules on export (and import) of wildlife, as well as CITES, which is already featured. Snowman (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Cockatiels would need a separate paragraph (or section) in aviculture. Snowman (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of a couple of general notes on specific ones - Little corellas being best talkers. etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: That is a good set of pictures, especially the Salmon-crested Cockatoo being noisy. I was hoping at some stage that a photo of cockies chewing cables or peeling off gutters or windows would turn up. I see so many around Sydney but they always seem to be behaving themselves...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have got the one of Galahs eating something in a field with sheep. Do Galahs eat hay or straw? Snowman (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither I think, they would eat seeds and tubers in fields, not the straw. IN that picture I would assume that the bailing process didn't shake out every last seed - and that is what they are after. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was concerned when I saw the edit summary that Kurt-shaped Box had removed a good picture, but he has found an even better one of a Salmon-crested looking like it is making a ruckus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Allergies
"All cockatoos have a fine powder on their feathers, which may induce dust allergies in certain people."
 * Does this refer to bird fancier's lung, a type of extrinsic allergic alveolitis? Snowman (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the fine power called powder down, minute particles of down feather or is it something else? Snowman (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was in the pet book. It seemed to allude to it being an irritant more than anything else, so I doubt it was a systemic condition like extrinsic allergic alveolitis. As far as the powder, the pet book didn't go into much detail. I will double check the more scientific books to get some more information. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is puzzling - the article mentions allergies and you quote irritants above. Extrinsic allergic alvelitis, a lung disease, is caused by allergies to animal proteins. I am not sure of the origin of the proteins can be feather powder. I recall it being due usually to dust from pigeon droppings as mentioned in Bird fancier's lung. I have not specifically heard of a type of alveolitis due to feather dust, but this could be easily be the case. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about cockatoos, but I'm allergic to feather pillows. I thought the allergies were caused by the droppings of mites in the feathers. That is what a dust allergy actually is, a reaction to the mites. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Allergy to house dust mite is quite common and commonly provokes eczema and/or asthma. House mite dust can be difficult to avoid. It is different to feather allergies and bird fancier's lung. New feather pillows do not have house mite dust in them and the pillow case is made of sturdy material to keep the feathers in, which also helps to keep house dust mites out, and so they might be relatively free of house mite dust for a few months. House mite dust allergy sufferers might need special pillows. I think that you would not get house mite dust accumulating on feathers that are on a bird. Snowman (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Backtracking a bit Extrinsic allergic alvelitis, a lung disease, is caused by allergies to animal proteins. I am not sure of the origin of the proteins can be feather powder. - powder down is keratin and wax, right? And keratin is a protein. Surely this would be the allergen. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is my line of thought. Allergen or irritant? Apart from checking standard textbooks, I have not looked far for a reference to specifically say that feather down particles is a human allergen. As almost anything can be an allergen, I think it is very likely to be the case. Keratin does not seem to me to be much of an irritant. Keratin as an irritant may be a red-herring, but it needs to be checked in the literature. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

this is the book I have found, a big sigh of relief as we can reference a few pet sections on a few species now. You can have a look at the cocky section on pages 86 and thereabouts and see what you think too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * found and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks
Casliber, these are all the changes since your last edit. As far as my meddling is concerned, feel free to revert any or all.  Jimfbleak -    talk to me?  09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Next closest psittacines outside cacatuidae...
I was wondering what molecular or morphological evidence there was for the next closest outgroup was (or is there complete lack of consensus). This would be great to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A few nitpicks before FA...
And they truly are nitpicks, because the article itself looks great! There are some measurements (mostly masses) that should also show imperial values, and some of the "full sentence" photo captions don't have ending punctuation. MeegsC | Talk 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of messy paragraphs. The worst is the non sequitur in morphology that goes The plumage of males and females is similar in most species, the most consistent difference being the slightly larger male bill size—although this is quite marked in the Palm Cockatoo. The plumage of the female Cockatiel ..., and the last paragraph of distribution is a mess. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  18:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw what you meant about last para of distribution - somehow the sentences got switched round (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted with the plumage. Any other flow glitches spotted much appreciated. I've been staring at this too long. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the weights are in gms. I did not think that is was needed to put the conversion in oz as well. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I live in Australia, where we solely use metric, I am not familiar with how necessary it was/is for American and British readers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomic headache..but fascinating nonetheless
Okay folks, I found this

