Talk:Rainbow lorikeet

earlier comments
Right, the nigrogularis and caeruleiceps are the same birds. In Parrots of the World they write that the nigrogularis is a slightly larger: blue on the head usually darker. But by the caeruleiceps they write; probably not separable from nigrogularis.

In my opion it are the same birds, in the subspecies T.h. massena for example are also minor difference between the islands were there coming from.

The subspecies of the Thrichoglossus haematodus group are sometimes easy to separate, but also some species are difficult. These 3 groups for exemple are almost simular: (MICROPTERYX, MASSENA, DEPLANCHI) (CAPISTRATUS, FLAVOTECTUS, FORTIS) (MITCHELLII, FORSTENI, DJAMPEANUS) Gert van Dooren gjm.vandooren@wanadoo.nl

(Comment transferred from main article - comment was made by 83.118.70.238)

Major Changes
The article had a lot of good information, but it was poorly-organised and the writing was awkward. I think maybe the subheadings as I've got them need a little more detail, or need to be better combined, but I feel that it's an improvement on the article. I did remove a lot of inconsequential and redundant information.

I would like to see more information on reproduction, specifically on clutch size, courtship rituals and fledging. I may try to add the information myself at a later date, if no one's beat me to it.

Please feel free to better organise the article! Lomaprieta 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many photos
How many pictures does this page's gallery need? Just about anyone in Australia can take and upload a photo of a rainbow lorikeet, but that doesn't mean they should -- and the gallery is getting kind of cluttered. Lomaprieta 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should remove the bad quality photos (some are blurred, etc.) not just randomly remove photos in order from the last one to the first one. Or maybe simply remove the gallery and use some of the best photos in the actual article. --Rocky88 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already removed several and have tried to retain those that show distinctive aspects, but I also agree that there are still way too many. I'll have another go at reducing the numbers. Velela 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, we need more beautiful things in the world AND in WP. Leave the birds alone. 210.1.198.109 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, Hear! cojoco (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The world has an abundance of beautiful things. What it doesn't need is crowded galleries of samey images. A selection of images that show various subspecies is good. Lots of "me too" images of birds from Sydney is not. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can you identify subspecies in the various images on this page and on commons, it would help to make a subspecies gallery. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the first one should be gone. It's way to blurry.-Warriorscourge (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first image in the gallery is now removed. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the rest and created a subspecies gallery. I would not object to my remaining image being removed, but I think it a good example of its occurrence as an introduced species. The quintessential illustration by Ferdinand Bauer remains unmatched! cygnis insignis 07:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two rules for contributing to a discussion. And they're very simple. Some of you have forgotten them, and as a result your comments seem petty, rude, and unhelpful. Here they are:
 * – Be kind
 * – Remember 'what you are doing and why you're doing it'
 * – (In other words, ensure that your comments
 * are 'constructive, helpful, and convey a sense of
 * gratitude' towards the author(s))
 * Although perhaps you could have written, illustrated and annotated this article yourself, only you didn't. Someone else did, and they did so as a public service. So please, show some gratitude and consider what you're writing.
 * Thank you. Lantern3three (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reorganizing this article
Now the name Rainbow Lorikeet refers really to a few of the many subspecies of this bird: this causes problems in terms of what we call the page.

We can move this page to the scientific name to remove any ambiguity over what the page is referring to. It can either be a big page with all information on it or can be a fork to all the subspecies.

I'll put a tag as a controversial move. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on requested move
Thoughts here (?) cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Opppose for now until a better justification for the move is made. The fact is that Rainbow Lorikeet is a well established common name for the species as a whole, and is used over a large part of its range. Its the common name used for the species in every guide book and handbook I've ever seen. If someone wants to do separate subspecies articles then they can but in any event there is no one subspecies that also has the name Rainbow Lorikieet that it could cause confusion with. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit I agree in terms of Australian-based bird books, but I haven't seen those of the philippines etc. Will try to google a bit later. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 05:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * while I oppose the move of an individual article from common name to taxonomical name, I wouldnt be opposed to a policy shift via WP:BIRD that resulted in all bird article being changed. Common names should become redirect pages. Gnangarra 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A shift of that magnitude would need to be discussed amongst the whole of Wikipedia, I feel. What binomials gain in taxanomic clarity they lack in clarity to the layman, and we need to think of the reader. I'd oppose such a move, myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, plants and fungi have gone the other way...cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all birds have "formal" common names. What is the formal common name for this species? Hesperian 06:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there are no formal common names as such like scientific names. They do not need to be described, diagnosed nor published. There seems to be some sort of push toward standardising names with official lists by various organizations in recent years but I am unsure how much weight they carry {this is a subject of debate elsewhere). cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 08:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the taxonomic naming its precise and clear, where as common names can lead to problems, surely Haliaeetus leucocephalus also should be at its taxonomic name. Its just that such a move should be decided from a project level as there needs to be a consistancy across associated all articles. This article does indicate many subspecies with their own common names, its just that the difference arent always known. Gnangarra 09:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cas, why do you say that "Rainbow Lorikeet" refers to only a few subspecies? I checked the Birds Australia checklist, and they consider "Rainbow Lorikeet" the common name for the species. Hesperian 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We call T. h. rubritorquis "Red-collared lorikeet". The name "Rainbow lorikeet" refers to the subspecies T. h. moluccanus. Another one is Weber's lorikeet T. h. weberi. The overall name in 1978 Forshaw's Parrots of the World is Rainbow Lory (not lorikeet) - he seems to make a distinction for some reason, I am not sure why. I am not familiar with other non-oz species, but it reminds me of the whole Platycercus elegans species which now incorporates the red Crimson Rosella and the yellow Yellow Rosella (I have to check what that page is called now too...). T. h. moluccanus has also been called Swainson's lorikeet...cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as any different to calling Banksia integrifolia "Coast Banksia" but B. i. subsp. monticola "White Mountain Banksia". The fact that different common names exist for particular subspecies needn't invalidate the species' common name. Or to put it another way, I don't see any problem with having different common names at different taxonomic ranks. Hesperian 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, good point. I hadn't thought of that one.cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I understand the reasoning with this particular taxon, but I believe that current policy should prevail or change completely. Other names can be easily handled with redirects. I note that, in general, common names have greater stability than scientific ones, so would also oppose a change in policy. Maias 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. There are similar problems with other taxa, e.g. Island Thrush. I think consistency of treatment is important for accessibility.  Maias 12:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I am happy with the points of view noted above and am happy to withdraw the move argument. Thanks everyone cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing the requested move
Dang, I forgot to stick a template thingy here. Never mind. I have removed it from the moves page. Thanks all. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 13:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - another split reference!
Funnily enough on IOC they have split off Rainbow Lorikeet T. moluccanus and Red-collared Lorikeet T. rubritorquis, leaving Coconut Lorikeet T. haematodus on [Worldbirdnames].... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The main photo and from Philadelphia Zoo
The main photo and the ones from Philadelphia zoo seem like a diffrent type of lorikeet as the colouring under the neck is to red when it should be orange yellow like all the other photos.


 * More likely, they're just a different subspecies. Hopefully someone with some knowledge of the subject can start adding info and photos on the various subspecies listed. Only two of the photos here are identified to subspecies, and only one sp. has its page.  Fredwerner 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now updated. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy - how many species?
[the following is a continuation from talk on wikiproj. birds]

