Stephen Debus wrote:
"The birding magazines like Wingspan and Bird Observer, being largely
chatty and newsy and full of 'twitcher' stuff, mostly contain ephemera and
(in the case of the BO) trivia, whereas journals like AFO etc. follow a
scientific format and structure and their emphasis is on presenting
advances in knowledge of birds (though often contributed by amateurs).
Just compare BO and AFO, for instance. Annotated lists, to have
ornithological worth, would need to say something useful to science or
conservation about the birds in the list, e.g. an inventory of an
ornithologically little-explored or -documented area, long-term or
seasonal patterns, or other new biological or ecological information. AFO
concentrates on descriptive natural history, rather tan the sometimes
esoteric science of the 'higher' journals."
I have just spent the past 10 minutes rolling around on the floor laughing while thinking of the combination of apoplexy and
confusion he has created with that posting.
And best of all........he managed to use the word 'esoteric' (my all-time
favourite word) in context.
On a negative point, Steve (if I may be so bold) I have deducted one point for a spelling error in the last sentence. But I have
added one point for the use of 'ephemera'.
It's a pity Stephen's beautifully constructed prose won't put an end to this totally un-edifying topic. And it is a pity that what
he said will be totally misinterpreted.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)