Type in cntrl-F and look for Cacatua to see an animated discussion on the naming of the cockatoo genus and family..question is, how much to place in the taxonomy section of the cockatoo article and how much at Cacatua. I love this historical stuff and I think a brief potted summary is good, which I will work on - all taxonomical input welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not Taxonomy, it's nomenclature :p For starters, this article alone is useless without knowing whether the proposal was accepted. In my experience, authorities are loathe to conserve a name where the synonyms have seen no use. Otherwise a note about the name being conserved or proposed for conservation (cf. as in Banksia) is sufficient, within a more complete history of the designations that have been used for the taxon (User:Kare Kare has written excellent ones at genus level for fishes). Circéus (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it was accepted, as we have Cacatuidae and Cacatua unequivocally and universally. I recalled as a kid I saw some old bird books using Kakatoe which is what got me intrigued in the first place. Yes, nomenclature is the word I was looking for....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was conserved in Opinion 1949, available here. I'd think it's more relevant to Cacatua (and C. alba) than it is here; they did suppress a senior synonym of Cacatuidae, but that was one that no one had ever used anyway. Ucucha 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given the size of the relative articles, and the relevance proper, much of it really revolves around the genus and is somewhat esoteric to the subject of cockatoos as a whole. Genus it is/will be. Question is, is it worth noting in one sentence that G. R. Gray took the name from Veillot who got it from Brisson, but Brisson's work was invalidated as he didn't use binomials, but a special case was made later?Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "the name" refers to Cacatua, not Cacatuinae, so I would say no. The only nomenclatural issue I would consider to be relevant to cockatoos as a whole is the suppressed subfamily name, Plyctolophinae Vigors, 1825, but I think that's not really relevant to this article as apparently just about no one ever used it anyway. Nineteenth-century nomenclatural chaos is fun, but its relevance to a general-purpose encyclopedia is limited. Ucucha 04:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I think of it, we actually have some fields in the taxobox where stuff like this belongs. I added the type genus and a synonym with a ref to the ICZN ruling. Ucucha 04:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, that makes for a nice succinct solution :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

convert template
I thought that the convert template was optional. It does not seem to have altered any of the figures that were hard written. Presumably it just slows the page load time a bit. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy either way. I find sometimes better not to use it if using approximate figures rounded to 5's or 10s of km/miles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image
It'd be nice to use an image that is not in any other taxobox of another article, surely we must have loads of nice cockie pictures! Shall we list some good ones here to choose from? I'm guessing a Sulphur- or Salmosn-crested are the best known (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Cacatua_galerita_Tas_1.jpg - this one is nice, shows the whole bird, and is a nature shot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a nice one, yes, but I think you'll need an image that is about as broad as it is high - otherwise it'll have some nasty consequences for the layout. Ucucha 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sulphur-crested Cockatoo image mentioned has got a broken tail feather, which tends to spoil the photo, I think. The black cockatoo pair in the infobox was also on the species page. I like to have a variety of images across the various wiki pages on a topic, and it is easy to repeat show the best images. Luckily there are a lot of cockatoo images, so I have swapped a new quality image into the infobox position. Snowman (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That image makes for a bit of whitespace at the start of the "Taxonomy" section for me. Ucucha 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the hight of the image. Is it any better? Thank you for being a thorough reviewer. Snowman (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) There is still one white line at the start of the "Taxonomy" section for me, but that isn't that big of a problem. I now moved the cladogram to the left to solve that and for a little visual improvement, but feel free to revert that if you feel it doesn't improve the look of the article. Ucucha 15:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the cladogram is best on the right. I have two shortened captions in the infobox which should further reduce the total height of the infobox. Snowman (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed the cockie's tail- the galah is nice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Cockatoo - allegedly 90 years old...
Is this worth including in the article, do you think? If the story is accurate, this bird would as far as I know, be the oldest living cockatoo in the world...

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/20100221-254470/90-year-old-cockatoo-eyes-Guinness-record

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not confirmed or recognised elsewhere (yet) but worth putting in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. I tend to be wary of claims involving really, really old parrots that have apparently been handed down from person to person over the years, considering how many dubious examples there have been in the past of bald/balding/scraggy parrots being presented as centenarians (or close to it) in the news with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. The macaw that allegedly belonged to Winston Churchill (but didn't) being one of the more famous examples. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the FA run into trouble with a reference from this source? I would say leave it out. Snowman (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did think of that, but I figured out the best way is as the article is - i.e. the oldest confirmed bird first, and then the several others, using words such as "reported" to imply that the stories are out there but essentially unconfirmed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Write in a cautious addition if you want. Perhaps saying "claimed" instead of "reported". Snowman (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes I like 'claimed' - good verb. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cockatoo sexual attraction to humans?
I'm trying to ask this without sounding like someone who belongs in prison... but should there be a mention in this article of how cockatoo hens can very easily become sexually attracted to their human owners if the person strokes and cuddles them too much? If you've never heard of this, it is actually a real issue. They can start laying loads and loads of eggs, with the health problems that can bring (e.g. egg binding, calcium depletion) because their owner has been inadvertantly turning them on and getting them off by petting them in erogenous zones. --95.148.107.103 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know of cockatoos getting very attached or fixated on certain people. It'd be good to find some sourced material on this to add. Have you seen it in a book somewhere? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow!
See this.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits - "popularity", etc.
I've been removing, WITH VALID REASONS, several opinion-based sentences from the 1st section. However, someone keeps reverting.. these are CLEARLY "OPINION" and have NO PLACE IN THIS ARTICLE.

Specifics:

I removed "Cockatiel is by far the most popular"... subsequent editor replaced text and added "Citation Needed"... Adding "Citation needed" does NOT make this any less of an OPINION. "Most popular" by what standards? More people "like" them? People "like" them more than they do cockatoos? Or maybe more people keep them as pets? Nobody will find a citation that "proves" this, as there are 100's of definition of "most popular"... if someone wants to post stats of #'s of cockatiels vs. cockatoos then that may work.. but just saying "Citation needed" to try to allow this sentence to remain SHOULD NOT work. I challenge anyone to find any other legitimate Wiki article where the statement "by far the most popular" has been allowed to remain...

I removed reference to "difficult to care for"... again.. OPINION. Subsequent editor found a pet-store marketed book (not a reference book by any means!) whose author holds this OPINION... however that doesn't change the fact that it's an OPINION. I can find you dozens of cockatoo owners that will say they AREN'T.... and this article is NO PLACE to argue the relative "difficulty" of care. There is no reason this statement should be here, whether there's a citation or not.

I removed "White cockatoos are more common in captivity than black..."... First of all, this is un-important to the article. Further there are more varieties than "white and black". If editor wants this to stay, then find some reference to #'s of each species in captivity and phrase it in a QUANTITATIVE way...

