No sign of the Painted Snipe at Triangle Pond luchtime today(Sunday 1315-1405).
Plenty of other activity, especially nesting Red Browed Finches.
Talking of bogey birds,there weren't any Pacific Bazas either.What are the odds
against having a bird list of 537 and not one of these?
Pat
Pat O'Malley
F10 Eastern Avenue, The University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
Voice: +61 (0)2 9351 0395, Fax +61 (0)2 9351 0200
Mob +61 (0)4 0427 3392
________________________________________
From:
on behalf of
Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2011 12:00 PM
To:
Subject: birding-aus Digest, Vol 68, Issue 39
Send birding-aus mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.vicnet.net.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of birding-aus digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Painted Snipe - Homebush (Tim Jones)
2. Development on Black-breasted Button-quail habitat (Reg)
3. Re: Definition of a species (David James)
4. Re: Definition of a species (Nikolas Haass)
5. Re: Definition of a species (Chris Charles)
6. Vale Mark Barter (steve davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 01:44:41 +0000
From: Tim Jones <>
To: birding aus <>
Subject: Painted Snipe - Homebush
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Saw the female Painted Snipe this morning in the rain at the Triangle Pond,
Homebush. Water levels very high - scoured the pond, also going along the other
two sides (the road) and also tried to peer through the casuarinas on the other
side to see the bigger lake to no avail. Met Tony Palliser arriving just as I
was leaving and then Tony spotted it in flight - we watched it in flight for
quite a while and quite closely, but it couldn't find a spot to land due to
water levels, but it did eventually settle for a few seconds only on some
branches lying in the water. It then continued flying around and seemed to go
round the back corner of the pond. Then it appeared again and flew over to the
large lake and may have come down in the marshy near edge, but it's very
difficult to see through there. Maybe it will return to the triangle pond if we
have a day or two of dry.
Cheers
Tim
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:23:36 +1000
From: "Reg" <>
To: "Messages Birding-aus" <>
Subject: Development on Black-breasted Button-quail
habitat
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Friends,
Previously we have had a discussion on the proper response of birding
organisations to a plan to use 200 hectares of Black-breasted Button-quail
habitat for a development of 6,500 people
The Rainbow Shores development is on the Inskip Peninsula immediately south
of Fraser Island in Queensland. The development was refused by the Gympie
Regional Council on the instructions of the Department of Environment and
Resource Management and the developer has appealed. A number of individuals
and groups have joined the action to oppose the develoment. (Fraser Island
Defenders Organisation, Citizens Helping Inskip Peninsula, Cooloola
Coastcare, National Parks Association of Queensland) I thought that people
may be interested in a quick update.
The trial is set down for 3 weeks from 16th January 2012 with a site
inspection on the 6th and 7th December 2011. So the crunch is coming as we
seek to protect the BBBQ and its habitat. It's a bit scary.
More information is available on
http://www.saveinskip.org.au/docs/Newsletter_Nov_2011_Screen.pdf or on
background the CHIP website http://www.inskip.org
Regards
Reg Lawler
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 01:33:01 -0800 (PST)
From: David James <>
To: Nikolas Haass <>, Mike Honeyman
<>, ""
<>, ""
<>
Subject: Definition of a species
Message-ID:
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi Nikolas,
?
Give me a break please. I?didn't advocate a strict hybridisation rule?to define
species. I only said that a study of hybridisation could resolve the
species/subspecies question for the lurida boobook owl in the Wet tropics
rainforests of North Queensland. You then corrected me by saying "You cannot
use hybridisation as a proof for subspecies versus species".? You have since
refined that to?say that?hybridisation cannot be applied strictly
because?'valid' species of gulls and species of ducks hybridise. I agree with
entirely that these species hybridise, only with the caveat that 'valid
species' is a human concept?based as much on fashion as on reality.?But lets
work back to my original point through your example.
?
Gulls are colonial breeders that disperse widely and are?as much nomadic as
migratory. Not so long ago in geological time they started radiating and
diverging. But now, due to global warming (historical) and the industrial
revolution these new forms are exploding in population size, expanding their
ranges, overcoming the isolation barriers thatr had them diverging, and coming
into secondary contact (i.e. meeting again?the populations they were previously
isolated from). So they hybridise, not surprisingly.?Taxonomists argue for a
SPECIAL case that hybridisation is not relevant to gulls at the moment. Fair
enough, although?they now?recognise certain species that inevitably, through
hybridisation, will not exist for too long. Its not extinction, its reverse
radiation.
?
lurida is entirely different and?not part of this SPECIAL case. It is an owl
confined to the wet tropics rainforests. The species?has a tiny range
(though?large enough to support?many endemic species) and is surrounded on all
sides (presently) by its nearest ancestor.??It is isolated from other boobooks
only by rainforest habitat. Other boobooks occur in the same latitude,
longitude, altitude, terrain and climate. If it does not interbreed with other
forms of boobook on its door step it is genetically isolated and a full species
by any definition. If it does hybridise, them we have to consider how much and
why.
?
I don't say?this based on what molecular taxonomists?write about birds they've
never seen or what cladistic compute programs consider most probable.?I have
spent well over a hundred nights spotlighting in NE Qld and I?have seen lurida,
ocellata/boobook, presumed hybrids, and unidentified boobooks of a different
character altogether (possibly an undescribed taxon) on many occasions. ??
?
David James,
Sydney
==============================
________________________________
From: Nikolas Haass <>
To: David James <>; Mike Honeyman
<>; ""
<>; ""
<>
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
Hi David,
If you use hybridization as a strict indicator to rule out two species, then
there should be only one or a few Anas, one or a few Aythya, one ore a few
Larus... I could endlessly continue this list of genera containing accepted
species that hybridize naturally. ...and what about the famous "Swoose" (Mute
Swan X Greylag Goose)? Is Greylag Goose a subspecies of Mute Swan or vice versa?
BTW I'd like to correct a little error: I never said that hybridization ONLY
occurs between "two species nowadays". I said that hybridization ALSO occurs
between "two species nowadays"
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: David James <>
To: Mike Honeyman <>; ""
<>; ""
<>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
Species definitions are indeed a can of worms that have been discussed on B-A
many times, so I do not want to?go there.
?
However, either I don't understand or don't agree with?Nikolas and Mike about
hybridisation. A hybrid is simply the offspring of two different forms. The
parents?can be individuals from two different?genera, species, subspecies
(races), varieties, breeds?or cultivars (but not morphs).?It is not within the
domain (or interest) of taxonomy to redefine "hybridisation" as something that
only occurs between "two species nowadays".
?
Of course hybridisation can and is used to indicate species boundaries in ALL
species concepts. It is a line of evidence. When two forms are sympatric and it
is known that they don't hybridise everyone agrees that they are two species
(like the 2 white-tailed black-cockatoos). When they merge into each
other?through hybridisation over a broad front then everyone agrees they are
one species (like green and yellow figbirds). In between there is lots of grey
and disagreement, but there is grey and disagreement in everything to do with
taxonomy.? Taxonomists can still use hybridisation as a line of evidence
regardless of the species concept they follow, even if few do. There are at
least two big problems with using hybridisation: 1) to understand it you
need?data from?lots of individuals across a wide area; and 2) it is not
applicable to allopatric species.?Neither is?justification to dismiss it
as?irrelevant to the process of speciation.??
?
A frequent trend in taxonomy these days is to compare the percentage
differences in the Cytochrome B gene. Isn't this?just looking for?an indication
of whether?two forms continue to share genes through the process of
hybridisation, or how long ago they stopped?
?
Lastly, nearly all existing checklists are predicated on lines of evidence
originally formed around concepts of speciation based on levels of
interbreeding?(or the extrapolation of?similar patterns when direct evididence
is lacking). Regardless of contemporary opinions, hybridisation still defines
the bird species painted in the?field guides.
David James,
Sydney
==============================
________________________________
From: Mike Honeyman <>
To: ;
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 10:03 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened!
