BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Peter Boesman" data-source="post: 4181679" data-attributes="member: 140058">After a quick read of this paper, I must say that the mentioned conclusions are rather an (over-)extrapollation, for which the validity was not discussed.I would rather summarize the findings briefly as:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The song of a population of peregrina from a single location was found different from a limited set of recordings of some of the Nearctic races. (In the suppl. inf. only 6 recordings of Nearctic races are mentioned, of the 20 recordings of peregrina deposited in XC, 5 are double. A least a few parameters in the boxplots such as min/max freq. would nolonger show such differences if a larger set of Nearctic recordings would be used.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The playback response to a single song phrase of the local population was higher than to a non-specified song phrase of a non-specified Nearctic race. (No attempt was made to check response of song from another location of peregrina, response was from birds in group suggesting this was not really territorial response but rather maintaining contact (?))</li> </ul>The conclusion <<We found significant differences in the song traits between the two groups. Similarly, the playback analysis showed a significantly lower response of E. a. peregrina to the songs of the Nearctic larks.>> is thus rather a hypothesis by extrapollation than a result, I would say.The paper surely has its merits in pointing out a potential significant difference, but (as unfortunately often the case in papers) concludes in general terms for which there is no proof yet (rather than suggesting the next steps that should be taken to reach such general conclusion).</blockquote>

Verification