May I suggest both the "most popular" and "more common" sentences remain removed and a new section with actual stats on #'s of each species in captivity be added? 184.6.134.93 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)jeremyg
 * I think the latter point is probably valid. But the point about large cockatoos being difficult to care for is hardly controversial; they require more effort that smaller less difficult birds like budgies or cockatiels. With reagrds to the first one is a wording thing - Cockatiels are (I think) the most commonly kept cockatoo, which is the meaning intended, though as you observe the wording can be improved. Can I make a suggestion? Create an account here. People will pretty much revert any anonymous IP deleting content on sight, it's a natural (if lazy) reaction to witnessing thousands of incidents of anonymous vandalism. Still, starting a conversation is the best way forward, so I'll flag this to see what people think. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook and the APPA National Pet Owners Survey will likely be useful sources for statistics of Cockatiel vs. Cockatoo ownership in numerical/percentage terms, if anyone has access to them (I don't). APPA statistics from 2004 quoted here would have it that 39% of bird owners in the USA have Cockatiels, whilst only 3% have Cockatoos. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points to IP 184.6.134.93: You removed a fully referenced sentence because you claim it is an opinion. It appears you are under the impression that anything resembling opinions never belongs on wikipedia, but no such policy exists. See the essay WP:OPINION and –far more significant– the policy WP:NPOV that says: "... representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources ". At no point did you provide a source that supports your claims. If you provide a reference that supports your claim the argument becomes valid, but otherwise it isn't. The other section you removed (how common the various cockatoos are in captivity) is a near-perfect match for WP:NOCITE ("If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the tag") and that's the content guideline I followed for these sentences. If you believe this info is harmful, I'd be very interested in knowing why. If you believe it is wrong, please do correct it instead of removing it entirely. Note that tagging it with   does not mean it will stay there forever; if no one has provided a ref. within a reasonable period, the sentence will be removed, per WP:NOCITE. How well this represents the overall division in captives can be questioned because zoos tend to have an over representation of large and spectacular species, but based on ISIS data there are vastly more white cockatoos than black cockatoos: A very rough count gave almost 2000 Cacatua spp and about 350 Calyptorhynchus spp+Probosciger. Sure there are other cockatoos than the white and black groups, but together they represent the vast majority of the species (one can question the traditional delimination of the groups, but that's a separate discussion). •  Rabo³  • 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed it again. There is no reference nor definition to "popular". Wikipedia should not and does not attempt to quantify "popularity". Maybe you are using the wrong word? There are too many definitions of "most popular". Rephrase to "more commonly held as pets" or something similar and reference research that shows numbers. "Popularity" is too subjective and un-verifiable. Also your most recent edit is not including the citation to the book that was referenced before that stated "difficult to care for." Seriously, you've cited a "published" source, however, the book is so clearly amateur that it barely qualifies as being "published". It's a dime-store book written by an enthusiast who has no formal training nor certifications/degrees, etc. in animal care. Frankly, I could self-publish a book saying the opposite and it would hold the same weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.134.93 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, in summary, you still haven't provided a reference to support you claim, and instead of making a minor correction, you still prefer to just remove everything?! Secondly, if "you" in the above comment was aimed at me, please note that I was not the original author of the sentence (you'll have to check history for that); I only added the citation needed tag. I have now re-inserted the sentence, but with a slight change in wording that hopefully will resolved the potential confusion over popular vs. common. I have also added a sentence to the main section, using the reference provided by Kurt Shaped Box above. As was pointed out by Casliber in his last edits to the page, there is a general attempt of restricting ref's in leads since all info in leads should be supported by ref'ed info in the main sections of the article (→WP:LEADCITE). The only sentence that was not clearly supported by ref'ed info in the main part of the article was the one about the Cockatiel, hence my addition of a sentence specific to that case. Finally, please do remember to sign your comments (comments on all talk pages should be signed). That's done by ending the comment with four tiles ( ~ ) • Rabo³  • 09:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: A fast check of the author of the source used for the statement about difficulty in keeping cockatoos also suggests the claim of an amateurish level is wrong: Rosemary Low, co-founder of World Parrot Trust, has published numerous books on parrots in the last four decades via a wide range of different publishers (i.e., not a bunch of self-publications) and was curator of Loro Parque for a period; among the largest collection of parrots in the world (the largest publicly accessible) and certainly the one with most different parrot species. • Rabo³  • 15:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead picture
The picture of a galah is not a good lead picture for the intro-box. The introduction states:
 * Cockatoos are instantly recognisable by their showy crests and curved bills. Their plumage is generally less colourful than that of other parrots, being mainly white, grey, or black, and often with coloured features in the crest, cheeks, or tail

It then goes on to describe the blacks and the whites, adding galahs separately.

