Talk:Kākāpō

message: Can someone upload to wikipedia audio/video file of kakapo? thanking you in advance, 88.153.140.32 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any such free material exists. There are plenty of videos of the Kakapo around, but they're all non-free, and thus unusable for this article. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, i've recently published recordings of a booming kakapo on my blog, and i'm willing to put them under a free license. the problem is that the files are in mp3-format, and converting them directly to .ogg will reduce quality (right?). it's going to take some time to edit and re-encode from the original, but it's on my to-do-list. --Mnolf 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, doing conversion from one lossy format to another will always cause the loss of quality. But the loss will be a negligible amount, if you simply use the appropriate bitrate. I'm willing to do it for you if you mail the MP3 to me, you can send it to michiel@thingmajig.org if you want me to. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: email was sent. have fun :) and thanks. --Mnolf 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the kakapo voice 

message: I'm thinking the sentences on classification may be better in a section down the page than on the lead (about own genus etc.) and expanded a bit later. I'm not sure they add anything to the lead as such. Cas Liber 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've moved them down. They do seem to be better off down there than in the lead. —msikma (user, talk) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, on second thought, it does seem like the section this has created is too small. I think that this should be moved back to the lead unless the "classification" section can be increased in size with important information. It current seems like it's just used to contain some minor remarks. —msikma (user, talk) 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it - the molecular stuff is interesting and the info is needed to balance the article which otherwise is loaded towards conservation (not surprising really given the history). Maybe a bit large to go back in the lead.Cas Liber 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The molecular stuff is unfortunately contradicted by another (earlier) molecular paper (Miyaki et al, see here). More severely, the 2005 scenario is virtually prohibited by the fossil record. Were the spindlin phylogeny true, one would have to assume that all the traits that distinguish living parrots from e.g. the Pseudasturidae (see ) in shirt, the parrot morphotype - evolved twice (at least) identically, that Dyck texture was present in all psittaciform ancestors 80+ mya or developed in even more lineages independently but not in the cockatoos, etc. The "review" of the fossil record is probably the lowest point of the 2005 paper (which is otherwise nice); see . All the bare facts therein were available one year earlier too; not Mayr & Daniels 1998 but Mayr 2002 (see DOI above) would have been the paper to consider, and that would have shown that the Fig.7 in the 2005 paper is, as far as anyone can currently tell, utter fiction. Dysmorodrepanis 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification out of lead 

message: In attempt to save this page from de-featured, I have trimmed the section quite markedly. Disscussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kakapo. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk changes in the Conservation section 

message: Currently, the Kakapo is said to be in the family Psittacidae, and the subfamily Psittacinae. I'm currently reading through "A parrot apart: the natural history of the kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), and the context of its conservation management", and its chapter on taxonomy states that it is in the subfamily Strigopinae. Verbatim, "[...] but Smith (1975) used anatomical, morphological and ethological characters to place it in the endemic New Zealand subfamily Strigopinae, which has usually been followed since (Turbott 1990)." It then goes to explain the similarities between the Kea and the Kaka, and does not actually state the Psittacinae subfamily. I'm wondering about this: at the very least, it seems that a bit more discussion on the taxonomic groups this bird belongs to would be well-placed. —msikma (user, talk) 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the case with alot of birds where the new taxonomic stuff shows a marked difference with current accepted practice. Best to leave a note on WP Birds and discuss it there. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good idea since I'm confused now and there don't seem to be too many people actively monitoring this article anymore. I'll try there. Thanks! —msikma (user, talk) 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: Currently there're two scientific name using right now, one is from BirdLife & IUCN:Strigops habroptila, and the other one is widely used everywhere even in our article:Strigops habroptilus, which one is correct ?--Lokionly (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to ITIS Strigops habroptila is correct. Something to do with the gender of Strigops. Explained here. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific name for kakapo

message: The only mention of the birds' lifespan is "Because Kakapo are quite long-lived, they tend to have an adolescence before beginning breeding." But how long-lived are they??
:(doesn't know how to type a whistling sound) According to BirdLife International's Rare Birds Yearbook, 90 on average, with the maximum estimated at 120. I'll put it on in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems awfully generous, considering that a span of 90–120 years would make it the world's longest-living bird! AnAge and ADW have more coservative estimates of up to 60 years. Yet perhaps the high estimate isn't altogether unreasonable: many parrots are long-lived and larger species tend to live longer than smaller ones – and Kakapo is the world's largest parrot. One must wonder, though, how justified or accurate that estimate can really be. The oldest undisputed age for a bird was 78+ years for an Andean Condor named Kuzya of the Moscow Zoo (arrived with adult plumage in 1892, died in 1964), also, Thaao (b. 1930) of Connecticut's Beardsley Zoo was still alive at at least 77. Guinness accepts a claim of an 80-year-old Sulphur-crested Cockatoo named Cocky (d. 1982 at the London Zoo), but the 24 first years of its life are unaccounted for. The oldest age for a parrot featured in AnAge (as far as I know) was 65.8 years for a captive Moluccan Cockatoo. And Charlie is simply a fraud. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan? 

