Many places have very long lists - my local patch (Werribee in Vic) for
example has Letter-wing Kite as a result of some 30 odd years ago - the
local council duly put the fact in a bird leaflet! Most checklists are very
unrealistic as they record everything ever seen (many birds on the Aussie
list only have been seen a few times!). Of more value are lists (such as
Eremaea, Birdpedia and the Atlas) which show what birders are actually
seeing in an area. I guess so long as you know how a list was derived (and
hopefully if it includes details of abundance and seasons) then it is useful
- but if not then they can be fairly meaningless
On 04/05/2008, Tony Ashton <> wrote:
>
> Hi
> I sent a few thoughts on bird lists to Russell a wee while ago. Wasn't
> used, but perhaps the fantastical eco-claims about the Daintree might bring
> a re-evaluation?
>
> Hi Russell,
>
> I've been prompted to ponder some shortcomings apparent in many bird lists.
> I wonder if the following short thought would bring feedback?
>
> IF birdos on the Titanic had been told of a list to port they'd have
> demanded to know what birds were on it.
>
> For we do love lists: today's species; week's; month's; year's; lifetime's.
> One site; block; cell; state; country; world.
>
> So those of us not physicists are all more or less Rutherford's 'stamp
> collectors'. Give Ernest his due, it's unlikely he was in total earnest.
> Those super-starched 1930s types failed to feel their legs being firmly
> tugged by the atom-splitting Kiwi.
>
> Taxonomists can take all the umbrage they like, but surely one of
> Rutherford's points would have been: is the list real (will it stand
> rigorous scrutiny)?
>
> How real are the lists many of us love to be challenged by? Not the major
> international and national lists. No matter how bizarrely geographic,
> inclusive, exclusive, lumping or splitting they may be, at least they are
> under serious scrutiny.
>
> But many impressively long lesser lists seek to cash in on eco-tourism and
> the 'big bucks' birdos throw around. Laugh if you like, but the tourism
> industry appears to believe birdos are mostly millionaires. It also has an
> inflated idea of birding numbers (partly because most caravanners, for
> example, tick the box in surveys - and indeed may glance at them sometimes).
> The temptation all round is to gild the lily.
>
> After puzzling over some 'optimistic' lists might I suggest birding groups
> work on guidelines to help tourism and local, state and federal government
> produce info that's both accurate and - to my point - realistic. Endit
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tony Ashton
>
> So,what do you think?
>
>
> www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