The galah does not fit the description of a typical cockatoo.
 * No showy crest. The crest is small, and a galah is easily mistaken for a parrot.
 * It is brightly and distinctively coloured
 * The colour is all over its head and breast, typical of the location of colour on a parrot, and not typical of the placement on a cockatoo, as described in the article: crest, cheeks and tail.

I suggest that the picture of the galah is moved down, and a more typical cockatoo put in the intro box. Since the crest is the major identifying feature, for heavens sake give us a bird with a distinctive crest!

Amandajm (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Even more preferable would be a photo shouwin multiple (three?) examples of the 21 species.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. This idea with multiple cockatoo species is a good idea. Stuart mcmillen (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cockatoos do not have gallbladders
Please note "No, none of the psittacines (including cockatoos) have gallbladders. Nor do pigeons, or ostriches.

They have two hepatic ducts (a right and a left, coming from the respective two lobes of the liver). They both empty directly into the duodenum (the first part of the small intestine).

Occasionally, the right hepatic duct is found to be slightly dilated (especially in cockatoos) and thus has the appearance of a rudimentary gallbladder, but it is not one, it is simply a dilated hepatic duct. There is a microscopic difference in the arrangement of the epithelial cells lining a hepatic duct compared to those lining a gallbladder - this is how this fact is known.

The cases of mildly dilated hepatic ducts are not pathological, but are simply considered to be an anatomic variation."

Dr. Mike http://www.mytoos.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=122598 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.25.235 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian Origin of the word
I speak a little Indonesian, it is derived from a Malay trading language in which word melds and dropping consonants for linguistic economy are quite common. I believe the origin of 'Kakatua' is probably from the root words 'kakak' (honorific for a senior brother or sister) and 'tua' (old). There is a nursery rhyme which pre-dates European contact, called "Burung Kakatua" about a cockatoo perching on a window sill, so old that his beak is already overgrown.Tradimus (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence
There should be a way to integrate recent findings on intelligence into this. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. See what you think. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

cladogram & description (2nd para of Taxonomy) is awkward
This reflects the difficulty of describing a cladogram in accurate technical diction, while keeping the text understandable to the ordinary reader. Here's the issues:


 * It appears that the cladogram is copied almost verbatim from White, et.al (2011) Fig. 2, interpolating the 3 species not included in the study and two others not included in their diagram, yet the cladogram cites 5 references, some of which differ in notable respects from the phylogeny presented. These differences are deprecated by the opening statement of the associated text: "The relationships among various cockatoo genera are largely resolved,...".  While the text addresses the intractible Nymphicus hollandicus, it fails to address the differing alliances of especially Probosciger aterrimus (e.g. Brown & Toft, 1999), as well as the outlier genera/species Callocephalon fimbriatum, Eolophus roseicapilla and Lophocroa leadbeateri.


 * The opening sentence says, "...21 species belonging to the bird family Cacatuidae..." but family Cacatuidae isn't shown on the cladogram. Maybe it's a nit, since Cacatuoidea is monophyletic, but certainly worth at least a footnote below the diagram. Subfamily and tribe names have also been elided, and I don't think that's very appropriate when the taxons aren't monotypic (e.g. tribe Cacatuini).  Whenever a clade in the diagram represents a defined taxon, the taxon name should appear in the diagram.


 * The cladogram appears 'squished' horizontally, and it's 11 clade nesting levels deep. Conceptually, what we really have here (from top down) is {Cacatuoidea, everything else}; Cacatuoidea is 4 items: {clade/genus Cacatua, clade/genus Calyptorhynchus, genus Nymphicus, (4)misc genera}.  I'd tentatively suggest splitting the cladogram into two pieces: a Cacatuoidea/Cacatuidae cladogram, and a root tree cladogram of everything else (with a terminal node Cacatuoidea).   The squished look can be alleviated by setting a width of 360 to 425, but it's kind of a pastiche.  The real problem is complexity of layout, not geometry. See inset, right for suggested improvement.


