|
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I can suggest words such
as "definitive evidence" and "assertion" probably overstate
the intent of my comment. Seeing you asked, I agree I don't have definitive
evidence. It is really based on balance of probability or beyond reasonable
doubt grounds. In accepting your point, can I sensibly say that I am sure that
we are never really totally sure of anything? And I accept your passed on wisdom
from Steve Wilson. I wrote that the Spotted Nightjar does not occur
here, on the basis that we have no reason to think it does. The point I made was
that if it was not a White-throated Nightjar, then it must be a Spotted
Nightjar, as it wasn't something else. However I still maintain that my
observation was nowhere near adequate for the RP to endorse it as a first
ACT record of a Spotted Nightjar so we ended up with a non result. My
id was also on opinion given to me at the time from Dick Schodde that
my recalling of the sound I believe I heard, fitted better the call of the
W-tN and the scrubby bushy riverine habitat fitted it better also. As you know,
at the time, I argued and still do that there was no need to invoke the
possibility of the Spotted Nightjar any more than that it was a penguin. The
difference in probability is quantitative (albeit huge) rather than qualitative.
Sorry I'm not actually totally
clear from Terry's message whether he is suggesting he encountered a Spotted
Nightjar or a White-throated Nightjar. Of course before we started recording
birds here there were nil species on the written record.
I was not aware as to whether or not
the RP vote was unanimous or who agreed or not. I can tell though,
from your quick response that even so long ago, you still remember it, so that
is good.
Philip
|
