Talk:Macaw

Parrot Preservation Society

Added some links off the Scarlet Macaw link Belizian 19:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text''''New Edit':PARROT PRESERVATION SOCIETY (copyrighted)WWW.PARROTPRO.COM I would like to add our webpage to this entry. There are helpful articles on it, in multiple languages; all about the Macaws. Incubation, Pediatrics, a Revolutionary new Handfeeding method developed by us; and links to veterinarians. Featured is the Buffon's Macaw Eye Color difference between the Buffons (Ara Ambigua) and the Military, (Ara Militaria). Reprints are by request please.

(above cut from article page)Just added the link jimfbleak 06:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article says that only the Blue-and-Yellow macaw is the only one not endangered in the wild. But the Scarlet Macaw is not on IUCN's red list and is listed on Wikipedia as Lower Risk. Simfish 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello 149.88.1.36 (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Macaws in Brazil

Macacaw (called Arara in Portuguese) are quite predominant in Brazil (as the article says), and many people reffer to Macaws by tha name Araras (plural) in South America. Perhaps we could mention the name, or create a redirect from Arara to this article?

As for the Hyacinth Macaw, in Brazil it is called Arara Azul (Blue Arara, or Blue Macaw). I remmember that back in the 80s there was a huge project in Brazil that helped save this bird from extinction. --Pinnecco 11:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Status

I have repeated Smallweed's deletion of status indicators on the species list. The status should go on each species account, and there is a taxobox line to do just that. Other bird species lists are exactly that, a list of Englsih and scientific names, and it is difficult to see why macaw should be an exception amongst thousands of bird pages (and it looks a mess).

It's fair enough to point out in the text that many species are threatened. If the current practice is felt not to highlight the problem enough, why not create a page something like Conservation status of macaws, and link it back to the main article? jimfbleak 19:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the original deletions, as they were partial. I have now taken care of the remaining ones. My point was just consistency, and no preference for either. --KimvdLinde 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To the person who added the hybrids

What's the source for the criticism about taking individuals out of the breeding population? I couldn't find that at the Hybrid Macaws page. And what does "the only difference from true species being their genetics" mean? They have different colors from the true species.

Of course much of the article needs references. —JerryFriedman 01:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm the guy who added the Hybrids section. To be quite honest I like the hybrids, however I have heard the criticism somewhere (I don't remember where). Anyway, it makes sense when you think about Macaw behaviour. As for the differences, I did't mean visual differences. More like behaviour differences. I fixed the color thing.

• P.S. Well done with the clean-up.

Thanks. However, you're not supposed to put in things you heard somewhere. If the rest of the article were better referenced I'd worry about it more, but it would be nice if you could find a reference. Anyway, I hope to see more of your contributions. —JerryFriedman 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I checked again and according to one source a pair of macaws can be separated and re-paired with other individuals. I fixed the page correspondingly. Thanks for pointing that out.

I would say that the Hybrid section steers away from neutral POV, and ignores the fact that hybridisation has been observed naturally in the wild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.105.21.53 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a long time since these requests and still no citations! I think some of this information is simply wrong and should be deleted. BeautifulKouga (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

dc6dcc 2001:1970:56E1:7B00:0:0:0:4205 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the whole section re hybridization should be re-written. Also, I have never heard of voluntary hybridization in the wild. Can the person who posted this comment cite a link? And, material needs to be inserted dealing with the problems caused by hybridization-you can end up with some pretty weird birds, personality and otherwise when you hybridize. It's like hybridizing dogs with wolves. It can be done, but the results aren't acceptable. FrancisDane (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

O adder of hybrids—my opinion is that the article has a good array of pictures now with the taxobox picture and the ones in the gallery. There are other macaw pictures at some of the articles on individual species, but I don't think they need to be duplicated here. If you want to look for an available picture of a hybrid, try Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. I wouldn't object to seeing such a picture in the gallery, but I've got other things I want to work on more.

Thanks for fixing the problem about criticisms of hybrids.

By the way, even if you don't want to create an account (for some reason), you've got a talk page under your IP address. Communicating with you there would be much easier than here. —JerryFriedman 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aviculture WikiProject proposal

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture. The purpose of this project is to help increase the amount and quality of content related to aviculture on wikipedia, and to maintain and organise articles relating to the subject, eventually bringing as many as possible up to good- or featured-article status. Snowman 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Macaw species

Some help on the species list, I am doing a project and cannot find a complete list, may I be provided with the species, maybe a photograph or small line of information or link provided too? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.101.122 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with humans section

I was thinking about adding a section that talks about how macaws and specifically their feathers were used by a number of early South American civilizations in ceremonial contexts. I saw the wiki page for the resplendent quetzal had a similar section. Would this be an acceptable edit?

Forehann8651 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is this article so weird?

This article doesn't really hold up compared to the other entries about animals on Wikipedia, it needs to be reworked. I suggest using the page on parrots as a reference, or any other page on animals. 88.88.47.103 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the polyphyletic and arbitrary nature of the category of macaws. Biologists mostly only care about clades, and to a lesser extent taxa that are outdated due to being non-monophyletic, which are generally paraphyletic. There are few biologically significant polyphyletic groups like ratites (an outdated taxon). And macaws are certainly not one of them.

This is a systemic issue. Maybe we should have a WikiProject for non-monophyletic groups or something. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-monophyly. Grey Clownfish (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thick-billed parrot

Why does this article assert, that the thick-billed parrot is not phylogenetically a macaw? It doesn't tell us what "phylogenetically a macaw" means, except that all macaws belong to Arini. The thick-billed parrot belongs to the genus Rhynchopsitta, while this article says that macaws are Ara, Anodorhynchus, Cyanopsitta, Primolius, Orthopsittaca and Diopsittaca. But why? This article never really says. I think macaws are polyphyletic anyway, so there's not really such a thing as "phylogenetically a macaw". --Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool! Forger-Wiki (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe I should remove that part. It's unsourced, dubious and it's been 6 months. Grey Clownfish (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)