Talk:Purple Swamphen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No photos show the white patch on their rear very well, which is important as a signalling mechanism. Richard001 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Formatting

Well seeing as this isn't a very popular topic, and because I have many pukeko living near me I thought that I'd put more work into this topic. Probally in the next day or two I hope to have done some formatting work, making it easier to add information pertaining to this topic -- Faded_Mantis 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've done some major formatting, however as far as the content goes I've just copy and pasted the article text, I (or someone else) shal get around to editing the sentence structure at a later date. -- Faded_Mantis 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with Pukeko is this. I can see that it makes sense to list the local name for species which are endemic or near endemic to a country, and this applies to many species in New Zealand. I have no problem with giving the non-English name in that situation.
However, this species has a huge range over virtually all the warmer parts of four continents, so it is difficult to see why Maori should have a special status. Dozens of languages (if not hundreds) are spoken within the range of this bird, and each has as good or better a claim to be listed as Maori, which is not even the principal language of NZ. Purple Swamphen is also not originally a native species to NZ, being introduced by humans.
I'm reluctant to see this article becoming a polyglot dictionary, as has happened with some other, and faced with the choice of all or none, I'd go for none, with an interwiki to the maori version of the article if one exists. This article currently reads at first glance as if the species is a NZ endemic.jimfbleak 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voicing this. I found the use of pukeko in the opening sentence in an earlier edit, and when typing pukeko into WIkopedia this was the page that the re-direct came to. I'll remove Pukeko from the opening line but I will however leave the later paragraph in, as it has been there for several edits. I know you don't want a polyglot dictionary of terms, but if the paragraph about the Maori name was given a catagory heading like "Multilingual names" then the native names from it's country could be listed there, as long as each entery is kept short, example "Pukeko - Maori name is now the more commonly used in New Zealand", do you agree? (I was also starting to think that maybe I was the only one who had this topic on my watchlist) -- Faded_Mantis 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer not to have any of the non-Eng names, but what you suggest is a reasonable compromise. I watch the articles for all the species I have seen (like this on) or where I have made a significant inout to the article. Unfortunately, I've not been to NZ yet, but my daughter has and she had a wonderful time, so it's on the wishlist. jimfbleak 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that pukeko gets about 50% more hits on google than swamphen... It seems that the NZ name is most prominent. 203.97.106.166 06:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a brand in NZ? I'm sure I've seen a shop with it on Willis St here in Wellington. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems like there's a number of organisations using "pukeko" as their name - e.g. pukeko.co.nz, pukeko.net, pukeko.org.nz etc, which really just shows how strong the word "pukeko" is in the NZ lexicon? It still seems to me that pukeko is a more common word than swamphen - I've never met anyone who's heard of a swamphen who isn't e.g. a taxonomist. 140.184.40.104 (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Florida

[edit] New Zealand

I corrected the section which said that the Purple Swamphen was introduced to New Zealand by humans. This is nonsense, the bird is listed as a native in all NZ bird books and websites. The bit about them being able to thrive because of the ecological vacuum left by the extinction of the Takahē is also dubious. One or two Māori tribes have traditions that their ancestors introduced the Purple Swamphen to New Zealand from tropical Polynesia, but such traditions are not scientifically supportable. The context is that there are quite a few endemic plants and trees that have similar traditions attached to them, such as the Karaka tree, an absolutely endemic NZ tree. The 2 Takahē and the NZ Pukeko or Purple Swamphen represent multiple introductions, most likely from Australia, but most definitely no human intervention was involved. Kahuroa 07:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated mention of the name used in New Zealand English for the bird. New Zealanders would have no idea what a Purple Swamphen was Kahuroa 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
About self introduction - I think that the bit about them arriving after humans had erradicating takahe is supported by the fossil evidence. Other species self introduced after humans modified New Zealand and removed potential competitors, the Marsh Hawk and the Whiteeye. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Pūkeko being self-introduced, but I doubt that the fossil evidence can be quite so clearcut about the sequence of arrivals - Takahē, people, Pūkeko, as you say, or Takahē, Pūkeko, people. These sources [1] and [2] (see section The State of Our Indigenous Birds) suggest that the Pūkeko arrived within the last 1000 years, which roughly coincides with the arrival of humans and the subsequent decline of the Takahē. But both birds may have been here already when humans arrived. The White Eye is commonly known to have arrived in the 19th century - the name of the White Eye in Māori is Tauhou meaning 'new arrival'. New birds self-introduce to NZ quite regularly, others that have established are the Spur Winged Plover and the Welcome Swallow. Kahuroa 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
it's not the exactness of the timing that implies that the pukeko arrived late, it's the relative absence in older fossil beds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
True. There is this 1996 paper, available as a PDF at [3]: "The presence of pukeko also supports the young age for the fauna, as this species is unknown in natural sites older than about 1,000 years in New Zealand. The earliest pukeko fossils are found in Poukawa, where 410 bones were recorded from layer 1, and four from layer 2 (Horn 1983). Layer one was defined as above 7 cm above the Taupo Ash: therefore, probably all pukeko fossils postdate the Taupo Ash (c. 1,850 yrs BP, Froggatt & Lowe 1990) at Poukawa." and "Their absence in the extensive late Holocene faunas from around Waikari strongly suggest that pukeko Porphyrio melanotus, swamp harrier Circus approximans, and shoveler duck Anas rhynchotis were not part of the prehuman New Zealand fauna." Kahuroa 20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

It seems a little "off" to be the opening paragraph, but I'm not sure exactly what to do with it.

Also, the bird is still known as "Purple Gallinule" by many, IIRC, it's not a "former" name but still a current alternative. - Aerobird 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it a pic of a pukeko or a takahe. Looks like a short necked, heavily built takahe (Notornis hochstetter) to me so it should not be called a pukeko (Porphyrio melonotu) Carpenter0 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a Takahe
Not a Takahe
Are you referring to this image? It simply has retracted it's neck, but isn't thick-billed enough to be a Takahe. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is That pukeko a Takahe?

It looks really stocky and it's head looks a bit blunt. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.225.31 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks stocky because it's neck is retracted, the bill isn't nearly massive enough to be a Takahe. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)