Simon there are many definitions of species, to suit specific 'species
concepts'. There are different species concepts that are preferred for
different phyla.
For birds the two most prevalent species concept are the Biological Species
Concept (BSC) after Mayr, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) after
Cracraft.
BSC species = "groups of interbreeding populations reproductively isolated from
other such groups"
PSC species = "the smallest diagnosable cluster of organisms within which there
is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent"
Historically the BSC could use the ability to hybridise or not as an indicator
of species, but I think it's a while since anyone thought that was a reliable
indicator, as Nikolas has pointed out.
Re the owls. It is possible that the morphological differences are a red
herring - there could be an environmental 'switch' (e.g. the climate / habitats
that prevail in Tassie and NZ) that cause a particular morphology that exists
widely within the gene pool of the population to prevail. This could be tested
by moving Qld birds to Tassie and see what they look like after a couple of
generations? (I've not looked at any of the papers by the way, just flying a
theoretical kite!)
Cheers
mjh
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 02:24:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Nikolas Haass <>
To: David James <>, Mike Honeyman
<>, ""
<>, ""
<>
Subject: Definition of a species
Message-ID:
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Thanks David,
I totally agree. Looks like there was some misunderstanding of each others
comments...
The lurida story is indeed very interesting!
Cheers,
Nikolas
?
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: David James <>
To: Nikolas Haass <>; Mike Honeyman
<>; ""
<>; ""
<>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:33 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
Hi Nikolas,
?
Give me a break please. I?didn't advocate a strict hybridisation rule?to define
species. I only said that a study of hybridisation could resolve the
species/subspecies question for the lurida boobook owl in the Wet tropics
rainforests of North Queensland. You then corrected me by saying "You cannot
use hybridisation as a proof for subspecies versus species".? You have since
refined that to?say that?hybridisation cannot be applied strictly
because?'valid' species of gulls and species of ducks hybridise. I agree with
entirely that these species hybridise, only with the caveat that 'valid
species' is a human concept?based as much on fashion as on reality.?But lets
work back to my original point through your example.
?
Gulls are colonial breeders that disperse widely and are?as much nomadic as
migratory. Not so long ago in geological time they started radiating and
diverging. But now, due to global warming (historical) and the industrial
revolution these new forms are exploding in population size, expanding their
ranges, overcoming the isolation barriers thatr had them diverging, and coming
into secondary contact (i.e. meeting again?the populations they were previously
isolated from). So they hybridise, not surprisingly.?Taxonomists argue for a
SPECIAL case that hybridisation is not relevant to gulls at the moment. Fair
enough, although?they now?recognise certain species that inevitably, through
hybridisation, will not exist for too long. Its not extinction, its reverse
radiation.
?
lurida is entirely different and?not part of this SPECIAL case. It is an owl
confined to the wet tropics rainforests. The species?has a tiny range
(though?large enough to support?many endemic species) and is surrounded on all
sides (presently) by its nearest ancestor.??It is isolated from other boobooks
only by rainforest habitat. Other boobooks occur in the same latitude,
longitude, altitude, terrain and climate. If it does not interbreed with other
forms of boobook on its door step it is genetically isolated and a full species
by any definition. If it does hybridise, them we have to consider how much and
why.
?
I don't say?this based on what molecular taxonomists?write about birds they've
never seen or what cladistic compute programs consider most probable.?I have
spent well over a hundred nights spotlighting in NE Qld and I?have seen lurida,
ocellata/boobook, presumed hybrids, and unidentified boobooks of a different
character altogether (possibly an undescribed taxon) on many occasions. ??
?
David James,
Sydney
==============================
From: Nikolas Haass <>
To: David James <>; Mike Honeyman
<>; ""
<>; ""
<>
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
Hi David,
If you use hybridization as a strict indicator to rule out two species, then
there should be only one or a few Anas, one or a few Aythya, one ore a few
Larus... I could endlessly continue this list of genera containing accepted
species that hybridize naturally. ...and what about the famous "Swoose" (Mute
Swan X Greylag Goose)? Is Greylag Goose a subspecies of Mute Swan or vice versa?