 * "The remaining species are within two main clades, the first consisting of the black species...": but in the cladogram, the clade of black species (genus Calyptorhynchus) follows, i.e., is further down in the diagram, than the other clade. Ordinarily, we enumerate items horizontally from left to right, and vertically from top to bottom.  I would call Calyptorhynchus the second clade so I know to look for it in the latter (bottom) portion of the diagram.


 * "The first species in this second clade is the majestic black Palm Cockatoo...": 'first' in terms of what? It looks like it's last (i.e. bottom-most within the diagram of the clade). (And I think 'majestic' should be omitted - editorializing.)


 * "...followed first by a small clade consisting of the gray and reddish Galah and the Gang-gang Cockatoo and then the pinkish Major Mitchell's Cockatoo.": these three species don't form any kind of clade; two are sister species. There's also the problem of translating from the common names to the binomial names, in order to locate the species in the cladogram.


 * "Confusingly, the term "white cockatoo" has also been applied to the whole genus, and even the whole clade.": the whole clade including what? The reference is from Cayley and Lendon 1973, and there were no phylogenetic clades as we know them then.  We should probably call it a 'group' and specify what the group contained. In any case, the term 'white cockatoo' could mean any of four things: the species Cacatua alba, the subgenus Cacatua (Cacatua), the genus Cacatua, or Cayley and Lendon's white cockatoo 'group'.


 * "Calyptorhynchus and Zanda": it's interesting what characterizes the Zanda subgenus, but it's not mentioned.

Sbalfour (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think overall, the companion text describing the cladogram should succinctly summarize the structure of the cladogram, not try to transliterate it clade-by-clade.

species and subspecies names w/(Subgenus) taxon?
In the Species and subspecies section under Taxonomy, we list subspecies as Genus (Subgenus) species subspecies authority. That's a lot of text that doesn't contribute any additional info beyond the traditional abbreviation of the genus and species names when listing subspecies (subgenus, if any, is omitted). e.g. C.b. banksii Latham 1790 instead of Calyptorhynchus (Calyptorhynchus) banksii banksii Latham 1790. Especially in a taxonomic listing, where we list subspecies directly under the subgenus name, we don't need the subgenus taxon in the names of the species and subspecies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbalfour (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

many subspecies missing in Species and subspecies subsection of Taxonomy
I added a few before I realized that more are missing than enumerated. It appears that including subspecies in the Taxonomy was an afterthought. It certainly bloats the presentation, and I'm considering whether they properly out be enumerated here. Maybe we ought to deal with sub-generic taxons in the generic articles; this is a Family taxon level article - isn't three levels of taxons (subfamily/tribe/genus) enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbalfour (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cockatoo. 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/20090106063112/http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/patel/Patel_Iversen_Bregman_Schulz_Schulz_2008_ICMPC10.pdf to http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/patel/Patel_Iversen_Bregman_Schulz_Schulz_2008_ICMPC10.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524005529/http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/joseph-wright-of-derby-an-experiment-on-a-bird-in-the-air-pump/*/x/-218/y/-230/z/3 to http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/joseph-wright-of-derby-an-experiment-on-a-bird-in-the-air-pump/*/x/-218/y/-230/z/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cockatoo. 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/20160330183843/https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants-animals/animals/living-with-wildlife/2008108_muirs_corellas_a5_bookletweb.pdf to https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants-animals/animals/living-with-wildlife/2008108_muirs_corellas_a5_bookletweb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cockatoo. 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/20110720084405/http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/archives/ivcvm/1998/stedman/index.php to http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/archives/ivcvm/1998/stedman/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)