Talk:Cuban macaw

Some thoughts on the article:
Some issues will be because the documentation of the species is sparse, so this might need to be explained when it is not possible to clarify any further: Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A bit more about the circumstances of the old paintings would be interesting. Perhaps, longer captions. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What's here is all I could find, sadly... I could add in which publications they originate? Thanks for giving the article a look, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am half way through the article. I will have a look at some books tomorrow. Were any of the artists travelers that saw living Cuban Parrots? Snowman (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the 1765 one under taxonomy, and that was seen on Jamaica, and looks somewhat different (perhaps due to being stylised), so it is not clear what it actually was. The rest seem to be based on specimens in Europe, but the sources don't explain this, or whether they're stuffed or not... FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The paragraph starting "A hurricane in 1844 is said ...". I think I know what it means, but it could be clearer. Changes from pleural to singular storm is confusing to me. Is a tropical storm the same as a hurricane? A tropical storm = tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression, or simply cyclone? Says that a hurricane wiped out parrots, then it says one caused them to scatter (ie not wiped out by hurricane). Can you make it a bit clearer? Snowman (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The source specifically mentions both storms and hurricanes, so I guess it is an important distinction. Also, it mentions several, successive storms and hurricanes, so there is no way to really simplify. One storm apparently wiped the macaws out from one area, but subsequent storms/hurricanes may only have damaged the population that remained elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Subfossils found in a cave. Humans sometimes live in caves. It is possible that humans took the macaw bones into the cave? Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In the same paragaraph: "The habitat of the Cuban macaw was open savanna terrain with scattered trees" and found in "rainforest-like gallery forest". The two locations sound mutualy exclusive, unless I have missed something. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Puzzled me too, but the source doesn't elaborate, simply states the bird was found there, and what the habitat was there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "This practice selectively destroyed the species' breeding habitat, in addition to facilitating the capture of individual birds and accidentally killing nestlings." This is clear, but could you double check this please. Are the trees cut down to capture chicks in the nest, the adults, or both. Would the adults fly away from their tree when it is been chopped down and then falls down? Why did the cruel hunters not climb up the tree and get the chicks out of the nests? My 1980 edition of Fuller's "Extinct birds" says that locals hunted adults for meat and kept young birds as pets. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was to capture the nestlings. The other details you asked for are not discussed... FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I have rephrased it. Snowman (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Consider putting the 1801 Barrbarand painting in the infobox, because it faces into the page. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought about it, but the one in the infobox is the most naturalistic depiction, the other one uses hatching, and is quite roughly coloured (which makes it look a bit more stylised), being just a lithograph, whereas the other one is an actual painting...
 * I guessed that the infobox image decision was based on the quality. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you got any examples of any zoos that definitely had a Cuban Macaw? Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll add some... FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I made some changes that should address most concerns. I'll start the FAC now, since it'll probably take weeks before anyone comments anyway, and we can resolve remaining issues in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a nice article. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The critically endangered Spix Macaw (5061 words) and the extinct St. Croix Macaw (1349 words) are other longish macaw articles. The Cuban Macaw article (2222 words) is not quite the longest macaw article. Snowman (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I've modified the FAC blurb thing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it worth mentioning the old name of Isle of Pines (up to 1978 according to the Isla de la Juventud Wikipage), not necessarily in the introduction, but somewhere in the text. It is one of the things that I had to look up some years ago when I read about Cuban birds. Old books use the old name. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned under distribution. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I have put a strike though that, because I did not see where it was written. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "With a healthy macaw population, such events could have been beneficial by creating nest cavities." I find this line a puzzle. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is explained in the sentence that follows. If the population was big and healthy, scattering and culling wouldn't be so dangerous. But with only few individuals left, it would be fatal. The source doesn't go this much into detail, though. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still do not see anything logical about a hurricane creating nest cavities. I think that is what the line says. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is everything the source says about hurricanes and storms: http://oi62.tinypic.com/ixxcmb.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, it appears to say that storms produce suitable habitat for cavity nesting birds. I have amended the article. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the source is a bit vague, so I guess it is better to just write exactly the same as the source. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The taxonomy section says it has an all-black bill. I would think that its beak was a sort of very dark gray that we take for black, so saying it has an all-black bill would be correct use of every day language. The description section says it has a dark beak, so I think that this should be changed to all-black beak. I did not change this myself in case I disturbed text-source integrity. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See, that's actually a problem with the sources. They're inconsistent on whether it is "dark", all-black, or has a lighter tip... Not sure what to do with that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the photograph that I linked in the external links section and I think that you will come to the conclusion that is was all black (or that dark gray that we take for black). I guess, it is possible that juveniles' bills went through a pale phase, at least part of the beak. You could say that the range of colours of the beak in the records as an addendum. I think that it would be ok to use the photograph as a source for the all-black beak. You can make obvious deductions from maps and photographs as RS for text. Alternatively, is there a scientific description of a skin somewhere? Snowman (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have myself speculated that the greyness may be due to bleaching/fading of the old specimens, and may not reflect the life appearance. But I think we can write black/dark with no problem, not sure if we can interpret photos ourselves. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See this about interpreting images as RS, see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_34. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think determining colour based on photos is quite a bit more subjective, perhaps a new thread about this particular case could be started on RS. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interpreting colours can be difficult from photographs and this may be controversial. Looking at the photo of the skin is only one aspect of considering the article. Anyway, the beak is black, dark-gray or dark. We interpret photos regularly at WP Birds by identifying bird photographs that are not labelled with a species name from flicker. I recall that old skins fade over time, but the overall appearance of a skin would be somewhat helpful. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In those cases we go by certain (rather objective) criteria, written down in handbooks and checklists. We have little to go by in this case. And one photo may not tell the entire story, another specimen may have a grey beak, so how can we be sure our own interpretation of one image even matters? I say leave it to the text sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your scientific approach. Nevertheless, I think that some photographs of things (not necessarily taxidermy specimens) can be a RS when obvious and when not controversial. For example; I would conclude that the taxiderm specimen is set up to look as if it is perching on a branch, and I would not need any text to conclude this. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See for example the two photos here, there seems to be a substantial difference in beak colour. I don't think we're in a position to judge which one is "correct". By the way, I had included the Fuertes painting here long ago, but it was deleted even though the author died more than 70 years ago, since it's original publication date couldn't be determined... Boohoo. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see some variation in beak colours of the skins. The tip of the upper jaw looks pallid on one skin. Presumably the painting by Fuertes was published when it went on show somewhere. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So why not put in the description; "the bill has been described variously as all-black, black with pallid tip, or dark." or whatever the old reports say. Snowman (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do, it is actually not the old reports that say so, but various modern descriptions... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it better so say bill or beak in the article, or mix the terms. I have changed it to beak for now, but change it to bill if that is preferable. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuban macaw. 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/20140207182726/http://www.auburn.edu/~willi71/carib_parrot.pdf to http://www.auburn.edu/~willi71/carib_parrot.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) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)