Talk:St. Croix macaw

message: All reliable sources I can find have autochthones. Dysmorodrepanis 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ara autochthones vs Ara autocthones

message: When it talks about "Southwest Cape", does that mean the southwest point of St. Croix or of Puerto Rico. I don't think the article should assume so much knowledge of Caribbean geography – a gloss would be nice! Physchim62 (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Saint Croix. Fixed it in the article and thank you for pointing that bout. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity in article 

message: Mark Messier Leadership Award is an example of an article with brief content that has been reviewed and is part of a FT. I presume that there is not enough information about this topic to get it as far as GA, so it has been peer reviewed and accepted to be part of a featured topic. To me the "St Croix Macaw" article is another article where the known possible content is brief, and which will also never be able to get as far as GA. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short articles 

message: I have withdrawn the FA for this article because it was not about the reader anymore, but about satisfying random criteria of some editors that had nothing to do with making the best article for the average reader interested in this topic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I've hunted it down, for anyone else interested, the FA nomination is here Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2011#Saint_Croix_Macaw. --99of9 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA withdrawn 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Saint Croix macaw's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Gala":
From Cuban macaw: 
From Lesser Antillean macaw: 
From Martinique macaw: 
Reference named "Cuban Macaw":
From Lesser Antillean macaw: 
From Cuban macaw: 
From Martinique macaw: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Saint Croix macaw]] 

message: Hi  Congrats for the new FA, well-deserved! I was trying to review it but it seems I was a bit too slow with posting it, my apologies. I hope you would take my comments into consideration nonetheless.
*so it is impossible to know whether species only known from bones or accounts were native or imported species. – I would never say "impossible". Below it is stated that paleontological evidence may solve the issue in the future.
::Added "yet impossible", as no more information is known. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the link, but that stub really ought to be a redirect or disambiguation page... FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the order in the sentence, how about: "Since they found it unlikely the bird occurred naturally on St. Croix, and questioned whether it could even have occurred naturally on Puerto Rico, they considered the name autocthones "probably one of the worst possible choices" for the species." FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

text: It is more conceding that they can't prove it wasn't native, it is unclear, but my interpretation is that prehistoric macaw fossils should not be expected to be naturally found in cave deposits, so their absence from there does not prove anything. Therefore, that Cuban macaw fossils have only been found in aquatic deposits rather than caves suggests that absence from terrestrial deposits on St. Croix doesn't prove anything. Here is what the paper says exactly: "Although fossil remains of both Amazona and Aratinga have been recovered from a number of prehuman sites in Puerto Rico (Olson, unpublished data), no fossils of Ara have yet been recovered. This is, however, not at all conclusive, as macaws are unlikely to occur in cave deposits on an island where the only known cave-inhabiting predator was a relatively small bam owl (Tyto). The only fossils of macaws found to date in a paleontological context in the West Indies are three bones of Ara tricolor, two of which were found in aquatic depositional environments". FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Wetmore specifically stated "the left tibio-tarsus of a small macaw" and "In size it is intermediate between such large species as Ara macao and A. militaris and the small A . severa." I changed to "While the holotype tibiotarsus appears to belong to a fully grown individual, the fact that the bone is slightly spongy at the ends indicates it was immature." to prevent the same contradiction. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Changed proportions to dimensions (as the paper does), the Wetmore paper just says "When compared with the tibio-tarsus of living macaws it is marked by slender form and a slightly greater posterior development of the proximal end. Aside from this its only peculiatity seems to rest in its dimensions which do not fall within those of any other species known." He does not go into more detail than that, and by this I guess he only means it is either smaller or larger than most other species, but he doesn't give measurements for those. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Wetmore doesn't mention the additional details, and Olson and Maiz Lopez don't exactly state the mentioned features are diagnostic, but also mainly distinguish it based on its size. Seems insufficient to me, but the abstract sums it up: "The species belongs to a distinctive intermediate size-class and was larger than the Cuban Macaw Ara tricolor." FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I would add "according to Wetmore" or similar, to mark it as an opinion and not an uncontroversial fact. This way it would be less a problem that the other account is somewhat contradicting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks, yes, of course (I was hoping for your comments all along), I'll try to implement this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. One answer above. And for the record: support ;-) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Review