|
An
interesting topic is obviously developing here, which I shall watch with
interest from afar. Thus far I have no firm view on whether vagrants to
Canberra should also be described as 'rare,' in this area (Harvey's point and
comma) or whether the first word should only be added if they are rare in their
native area (which is how I interpret Mark's comment).
I am
not sure if the following sticks to birds or introduces a mammal (horse, hobby)
or fish (herring, red) to the debate.
Of
more interest to me in terms of terminology is where birds are described as
common, on the basis of the official list, but which are very rarely
reported. For example the ABR for 2002-03 describes satin flycatcher as
"common, breeding migrant". How come it is only reported 10 times?
Perhaps it is common in a very restricted habitat which (these days) few people
go to (and even less complete reports for). What about rufous songlark
which in that year was reported a whole 16 times or skylark reported 10
times?
Martin
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[
Sent: Friday, 11 March 2005 2:17
PM
To: ;
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds]
terminology
I take
Harveys point about putting
in a comma but I feel he has missed my point. In the species I have noted, the
Black Honeyeater should ONLY be
listed as a vagrant, it is NOT a rare bird. In this case I don’t think
we need the word “rare” to describe it, “vagrant” gives a more than adequate
description. As I said, can anyone show me a listing anywhere for a
common, vagrant? If, for example, we had a Night Parrot suddenly turn up
in Canberra, then I would be
prepared to accept a definition of “rare, vagrant”. I know there are also
variations on what is considered rare – birds of preys versus honeyeaters for
example – the term is relative. This could be an interesting
topic…..!!
Mark
|