message: It's true that the Greek word ops is feminine, so one should expect Strigops habroptila.
But the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature doesn't care: 
30.1.4.3. A compound genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine, regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its author.
*shrug* Strigops habroptilus it is, then (I'll go change it), and Triceratops horridus stays as well.
David Marjanović (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Strigops habroptilus'' after all 

message: I noticed this article about the kakapo tapeworm. I was wondering whether there ought to be a mention of it in the article. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasites 

message: I'm revising and updating this article with the assistance of the Department of Conservation Kākāpō Recovery Team, and the first thing to establish is the correct Latin name. Because the species epithet habroptila appears in the IOC World Bird List and the IUCN Red List, amongst others, the article has gone back and forth a few times over the years. Summarising and expanding on a couple of previous Talk page comments, here's the argument for S. habroptilus being the correct name.
# Gray originally chose habroptilus as the specific epithet in 1845 (thanks, )
# A few years back there was a suggestion that the name be feminised to agree with Strigops; as ITIS puts it, "Mandatory correction for gender concordance" (thanks, ).
# However, according to  this section of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, "30.1.4.3. A compound genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine, regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its author.  So according to the ICZN code, Strigops is masculine (thanks, ). But in 1955, Hemming officially declared Strigops was to be regarded as feminine, and this has to abided by subsequently, with David and Gosselin (2002b) claiming the feminine habroptila should be used.
# But in fact "habroptilus" isn't an adjective; it's treated as a noun in apposition (ICZN Art. 31.2.2), and so it need not agree in gender with the genus name, and so (ICZN 34.2.1) the original spelling should never have been changed (thanks to Andrew Digby for passing this on). David and Gosselin (2002a) state this clearly, but then contradict themselves in their subsequent publication.
# Nevertheless, being the "correct" form isn't sufficient; what matters is what's in common use (WP:COMMONNAME). From the WikiProject Birds naming conventions: "Wikipedia article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." 
# "Strigops habroptilus" is by far the most common form in use in the scientific literature: 1,830 results in Google Scholar compared with 162 for "Strigops habroptila". In addition, all the most recent kākāpō publications in this Scholia list (based on the Wikidata item, not the Latin name) use "habroptilus". Finally, habroptilus is what's used in the official NZ Checklist, authorised by the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (readable via NZ Birds Online), which is the final word on nomenclature of NZ birds. 
So, based on both the ICZN rules and WP:COMMONNAME, the specific epithet in the article should be habroptilus. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: More power to you if you have this kind of overview :) No concerns from me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a dig at you mate; just saw that this had come up a couple of times over the last few years so thought it would be worthwhile sorting it out properly. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote you'll explain the situation surrounding the specific name in a footnote, but I think it's significant enough to discuss in the taxonomy section of the article body (which is pretty short anyway). I also wonder if it would be nice to have a cladogram in there... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy with name fix as suggested and agree with FunkMonk about where to put discussion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I can't find evidence that habroptilus is a noun. (Frankly I think Gray meant it to mean "with delicate feathers" and confused Greek ptílos, meaning "suffering from a certain disease of the eyelids", with Latin pilosus, meaning "hairy". In any case, both are adjectives.) But Article 30.1.4.3 does not mention any exceptions for works like Hemming's. I don't know how old the Article is, but wouldn't be surprised if it's younger than 1955 and therefore simply overrides that work. David Marjanović (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to several sources, such as Brown's classic work, "ptilon" is the Greek noun for feather, "ptilos" is the noun for plumage, and "ptilotos" is the adjective for feathered. Latinized versions are "ptilum", "ptilus", and "ptilotus", respectively. You will find some folks who will argue, on a grammatical basis alone, that latinized Greek suffixes that are nouns can still be treated as adjectives depending on the prefix. There are problems with this interpretation: (1) the ICZN Code nowhere indicates that prefixes are to be taken into account when determining whether a word is a noun or an adjective; Article 31.2 does in fact specifically state that gender agreement applies only "if it is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective". In the present case, "habroptilus" demonstrably is not a Latin adjective, nor does it end in a latinized adjective. (2) Article 31.2.1 says gender agreement is not used when a word "is a simple or compound noun (or noun phrase)" - and, again, in the present case, "habroptilus" can certainly be considered a noun phrase or compound noun meaning "delicate plumage". (3) Under Article 31.2.2, even if you allow the pedantic argument that in Greek, the term "habroptilos" could potentially be interpreted as adjectival, the point remains that when there is a debate in which one side can argue that a word is a noun and the other side can argue that the word is an adjective, then the default is to assume that it is a noun unless the original author specifically stated otherwise. That is in fact the purpose of Article 31.2.2 - to settle "academic disputes" like this. Dyanega (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Strigops habroptilus'' is the correct name 

message: Kākāpō Recovery
17 h · 
We currently have a total of 181 eggs having been laid so far this season and 34 chicks currently alive. Second round mating is continuing on both islands.'''
https://www.facebook.com/KakapoRecovery/
So it's better (by far) than the 122 eggs made in 2016, and the season is still going on with another bunch of eggs coming soon. Maybe we will see over than 250-300 eggs this year, the only bad news is the vaste % of unfertile eggs. But, atleast for now, we have almost 50% more eggs than the 2016 season.
Had the eggs fertiles, with this season the number of kakapo would easily double or even triple. We will see how far they will go in the next months.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Good news from Kakapo recovery programme: 2019 even better than 2016

message: Fascinating and comprehensive article. However, the graph showing kakapo numbers versus year needs to be updated; currently it seems to end around 2015. On another note entirely, the Maori translation of 'kaka' (parrot) and 'po' (underground or underworld) is cognate with the word cockatoo. This comes from the Malay kaka - tua meaning 'bold parrot'. The Maori equivalent is virtually identical: kaka-tu. All of which shows the persistence and preservation of certain words throughout the Malayo-Polynesian language family.
:I've updated the population chart to 2019 (it hadn't been updated since 2011). --Canley (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Update graph? And some etymology 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Fat land parrot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14#Fat land parrot until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fat land parrot" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Turkey parrot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Turkey parrot until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turkey parrot" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Article starts with a very detailed and thorough lead section. The content does focus a lot on conservation efforts, but still includes important information about the spices history, behavior, anatomy, ect. Article is well balanced and has un unbiased tone throughout. Many sources are current though most focused on the rehabilitation of Kākāpō. Whole article was very well organized and well written, but did have a few small spelling errors. There where many helpful figures, graphs and nice images that supported the writing well. Overall the article was very well written and included a lot of well sourced information and article seems very compete. Some improvements would be another round of proofreading.  Dominowenz11 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation 

message: Citations needed tags:
# The first sentence in the section. My initial reaction is that this sentence is not essential to the article and could be deleted. I did find this source that discusses evolutionary diversification in New Zealand and mammals.  (on the second page, numbered page 29). However, on its own it is not a sufficient source. Should this sentence just be deleted ? 
# The second tag in this section is for the sentence: "While they are curious toward humans, kākāpō are not social birds". It is partly supported by the source cited immediately prior, but does not mention the content in that same source that says females and young birds have been observed playing in small groups. How about rewriting to include this ? A possibly useful source that compares play behaviour between kākāpō, kākā and kea is here: 
# The third tag is for the last sentence. This largely duplicates the first sentence of the last paragraph, and is not essential, given that threats and conservation are discussed elsewhere. I suggest it is deleted. 
Marshelec (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecology and behaviour section - citations needed tags 

message: Notwithstanding discussion above I believe that we should use the feminine form habroptila for the specific epithet. On English Wikipedia we follow the IOC list which has habroptila.(see the IOC here)
 
 may well be correct that habroptilus should be considered as a noun in apposition - but this represents original research and we follow reliable taxonomic sources (in this case the IOC). I notice that David and Gosselin (2002) in their article cited above state that habroptilus is an adjective on p. 273 and list Strigops habroptila on p. 181.
 
The IOC is not alone in using habroptila. All major taxonomic lists appear to use the feminine form of the epithet:
 
*Dickinson & Remsen (2013) H&M4 Vol 1 p 353 have Strigops habroptila. The epithet is flagged as a variable (v). In a footnote they cite the ICZN Direction 26 (1955). See here. H&M4 is very influential.
* Bird Life International/IUCN here
* Clements Checklist here
* Cornell's Birds of the World here
*ITIS here
* eBird here
* New Zealand Birds Online here (this page appears to have been updated since the earlier discussion above and now has habroptila!)
 
Authors associated with the Kākāpō Recovery Team use habroptilus such as here, here and here. These authors are not taxonomists. Other authors use the feminine form habroptila such as here and here
- Aa77zz (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming scientific consensus in actual published papers on kākāpō is S. habroptilus (approximately 10:1 ratio). Unfortunately the 2022 edition of the official NZ Checklist, put out by the Ornithological Society of New Zealand—which is the reliable taxonomic source in this instance, not the IOC—changed habroptilus to habroptila, citing Hemming (1955); incorrectly, in my and several others' opinions. I was actually approached to co-author a response to establish habroptilus as the correct specific epithet! But until that is published, for the purposes of this article we are indeed obliged to stick with the (erroneously) feminised species name. Ah well. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. I've now changed the epithet to habroptila and cited some sources - including the 2022 edition of the Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand - thanks for the link - Aa77zz (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change ''habroptilus'' to ''habroptila'' to follow IOC (and all other lists)