[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Australian magpie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAustralian magpie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 7, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Call

[edit]

I visit Australia to see my family who emigrated there many years ago. My grearest joy is to hear the Magpie`s song,both in town and on the farm would it be possible to have the sounds on the web page. Simon Francis

That would be great, Sam. The only call recordings I know of are copyright. A year or so ago I thought long and hard about buying recording gear and doing it myself, but I would up spending the time and money on photography instead. And yes, the song of the magpie is a wonderful thing indeed. Tannin 22:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'cept if it's 4:30 am and you're trying to get to sleep :) -- Paul 08:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can hear a recording of an Australian magpie (albeit with some car-like background) at "northamptonshirewildlife.com,uk/sgallery". Phil Donnelly203.206.234.14 20:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been attacked by those damn birds I find the contention that their noise is of exceptional beauty very POV. When I hear the noise I look for a very big stick.Avalon 06:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. I too have been swooped by Magpies (I'd guess most Australians have had that happen to them at least once), and that doesn't stop me appreciating them for the beautiful, intelligent birds they are. I always enjoy hearing them sing. Dr algorythm 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd guess most Australians have had that happen to them at least once" yeah, try once every fucken week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.247.151 (talk) 07:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I think the poetry by Denis Glover is misquoted - correct text is "Quardle ardle oodle ardle wardle doodle". However, as is often the case with misquotations, I like the version on this website better! ROxBo 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Magpies

[edit]

We have had a family of magpies living near our home for over 5 years. Does anyone know how long their life span is as we are very fond of them and the male is looking a little old now. Barbara

I know that they can live 7 years, there was one lived near my house that had a quite distinguishable droopy wing that still visited until I moved. Will look it up. I am a lemon 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle fed a female for 25 years before she simply disappeared a short while ago. During that time she had 2 partners.The Real Blockhead 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striped magpie

[edit]

I saw a magpie with brown and white stripes on his side, perhaps 10-15 stripes in all. Could this have been an Australian hybrid? If so, he was a long way from home in Holland.

Bad Sound File

[edit]

That sound file linked at the bottom of the page sounds nothing like the beautiful call of the magpie. Are there any better resources? rmccue 04:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swooping

[edit]

Who invented the myth that magpies don't go for the eyes? In my experience, painting eyes on the back of my helmet hasn't done anything to deter them, instead causing them to go for that particular section of my helmet.

-oh man! i agree. i've had them come at me from directly in front.. staring straight at them. i'm definately siding that it's a myth. - stevie d

maybe the point is to give them a fake set of eye to swoop at, instead of your real eyes?

Anyone ever notice that one of the pair is usually a little more wary than the other? One will readily take food off your hand, and takes no notice when you walk close by, but the other is more reticent and scuttles away a few metres when you get close.

The article says "Last swooping season, five people died from their injuries...". I cannot find anything to back this up - are Magpies really killing Australians? Martin R 125.238.105.42 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly, but sadly, yes. The most dangerous aspect of the attack seems to be that it is so sudden (do you REALLY routinely expect to be attacked from above by a large and ferocious bird???). Victims become disoriented and stagger into the paths of vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience the cable-ties heighten the threat response from the bird, that is they make the birds swoop more often. Also the reference doesn't support the claim made about cable ties, the advice is to read about and report problem birds and walk your bike in trouble spots. 59.167.126.189 (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment "In my exp..." was me, signing in for notifications. Genericness (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A small minority are swoopers? It's got to be the world's biggest minority. I think that should be changed to "overwhelming minority". I think that would be more accurate. The sentence should be, "An overwhelming minority of magpies will attempt to peck out your eyes if the thought occurs to you that it might be a nice day to take the bike out instead of driving". There should also be a note that it is not safe for small children to walk home alone in Australia because they will actually just lose one of their ears to a magpie.

Removing Photos

[edit]

It seems that some photographers are determined to have "pride of place" for their own photos - even going so far as to remove the photo(s) that held that place before. I have just restored the photo in the lead paragraph which was removed by Happy Photographer, who replaced it with one of his/her own. I've moved Happy Photographer's photo futher down in the article, next to where it better illustrated the text.

While it may make sense to re-order photos to best illustrate different sections of the article, I find it very dismissive of the contributions of photographers to simply eliminate their work entirely. Especially as this swapping/eliminating of images always seems to happen in the "top spots" of the article. This may not have been the intention of Happy Photographer, but I would ask him/her, and others, to be more respectful of the existing images when choosing to add ones own to an article. KeresH 10:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more text eventually to this article, so hopefully this will allow the accommodation of more photos (ideally next to corresponding text bits). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for my actions - I did not intend to be malicious in any way. In my defense, the photo I replaced was taken by the same person that has the main magpie photo in this article so it was not as if I was removing his entire photo contribution to the article. Also, I thought that, due to the size of the article in proportion to the number of pictures, I should not simply add another one. Finally, in mine, the actual size of the subject that I intended to illustrate was considerably larger than that of the one I replaced - You could simply see more magpie in mine! Sorry once again. Happy Photographer 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I apoliogize for taking you so harshly to task. It wasn't till after I posted the above that I checked our your user page and saw that you were new to Wikipedia. As you can tell from what I wrote, unfortunately there are a few individuals at Wikipedia who tend to see this place as "all about me". Obviously Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that kind of grand-standing just makes everyone else pissy. Anyway, I don't fault your logic 'per se', but I would again remind you that this place is as much about the people who contribute as it is about the articles. Also, it's really easy for people to get the wrong impression in a virtual environment. That's why leaving a sentence or two on the discussion page is the best way to let people know what you were thinking. Anyway, welcome aboard. And feel free to contact me if I can be of help. KeresH 08:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many pics - many don't provide anything new. I've just removed one, and I will probably remove more. --Merbabu 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the 'magpie chasing a goshawk' pic is a fake. Note the different degree of focus on both birds in the picture, and the lighting that seems a little wrong. Another variation of the same fake circulating the web can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.86.212 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you get your facts right! File:Magpie chasing Brown Goshawk (Immature).jpg isn't fake. The above link has stolen the photo I've linked to and photoshopped the hell out of it. Bidgee (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the dubious provenance of the photograph. The poster above, asserting that someone else "has stolen the photo" and "photoshopped the hell out of it" is questionable when either could have formed the basis for the other, and both appear to be based on the same dodgy material. 124.148.189.121 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

[edit]

I've done some fairly extensive clean-up work on this article, mainly tying up grammatical loose ends, and making some sections clearer in meaning. One or two sentences here strike me as odd, though - "They may also eat their own digestive products". Reference or citation, please? Also, the section which states hand-feeding can discourage swooping seems to be a very shaky claim. It needs either a citation, or removal. Beruthiel (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed (through my telescoppe) both the male and female feeding their young. Perhaps the statement on feeding should be changed from "Nestlings are fed exclusively by the female" to "Nestlings are fed mainly by the female". I have also observed that after feeding the chicks present their rear end to the parent and pass a jelly like dropping which the parent consumes. The Real Blockhead (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

[edit]

Someone ought to update the 'behaviour' section to include discussion of the fact that magpies are notorious for collecting useless objects such as shiny small artificial trinkets. In Australian popular culture, magpies are known for this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll get there. I'll be giving the article an overhaul in the near future. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re - Manus Flutter and other dominant/submissive behavior - I've seen juveniles being picked on by their father, presumably to force them out of parental care, and to placate him, they flutter their tail up and down rather their wings. Flapping wings seems to me to be more about begging behaviours - I've seen juveniles do it to parents accompanied with begging calls when the parents have food, and also females to the male, and the female to humans with food, in the last two cases especially around breeding time from September onwards (QLD). GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocentrism on Swooping

[edit]

The swooping section only really seems to cover humans and this stage and should probably also reflect on the the behavior towards potential predators etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I expanded that first and am doing general behaviour next. Swooping is a big problem and does warrant its own section though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The swooping sections mentions hats, beanies, helmets, flags and umbrellas... but does not comment on the recent (in my observation_ trend of using cable ties on bike helmets to deter magpies. I am not adding this in directly as I think it would constitute original research - ie, I don't know the REASON it works, though I could speculate... Does anyone know any more information for this, and perhaps a photo? --.../Nemo (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A photo would be fantastic. I will look up to see if there is anything published too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mention of it here Melburnian (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this in as a one sentance reference with that page referenced. A photo would still be good though! :) --.../Nemo (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I formatted the ref. Anyone who knows anyone with one of these helmet attachments and can take a pic would be great :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have experience with a family of magpies in Melbourne. We noticed that the neighbours would be left alone during swooping season, but visitors would be swooped. I think they were able to recognise individuals. This was something I raised with an ornithologist, who recounted similar experiences with corvids John Wilkins (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They recognise individual people, sometimes attacking newcomers but never the regulars they know are not threats. I've seen the same behaviour with cats. An old cat of ours was swooped when he was young but not later. A new cat was swooped as soon as it arrived. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen cyclists using cable-ties on their helmets. I believe this is misguided, it heightens the threat response from the bird and leads to more aggression from the bird. The reference provided also doesn't support using cable ties aside from some UGC on the right hand bar. The advice from the reference is: read about and share locations where swooping is happening, and walk your bike past these areas to avoid losing control if swooped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.126.189 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment "I've seen cyc..." is by me, signing in for notifications. Genericness (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homing after translocation

[edit]

Jones seems to contradict Jones. In Jones (2003) he found no evidence of homing after birds were translocated, only 5 out of 141 relocated birds made it home (deposited at a variety of distances), but you cite Jones (2002) as saying that they can home back in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the distance which is critical (25km mark IIRC), I don't have the book with me but will stick the full figures here later on today. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed you a copy of the 2003 paper. Let me know if you need any others. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalisations

[edit]

I've noted a number of vocalisations apart from just the 'wardle oodle warble' typical of the Magpie and the juvenile begging squawk.

  1. A harsh, descending single note, sometimes in a series. They also sometimes preceed the longer song. There seems to actually be a number of these, the "harshest" of which seems to be a definite warning call. I've heard one magpie utter such a call in the distance and nearby magpies quickly react all getting off the ground into the trees. Another similar call elicts instant replies from the mate and sometimes the mate will then fly to the location of the other bird that first made the call.
  2. Another interesting vocalisation I've heard and seen is the female making a sort of soft 'grunting' at the male when food is presented as if to warn off the male from bullying her out of food.
  3. Also just the once I heard a male magpie making a long soft call pattern imitative of the Grey Butcherbird's imitative calls. (yes, a magpie imitating a butcherbird imitating a magpie (and other birds)).

GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can dig up material on diferent calls for referencing. Agree on these, and more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I can now connect the email and author - I will write on your talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another observation from my IM logs about the 'grunting' noise from 02 Oct 2008 (10:21:27) "i like the way only she makes the grunty noise. you never hear mr magpie make it. perhaps it means something like 'baby' or 'food' as she uses it to call baby when she's bringing food to him. perhaps she uses it when teaching baby about food as she was in the garden, and then she uses it when warning mr magpie that she needs some of the food (eg. 'i need food for baby')"

GermanicusCaesar (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads as if deliberately written to downplay the Australian magpie as a dumb bird like any other. But when you watch actual videos of them online, the first thing that you immediately notice is that the birds are not singing at all they are god damn talking to each other. If that wasn't enough, their vocalizations are totally distinct from anything I have ever heard, ever. It doesn't sound like chirping it literally sounds almost like computer modem sounds. That is, it is strikingly and immediately obvious that they are packed with information, non-repetitive patterns with grammar and vocabulary. I would expect from such a bird that they are socially organized like crows, i.e. they hunt in highly organized packs, packs are part of larger communities and they also retain behaviors across multiple generations via learning and communication. I wouldn't be surprised if they also had death rituals like regular magpies. In light of the true nature of this bird, the article reads as if grandly mistaken. I hope not due to desinformation policies. 23:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)23:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)~ shoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.173.133 (talk)

Ranges of subspecies

[edit]

Not knowing much about Australia, I find the range descriptions almost impossible to understand. Can a subspecies range map be added? Snowman (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will get someone onto it (i.e. I am no good with svg). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop can help or not? Snowman (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Some comments on the article that I would fix if I had the knowledge or access to sources:

  • "Spring in Australia is magpie season ..." Is this Australia specific or are magpies active swoopers at other times in other places?
  • "several authorities, initially Storr in 1952 and including Christidis and Boles in the latest 2008 official checklist, place it in the butcherbird genus Cracticus, giving rise to its current binomial name; they argue that its adaptation to ground-living is not enough to consider it separately." This seems to contradict the lead and the taxobox, both of which give its current binomial name as Gymnorhina. --
meant to fix that, now Cracticus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Introductions also occurred in the Solomon Islands and Sri Lanka, although the species has failed to become established" This meaning of this sentence is not clear to me. What does "has failed" mean? Are they still there but not in any number or have they died out completely? -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyedit/comments

[edit]
  • what does "well-built" mean??? (solid, sturdy - I thought it was self-explanatory. You like 'sturdy' better?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main difference between the subspecies lies in the "saddle" markings on the back below the nape, which is white in all forms."
    • It might be me, but this sounds markedly contradictory. Either that or it could use rewording.
You're right, my familiarity had led me to make that bit sound alot more complicated than it is. reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider replacing the distribution map with one that also shows acclimated range. (I think it would lose more than it would gain by having Australia shrunk so much really, plus I don't have an NZ map handy, but could possibly find one. Might be good as separate map in section then Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about Magpies' effect on New Zealand birds could use some rewriting IMHO. It is very choppy. (done)
  • Some material mentioned in earlier parts of the article, such as hand-feeding (That's uncited, BTW) and introduction to New Zealand, could be moved down to human relations (removed the uncited bit - it is obvious but could apply to alot of our birds anyway. The NZ bit I'd debate - I generally put introductions in distribution section but am not hugely fussed.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That bit about the striated pardalote and burrowing in the Magpie's nest sound interesting, but there is lack of details to understand just what is actually going on. (big nest, tiny little pardalotes burrow into the bottom of the sticks, but not deep enough to go where magpie chcks are. Tried to elaborate a little to convey better the sense of what is happening. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The placement of the bit about the death of a boy is weird. It sounds as if it could have been more from the bicycle fall. Also mention whether or not this is the only recorded death from such an injury? it is the only death recorded, and the source says definitively it was a magpie peck. I can't interpret otherwise.
  • I think the first sentence of "cultural references" could use rewording
  • Context for Burndud is necessary.
tried to provide some context for both burndud and first sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piping Shrike states "[...] the bird in its own right has never been formally adopted as a faunal or bird emblem of the state.", consider harmonizing the articles by explaining what was done exactly By gov. Tennyson. (weird. the ref doesn't say that it wasn't, so no idea where that came from)
  • "keeping the magpie strip" was quite confusing to me, but I'm not clear whether this is a language or sports jargon barrier.
  • I'd rather like some expounding on how "its brash, cocky attitude has been likened to the Australian psyche."
Gawd, haven't you met enouhg aussies here yet? IKWYM though and will have a think on this one. There is someting at ocker but not exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements around the clock so far. Made a few extra changes. Circeus (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Magpie lovers

[edit]

I really enjoyed reading this. Here's some of the dreaded "personal research".

Back in spring 2006 a magpie was born in south Wollongong who is the most superb singer I have ever heard. He was one of 6 fledglings (but I cannot say if they all came from the same nest). One was run over by a 4WD. This bird is the Pavarotti of the Magpie world. While the other birds foraged, he sang and sang and sang. He commenced this activity while still a grey fluffy fledging, at a time when other birds are going squawk squawk and hoping a parent will jam something down their neck.

He soon realised that he had an appreciative audience in me, although I never fed him but only talked and whistled. When I walk along the street, he will appear on top of a pole, and treat me to little bursts of music, pole-hopping as I move along. One day he produced the ultimate.... a superb imitation of the prolonged high-pitch throat-throbbing of the local butcher bird..... and looked extraordinarily pleased with himself. He has married and now produced three young. I saw them all on the railing behind the local pub, with the missus trying to entice her fat fluffy babies to fly back to their tree. Dad, to her apparent frustration, was fully absorbed in giving them choir practice, coaching them with short phrases, repeated over and over.

