To: <>, <>
Subject: terminology
From: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:10:15 +1100

Oh dear what have I started? We seem to be working on several different wavelengths here. As I said right at the beginning of this series of emails I am NOT criticising anyone, really I am trying to get people to think about how we “describe” the status of our birds. For a long time after COG managed to get the Brown Treecreeper listed as a vulnerable species in the ACT it kept turning up in the Annual Bird Reports as a “Common, breeding species”. People obviously were not reading these descriptors. I think it was after a Rarities Panel meeting where I pointed this sort of thing out that the descriptors where they needed it, were changed. Benj and Harvey are both right when they say theBlack Honeyeater is rare in the ACT but COG (and the Annual Bird Report) does not cover the ACT alone. Unless we specify that we are ONLY dealing with the ACT we are giving a false impression to someone from say Tasmania, or probably from overseas, that the Black Honeyeater is rare when, in parts of NSW and elsewhere in Australia, it can be abundant. As I said earlier see what Michael Lenz said about the confusion that could be created by the “DY” issue.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the Canberra Ornithologists Group mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the list contact David McDonald, list manager, phone (02) 6231 8904 or email . If you can not contact David McDonald e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU