Cuckoos copy hawks to scare birds (1 Viewer)

TheBirdGarden · Apr 17, 2011

Cuckoos mimic hawks to scare their hosts, says research

Cuckoos have evolved plumage patterns that give them a hawk-like appearance to scare the birds whose nests they invade, say scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9458000/9458906.stm

Kits · Apr 17, 2011

What an interesting article. Thanks for sharing. :t:

fugl · Apr 17, 2011

Fascinating. Interesting that bird of prey mimicry doesn't apply to Brown-headed Cowbirds which look as different from the local bird eating hawks & falcons as can be.

Barred Wobbler · Apr 17, 2011

Interesting, but I'd think there's something lost in translation between the original research and the BBC interpretation of it.

"Cuckoos have evolved plumage patterns that give them a hawk-like appearance to scare the birds whose nests they invade, say scientists"

That sentence seems to imply intent, where none can be.

Cuckoos have evolved to a hawk-like appearance, as we've all seen and this will scare off the birds whose nests they use, I have no doubt.

But to say that they evolved that plumage in order to scare the birds is a completely false interpretation of evolution. Evolution has no intent.

fugl · Apr 17, 2011

Barred Wobbler said:
Interesting, but I'd think there's something lost in translation between the original research and the BBC interpretation of it.

"Cuckoos have evolved plumage patterns that give them a hawk-like appearance to scare the birds whose nests they invade, say scientists"

That sentence seems to imply intent, where none can be.

Cuckoos have evolved to a hawk-like appearance, as we've all seen and this will scare off the birds whose nests they use, I have no doubt.

But to say that they evolved that plumage in order to scare the birds is a completely false interpretation of evolution. Evolution has no intent.

I don’t know, it seems a harmless enough piece of shorthand to me. How else would you want it to be put in a shortish article intended for the layman, particularly one in which the subject matter is cuckoos rather than evolutionary theory as such?

Barred Wobbler · Apr 17, 2011

The subject matter is the evolution of cuckoos. Hard to leave evolution out of it.

the BBC's official remit is to "Inform, Entertain and Educate". I don't see the words "mislead", "misinform" or "avoid scientific principles" in there.

fugl · Apr 17, 2011

Barred Wobbler said:
The subject matter is the evolution of cuckoos. Hard to leave evolution out of it..

Evolution hasn’t been left out of the article, it just hasn’t been rigorously defined, as it might have been in a longer & more detailed treatment.

Barred Wobbler said:
the BBC's official remit is to "Inform, Entertain and Educate". I don't see the words "mislead", "misinform" or "avoid scientific principles" in there.

And I don’t see where either “mislead” or “misinform” comes into it. As I said before, the sentence that you take exception to strikes me as perfectly acceptable shortland without teleological implications of any kind.

But, tempest in a teapot. We can continue to wrangle about this if you want or (my preference) we can just agree to disagree on our respective attitudes towards the article. It’s not as if we’re quarreling about a matter of substance, after all.

Arbu · Apr 17, 2011

A penny dropping moment for me. Seems obvious when you think about it. Why didn't this occur to anyone before?

Barred Wobbler · Apr 18, 2011

fugl said:
Evolution hasn’t been left out of the article, it just hasn’t been rigorously defined, as it might have been in a longer & more detailed treatment.

And I don’t see where either “mislead” or “misinform” comes into it. As I said before, the sentence that you take exception to strikes me as perfectly acceptable shortland without teleological implications of any kind.

But, tempest in a teapot. We can continue to wrangle about this if you want or (my preference) we can just agree to disagree on our respective attitudes towards the article. It’s not as if we’re quarreling about a matter of substance, after all.

The point is (which may not be apparent in Nevada) that the BBC is funded by a statutory licence (£145.50 - about $210 per year). it is not a private provider, everyone in the UK with a television is bound by law to pay the fee. In return the BBC has a statutory duty to follow its remit to inform, educate and entertain.

It is under increasing criticism on several fronts. there is growing opposition to the compulsory licence. It is accused of constantly 'dumbing down' rather than educating and informing.

This to me is a matter of substance. It is distorting the science on a topic which purports to be scientific. It is dumbing down rather than educating. They should be setting the facts straight about evolution rather than continuing to spread ignorance and perpetuating misconceptions.

Sadly it is what the BBC does more and more often these days, encouraged by those who say "It doesn't matter, it's just details".

Arbu · Apr 18, 2011

It feels like you're being talked to as a child when you watch the BBC. That's why I don't have a TV.

Amarillo · Apr 18, 2011

Cuckoos really are fascinating.

Isn't it amazing the lengths they have gone to just to avoid bringing up their own young!

jamerbean · Apr 19, 2011

Wow, quite a species for mimicry, aren't they? Eggs and now plumage! It makes me wonder what else we have to discover about these birds and mimicry in general.

Cuckoos copy hawks to scare birds (1 Viewer)

More options

TheBirdGarden

I don't have the money

Kits

Picture Picker

fugl

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

fugl

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

fugl

Well-known member

Arbu

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

Arbu

Well-known member

Amarillo

Well-known member

jamerbean

Country Bird in the City

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread