Sorry all, sometimes it is hard to be simple and
clear at the same time. When I wrote "The result was the same" I now see that is
ambiguous. I meant: "The result was the same" as in that experiment with the
hawk/duck cutout shape. When the triangle shape was towed above the chicks one
way (lead by its long side), the chicks were alarmed and when towed
above the chicks the other way (lead by its two short sides), the chicks
were not alarmed. I did not mean "The result was the same" as in that the
same result occurred whichever way the shape was moved. It wasn't.
All this is off the top of my head from literature
that I read many years ago and occasionally since then.
Another point is that it may be reasonable to expect a lot more
sophistication and variability when dealing with adults of a colonial and very
territorial species with a strong social system, than what you would expect from
newly hatched chickens with no experience of wild predators. So the experiment
has some possible, but I'd suggest limited, relevance to the Miner/Heron
issue.
Philip
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Noisy miners and egrets and the like (part 2),
Philip Veerman <=
|
Admin
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 birding-aus 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 archive e-mail
Andrew Taylor at this address:
andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU
|