Talk:Pitta

Copyvio?
rollbacked recent addition since no attempt to wikify or rm redundant info, also looks like copyright violation. jimfbleak 14:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Move from Pitta (bird)
I moved this page from Pitta (bird) to Pitta as it was the primary usage, all other uses on dab page were redlinks. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pittidae Swainson, 1831
The taxobox currently (13 Jan 2019) lists the "authority" for the family Pittidae as Swainson, 1831. This agrees that given by Bock in his book on family names but I am confident that Bock is incorrect and suspect that the authority should be Bonaparte 1850.

Bock published a book on family names in 1994. It is available online as a single 48MB download: On page 147 Bock gives the authority for the family Pittidae as "Swainson, 1831" and on page 262 gives the reference without specifying a page number: Swainson subscribed to the weird quinarian system. He mentions Pitta on several occasions but doesn't mention Pittidae. On page 172 he has Pittæ but it doesn't appear to indicate a family. On googling I came across a extremely critical (damning) review of Bock's book by Storrs L. Olson: On page 544 of the review Storrs writes:

So who should we cite as the authority for Pittidae? The earliest mention that I can find by googling is: In his book on Pittidae (1893-5 edition) Elliot lists earlier publications and the first where Pittidae is mentioned is Bonaparte 1850: Elliot points out that Bonaparte includes genera in the family Pittidae that are no longer considered as members of the family.

So Swainson is clearly wrong. I think we should credit Bonaparte - but this is partly original research. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think if most other sources give Swainson we should too in the taxobox, but include a discussion in the text to indicate that this is disputed by Olson and others and note who is cited as the earliest author. I welcome other suggestions. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the following could be inserted in place of the statement attributing the family to Vieillot:
 * Credit for the naming of the pittas as a distinct family, Pittidae, has been given to William Swainson in his 1831 book Fauna boreali-americana, or, The zoology of the northern parts of British America. The attribution was made by Walter Bock in a study of the history of bird names. Storrs Olson has strongly disputed Bock's claims, noting


 * I confess to being at a slight loss in how to include Bonaparte without it constituting OR, other than to note that he was an early user of the name. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  06:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=36 Pinging Shyamal (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to explain the situation in a footnote. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My take is that is better, but "see text" allows context and attribution (if it must say anything at all, which is an option). cygnis insignis 11:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the text and solution Sabine's Sunbird  talk  17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Without knowing a few more details, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with attributing all of these names to Swainson under the ICZN. Names like "Pittae" or "Oidemiae" can be perfectly fine so long as they comply with the provisions of Article 11.7 of the Code. Note in particular Articles 11.7.1.2, 11.7.1.3, and especially 11.7.2, and the given examples - and also note that compliance withe mandatory rules of the ICZN within Wikipedia does not necessarily constitute OR, when the rules can be cited as a reputable source. It is one thing to SUPPOSE that Bock is wrong, but unless you can back it up by citing the relevant Articles, then it IS a matter of OR. Note also that as Shyamal pointed out, so long as the name was demonstrably supra-generic when coined, it automatically extends to all ranks from tribe to superfamily under the Principle of Coordination.

Dyanega (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So... where to from here? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  07:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the present footnote - it states the facts and avoids adding technical details to the article. Olson's criticism of Bock giving credit to Swainson comes under 11.7.1.2. in the above list - but there is no need to add that to the article. I think Olson is probably correct - but my opinion doesn't count. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Early use of "Pitta"
On page 16 of Murray Bruce's forward to Volume 8 of HBW:

Bruce wrote: "The Madras list, from an Edward Buckley, was also incorporated by Derham into Ray’s glossary of foreign bird names and is notable for passerines as the source of the name “pitta”, a local name for “bird”, but subsequently associated with the members of the family Pittidae."

Pitta occurs on p.195 of William Derham's book (BHL is wonderful):

"12. Pica Indica vulgaris: Ponnunky pitta; Gent. Ponnandutty; Maderaspatanesibus : The MADRASS-JAY. Fig 10. Nostrati Picae glandariae affinis est. Linea arcuata albida supra oculos. Alarum tegetes virescunt, Scapis flavescentibus: juxta basin alarum macula coerulea: Remiges & Cauda nigrescunt: Uropygium coeruleo maculatur: inter femora usque ad caudam rubescit."

Now Fig. 10 (foldout 3 pages earlier) doesn't look much like a pitta - but it does have a vague eye stripe.

Abhijit Menon-Sen is this article claims that from the description it is an Indian Pitta Pitta brachyura. The linked article includes a translation of the Latin. "The "Ponnunky Pitta" above is another rendition of "Ponnangi pitta", the Telugu name for the Indian Pitta."

Perhaps some of this should be included (before Linnaeus) in the wiki article. -Aa77zz (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that added some of the above to the Indian pitta article yesterday. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The coloured British Library original is quite easy to identify as a pitta, esp. the red vent and the green on the wings, thought the pigments used are quite weak. Shyamal (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Pitts
No edit summary RoxanaTM (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Position of the sapayoa in cladogram
The cladogram in the article is based on Selvatti et al 2017 (note the year of publication) which places the sapoya as basal to the other members of Eurylaimides. This result is not supported by more recent studies. Selvatti et al write "our final concatenated analysis all recovered Sapayoa as the sister group to all members of Eurylaimides; however, bootstrap support was low in all cases." p. 487 Two more recent and larger studies based on many more loci find that Sapayoa is sister to the Pittidae. The studies are: The cladogram in the Harvey et al article is impossible to read. Mike Harvey has made available a legible version of the cladogram on his web page here. I would update the article myself but as this is an FA, I mention it here first. -Aa77zz (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)