On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:03 AM, chrishails50 <> wrote:
> The other day in discussing the Greenfinch/ Redpoll query of Graham
> Meadows I queried the i.d. of a Xeno-canto Redpoll recording that Serge
> had posted. I was too hasty in doing so: I later compared that sonogram
> with some of my own material and indeed the i.d. was correct. Been feelin=
g
> a bit guilty ever since, so wanted to set the record straight and apologi=
se
> in case anyone had been hurt by my comment. I find Xeno-canto a great
> reference source and 100k recordings is an amazing achievement.
No doubt Xeno-canto is a great reference and I hope it will continue to gro=
w.
[I also hope I'll contribute to include some computer science wizardry
into it to make it even moreuseful, but that's quite another story!]
As I see it, the "problem" is that we were discussing calls that are
only mildly species-specific, hence the fact that many candidate species
were eligible...
So I think there's nothing wrong with Xeno-canto on this case.
The only "wrong" thing is the bird! ;-)
--Serge
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|