Talk:Pink-headed Duck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Pink-headed Duck 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. Please do not substitute this template. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
According to the Extinct birds page this duck is officially Critically Endangered. Which is correct? See here [1]
- don't know what the criterium is for official extinction, but as it says, no confirmed sightings for 70 years - change status if preferred. jimfbleak 05:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Present and past-tense words are both used. Even though the bird is most likely extinct, its category is still critically endangered. I have changed the all the past-tense words to present ("was" to "is"). Change it back if you don't agree. --209.7.171.66 21:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I do agree. Definitely keep it in the present tense. Iancaddy 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The IUCN says: " This species has not been conclusively seen in the wild since 1949; it was always considered rare, and is likely to have declined severely through a combination of hunting and habitat loss. However, further surveys are needed of remote wetlands in northern Myanmar where there has been a possible sighting and local reports. Any remaining population is likely to be tiny, and for these reasons it is treated as Critically Endangered." I'm going to change the official marker. Mukkakukaku 00:20, 19 April 2007
-
- Changed it to PE. The information you cite is a 2006 assessment based on the data available by then. "further surveys" have been conducted; all have come out negative. PE is probably the best possibly WP category as of now.
- Also changed section header more neutrally. Dysmorodrepanis 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Netta or Rhodonessa?
which authority put this species into the genus Netta? Because both Sibley & Monroe and ITIS still regarded it as Rhodonessa? --Melly42 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I suggest that it goes back into Rhodonessa. The basis for putting it into Netta is Livezey (1998), but the methodology is not very good. Dysmorodrepanis 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
