Talk:Scottish crossbill

Wrong picture?
Assuming the filename is correct, this is actually a picture of the Parrot Crossbill (Loxia pytyopsittacus) rather than the Scottish Crossbill (L. scotica). Flapdragon 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And Scottish Crossbill doesn't occur in central Europe, but Scottish is often considered to be a subspecies of Parrot Crossbill.... Jimfbleak 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the picture, but as i put in the edit summary, the picture is of the superficially similar Parrot Crossbill, (Loxia pytyopsittacus), as pointed out above, Scottish Crossbill is considered by some to be a subspecies of this species, so why not use this picture until a more suitable one can be found. Greenfinch100 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this view. People can find the parrot crossbill picture by following the appropriate link if they need to. We don't use "similar" images in other articles. At the very least, you'd have to adjust the caption in image namespace to point out which species is being shown, and what its relation is to any other species that may allow it to be used in other articles. Finally, I might add that I think the rationale you have just offered is similar to what we use for fair use. Fair use would not apply in this case, because a free image could be obtained. Similarly, we should not be so lazy to include an incorrect image rather than work hard to obtain permission to use an accurate one. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added an image caption. I believe there are two issues of significance here. The first is whether or not the image is misleading. As the only significant visual clue that distinguishes the Scottish from the Parrot and Common is a relatively small variation in bill size, I can't imagine that anyone except the most seasoned watcher might be misled. Hopefully the caption now avoids even that possibility.  The second issue is availability of images. The bird is ( I believe) the rarest resident European bird. There are few Commons  images of any Scottish creature on its native heath and I suspect obtaining one might not be easy. If you are motivated to find one that's terrific, but in the meantime it is my view that an all-but-indistinguishable one from the real thing is better than nothing. Ben MacDuiTalk  /  Walk  20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Species"?
So, the Scottish crossbill has a "Scottish accent" which differs from parrot and common crossbills. Does that therefore mean that Scottish people are also a separate species, distinct from homo sapiens? Homo scotticus? Even within well-established species there is some geographical variation in calls. Was this "species" invented so that the British could say that they have their very own endemic species? An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You may well be correct, but such a claim would of course require a suitable citation. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article states that the status of this species rests on minor differences in calls. To base its status as a separate species solely on that is absurd precisely for the reason I have given above. I cannot find a citation for the claim that the British invented this species so that they could say that they have an endemic bird species but it doesn't make the entire exercise any less absurd. People seem to lose their critical faculties when so-called "experts" pronounce that something is so. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Vocalisations are very important in separating bird species, because they matter to the birds in identifying others of the same species. The Willow Warbler and Chiffchaff are close relatives and similar in appearance, yet they do not interbreed because their calls and songs are quite different. It's easy to underestimate the importance of songs because we don't select potential mates on the basis of accents, if we did then the Scots might have become a separate species. There are small physical differences between Scottish and the other crossbills, notably on bill size, but the case for separate species status depends on the birds being reproductively isolated from their relatives because they only breed with birds that sound the same.


 * To give a couple more examples, the very similar Ringed Plover and Semipalmated Plover are indubitably good species, mainly separated by call, but the very different (in appearance) British and European ssp of Yellow Wagtail are not separated as species because the head and back colours are not what matters to the breeding birds.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The question that needs to be asked here is whether these three "species"; Parrot, Common and Scottish Crossbills can produce hybrids which are just as fertile as their parents. If they can, then that brings the whole definition of the Scottish crossbill - and indeed the other two species - as distinct species into doubt. That there may be a tendency for some crossbills to pick mates with a similar sort of call is not particularly surprising. Most humans tend to choose a mate who speaks the same language as themselves, or a language they are familiar with. We, in our human chauvinism, tend to think of animals as automatons who just grunt or squeak at each other when in fact we know little of the dynamics of animal communication. Who knows what precisely a crossbill is thinking in its own head when it hears one sort of "jip" call as opposed to one which is slightly different in tone. Now, if what I have read is true, and that parrot crossbills have only recently arrived in Scotland, and speak a "language" which is unfamiliar to the native crossbills, then it is little wonder that the native crossbills will go with their own - the ones which make a call familiar to them. Human languages have evolved in isolation, yet all humans belong to homo sapiens. The concept of species itself seems to be a largely subjective thing based on the human predilection for sticking things in nice neat boxes the better to differentiate them from each other. As for populations being reproductively isolated, before globalisation, the peoples of South America and Africa and Europe were all isolated from each other - many still are - yet all are homo sapiens. Even differences in physical appearance among humans is not enough to constitute splitting homo sapiens into different species. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)