To be honest, I'm not sure what terms/language fits the bill for the
behaviour, and yes "forced copulation" has an odd "ring" to it as well.
Buggered if I know.
It's just that the term rape involves questions of intent in its
criminological definition - generally speaking - so I just find it rather
creepy to be implying that birds are working with intent to "force" and so
on.
But, hell, if we want it as a term to stick onto avian behaviour, let's
not stop there. Let's put them on trial! And televise the court cases.
That will get birding some publicity.
cheers
Craig
> Thanks, Paul. And saying that instead of "rape" would avoid the
> potential problems you describe, Craig?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul McDonald
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2008 3:05 PM
> To: Peter Shute
> Cc: ; Merrilyn Serong;
>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Partners
>
> The correct terminology in ornithological circles is 'forced
> copulation'.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On 20/05/2008, at 2:58 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
>
>> So what word/phrase would you use instead of rape?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> On Behalf Of
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2008 2:27 PM
>> To: Merrilyn Serong
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Partners
>>
>> Hi Merrilyn,
>>
>> Your contribution to this little discussion tangent is deeply
>> appreciated.
>> I was getting ready to throw a rant into action about the total
>> undesirability of applying human legal concepts and designated crimes
>> such as rape to birds or other animals.
>>
>> Being playful about human/bird connections is one thing, but it's
>> another entirely when the term "rape" is applied to animal behaviour
>> and there are a range of very dangerous and dodgy implications that
>> might stem from such games.
>>
>> For instance, what if some human idiot "out there" decides to rid the
>> world of wren "rapists" based on some half-baked bit of
>> anthropomorphism.
>> That's all we need. Let alone some human accused launching a defence
>> along the lines of "If ducks can't help but do it, I rest my case".
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> Craig Williams
>>
>>> Hi Belinda and others,
>>>
>>>
>>> It is obvious that if a male bird mates with lots of females, he is
>>> more likely to produce a greater number of offspring than if he mates
>
>>> with only one bird. If his male offspring inherit the behavioural
>>> propensity to mate with lots of females, then the proportion of
>>> multiple-mating males in the population will increase, and so it goes
>
>>> on. Those that only mate with one female, will be relatively scarce.
>>>
>>> If a female bird mates with several males, she will be more likely to
>
>>> produce young with a wide variety of characteristics (sperm
>>> competition aside). Depending on environmental conditions, this may
>>> increase the number of offspring that survive to sexual maturity. If
>>> the survivors inherit the propensity to mate with several partners,
>>> then the chances of their offspring surviving will also increase,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if a female mates with only one male, even a
>>> really
>>
>>> good quality one, if environmental conditions change, then the
>>> offspring might not be well suited to the new conditions and may not
>>> survive to maturity. However, if environmental conditions are
>>> unchanging, then mating with the best (fittest for the current
>>> conditions) available male will produce the greatest number of
>> surviving offspring.
>>>
>>> Similarly, under certain circumstances, young will be more likely to
>>> survive if they have more than one carer, i.e. both mother and father
>
>>> (and sometimes older siblings as well). These survivors will inherit
>>> the capacity to care for young in a socially stable partnership along
>
>>> with whatever mating system was employed by their parents (single or
>>> multiple partners).
>>>
>>> It's all about inheritance and survival.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Merrilyn
>>>
>>>
>>> Belinda Cassidy wrote:
>>>> Hi Kurtis, John, Rosemary, Storm, and everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I must apologise for being so curt. I don't know whats got into me
>>>> today; anyway I didn't mean to put everyone off side. Its been an
>>>> emotional week for me and I guess I sprung a leak.
>>>>
>>>> I think we all agree that the scientific evidence demonstrates that
>>>> some birds pair for life, and some do not. I don't even know why
>>>> this
>>
>>>> is being hotly debated, but like I said, I have my suspicions as to
>>>> the reasons.
>>>> You're right though Kurtis, suspicions are not the same as
>>>> scientific
>>
>>>> fact.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Bel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ===============================
>>> 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:
>> ===============================
>>
>> ==============================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:
>> ==============================
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dr. Paul G. McDonald
>
> Centre for the Integrative Study of Animal Behaviour Macquarie
> University Sydney, NSW 2109 Australia
>
> Ph: +612 9850 9232 Fax: +612 9850 9231
>
>
> http://galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au/~paul/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
===============================
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:
===============================
|
