-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very interesting, sober post on the La. bird listserv today:
http://www.surfbirds.com/phorum/read.php?f=83&i=13174&t=13174#reply_13174
(I don't concur with everything stated, but interesting input from someone not heard from before, and points well-taken.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 comments:
Cyber,
What don't you concur with? The "pitifully small numbers, not sustainable" remark? So very sad, if true.
It is sickening if the Atchafalaya pictures were indeed staged. Why would people do this?
actually, I didn't concur with the judgment that Jackson's paper was stronger than Sibley's -- they are very different pieces, but IF I had to judge them, and IF I was a skeptic, I would probably consider Sibley's more powerful. And I don't think the Cornell rejoinder is more convincing -- it's pretty much an even draw depending on which points one wants to put the major weight on, which almost becomes a subjective matter.
yes, the new Atchafalaya input is both intriguing and 'sickening,' though there have certainly been good arguments over the yrs. for both believing the photos fake and real -- and Dan himself notes he has "no idea" if the story he's relating is true -- like so much in IBWO-land it is yet another tale short on real details/specifics.
as far as the "pitifully small numbers" remark, I'm more hopeful than that, but on-the-other-had, won't be surprised if that turned out to be true now in 2006 (but wasn't true in the 50s-70s).
Post a Comment