The Rainbow Lorikeet article should arguably be split up into the species mentioned in the brief text below the subspecies list, as a growing number of authorities have accepted the split of these. I think the Clements list is pretty much the only one still going with a single species. • Rabo³  • 09:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have Christidis and Boles 2008 Systemaitcs and taxonomy of Australian Birds which cites several papers argungi for a split and proposes that it is reasonable without actually splitting (but then again there are only 3 ssp in Oz). This is fascinating news, is there an authorative list with the split? I guess we should take this to Rainbow Lorikeet talk page....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, e.g. Howard & Moore split it in their list. None of these splits are "really" recent, as all were described as species (not subspecies). However, capistratus was then changed to subspecies by Mathews. Without presenting any arguments, this was followed by Peters, who went even further and changed weberi and forsteni to subspecies rather than a separate species. Again no arguments presented. As the Peters list has formed the basis for all modern worldwide check-lists for birds, his merge was the default option. • Rabo³  • 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny to think of Mathews moving a species to subspecific status, he was usually a splitter. Anyway, I remember the Forshaw book illustration and how different some of them look. Ah well, some new pages to make then..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless someone protests, I'll start splitting out the articles at some point in the future. • Rabo³  • 09:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * fine by me.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me too, as the IOC has followed the splitting also. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, this may be a bit delayed due to my schedule for the immediate future, and when I get a bit more time at hand, the already promissed overviews of the Pachycephala pectoralis and Megascops vermiculatus/guatemalae complexes are in a more dire need of work than this article, though I may end up making some basic "ok-for-now" articles as a quick solution. • Rabo³  • 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll start the pages today (finally!), but they'll be very basic for now. Anyone else should of course feel free to weigh in. • Rabo³  • 14:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lorikeet height and wingspan
The article asserts "...Rainbow Lorikeets height ranging from 25-30 cm". They are nowhere near that tall. I just measured my fully grown rainbow lorikeets and they are less than 15 cm tall. Does the measurement provided perhaps include their tail? It is a little ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freswood (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Length is measured as the distance from the tip of the beak to the tip of the tail, neck stretched. That gives generally a much longer distance than it appears from when it is perched. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange that their height is 25-30cm but their wing span is only 17cm or is that only one wing? Even so it still seems a little less than what I would expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.69.161 (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above post. I've never seen this bird in my life (living on the wrong continent ...) but this relation of length (including the tail, of course) and wingspan seems to contradict all measures of birds I've ever come across. If 17 cm is only one wing, it's not the wingSPAN. Maybe it is 17 inches - that would be much more likely. - I've now deleted the wingspan in the article, until someone comes up with reasonable data. 88.117.26.9 (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed in 'As a pest' section
There is a line in that section: "New Zealand's Department of Conservation has declared them a pest and is using similar methods to control and eradicate them", but there is no indication what those methods are similar to. If what they're similar to can't be added, then it should be changed to remove the 'similar' comparison. MurfleMan (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rainbow lorikeet.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rainbow lorikeet.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 10, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wingspan
I find it hard to believe that Rainbow Lorikeets have a wingspan (wingtip to wingtip) of only 17 cm, especially since I saw some flying across my garden just a few minutes ago!

Unfortunately none of my reference books (including e.g. Pizzey, G. & Knight, F.(1997): Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, or Morcombe, M. (2000): Field Guide to Australian Birds) give a figure for wingspan though they do commonly quote a figure for length (Pizzey & Knight: 28-32 com, Morcombe: 31 cm), greater than the 30 cm quoted here in the Wikipedia article.Bahudhara (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pair of lorikeets with a chick
While I know there are plenty of lorikeet images available, here's a pair with a chick. cojoco (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore -Dec2009.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore -Dec2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 21, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 17:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You have this species listed as (Trichoglossus moluccanus). Later in the article you refer to T. h. moluccanus as a subspecies. The nominate species is Trichoglossus haematodus. ProphetK (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Dimorphism
This section needs some references to support the claims. It may just be an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHab (talk • contribs) 05:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Four and a half years later, there are still nip references at all to short the claims about how they can be sexed - in contrast to the references which say a DNA test is required. That is enough waiting - I am removing the unsupported claims which look like OR. Gronk Oz (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

binomial name discrepancy
Parts of the article say Trichoglossus moluccanus but the sections that describe the subspecies still say Trichoglossus haematodus or T. h. --110.174.166.224 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've remmoved all information and images that mention Trichoglossus haematodus since that is now considered a separate species, the Coconut Lorikeet. Trichoglossus rosenbergii is now also considered a separate species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.166.224 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy about which species name to use if there are multiple species names? Which sources are considered the most authoritative? --110.174.166.224 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unclear origin
The article describes that these were introduced to Australia and New Zealand but not where from. This might be great to add. Cbetta (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)