OK, I lied. Again. By pure coincidence I just came across
this very interesting Riflebird (a species I mentioned) article on Tweeters.
Image e.
I spent well over an hour in Australia trying for a representative photo
of the male high overhead. In the end I had to piece together parts of
several
different photos trying to show the spectacular blue iridescence as well as
the
very differently patterned female. * The black was easy to photograph. *
*But I didn't realize how black it was*. (attached photo). Notice it
foraging
woodpecker-like, successfully, in partially decomposing wood (this morsel
pasted in also).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2018/01/11/
fifty-shades-of-black-these-bird-feathers-are-the-darkest-
never-seen/#5fa91f02392b
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Robert O'Brien <baro@xxxxxxx> wrote:
OK, To avoid the further *Wrath of Joel*, I'll let this
thread die. (Mercifully). Bob
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Nathaniel Wander <nw105@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I didn't mean this as a game, let alone by Monty Python rules.
Sir Bedemere: “What do you do with witches?”
“Villagers: Burn ‘em!”
SB: “And what do you burn apart from witches?’
Vs: “More witches.” “Wood.”
SB: “So, why do witches burn?”
Vs:“Cause they’re made of wood?”
SB: “Good. So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?”
Vs: “Build a bridge out of her.”
SB: “But can you not build a bridge out of stone?”
Vs: “Uh, yeah.”
SB: “Does wood sink in water?”
Vs: “No.” “No.” “It floats.” “It floats.” “Throw her in the pond.”
SB: “What also floats in water?”
Vs: “Bread.” “Apples.” “Very small rocks.” “Cider.” Grape gravy.”
“Cherries.” “Mud.” “Churches.” “Lead.”
King Arthur interjects authoritatively: “A duck!”
SB: “Exactly. So, logically …?”
Vs: “If she weighs the same as a duck … she’s made of wood.”
SB: “And, therefore …?”
Vs: “A witch!”
Nathaniel Wander
Portland, OR
*Max Planck* is supposed to have said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
*Andreas Wagner* observed of Planck's remark:
Science, like nature, advances one funeral at a time. (*Arrival of the
Fittest*, p.197)
On Friday, January 12, 2018, 5:50:58 PM PST, roger freeman <
carrotguy55@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now, this is fun!
Roger Freeman
On Friday, January 12, 2018, Robert O'Brien <baro@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh boy. Them's fightin' words....................
What I meant to say is that Brown Creeper is about the closest thing*
_we have here_*
to a woodpecker. Of course, my statement was more general than that, but
I'll still defend it.
If there is something closer in Oregon/US to woodpeckers I want to learn
what it is.
We don't have a whole lot of trunk-feeding birds here. Off the top of my
head we have woodpeckers,
creepers, and nuthatches. (Tits, kinglets, some warblers and maybe some
others sometimes feed in trunk crevices
but not habitually). Woodpeckers and creepers have stiffened, elongated
central feathers
(as the roosting photo shows). These are used in balancing these two
families for their lives
against vertical or flat surfaces, often or always against tree trunks.
they roost in a similar fashion.
Nuthatches do not have such tail feathers. I'm not sure where they roost.
Woodpeckers have heads/bills adapted to pounding into softer wood while
creepers
don't. Woodpeckers usually have two toes forward and two behind while
creepers have the usual
3:1 structure. Yet woodpeckers, especially the smaller ones, feed very
often in bark crevices just as creepers do.
While creepers don't excavate true holes as woodpeckers often do, they
usually nest along tree trunks
as well; usually under pieces of loose bark, but are not above nesting in
existing cavities of a sort and even clean
them out of debris or loose/rotted wood as woodpeckers do.
I didn't say they were phylogenetic (direct) descendents of woodpeckers
or a common ancestor.
There is evolution, and there is *_convergent evolution_* of which I
claimed the latter.
That is, they have evolved from different original families to occupy a
similar habitat and lifestyle
to another family's descendents. (Cacti & euphorbias are totally
unrelated family-wise, but
have evolved similar structures and habitats (succulent, drought
tolerant, thorns, supressed or absent leaves, etc.).
Their different upbringing is given away by their totally different
flowers, however.)
Another example. Australia has no woodpeckers at all. The closest thing
that continent has is Riflebirds,
specifically in my experience, Paradise Riflebird, a flicker-sized bird
with a (very strong in this case)
decurved bill like Brown Creeper's miniature bill. It lacks the central,
stiff tail feathers, it's tail more like
a nuthatch. Like Creepers, this species has no phylogenetic
relationship to woodpeckers but has
evolved similar habits such as foraging in rotting wood.
http://www.australianwildlife. org/wildlife/paradise- riflebird.aspx
<http://www.australianwildlife.org/wildlife/paradise-riflebird.aspx>
The Wallcreeper of Eurasia has a similar clinging lifestyle as their name
implies, but they also
lack the central tail feathers with tails like nuthatches to which they
are sometimes thought to be
related. They're still working on evolving that feature I guess. They
have no plans to
evolve bills capable to boring into rocky cliffs, their preferred habitat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wallcreeper
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallcreeper>
So there (hee, hee; how do ya' like them apples?).
