• 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.

S.E. Florida - Odd looking warbler ID needed (1 Viewer)

Valéry Schollaert

Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
As a linguist Valerie, do you agree with me that 'form' is the most suitable term though I suppose 'version' fits too?

Phase implies a non permanent state.

Morph implies being able to change, maybe at will.

Form is a solid meaning without ambiguity?

Anyway, 'Vive la difference'.....or not......

I agree with you, that was just a joke.
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
correct scientific term

I think my problem with this entire debate is crystallized into this particular wording. Science is about becoming more knowledgeable and improve our understanding. As part of that endeavor, discussion of whether a term used by some specific people is best descriptor is part of science. The above term sounds as if the result of science is a locked in truth - it isn't. The result of science is a hypothesis that no-one so far has been able to prove wrong.

Niels
 

tconzemi

Tom
Supporter
Europe
The above term sounds as if the result of science is a locked in truth - it isn't. The result of science is a hypothesis that no-one so far has been able to prove wrong.

Niels

yes, thus you should use the state-of-the-art word (which I called [currently] correct scientific word)
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
I think my problem with this entire debate is crystallized into this particular wording. Science is about becoming more knowledgeable and improve our understanding. As part of that endeavor, discussion of whether a term used by some specific people is best descriptor is part of science. The above term sounds as if the result of science is a locked in truth - it isn't. The result of science is a hypothesis that no-one so far has been able to prove wrong.

Niels

The causes of both albinism and leucism are known, there is no unproven hypothesis that I can see?
 
Last edited:

tconzemi

Tom
Supporter
Europe
Not sure how you conclude that Niels, the causes of both albinism and leucism are known, there is no unproven hypothesis that I can see?

Andy, I agree with Niels that science is always searching for the currently best explanation and not a search for truth (it's about phylosophy of knowledge, Popper and others), another misunderstood word in science is 'theory' (theory of evolution, theory of gravity) it's much different from the commonly used term theory (one possibility of many)
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
Andy, I agree with Niels that science is always searching for the currently best explanation and not a search for truth (it's about phylosophy of knowledge, Popper and others), another misunderstood word in science is 'theory' (theory of evolution, theory of gravity) it's much different from the commonly used term theory (one possibility of many)

I did say I wasn't a scientist but surely, one way to prove a hypothesis is to do something to counter it, if that action succeeds, doesn't it prove the original hypothesis?

Anyway, moving on.
 
Last edited:

tconzemi

Tom
Supporter
Europe
I did say I wasn't a scientist but surely, one way to prove a hypothesis is to do something to counter it, if that action succeeds, doesn't it prove the original hypothesis?

Anyway, moving on.

the more you challenge your hypothesis, the stronger your theory will be; e.g. there is very, very strong evidence for evolution, and even stronger evidence for gravity, but truth is simply not a scientific word
most scientists today think that the theory of Big Bang is the best available theory, but there are alternative theories discussed within the scientific community
and go into medecine half of the now established theories (state of the art) on patho-physiology will be proven wrong within a decade or so (leucism may be one of them?)
look what happend in systematics and taxonomy in birds the last 20 years

so better do not use 'truth' in science: scientific theory, current knowledge or state-of-the-art are far better terms
 

fugl

Well-known member
May I just do a little summary to close the debate
# partial albinism historically used by scientists in ornithology in 20th century
# partial albinism still widely in use in birdwatching community, maybe more in the States than in Europe
# partial leucism correct scientific term used nowadays by leading institutes (Cornell lab for ornithology, museums in Europe etc.)

Can’t get off that easily, I’m afraid. Just noticed that Sibley (The Sibley Guide to the Birds, 2nd ed., 2014, p.139) labels one of his Red-tailed Hawks as a “partial albino”. So, it not just among us amateurs that the term is still current but also among the better class of professional. ;)
 

Valéry Schollaert

Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Can’t get off that easily, I’m afraid. Just noticed that Sibley (The Sibley Guide to the Birds, 2nd ed., 2014, p.139) labels one of his Red-tailed Hawks as a “partial albino”. So, it not just among us amateurs that the term is still current but also among the better class of professional. ;)

There are long-term professionel scientists who deny global warming among other things...

Silbey can be excellent in identification, it doesn't mean he uses the best vocabulary or is specialist in leusism and albinism. Ornithology is a wide subject. In opposite, some scientists made great discoveries in genetic, for example, but cannot distinguish a Herring Gull from a Common Tern. ;)
 

fugl

Well-known member
There are long-term professionel scientists who deny global warming among other things...

Silbey can be excellent in identification, it doesn't mean he uses the best vocabulary or is specialist in leusism and albinism. Ornithology is a wide subject. In opposite, some scientists made great discoveries in genetic, for example, but cannot distinguish a Herring Gull from a Common Tern. ;)

Hardly a just comparison, AGW being a matter of immense practical importance with the handful of (scientifically credentialed ) AGW-deniers being superannuated cranks, for the most part. “Partial albinism” vs “leucism” (or whatever), is just a matter of words of no practical importance whatever outside the technical literature.
 

Valéry Schollaert

Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Hardly a just comparison, AGW being a matter of immense practical importance with the handful of (scientifically credentialed ) AGW-deniers being superannuated cranks, for the most part. “Partial albinism” vs “leucism” (or whatever), is just a matter of words of no practical importance whatever outside the technical literature.

As Tom has used the comparison with "partial pregnant", let me use it again.

If a mammal has a big belly, it can because he/she is fat... or she is pregnant. The look can be the same but, inside the body, it is not at al the same thing. You may keep to call a pregnant female "fat", because practically it is the same look, but still, it is not the same thing, so better call facts as they are.

Note that you can be partially fat, as partially leucistic, but never partially albino or partially pregnant.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
I'm not really qualified to take this any further so I'll leave you with this though I do agree that we are limited by often conflicting sources however, some terms have come in to usage through non qualified people such as amateur aviculturists, I think 'partial albino' may be onу one those terms?

'The term "partial albino" is sometimes used in the literature, however, it has been stated that "A common misnomer is ‘partial albino’ – this is not possible since albinism affects the whole plumage of a bird, not just part"[12] and the definition of albinism precludes the possibility of "partial albinism" in which a mostly white bird shows some form of melanin pigmentation. "It is simply impossible, just like being ‘partially pregnant’ ".


I used the quote in post 22, Tom picked it up later.

This promises to go the way of the ERM thread if this continues.
 

fugl

Well-known member
As Tom has used the comparison with "partial pregnant", let me use it again.

If a mammal has a big belly, it can because he/she is fat... or she is pregnant. The look can be the same but, inside the body, it is not at al the same thing. You may keep to call a pregnant female "fat", because practically it is the same look, but still, it is not the same thing, so better call facts as they are.

Note that you can be partially fat, as partially leucistic, but never partially albino or partially pregnant.

We're going around in circles (v. post #55, this thread).
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top