thanx Nikolas,
yes, I was going to raise the listing of unequivocal signs of presence too but
didn't want to dilute my point
on dead specimens!!
I ALWAYS count species that I have heard but not seen on my lists so long as
i'm dead certain of the ID - but somehow the wider birding community fails to
do so...
this point is just an aside though - I think that the dead specimen/records
issue is an important one that really needs to be reversed by the wider birding
community...
cheers,
martin cachard,
cairns
> From:
> To: ; ; ;
>
> CC:
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 22:08:08 +0000
>
> Hi all,
>
> Coming from a conservation side, I am totally with Greg & Martin! Of
> course dead specimens are countable as long you can be sure that it got
> there naturally, which can be difficult sometimes. So, certainly a record
> and therefore tickable. I have never cared about any listing 'rules' (and
> will never), except they would follow scientific thinking. I count dead
> specimens and any other unequivocal signs of the presence of a certain
> species.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
>
> A/Prof Nikolas Haass | Head, Experimental Melanoma Therapy Group
>
> The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute
> Level 6 | Translational Research Institute | 37 Kent Street |
> Woolloongabba QLD 4102
>
> T: +61 (0)7 3443 7087 | M: +61 (0)424 603 579
> F: +61 (0)7 3443 6966
> E: | W: www.di.uq.edu.au <http://www.di.uq.edu.au/>
>
> <http://www.di.uq.edu.au/>
> ...Turning scientific discoveries into better treatmentsŠ
>
> CRICOS Code 00025B
>
> This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private or
> confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, you must
> take no action based on it, nor show a copy to anyone. Kindly notify the
> sender by reply email. Opinions and information in this email which do not
> relate to the official business of The University of Queensland shall be
> understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/06/14 7:50 AM, "martin cachard" <> wrote:
>
> >hi Greg,
> >
> >it has always amazed me why birders consider a dead specimen to be
> >un-tickable.
> >I have always counted such records of mine as tickable, but only if I
> >consider that it wasn't carried to where it was found by an unnatural
> >means...
> >
> >the simple way that I look at it (& Greg, your Vanuatu Petrel is THE
> >perfect example for my point too!!) is if a dead beach-washed specimen is
> >good enough to be recorded as a national record, then why then isn't it
> >also good enough to be recorded by the finder on their national list as
> >one of their records!!!??
> >
> >I think it's pretty simple really, & I've always been puzzled when
> >records of dead seabirds for eg are counted as records but observers in
> >the main don't tick them...
> >it seems very inconsistent to me - a record is a record, surely!!
> >
> >cheers ,
> >martin cachard,
> >cairns
> >
> >
> >
> >> From:
> >> To: ;
> >> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:32:30 +1000
> >> CC:
> >> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
> >>
> >> I have a similar dilemma as I found the only specimen of the Vanuatu
> >>Petrel
> >> ever found in Australia and it constitutes the only record for
> >>Australia so
> >> can I tick it? It was found dead on the roadside north of Port
> >>Macquarie.
> >> The only Blue Petrel that I have seen was dead on a beach so it is,
> >> similarly, not generally considered tickable. It doesn't really bother
> >>me
> >> as I am not a lister and although I enjoy seeing new species of birds I
> >> don't really know what my life total is.
> >>
> >> Dr Greg. P. Clancy
> >> Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide
> >> | PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460
> >> | 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960
> >> http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com
> >> http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Laurie Knight
> >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 9:57 PM
> >> To: Carl Clifford
> >> Cc: Birding Aus
> >> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
> >>
> >> G¹day Carl
> >>
> >> That depends on what rules you have established for your patch list.
> >>Bear
> >> in mind, that list rules, like national constitutions, can have
> >>amendments.
> >>
> >> Regards, Laurie.
> >>
> >> On 9 Jun 2014, at 7:04 pm, Carl Clifford <>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have a guest for the night, a young Tawny Frogmouth which was hit
> >>by a
> >> > car on the road outside the house. I have rung WIRES, and they are
> >>trying
> >> > to get here tonight, otherwise, if it lasts the night, I will take it
> >>to
> >> > the vet in the morning. It is the first TF I have seen on my local
> >>patch,
> >> > but have a bit of a moral dilemma as to whether I can tick him.
> >> >
> >> > Carl Clifford
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Birding-Aus mailing list
> >>
> >> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> >> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Birding-Aus mailing list
> >
> >To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> >http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
>
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
