Definition of DY in Aust Wood Ducks

To: "David McDonald" <>, "CanberraBirds" <>
Subject: Definition of DY in Aust Wood Ducks
From: "Philip Veerman" <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:03:08 +1100
On the basis that these (and several other birds) are capable of feeding themselves from hatching, yet still depend on their parents for brooding and protection (as distinct from say mallee fowl and brush turkeys that never have any relationship with their parents, so are never dy), I would say another part of behaviour needs to be invoked to set a criterion for those birds. In that case, I suggest it would be whether they are still clearly under direct guidance and protection of the parents. Though that isn't always so easy to draw a dividing line either. Of course it raises the problem that if we had mallee fowl or brush turkeys in our GBS charts or other recording devices, we would miss out on breeding records, purely on the basis that even newly hatched chicks could not be recorded as dy because they are never dependant. It is not such an abstract thought. Brisbane has had a GBS like ours and brush turkeys certainly breed in suburban gardens there.
<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