|
Not
surprisingly, I agree with Martin on that and for those reasons but also agree
with Michael that the entries for host and parasite should be
cross-referenced. But hopefully this is not a big issue and those putting the
records together should be able to work through the problem. There is space on
the GBS Database for small extra comments on breeding behaviour, in addition to
the weekly codes (or was when I built it and I hope there still is.) The issue
of confusion or duplication in subsequent analysis also comes from the small
problem of dates. Since 1981 it has been a problem that something that is
only observed (for the GBS) on 1 or 2 July will occur on the prior year
from the GBS record (being part of the last week in June) to the general records
and thus go in two different ABR. I have a vague memory of only one such
incident but there may be others and I don't know what or when that
was.
Philip
I disagree that entries (of any sort)
on a GBS Chart be duplicated in the general records. I can't see any
benefit in it and it clearly leads to either confusion or duplication in
subsequent analysis.
Martin
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Michael and Janette Lenz
<>
wrote:
Lia,
this particular discussion here, whether to focus on
the parasite or the host for recording purposes, is specific to the
requirements of placing records on the GBS chart. Normally, I would expect
that events for both parties are fully recorded. And my hope is, that in that
particular case of
Tery Munro's observations,
details of dates etc. are noted and, in addition to GBS entries, also make
their way into the COG database. There the entries for host and parasite
could easily be cross-referenced.
Michael Lenz
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:01 PM
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Koels breeding in GBS
sites
Interesting
discussion. How do they deal with this issue in other jurisdictions, eg,
UK, does anyone
know?
From: Philip Veerman
[
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012 6:19
PM
To:
Subject: [canberrabirds] Koels breeding
in GBS sites
All sounds fine to
me. About the aspect of survival of the the species, sure I go along with that
but there is the aspect of what we perceive as important and whose survival
are we interested to monitor. A cuckoo's breeding survival is the host's
non-breeding survival. Martin's preference for data is entirely valid in the
situation that one more or less Red Wattlebird nesting, hardly matters, in
terms of GBS records but Koel breeding records are more interesting.
However, take it the
other way (and it could almost have been a GBS record). Some few years ago
when we had the nesting colony of Regent Honeyeaters on the northern edge of
Canberra suburbs and found one nest to have been successfully parasitized by a
Pallid Cuckoo (I think Jenny Bounds had that history covered). Yes that is an
aspect of about survival of the species for the Pallid Cuckoo but
equally and arguably more important to us, due to concern over its status, was
the (in this case non helpful to the survival of the species) for
the failed nesting of the Regent Honeyeaters. So I wouldn't like us to miss
the information on the Regent Honeyeater. Also with the postulation I
have that in such a case the Pallid Cuckoo raised by them may grow up to
prefer to parasitize another Regent Honeyeater nest and create ongoing impact
there. (No direct evidence for this, just a strong
suspicion.)
For what it is worth,
I had assumed that, like the King Parrot for which all breeding records are
dy, I expect that other cuckoo breeding records are of nests (far) outside
GBS areas and young have followed the parents into GBS areas. This is
clearly not so much the case for Koels
& Wattlebirds.
-----Original
Message-----
From: martin
butterfield [
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012 5:43
PM
To: Philip
Veerman
Cc:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Koels
breeding in GBS sites
My philosophy is that
breeding is primarily about survival of the the species. From that view
the DY of a Koel being fed by a Red Wattlebird is certainly about the Koel and
not the Wattlebird.
Terry's situation, if his very reasonable
assumption is carried through, will be the first in-nest record of a
cuckoo. There have been some records of 'preliminaries' (Display and
Copulation) but none of "Nest with eggs" or "nest with young".
In
terms of logic there must be a time at which the nest contains eggs and young
of both species, but without great luck (or a cherry-picker) it will
only be possible to infer, rather than observe that. Having had the
application to identify what is going on there may be a chance that Terry will
observe the Koel chick in the nest. In that case I believe it should be
recorded against the species of the chick not the parents.
However the parents could quite reasonably be recorded as Carrying
food for the young cuckoo - indeed if the nest was outside Terry's GBS site he
may well have recorded the parents carrying food within his site. A
similar situation arose on the Kama Wednesday Walk where we saw a Superb
Fairy-wren feeding a Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo (out of nest).
At
the risk of causing confusion I wonder whether there might not be a need for
an additional breeding code. I'd suggest CU for feeding CUckoo attached
to the Parent bird (whether the feeding is in or out of nest). This
could be easily linked to the DY or NY records for the cuckoos in the same
site and week.
Analysts could then do as they wish to infer when the
Koel eggs were laid etc.
Martin
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Philip Veerman <>
wrote:
And indeed a dy for
the host species too? Although maybe we should clarify that. I point
out the situation is new. At the time I wrote The GBS Report, there had
never been an in nest observation of any species of cuckoo for the history of
the GBS. Only dy observations. So I did not discuss the problem in The GBS
Report. As Koels (unlike other cuckoos) are common in suburban
Canberra and rare outside the city environs, the
breeding is occurring in nests in GBS areas. In Terry's note below (and
similar for others) what we likely have is a ne, a ny and if successful a dy
set of records for both the cuckoo and the host. Is it sensible to call it a
dy for the wattlebird? I could argue both yes (from the point of view of the
wattlebird) the wattlebird has dy, or no, from the point of view of the
cuckoo, there are no dy wattlebird chicks from that nest.
Of course at the time
I wrote The GBS Report, I wrote for the Koel "No breeding records - yet"
Which indicates my now correct
prediction that such records would start soon. BOCG V2 tells us even
less.
Pity that there won't
ever be an update of The GBS Report to explain the history and results of the
project to clarify these things.
-----Original
Message-----
From: martin
butterfield [
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012 4:22
PM
To: Terry
Munro
Cc:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Koels in
Watson
Terry
Can you (and
anyone else who has Koels or other cuckoo breeding records in a GBS site)
record the event carefully with notes on the Chart. If a juvenile Koel
emerges it should be recorded as DY for that species.
Martin
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Terry Munro <>
wrote:
I've been watching a Wattlebirds nest that I believe
has been parasitised by a Koel. A young dead Wattlebird chick is hanging
outside the nest & the chick being fed by the adult Wattlebirds isn't
making the normal bzzzt bzzt calls of a young wattlebird. I can't see inside
the nest because it is too high. Over the past month there was a lot of Koel
activity in the area. I am keeping a close eye on what
happens.
|