BTW I'd like to correct a little error: I never said that hybridization ONLY
occurs between "two species nowadays". I said that hybridization ALSO occurs
between "two species nowadays"
Cheers,
Nikolas
?
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
From: David James <>
To: Mike Honeyman <>; ""
<>; ""
<>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
Species definitions are indeed a can of worms that have been discussed on B-A
many times, so I do not want to?go
there.
?
However, either I don't understand or don't agree with?Nikolas and Mike about
hybridisation. A hybrid is simply the offspring of two different forms. The
parents?can be individuals from two different?genera, species, subspecies
(races), varieties, breeds?or cultivars (but not morphs).?It is not within the
domain (or interest) of taxonomy to redefine "hybridisation" as something that
only occurs between "two species nowadays".
?
Of course hybridisation can and is used to indicate species boundaries in ALL
species concepts. It is a line of evidence. When two forms are sympatric and it
is known that they don't hybridise everyone agrees that they are two species
(like the 2 white-tailed black-cockatoos). When they merge into each
other?through hybridisation over a broad front then everyone agrees they are
one species (like green and yellow figbirds). In between there is lots of grey
and disagreement, but there is grey and disagreement in everything to do with
taxonomy.? Taxonomists can still use hybridisation as a line of evidence
regardless of the species concept they follow, even if few do. There are at
least two big problems with using hybridisation: 1) to understand it you
need?data from?lots of individuals across a wide area; and 2) it is not
applicable to allopatric species.?Neither is?justification to dismiss it
as?irrelevant to the process of speciation.??
?
A frequent trend in taxonomy these days is to compare the percentage
differences in the Cytochrome B gene. Isn't this?just looking for?an indication
of whether?two forms continue to share genes through the process of
hybridisation, or how long ago they stopped?
?
Lastly, nearly all existing checklists are predicated on lines of evidence
originally formed around concepts of speciation based on levels of
interbreeding?(or the extrapolation of?similar patterns when direct evididence
is lacking). Regardless of contemporary opinions, hybridisation still defines
the bird species painted in the?field guides.
David James,
Sydney
==============================
________________________________
From: Mike Honeyman <>
To: ;
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 10:03 PM
Subject: Definition of a species
I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened!
Simon there are many definitions of species, to suit specific 'species
concepts'. There are different species concepts that are preferred for
different phyla.
For birds the two most prevalent species concept are the Biological Species
Concept (BSC) after Mayr, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) after
Cracraft.
BSC species = "groups of interbreeding populations reproductively isolated from
other such groups"
PSC species = "the smallest diagnosable cluster of organisms within which there
is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent"
Historically the BSC could use the ability to hybridise or not as an indicator
of species, but I think it's a while since anyone thought that was a reliable
indicator, as Nikolas has pointed out.
Re the owls. It is possible that the morphological differences are a red
herring - there could be an environmental 'switch' (e.g. the climate / habitats
that prevail in Tassie and NZ) that cause a particular morphology that exists
widely within the gene pool of the population to prevail. This could be tested
by moving Qld birds to Tassie and see what they look like after a couple of
generations? (I've not looked at any of the papers by the way, just flying a
theoretical kite!)
Cheers
mjh
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no
Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:18:57 +1100
From: Chris Charles <>
To: Birding-aus Aus <>
Cc: Mike Honeyman
<>
Subject: Definition of a species
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Thanks for sharing this thread guys.
Thanks for sharing the knowledge.
I never thought of taxonomy as exciting before.
Chris
Chris Charles
0412 911 184
33deg 47'30"S
151deg10'09"E
On 26/11/2011, at 9:24 PM, Nikolas Haass wrote:
> Thanks David,
>
> I totally agree. Looks like there was some misunderstanding of each
> others comments...
