Is there anyone on birding-aus who has read the book and feels able to
comment on this for me, please?
I am reading a book, "Wesley - The Story of a Remarkable Owl" by
O'Brien. My copy "first published in Australia by Bantam in
published in the US by Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster,
It is claimed that the author trained as a biologist, graduating from
Occidental College (in California) and continuing her education at
The Owl is an American Barn Owl. It had nerve damage to one wing
not have survived in the wild. The author accepted it as a four-
chick and took on the job of caring for it for the whole of its
19 years.) The owlet's eyes were still closed at that stage and
opened he imprinted on Stacey as his 'parent'. She writes:
"When Wesley opened his eyes for the first time, he stared
right at me.
" 'Hello, Wesley,' I said.
" 'Screech,' he softly replied, gazing deeply into my eyes.'
"Wesley focused on me right away, twittering and chattering,
in the eyes and trying to communicate. I was astonished at the
and clarity of his focus on me."
If the book is fact, written by a trained scientist, one would expect
scientific accuracy. I'm not far into the book, yet already I'm having
doubts and wondering if some of it is imagination.
"Wesley's eyes were fixed in their sockets, so the only way he
depth perception was to move his head from side to side."
I reckon I can depth perception without moving my eyes or my head.
(Or am I
just imagining this?)
Just one other (somewhat unsavoury) quote that bothers me a
was not confined to a cage, so his droppings had to be cleaned up, and
there's some excuse for dwelling on this aspect:
"Wesley observed the cardinal rule of never pooping in his
When he first started to scoot around on the carpet, he would back
his rear end high in the air and push backwards, trying to find
the end of
the rug so he could poop. ... I realized that if I lay down a
behind him, he would notice the change in texture ... and would
with a quiet air of dignified relief."
But the dissertation upon the word "poop" raises my doubts. It
"When describing both the act of defecating and the substance
matter itself, biologists prefer to use the scientific term 'poop'."
And it concludes:
"So if it's on the ground, it's poop. If it's under your
it's scat. If it's running down your neck, it's shit."
There's no entry for 'poop' in my (1995) Larousse Dictionary of
And the only entries in other dictionaries confine the meaning as
to the aft part of a ship.
So. Are there any birding-aus biologists out there who regard
"poop' as a
standard scientific term.?
Does anyone who has read the book, care to comment on whether it's
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)