Talk:Rodrigues starling

Reconstruction, relationships of Fregilupus etc
See Sturnia. For a reconstruction, it is presently most warranted to merge the body form of Fregilupus, Sturnia sinensis, Sturnia malabarica and perhaps Leucopsar (too highly arboreal?). The skull/beak must be taken as template (do not forget horny sheath) and the limb proportions too. Then adapt the generalized "Sturnia" (of the old definition) color pattern to the description of Tafforet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this sketch based on your description and the skull image in the article. How do you think I could improve it? I did not add a crest, since Julian Hume has left one out of his restoration. The colouration was based on this: FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tafforet's full description
It's in the public domain, and pretty much all we know about the bird is from this, so why not quote it on the page in full? I'll add Alfred Newton's translation, I can't see any reason to object to it, but please do, if it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would link to Alfred Newton's original work instead to the citation in Cheke & Hume --Melly42 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The book doesn't give a citation beyond that it was by Newton, so I don't know where it was published... Perhaps he never actually published it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newton cited Tafforet's original description in his article Additional evidence as to the Original fauna of Rodrigues Published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1875) p 41: --Melly42 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it doesn't seem to contain the translation, but there is a mention of a future publication by Milne-Edwards, but Newton of course couldn't cite it proactively, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is found in "Alfred Newton 1875 Additional Evidence as to the Original Fauna of Rodriguez". FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good article?
Seems like this could be a good article, with some modifications? It seems very long for such a badly known bird, might there be synthesis in the text, of sources that do not particularly mention this species? FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be good to rewrite the outdated section --Melly42 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one? It seems to make clear that it is now seen as a starling, and then give an overview of the older classification history. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if the outdated template should stay in the article --Melly42 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a bit too much information from sources that don't even mention the bird, I'll have to clean this up before a nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Binomial authority
It is somewhat strange that H. H. Slater has been removed as binomial authority (contra IUCN assessment) --Melly42 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He did not write the publication, so it does not seem he would count as the authority by modern standards. He is not credited in the relevant books (both versions of "Extinct Birds"). Günther and Newton credited him for inventing the name, but again, the publication is what counts. The name came from Slater's personal notes, but was therefore a nomen nudum until published by Günther and Newton, and therefore they are the authority. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Slater provided the name and the notes which were important for Günther's and Newton's description, so I think it is relevant to include Slater among the describers (at least for the genus authority) --Melly42 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the prose at least, but per modern nomenclatural conventions, he doesn't count as the authority for the scientific name. The IUCN seem to be following Günther and Newton's 19th century whim, from before these conventions were even established. But all the modern books I have looked at credit only Günther and Newton as authority. There is a big difference between making up a name and publishing it, at least when it comes to the rules. For a very recent example (yesterday!) see Nasutoceratops. It was first named in a 2010 thesis where Lund was sole author, but it was not properly published until 2013, so that's what counts, and Sampson is now first author. FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you say to the fact, that Günther & Newton state Slater as authority for Necropsar rodericanus in their paper Extinct Birds of Rodriguez (1879)? Source
 * I addressed that when I mentioned "Günther and Newton's 19th century whim". Authors cannot cite unpublished work as a taxonomic authority. But back inthose days, the standards were much less clear. But new standards work retroactively, however, which makes those old discrepancies invalid. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pvmoutside seems unwilling to discuss this. Yes, some bird websites may use the original, erroneous attribution, but the opinion of modern sources (Hume, Walters, and Fuller) should carry more weight than those. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This recent paper confirms that Slater's notes were never published, so it is against accepted practices to credit him rather than the authors of the paper. There is more detail about the situation in Hume 2014, where he credits "Günther & Newton, (ex Slater MS)" for the name. So not sure what Birdlife is on about. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I fear that this is not entirely correct. ICZN 50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act. So, it all depends on the actual contents of Slater's notes. If these contained some traits used by Günther and Newton to distinguish the taxon, the correct attribution would be Slater per Günther & Newton, 1879.--MWAK (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hard to say, though, as Slater's original notes aren't published for comparison, so we would need some authority to do this. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added vide Slater to the binomial authoriy, pending other users views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we need to follow how the sources do it, but they seem to disagree on it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodrigues starling. 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/20150209164455/http://www.biodiversityheritagelibrary.org/item/99626 to http://www.biodiversityheritagelibrary.org/item/99626

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) 05:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Necropsar rodericanus.jpg
, is the description on this image wrong? I do not understand the difference between holotype and syntype. But it would be nice if we had consistency between the file description and the caption on the Main Page: Today's featured article/April 3, 2020. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I have now clarified it in my latest edit. I think the inconsistency arose because I was actually expanding this article before a lectotype was designated among the syntype bones in a 2014 article. Feel free to suggest if it still needs clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Main image
Congrats everyone on getting this article to Featured Article level, I very much enjoyed reading it. Thinking of this from a casual reader's perspective, I wonder if the current image (used in the taxobox and by extension as a header in mobile apps) is the most appropriate and if the restoration image (File:Rodrigues Starling.jpg) wouldn't be more appropriate as an illustration.--DarTar (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for TFA, but I think it's a bit too late in the game to change it now, isn't the next TFA due in like ten minutes? But as for the main taxobox image, we should use the least speculative image we've got, which is the fossils themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not questioning this, but can you explain the rationale of we should use the least speculative image we've got? Is there any applicable guideline/policy? Given that the taxobox image is effectively used as a snippet on all link hovers and app cards and headers i.e. as the first thing casual readers will see when they are interested in reading more about the topic, prior to visiting the article, I feel this should be the best high-level illustration of the topic, not necessarily the most reliable scientific image related to the topic from the literature. In those contexts, in particular, the image is used without caption, which makes it harder to understand without context. I don't have access to Hume (2014) but if your adaption is close enough to the original I feel it would do a great job as a main image. My 2 cents. --DarTar (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's a matter of philosophy. On Wikipedia, verifiability trumps everything else, and the specimens themselves are the facts when it comes to dealing with extinct animals that have left no complete remains. We did work out a guideline at the paleontology project that states skeletons should taker precedence over restorations in taxoboxes, for that reason. You can compare the image with Hume's illustrations of the bird here: But since they are speculative, and even contradict each other in some ways (the second shows yellow on the rump and around the eye not mentioned in the old account), I wouldn't even use those as the main image. They are best guesses, yes, but they would also mislead the reader into thinking we know more than we do. Which is also why, even though I drew the image used in the article, and therefore am convinced it follows all the available sources, I'd prefer to show the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see that, thanks for the additional context.--DarTar (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)