>
> The lurida story is indeed very interesting!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: David James <>
> To: Nikolas Haass <>; Mike Honeyman
> <>; ""
> <>; "" <birding-
> >
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Definition of a species
>
>
> Hi Nikolas,
>
> Give me a break please. I didn't advocate a strict hybridisation
> rule to define species. I only said that a study of hybridisation
> could resolve the species/subspecies question for the lurida
> boobook owl in the Wet tropics rainforests of North Queensland. You
> then corrected me by saying "You cannot use hybridisation as a
> proof for subspecies versus species". You have since refined that
> to say that hybridisation cannot be applied strictly because
> 'valid' species of gulls and species of ducks hybridise. I agree
> with entirely that these species hybridise, only with the caveat
> that 'valid species' is a human concept based as much on fashion as
> on reality. But lets work back to my original point through your
> example.
>
> Gulls are colonial breeders that disperse widely and are as much
> nomadic as migratory. Not so long ago in geological time they
> started radiating and diverging. But now, due to global warming
> (historical) and the industrial revolution these new forms are
> exploding in population size, expanding their ranges, overcoming
> the isolation barriers thatr had them diverging, and coming into
> secondary contact (i.e. meeting again the populations they were
> previously isolated from). So they hybridise, not surprisingly.
> Taxonomists argue for a SPECIAL case that hybridisation is not
> relevant to gulls at the moment. Fair enough, although they now
> recognise certain species that inevitably, through hybridisation,
> will not exist for too long. Its not extinction, its reverse
> radiation.
>
> lurida is entirely different and not part of this SPECIAL case. It
> is an owl confined to the wet tropics rainforests. The species has
> a tiny range (though large enough to support many endemic species)
> and is surrounded on all sides (presently) by its nearest
> ancestor. It is isolated from other boobooks only by rainforest
> habitat. Other boobooks occur in the same latitude, longitude,
> altitude, terrain and climate. If it does not interbreed with other
> forms of boobook on its door step it is genetically isolated and a
> full species by any definition. If it does hybridise, them we have
> to consider how much and why.
>
> I don't say this based on what molecular taxonomists write about
> birds they've never seen or what cladistic compute programs
> consider most probable. I have spent well over a hundred nights
> spotlighting in NE Qld and I have seen lurida, ocellata/boobook,
> presumed hybrids, and unidentified boobooks of a different
> character altogether (possibly an undescribed taxon) on many
> occasions.
>
> David James,
> Sydney
>
> ==============================
>
> From: Nikolas Haass <>
> To: David James <>; Mike Honeyman
> <>; ""
> <>; "" <birding-
> >
> Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 11:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Definition of a species
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> If you use hybridization as a strict indicator to rule out two
> species, then there should be only one or a few Anas, one or a few
> Aythya, one ore a few Larus... I could endlessly continue this list
> of genera containing accepted species that hybridize
> naturally. ...and what about the famous "Swoose" (Mute Swan X
> Greylag Goose)? Is Greylag Goose a subspecies of Mute Swan or vice
> versa?
>
> BTW I'd like to correct a little error: I never said that
> hybridization ONLY occurs between "two species nowadays". I said
> that hybridization ALSO occurs between "two species nowadays"
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Nikolas
>
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
> From: David James <>
> To: Mike Honeyman <>;
> "" <>; "birding-
> " <>
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 6:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Definition of a species
>
> Species definitions are indeed a can of worms that have been
> discussed on B-A many times, so I do not want to go
> there.
>
> However, either I don't understand or don't agree with Nikolas and
> Mike about hybridisation. A hybrid is simply the offspring of two
> different forms. The parents can be individuals from two different
> genera, species, subspecies (races), varieties, breeds or cultivars
> (but not morphs). It is not within the domain (or interest) of
> taxonomy to redefine "hybridisation" as something that only occurs
> between "two species nowadays".
