There's a little problem with this in that you need tissue, DNA for it
to work. In metallurgy we would call it destructive testing. So the
bird would have to either get swabbed, defecate, shed a feather or
skin cell onto the detector for it to work.
EB
On 2/29/08, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> A further thought on this. If this device ever really became available,
> and worked as described, one could place one somewhere in a wader roost
> and record whatever walked on it. Maybe hook it up to a camera to take
> an automatic photograph (and submit a Birdline) whenever something
> interesting turns up.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> wrote on Thursday, 28 February 2008
> 10:58 PM:
>
> > Probably true, but having a fieldguide doesn't mean you can
> > automatically id things. More people would get involved if
> > it was easy. Look how many more people take photos now that
> > digital has taken a lot of the guess work out of it.
> >
> > Plant id is very difficult in urban areas where it could be
> > from anywhere in the world, so it would be useful for that.
> > You could tell what you were really getting from the nursery.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to id any feather or
> > bit of fur or you find?
> >
> > It certainly wouldn't make BARC obsolete if you need a
> > feather to id a bird.
> >
> > Peter Shute
> >
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Sent using BlackBerry
> >
|