The question here is, to what extent are magpies' (and similar birds) songs learnt? I had a long relationship with a pair of currawongs that lived in Camperdown Cemetery, Newtown and trusted me as an auntie to their young. They made all the usual cries, but didn't sing at all. They had no apparent contact with other currawongs, the nearest currawong that I knew of at the time was a soul male that lived in the inner city of Sydney and foraged in Hyde Park. Eventually a pair of magpies appeared in the cemetery. To my surprise, the currawongs accepted them and at last learnt to sing, a rather dumbed down version of the magpies' song. Amandajm (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly magpies are accomplished mimics - and can copy many other birds. I think alot of their songs are taught and learnt. I have not seen too much on currawongs but would imagine they wouldn't be too bad either. You must get the Gisela Kaplan book - it is a wonderful read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be very interesting to observe whether any of these three young ones have inherited Pavarotti's love of music. Amandajm (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was very interested to read about the young ones playing with other types of birds, such as honeyeaters. I have never seen that happen.
We had a pair of maggies at Warrimoo that reared not one but two Channel Billed Cuckoos. They appeared to be a male and a female, and sounded quite different to each other. Never learnt to sing a note! Just squawked night and day to be fed.
Apart from the maggpies, we have had a Koel here (the 'Gong) regularly for about 4 years. According to Joanne Rowling, there is a bird called a Fwooper the sound of whose cry can send people insane. JKR has got it a little wrong. The magical bird is, in fact, a Koel, and its lound mournful fwooping which starts well before dawn can send three suburbs completely crazy. Nice quiet neighbours who tolerate people's roosters crowing, lawn-mowers baa-ing and a sociable pet cockatoo picking its teeth with a bit off their TV arial, cannot tolerate this blinking bird. They get out of bed at 4 AM in order to throw their steelcaps at it and yell "Eff off, you b..stard!" The local doctor writes innumerable scripts for sleeping pills, when Koel breeding season arrives. Interestingly, one year, his cry changed radically, and only continued for a short time. I think he had a mate. She must have divorced him, because the following year he was as mournful as ever.
Re currawong singing. I remember a big flock at Warrimoo one year that was practising with a cantor. He did all the singing, and they all responded with "Woooooooo!" After he had been through the song numerous times, they changed parts. The choir sang the song (mostly in unison, but with the odd variation on the theme) and the single bird went "Wooooooo!".
Amandajm (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've listened more closely than I have, but my musical ear sucks. I never used to mind Koels (rainbirds) but there are more and more of them each year...I am in inner Sydney and from September on ...arrgh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

[edit]

I'm so happy to see our wonderful birds on the front page! Amandajm (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the timing is just perfect with swooping season starting! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice timing - hope it's not an omen though; Melburnian (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cracticus tibicen tibicen juvenile ANBG.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cracticus tibicen tibicen juvenile ANBG.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 26, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-12-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Magpie
The Australian Magpie (Cracticus tibicen) is an omnivorous medium-sized passerine bird native to Australia and southern New Guinea. It has been introduced to New Zealand, where it is considered invasive, as well as to the Solomon Islands and Fiji, where it is not. Adults range from 37 to 43 cm (15 to 17 in) in length, with distinctive black and white plumage, red eyes and a solid wedge-shaped bluish-white and black bill. Described as one of Australia's most accomplished songbirds, the Australian Magpie has an array of complex vocalisations.Photo: Noodle snacks
Archive – More featured pictures...

Possible to find in California?

[edit]

Several years ago I saw a flock of crow-sized birds but rather than being uniformly black, they were black and white. They in fact seem now to have resembled the Australian Magpie -- could the species reach California and if not, is there a native species (this was Sacramento area) that looks sort of like them?--Jrm2007 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how they got there. European Magpie is more likely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More info on "Breeding" and "Behaviour" available.

[edit]

Like literally tens of thousands of students around me, in 1971 in my second-last year of High School in NSW we studied the Oz Magpie as a very detailed case study of the general topic of "Animal Behaviour". I can put in a couple of paragraphs from this. Is this a good idea? The document we worked from was a CSIRO one but I can not recall any further info about it. 121.216.53.29 (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to login first Old_Wombat (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on genus name.