>
> Of course hybridisation can and is used to indicate species
> boundaries in ALL species concepts. It is a line of evidence. When
> two forms are sympatric and it is known that they don't hybridise
> everyone agrees that they are two species (like the 2 white-tailed
> black-cockatoos). When they merge into each other through
> hybridisation over a broad front then everyone agrees they are one
> species (like green and yellow figbirds). In between there is lots
> of grey and disagreement, but there is grey and disagreement in
> everything to do with taxonomy. Taxonomists can still use
> hybridisation as a line of evidence regardless of the species
> concept they follow, even if few do. There are at least two big
> problems with using hybridisation: 1) to understand it you need
> data from lots of individuals across a wide area; and 2) it is not
> applicable to allopatric species. Neither is justification to
> dismiss it as irrelevant to the process of speciation.
>
> A frequent trend in taxonomy these days is to compare the
> percentage differences in the Cytochrome B gene. Isn't this just
> looking for an indication of whether two forms continue to share
> genes through the process of
> hybridisation, or how long ago they stopped?
>
> Lastly, nearly all existing checklists are predicated on lines of
> evidence originally formed around concepts of speciation based on
> levels of interbreeding (or the extrapolation of similar patterns
> when direct evididence is lacking). Regardless of contemporary
> opinions, hybridisation still defines the bird species painted in
> the field guides.
>
> David James,
> Sydney
>
> ==============================
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Honeyman <>
> To: ;
> Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Definition of a species
>
> I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened!
>
> Simon there are many definitions of species, to suit specific
> 'species concepts'. There are different species concepts that are
> preferred for different phyla.
>
> For birds the two most prevalent species concept are the Biological
> Species Concept (BSC) after Mayr, and the Phylogenetic Species
> Concept (PSC) after Cracraft.
>
> BSC species = "groups of interbreeding populations reproductively
> isolated from other such groups"
> PSC species = "the smallest diagnosable cluster of organisms within
> which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent"
>
> Historically the BSC could use the ability to hybridise or not as
> an indicator of species, but I think it's a while since anyone
> thought that was a reliable indicator, as Nikolas has pointed out.
>
> Re the owls. It is possible that the morphological differences are
> a red herring - there could be an environmental 'switch' (e.g. the
> climate / habitats that prevail in Tassie and NZ) that cause a
> particular morphology that exists widely within the gene pool of
> the population to prevail. This could be tested by moving Qld birds
> to Tassie and see what they look like after a couple of
> generations (I've not looked at any of the papers by the way, just
> flying a theoretical kite!)
>
> Cheers
>
> mjh
>
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no
> Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:47:30 +1100
From: steve davidson <>
To: <>
Subject: Vale Mark Barter
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear B-A readers,
I just want to pass on the very sad news to B-A that Mark Barter passed away
last week from a long illness. Mark is well known for his outstanding and
tireless involvement with both the Victorian Wader Study Group and the
Australian Wader Study Group, as well as his incredible work involving
conservation of Shorebirds in the Yellow Sea region of China. To say that Mark
was passionate about shorebirds is a gross understatement; he could readily age
and determine the stage of moult of a Red Knot at 200 paces without even
lifting his trusty Zeiss to his eyes, but this passion also extended to
birdwatching in general, camping, travelling and most of all his family.
On a personal level, Mark was instrumental in fostering and encouraging me as a
young bloke and rather green birder, and we spent many happy hours watching
waders down at the Werribee Sewage Farm(as it was known back then) from the
mid-eighties through to the early nineties. Mark was generally unflappable and
upbeat, but this demeanour was dropped on one particular occasion down at the
plant when his Mitsubishi L300 Express with it's rather low clearance got stuck
on a rut on a track somewhere in the eastern section of the plant, back when
the vehicle tracks weren't graded much. Much digging and burning of clutch
later was to no avail and we had to rely on farm staff to yank us out very late
in the day. We saw some nice avocet though...
He was a good friend & mentor and he will be sorely missed.
Condolences to Mark's wife Teri and their children Lisa, Robert, Andrew and
Karen.
RIP Mark.
Steve Davidson
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
birding-aus mailing list
http://lists.vicnet.net.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus
End of birding-aus Digest, Vol 68, Issue 39
*******************************************
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
