Then there's the question of whether you include a species richness (total
number of birds that occur in an area) component to the calculation. Is it
fair to compare Tasmania where 100 birds is a great list to North QLD where
200 birds is a great list and 100 birds is almost expected? I know this has
been discussed before on Birding-Aus, so I won't go any further into it.
But you are starting to look at a lot of time and effort to try and get some
fair basis for comparison here.
Regards,
Chris
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM, L&L Knight <> wrote:
> Indeed. The technical nature of the concept incorporating the difficulty
> in finding species would be just the thing to appeal to a TWITCHER [and
> would pave the way for a national competition].
>
> It could also open the way for a land and sea [pelagic] entry.
>
> Regards, Laurie.
>
>
> On 05/09/2008, at 1:34 PM, Chris Sanderson wrote:
>
> If you wanted to get very technical, you could rate birds based on their
>> reporting rate (# times seen/number of surveys) modified by range using
>> the
>> Birds Australia Atlas. This would give you how regularly they are seen,
>> but
>> would account for how much effort was spent searching, and where the bird
>> occurs. For example it would do you no good rating a 40-spotted Pardalote
>> based on all the surveys in Tasmania, however if you just use the surveys
>> within its range you get a better idea of how hard it is to see. Princess
>> Parrot would probably have a very high score, because even though there
>> are
>> few surveys in their habitat, there are probably far fewer that actually
>> have the parrot recorded. I think this would be better than a simple
>> guess
>> as to how hard a bird is to see. I does mean that rare birds found near
>> tourist hotspots will probably score less, and birders living in living
>> where a bird is marginal and very hard to see lose out. But I doubt any
>> system is perfect!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM, John Tongue <> wrote:
>>
>> Ooohh! My aching head!
>>>
>>> John Tongue
>>> Ulverstone, Tas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2008, at 12:39 PM, John Penhallurick wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Friends,
>>>
>>>> One easy way to weight species might be in terms of their ratings by
>>>> Birdlife International. Say, 5 for a species rated as CR (critical), 4
>>>> for
>>>> a
>>>> species rated as EN (Endangered), 3 for a species rated as VU
>>>> (Vulnerable),
>>>> 2 for a species rated as NT (Near-Threatened) and 1 for a species rated
>>>> as
>>>> none of the above.
>>>> Of course, this would not relate to the difficulty of finding the
>>>> species.
>>>> I would rate the Princess Parrot as one of the most difficult birds in
>>>> Australia to see, but its rating is only NT. I think the answer might
>>>> be
>>>> for birders in a country to come up with their own ratings, combining
>>>> endangerment with difficulty of finding.
>>>> John Penhallurick
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:
>>>> On Behalf Of John Tongue
>>>> Sent: Friday, 5 September 2008 12:31 PM
>>>> To: L&L Knight
>>>> Cc: Birding Aus
>>>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] The Ultimate Twitchathon
>>>>
>>>> Interesting thought, Laurie, but not without its difficulties, I
>>>> predict. Forty-spotted Pardalotes would have to score high for me,
>>>> but maybe not so for someone living in Hobart, Kingston, or Bruny
>>>> Island, for instance. And then, should my night parrot score more or
>>>> less than your Paradise Parrot?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe someone can come up with an acceptable list of scores?
>>>>
>>>> (meanwhile, don't forget our Great Tassie Twitch!)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> John Tongue
>>>> Ulverstone, Tas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2008, at 10:59 AM, L&L Knight wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John Tongue's Tassie Twitchathon invitation got me thinking of an
>>>>
>>>>> alternative to the traditional twitchathon model.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as Rogaining is a points variation of orienteering, it should
>>>>> be possible to have a points version of the twitcherthon. Common-as-
>>>>> mud species score 1, rarer and harder-to-find species score more.
>>>>> For example, a White-Throated Grasswren might score 20 in a NT
>>>>> competition, a Sooty Owl might score 5 in a Vic competition, and a
>>>>> Princess Parrot might score 50 in a WA comp.
>>>>>
>>>>> This way, there would be an incentive for people to chase species
>>>>> they normally wouldn't go after if they are simply trying to see the
>>>>> greatest number of species.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Laurie.
>>>>> ===============================
>>>>> 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:
>>> ===============================
>>>
>>> ===============================
>> 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:
===============================
|