Bob
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Nathaniel Wander <nw105@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
While I’m guessing that Bob O’Brien offered the remark that Brown
Creepers were the “about the closest thing that you can get to a
woodpecker” in an act of kindness to lighten the mood and “spare the
blushes” of an honest mis-identification, they are, of course, nothing of
the sort. Creepers (treecreepers in the Old World) are songbirds: they
don’t look like woodpeckers, they don’t behave like woodpeckers and they
have no near phylogenetic relationship to woodpeckers. Their one
interesting connection to woodpeckers is that they compete with and defend
territories against Redheaded Woodpeckers (*Melanerpes erythrocephalus*)
in eastern North America. Even still, they prefer arachnids to insects and
eat seeds in winter.
Brown Creepers’ closest relatives are the as many as ten treecreeper
species in Europe and Asia. After that, they appear to be most closely
related to gnatcatchers and are considered general kin to wrens—these
species comprise the family Certhioidea. There are thought to be about six
to nine races of Brown Creepers in North America, not counting a few
Mexican races that reach the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. The
details of their relationships have been much debated. In the past the
North American birds have sometimes been divided into three or four
discrete species, sometimes even lumped with the Eurasian Treecreeper (*C
familiaris*). There was a proposal before the AOS last spring to divide
the present single New World species into a North American species
(exclusive of the highland Arizona/New Mexico populations) and a
Mexican/Central American species (including highland Arizona/New Mexico
populations) possibly to be named Nearctic Creeper and Neotropical Creeper
respectively. I can’t see that it has been voted on yet.
Otherwise, creepers feed on tree trunks by poking beneath bark flakes
rather than boring holes like woodpeckers. They are not cavity nesters,
but weavers. They communicate via high pitched calls and songs, not
drumming and they are cryptically colored rather than boldly marked. They
take insects but prefer arachnids and, of course, their prey range is
generally significantly smaller than that of woodpeckers: I’ve found no
evidence that they consume ants.
It may be that Bob wasn’t genially joking, but was thinking of
woodcreepers (Dendrocolaptinae) rather than creepers/treecreepers. These
50-60 odd Central/S American forest birds fall in the woodpecker size range
and have some evolutionarily convergent features with the latter including
stiff tails which they use woodpecker-like as an important point of contact
in shimmying up tree trunks. Woodcreepers generally have heavy bills, but
use them for bark-probing like creepers/treecreepers rather than boring
like woodpeckers. Their generally cryptic coloration is also sometimes
said to be convergent with creepers/treecreepers. Woodcreepers too are
passerines, though suboscines (like flycatchers) rather than ‘true’ oscine
songbirds. Suboscine songs are generally less complex than those of oscine
songbirds and typically are acquired genetically rather than learned.
Nathaniel Wander
Portland, OR
*Max Planck* is supposed to have said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
*Andreas Wagner* observed of Planck's remark:
Science, like nature, advances one funeral at a time. (*Arrival of the
Fittest*, p.197)
On Friday, January 12, 2018, 5:50:58 PM PST, roger freeman <
carrotguy55@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now, this is fun!
Roger Freeman
On Friday, January 12, 2018, Robert O'Brien <baro@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh boy. Them's fightin' words....................
What I meant to say is that Brown Creeper is about the closest thing*
_we have here_*
to a woodpecker. Of course, my statement was more general than that, but
I'll still defend it.
If there is something closer in Oregon/US to woodpeckers I want to learn
what it is.
We don't have a whole lot of trunk-feeding birds here. Off the top of my
head we have woodpeckers,
creepers, and nuthatches. (Tits, kinglets, some warblers and maybe some
others sometimes feed in trunk crevices
but not habitually). Woodpeckers and creepers have stiffened, elongated
central feathers
(as the roosting photo shows). These are used in balancing these two
families for their lives
against vertical or flat surfaces, often or always against tree trunks.
they roost in a similar fashion.
Nuthatches do not have such tail feathers. I'm not sure where they roost.
Woodpeckers have heads/bills adapted to pounding into softer wood while
creepers
don't. Woodpeckers usually have two toes forward and two behind while
creepers have the usual
3:1 structure. Yet woodpeckers, especially the smaller ones, feed very
often in bark crevices just as creepers do.
