[texbirds] Re: Tropical Mockingbird - missing back toe nail on right foot
- From: "Paul Conover" <zoiseaux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:52:01 -0500
Ted, Texans,
I thought that Dan was making an objective and logical
response to a poster who held an equally logical and objective opinion. I'm
not sure why one viewpoint gets a pass but the other gets flagged. When we
advocate plausible explanations and then selectively discount plausible
scenarios, we really limit the possible outcomes.
Btw, now that I know that birds can fly and don't read range maps, I plan to
resubmit Louisiana's coastal and rig records of Indian House Crow and Pied
Crow. Other than being ridiculously unlikely, no one can prove they aren't
the results of direct human intervention--which by your standard renders
them valid : )
Seriously though, I think we should ask ourselves how older
generations of ornithologists that didn't have to worry about the pressures
of today's birding industry would have viewed this record. My guess is that
they would have dealt with it objectively and cautiously. With so much
science being diluted from outside pressure nowadays, I really hope the
trend hasn't expanded to include ornithology. Each record should be viewed
individually, according to its own merits and faults, not by what we birders
want. If a record can stand on its own, let it stand. If we keep having to
make excuses for it, let it fall.
Paul Conover
Lafayette, Louisiana
>From: Ted Lee Eubanks <tedleeeubanks AT fermatainc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:27:48 -0500
We seem to be trying to maneuver that camel, once again, through the eye of
a needle. Dan comments that " with a steady stream of oil tankers chugging
from Campeche up to the Texas City, there is a ready conduit for
transportation of nonmigratory Mexican species to the Texas coast." No one
disagrees with this observation, but does that mean that any bird from the
tropics that is seen anywhere near the coast is automatically discounted? I
have watched this discussion and the objections progress over the past
decades. The first objection was identification. This has been largely
resolved by digital photography. In other words, there is no doubt as to
the identity of the birds in question. The second objection relates to the
bird trade. Is the bird kept in captivity? Now we move on to the
possibilities of the birds being ship assisted.
Here is what we do know. The birds were, and are, here. We know nothing
else. We have no idea about provenance, whether are not they were caged, or
whether or not they hitched on a ship. What about the sungrebe in New
Mexico? The bird is not traded or sold, was not remotely near a port, yet
showed up at Bosque del Apache. How do we discount that bird except for it
being ridiculously unlikely. Until we can definitely prove that these
rarities are somehow the products of direct human intervention (capture),
then I suggest that we go with the most plausible explanation. Birds have
wings, can fly, and don't read the range maps.
Ted Eubanks
Austin, Texas
Other related posts:
