|
No, Philip, it was enough years ago that the unique Magpie-lark could still have held evolutionary mysteries. A couple of decades have now passed, & though I studied there for a long time, I graduated through to a broader Masters, so continuity cannot be expected for ever &/ beyond subject boundaries. (& Sadly, once you leave academia, access to the latest literature is severely limited still.) The Ornithology studies there are challenging, exciting, & mostly unmatched in Australia. Try a subject or two! Cheers Judith On Thursday, 2 May 2019, Philip Veerman <> wrote:
I don’t know what Graeme wrote to you but I assume something
similar.
I would have hoped that Ornithology studies at CSU would
quickly properly explain that thought process you mention. Because it is hardly
a difficult concept. It is concerning that - at least to you, you report that this
was not clarified! Does not bode well for the course. The issue of now
confirming the flycatcher history surely is now well established but I don’t
have the references to hand.
Ah yes the actual behaviour of one species (Magpie-lark) that it
will often feed on insects or other small creatures on mudflats is just the
lifestyle of that species. It also gives an obvious source of nesting material
(mud) for the species. It has no connection to that waders also feed on similar
food in similar habitats. Sharks and dolphins look similar and live in the same
environment and eat the same things. Their similarity is because of that but
their history is very different.
Philip
From: Judithla [
Sent: Thursday, 2 May, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Philip Veerman; Graeme Chapman
Cc: birding-aus (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Magpie-Lark behaviour
Thanks, Philip & Graeme. Many years ago when I was early
in my Ornithology studies at CSU, the uncertainty around Magpie-lark origins
was still there, & a “wader” theory was mentioned (depicting the bird
striding the mud-edges of Australia’s inland waterbodies, now taxonomically
solitary) … which I’ve found puzzling/amazing ever since. So thanks for
clearing all that up! (Are there phylo/genetics now confirming the flycatcher
history? Closest relative/s?)
For a mud-nester, fur would be a boon; & for a
flycatcher, the ticks, etc., infesting roos, wallabies, etc, would be easy
pickings. Certainly the roo in the footage looked relaxed.
SEQ 500m
On Thursday, 2 May 2019, Philip Veerman <> wrote:
Now
that is a funny one. The Magpie-lark is derived from flycatchers. It is not a
magpie or a lark. It could not possibly be derived from waders
because, at the most immediate level, it is a passerine, which is a long way
from being a wader. I suggest we probably don’t see this behaviour in
urban Australia because (apart from Canberra where kangaroos are abundant) we
don’t see kangaroos in urban Australia. The bird you saw was likely either
obtaining insects (food) from the kangaroo, or plucking fur, for a lining to
its nest. Many birds (I believe it is mainly honeyeaters noted for doing this)
will pluck fur from living mammals for their nest but we don’t see that in
waders in Australia largely because those birds don’t breed here (or most
don’t). Or the question is and I have no idea whether waders do this behaviour
at all, where they do breed.
Philip
For
just a few moments, watching the Kimberley dvd “Outback”, I saw
a Magpie-Lark land on a kangaroo’s back, take a few steps, then tilt to
peck in the fur.
Is
there still a question about the evolution / phylogenetics of this species?
Weren’t they thought to have possibly derived from waders? This is a behaviour
we do not see in urban Australia.
--
JudithLA
--
JudithLA
--
JudithLA
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
