This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Rodrigues starling is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not
substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
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)reply
I made this sketch based on your description and the skull image in the article.
[1] How do you think I could improve it? I did not add a crest, since
Julian Hume has left one out of his restoration.
[2] The colouration was based on this:
[3]FunkMonk (
talk)
01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
[4] --
Melly42 (
talk)
23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
This recent paper
[5] 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I shall review your article. Of course, I know you are an excellent writer here, and this one too is very interesting. I would suggest the following improvements (which are not shortcomings) to enhance the quality so that it becomes a perfect GA:
Lead
Mascarene island of Rodrigues I see this is located in the Republic of Mauritius. Could you please add the country's name just after Rodrigues for easy identification of the area?
Maybe a bit iffy here, the bird went extinct before any country had claimed the island, and the bones were found when the island was ruled by Britain, so it seems a bit retroactive to include it as part of Mautirius, which has little to do with this bird? It only became so relatively recently, 1968.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The bird was first reported by a sailor who was marooned on the island in 725–1726 In the next section you give the name of the sailor, but not that he is a sailor, and in the lead you say he is a sailor but do not add his name. I would suggest you wrote "French sailor Julien Tafforet" in both places.
Fixed.
After reading "Extinction", I think you could add a bit to the lead like this : "Introduced rats, that caused a fall in the availability of food for the starling, were probably responsible for its extinction some time in the 18th century, first on mainland Rodrigues, and finally on Île Gombrani, its last refuge."
These consisted of the cranium, mandible, sternum, coracoid, humerus, metacarpus, ulna, femur, tibia, and metatarus of several individuals this line appears to contain several terms difficult to be understood by the layman. Could we have some links here? Scientific description in the next line may also be linked.
Masauji Hachisuka is a redlink, so you should give his identity yourself. Same for Graham S. Cowles and Strahm.
I introduced the two first ones, and removed Strahm, he is inconsequential. But shouldn't the rest of the names mentioned have similar instructions as well?
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)reply
British and American English is used at different places. Though not a strict requirement for GAN, the issue of uniformity in the usage of English might be raised in FAC (for example at places you write colouration (BE) and in other places center(AE)).
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
FunkMonk: 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)reply
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:
[6][7] 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)reply