While creepers don't excavate true holes as woodpeckers often do, they
usually nest along tree trunks
as well; usually under pieces of loose bark, but are not above nesting in
existing cavities of a sort and even clean
them out of debris or loose/rotted wood as woodpeckers do.
I didn't say they were phylogenetic (direct) descendents of woodpeckers
or a common ancestor.
There is evolution, and there is *_convergent evolution_* of which I
claimed the latter.
That is, they have evolved from different original families to occupy a
similar habitat and lifestyle
to another family's descendents. (Cacti & euphorbias are totally
unrelated family-wise, but
have evolved similar structures and habitats (succulent, drought
tolerant, thorns, supressed or absent leaves, etc.).
Their different upbringing is given away by their totally different
flowers, however.)
Another example. Australia has no woodpeckers at all. The closest thing
that continent has is Riflebirds,
specifically in my experience, Paradise Riflebird, a flicker-sized bird
with a (very strong in this case)
decurved bill like Brown Creeper's miniature bill. It lacks the central,
stiff tail feathers, it's tail more like
a nuthatch. Like Creepers, this species has no phylogenetic
relationship to woodpeckers but has
evolved similar habits such as foraging in rotting wood.
http://www.australianwildlife. org/wildlife/paradise- riflebird.aspx
<http://www.australianwildlife.org/wildlife/paradise-riflebird.aspx>
The Wallcreeper of Eurasia has a similar clinging lifestyle as their name
implies, but they also
lack the central tail feathers with tails like nuthatches to which they
are sometimes thought to be
related. They're still working on evolving that feature I guess. They
have no plans to
evolve bills capable to boring into rocky cliffs, their preferred habitat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wallcreeper
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallcreeper>
So there (hee, hee; how do ya' like them apples?).
Bob
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Nathaniel Wander <nw105@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
While I’m guessing that Bob O’Brien offered the remark that Brown
Creepers were the “about the closest thing that you can get to a
woodpecker” in an act of kindness to lighten the mood and “spare the
blushes” of an honest mis-identification, they are, of course, nothing of
the sort. Creepers (treecreepers in the Old World) are songbirds: they
don’t look like woodpeckers, they don’t behave like woodpeckers and they
have no near phylogenetic relationship to woodpeckers. Their one
interesting connection to woodpeckers is that they compete with and defend
territories against Redheaded Woodpeckers (*Melanerpes erythrocephalus*)
in eastern North America. Even still, they prefer arachnids to insects and
eat seeds in winter.
Brown Creepers’ closest relatives are the as many as ten treecreeper
species in Europe and Asia. After that, they appear to be most closely
related to gnatcatchers and are considered general kin to wrens—these
species comprise the family Certhioidea. There are thought to be about six
to nine races of Brown Creepers in North America, not counting a few
Mexican races that reach the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. The
details of their relationships have been much debated. In the past the
North American birds have sometimes been divided into three or four
discrete species, sometimes even lumped with the Eurasian Treecreeper (*C
familiaris*). There was a proposal before the AOS last spring to divide
the present single New World species into a North American species
(exclusive of the highland Arizona/New Mexico populations) and a
Mexican/Central American species (including highland Arizona/New Mexico
populations) possibly to be named Nearctic Creeper and Neotropical Creeper
respectively. I can’t see that it has been voted on yet.
Otherwise, creepers feed on tree trunks by poking beneath bark flakes
rather than boring holes like woodpeckers. They are not cavity nesters,
but weavers. They communicate via high pitched calls and songs, not
drumming and they are cryptically colored rather than boldly marked. They
take insects but prefer arachnids and, of course, their prey range is
generally significantly smaller than that of woodpeckers: I’ve found no
evidence that they consume ants.
It may be that Bob wasn’t genially joking, but was thinking of
woodcreepers (Dendrocolaptinae) rather than creepers/treecreepers. These
50-60 odd Central/S American forest birds fall in the woodpecker size range
and have some evolutionarily convergent features with the latter including
stiff tails which they use woodpecker-like as an important point of contact
in shimmying up tree trunks. Woodcreepers generally have heavy bills, but
use them for bark-probing like creepers/treecreepers rather than boring
like woodpeckers. Their generally cryptic coloration is also sometimes
said to be convergent with creepers/treecreepers. Woodcreepers too are
passerines, though suboscines (like flycatchers) rather than ‘true’ oscine
songbirds. Suboscine songs are generally less complex than those of oscine
songbirds and typically are acquired genetically rather than learned.
Nathaniel Wander
Portland, OR
*Max Planck* is supposed to have said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
*Andreas Wagner* observed of Planck's remark:
Science, like nature, advances one funeral at a time. (*Arrival of the
Fittest*, p.197)
Attachment:
ParadiseRifleBirdsm.jpg
Description: JPEG image