[edit]

The very common and well-respected Simpson and Day give Gymnorhina as the genus, as does the Mangoverde World Bird Guide, as does the CSIRO. Whichever name is adopted, there needs to be consistency in the article. There are currently both 'C' and 'G' references. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) As does the image of the magpie on the Australian Museum page. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tricky one, but Christidis and Boles, which is the definitive consensus list, has Cracticus. Agree the article should be consistent and will double check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Casliber, good to talk to you again. Having read your last comment, and accepting it, and then re-reading the article, IMHO there is indeed sufficient space given to the assertion that "the magpie is now considered to be the same genus as the BBs but there is a dissenting opinion that it is a genus on its own". Having said that, the text needs to be put together. Right now, it is all over the place:

"A member of the Artamidae, it is closely related to the butcherbirds. " - right at the beginning of the lede.

"With its long legs, the Australian Magpie walks rather than waddles or hops and spends much time on the ground. This adaptation has led to some authorities maintaining it in its own genus Gymnorhina." - further down in the lede.

"The Australian Magpie had been placed in its own genus Gymnorhina, however several authorities, Storr in 1952 and later authors including Christidis and Boles in their 2008 official checklist, place it in the butcherbird genus Cracticus, giving rise to its current binomial name; they argue that its adaptation to ground-living is not enough to consider it as a separate genus.[13]"- in "Taxonomy", much much later.

Wot do you think? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what Old wombat is talking about, might me best to have both? Sample of Australian Magpie: Biology and Behaviour of an Unusual Songbird (CSIRO). Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - yeah, re-reading it, I guess I was on auto-pilot as its closest relatives are the butcherbirds, but if it is in Cracticus, then "Cracticus" is colloquially "butcherbirds + magpie" - most unambiguous way to write is "It is classified in the genus Cracticus along with the butcherbirds" ...but then working in Gymnorhina next to it when adaptation for ground living is not introduced until further down the paragraph.....hmmmmm...I'll ruminate on this but am open to ideas :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Swallow-tailed Cotinga which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal names

[edit]

It would be great if we could include a couple of the names for these birds used by the aboriginal inhabitants of the continent, if anybody can locate some. — Hippietrail (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magpie cull

[edit]

Well, this is a new thing. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latham 1801 or Latham 1802

[edit]

The year of publication of Latham's Supplementum indicis ornithologici sive systematis ornithologiae is disputed. The article currently has (Latham 1802). The title page of the book has 1801. The BHL mentions the possibility of two issues with some volumes dated 1801 and others 1802. The year is discussed by Alan Peterson on his Zoonomen site.

The IOC List, HBW Alive and the old Check-list of birds of the world all use 1801 for the year. I suggest changing the year in the article to 1801. Are other editors happy with this change? Aa77zz (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other Wikipedia article on birds first named by Latham, I find that there are around 50 that use 1802 and 38 that use 1801. Aa77zz (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, I'd say.-- Elmidae 12:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have no problem with it - could even put a footnote in for explanation if you like. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the year to 1801 and cited Schodde R, Dickinson EC, Steinheimer FD & Bock WJ. 2010, which seems very suitable. Their abstract includes the sentence: "Although there are some circumstantial grounds favouring 1802, they are not sufficiently strong, under Art. 21.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, to displace the date of 1801 established on the title page of the work." Aa77zz (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

[edit]

I've reverted a set of well-intentioned additions to the article by a new editor. No source was given for most of the new material and, given that this is a featured article, I would expect significant changes to be discussed here first. Aa77zz (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Australian magpie. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian magpie. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genus redux

[edit]

If anyone is interested, the Kearns paper on page 948 states, "our findings provide strong evidence that the synonymy of Gymnorhina is valid" - the opposite of how the IOC interpreted it (!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IOC is not alone. The 4 world lists (IOC, Clements, H&M4 and HBW alive) all now place the Australian magpie in Gymnorhina - HBW alive moved the species from Cracticus to Gymnorhina in their 2017 update.
At the moment we follow the IOC and place the black butcherbird (Melloria quoyi) in the monotypic Melloria but if we then place the Australian magpie in Cracticus from Fig 3 in Kearns et al 2013 this makes Cracticus paraphyletic.
I suggest we follow the world lists here and move the Australian magpie to Gymnorhina (even though in general I dislike monotypic genera) - Aa77zz (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) I missed that (putting BB into Melloria). Otherwise I'd have tried to keep that in a broadly defined Cracticus. I did send an email to Leo Joseph suggesting that it'd make more sense then to move BB to Gymnorhina too but hey...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you happy for me to change the genus to Gymnorhina - (plus the associated changes to the text in the article)? I personally would favour an expanded Cracticus - but currently there is a clear consensus to have monotypic genera. See the Avibase page. Christidis and Boles (2008) is the only authority listed with Cracticus. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am not happy but concede that consensus indicates the preference for the two monotypic genera, so I don't have grounds to oppose it (i.e. go ahead). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm done - I've tweaked the Taxonomy section and mentioned Gymnorhina and Gray. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian magpie. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian magpie. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference section

[edit]

I changed the "bibliography" sub-section to "Works cited" per MOS:NOTES: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). It is not an autobiography but any "confusion" is avoided but a small change that does have reasoning. At least the section is sub-sectioned more appropriately and not using full section headings for "reference" related items. Otr500 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy - Other Names

[edit]

This relates to the Taxonomy section of the Article, where other names are mentioned: Given that the name Piping Shrike is sometimes used locally in South Australia for the White Backed Magpie, particularly because of the connection to the SA Flag, seal, and badge; could you consider adding piping shrike to the list of other names. This is supported by the following book references as well as a range of SA gov websites. It is also covered in the Piping Shrike wiki article. Higgins et al Colour Plate facing page 609. OTHER ENGLISH NAMES -----; Piping Crow-shrike, Roller or Shrike; -----. Australian Bird Names Origins and Meanings, Fraser and Gray - “Piping Shrike, as formally described on the South Australian flag and coat of arms” in the section on other names for Gymnorhina tibicen telonocua (the White Backed Magpie) Adastral (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No response, so I have added this change. There was no need to add referencing as it is included in the reference that was already cited Adastral (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, but rather to link sections in WP:SUMMARY format; sufficient detail on the other page to warrant separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be appropriate to merge the article Australian magpie in New Zealand with this one. They are both the same bird, which caused me confusion when reading this page. I thought that it included New Zealand, but it has its own seperate article for some reason. New Zealand can have its own section in this article. Panamitsu (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good either way. This kinda-sorta works as a separate article, but it is by no means too expansive (or threatening to become so) to just make up a section in Australian magpie, and there is something to be said for having all the information in one place. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's worth keeping, especially alongside the several other "x in New Zealand" about introduced species. The articles tend to focus more on the specific impact they have locally, for which there is definitely scope for further expansion. Turnagra (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of the argument. The NZ article, if kept, needs work. There are other articles about species introduce me to NZ, so it would not be unusual to have such an article. Schwede66 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put off a formal merger request because we already don't have a consensus about whether we should merge the articles. I also agree about the other argument and personally can not make a decision. What I do think is that it should be made clearer that there is a separate article for New Zealand. Panamitsu (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's a bit of New Zealand content in Australian magpie#Distribution and habitat - I wonder if it's worth padding this out a little bit to a subsection of that part, and having a link using Template:Main at the top of that? You could have it as just a high level overview, with the main article as going into further detail. Turnagra (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect Source

[edit]

Source 112 no longer works (it was a PDF). I'm not sure how to edit sources so I thought I would add this to this page. NickTheChicken11 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source numbers change. Paste the actual citation as well so we know what you're talking about. Nurg (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a couple of dead PDF sources and have now fixed them. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosauria stuff

[edit]

I don't know who, but somebody slapped the "Dinosauria" clade on there. From what I understand, that's only reserved for dinosaur pages here, not modern animals, right? Booger-mike (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...no? It's present in every single automatic taxobox for class Aves and upwards (i.e., all birds). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_magpie&oldid=1213978054"