• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Why no Woodpeckers in Ireland (1 Viewer)

No babies or bathwater of any kind, I assure you. And yes, it's perfectly possible to talk about genetic adaptations in humans without any untoward meanings. But now that the subject of racism has been broached on this thread, I'd rather leave the human aspect behind and stick to avian biology, that's all.

At least I've finally found a use for the "Digging my own grave" smiley

:gn:
 
Well, if anyone can get their hands on this:
Environmental Archaeology, Volume 9, Number 2, October 2004
Worlds Apart? Human Settlement and Biota of Islands: Papers from the 2003 AEA conference at Belfast, N. Ireland

The Archaeological Record of Birds in Britain and Ireland Compared: Extinctions or Failures to Arrive?
Derek W. Yalden and Robert I. Carthy
page 123-126.
Abstract: The archaeological evidence can help to discriminate between species which never arrived on islands, the species that once were present but later became extinct, and the species that only arrived late, because of human introduction, or human modification of the island to provide suitable habitat. The archaeological record from Ireland is sufficient to allow some useful comparisons with Great Britain, identifying species (e.g. Capercaillie: Tetrao urogallus L., Black Grouse: T. tetrix (L.), Great Spotted Woodpecker: Dendrocopus major (L.)) which were once present but have probably been lost through deforestation, and others whose archaeological record is sufficient in Britain to indicate with moderate confidence that they never occurred in Ireland (e.g. Tawny Owl: Strix aluco L.).
 
Last edited:
Poecile,
To claim that races are maintained because of racism is quite wrong. Throughout the world people have chosen a mate from their immediate vicinity, because it is most convenient. It has been shown, eg. that after the invention of the bicycle the average distance traveled more than trebled in Italy. (I'm not being too accurate, as I don't remember the exact figure). This, not inherent racism, has allowed races - and even distinct regional differences within races to be maintained.
Nowadays, with travel an intrinsic part of the human way, mixed races (thankfully) are increasingly common. Sexual preferences are often deliberately different.
 
Well, if anyone can get their hands on this:
Environmental Archaeology, Volume 9, Number 2, October 2004
Worlds Apart? Human Settlement and Biota of Islands: Papers from the 2003 AEA conference at Belfast, N. Ireland

The Archaeological Record of Birds in Britain and Ireland Compared: Extinctions or Failures to Arrive?
Derek W. Yalden and Robert I. Carthy
page 123-126.
Abstract: The archaeological evidence can help to discriminate between species which never arrived on islands, the species that once were present but later became extinct, and the species that only arrived late, because of human introduction, or human modification of the island to provide suitable habitat. The archaeological record from Ireland is sufficient to allow some useful comparisons with Great Britain, identifying species (e.g. Capercaillie: Tetrao urogallus L., Black Grouse: T. tetrix (L.), Great Spotted Woodpecker: Dendrocopus major (L.)) which were once present but have probably been lost through deforestation, and others whose archaeological record is sufficient in Britain to indicate with moderate confidence that they never occurred in Ireland (e.g. Tawny Owl: Strix aluco L.).

But is that pre- or post-glacial? That's the crux of what this thread is about. Before or after Ireland was an island? Plus, I note that quote doesn't actually ref the evidence....
 
But is that pre- or post-glacial? That's the crux of what this thread is about. Before or after Ireland was an island? Plus, I note that quote doesn't actually ref the evidence....
I´ve been trying to track down evidence but can´t. Earliest (unreferenced) mention I can find is the Ruttledge "List" I referred to earlier, published 1975. I´m pretty sure it was also referred to in an earlier "List" published by the Natural History Museum in 1959, but I´ve lost my copy. Unfortunately the Museum is closed to the public at the moment, ever since a stairwell collapsed a few months ago. I´d say that´s the place to start. Interestingly Ruttledge also says 3 Green Woodpeckers were "obtained" in the 19th Century in Longford, Kildare and Donegal, but that no "Irish Specimen" exists. So I don´t know how that´s substantiated either. Perhaps the Clare Cave bones thing is something that was originally a casual supposition, that has now passed into Absolute (But Erroneous) Certainty. (Like the "Eskimoes have hundreds of words for snow" myth...)
 
Last edited:
But is that pre- or post-glacial? That's the crux of what this thread is about. Before or after Ireland was an island? Plus, I note that quote doesn't actually ref the evidence....
And that's why I said: if anyone can get their hands on...
However I think the phrase "lost through deforestation" (not: "lost through glaciation") would indicate the evidence is post-glacial.
Someone with access to a good university library present?
 
Last edited:
First time poster but was very interested in this topic in relation to Woodpeckers in Ireland. But just to let people know that a Great Spotted Woodpecker was seen in a garden near Howth Summit yesterday morning 26/11/2007....
 
First time poster but was very interested in this topic in relation to Woodpeckers in Ireland. But just to let people know that a Great Spotted Woodpecker was seen in a garden near Howth Summit yesterday morning 26/11/2007....
Thanks stevensi, apparently that´s the third year in a row that GSW has appeared at Howth. Do you suppose it´s the same bird? And if so, what could be the attraction of Howth? Weird.
 
Thanks stevensi, apparently that´s the third year in a row that GSW has appeared at Howth. Do you suppose it´s the same bird? And if so, what could be the attraction of Howth? Weird.

I really don't know but there is every chance that it could be. Obviously it's a very savy bird when it comes to property as Howth has some of the most expensive real estate in Dublin ;)
 
This thread appears to be in danger of getting back to its original topic (God forbid!), so I'll throw in my twopenn'th about genetic variation. I seem to recall that all cheetahs are virtually genetically identical, suggesting that they went through a genetic bottleneck when they were reduced to only a few individuals. I also have in mind that, according to studies in Y chromosome variation, most Europeans are descended from only 24 males, suggesting that we were once a highly endangered species! Sorry, can't quote references.

Pete
 
...most Europeans are descended from only 24 males, suggesting that we were once a highly endangered species!....

Pete
Thanks for saving us from the mundane world of GSW, Pete!;) I seem to remember two different books, can´t remember the titles and haven´t time to check right now, but one maintained that all human stock was descended from one female (the "African Eve" story?) and the other maintained we were descended from five females. And Stevensi, if GSW´s start to appear in Dalkey, Ballsbridge and Malahide, we´ll know there´s something in your "GSW real-estate speculation" theory...
 
Last edited:
Every human alive today is descended from one woman, and indeed one man, the MRCAs, or most recent common ancestors. This isn't a matter of conjecture but a mathematical necessity. I once read it beautifully explained, possibly by Richard Dawkins, but I can't find it. Instead here's a link that tries to explain it but not as well... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

The key to me 'twigging it' was that family trees don't just look like this:

______I_______
____I____ ____I____
_I_ _I_ _I_ _I_ _I_ _I_
I I I I I I I I I I I I

they also, equally, look like this:

I__I I__I I__I I__I I__I I__I
I____I____I I____I____I
I____________I
I

Graham

EDIT - bugger, my carefully spaced top-down and bottom-up illustrations were kyboshed by html! Hope the idea is still clear.
 
Perfectly clear, Graham!;) And thanks for the link, excellent stuff. (BTW, where did you come across the word "kybosh"? I didn´t know that was used outside of Ireland!)
 
Last edited:
Perfectly clear, Graham!;) And thanks for the link, excellent stuff. (BTW, where did you come across the word "kybosh"? I didn´t know that was used outside of Ireland!)
The word kybosh, or kibosh, has been used throughout much of the English-speaking world for at least 150 years. Possibly the first printed examples of "putting the kybosh on it" are in Charles Dickens's Sketches by Boz. There are also several American written examples from the 1880s. There are suggestions that it originates from the Yiddish word kabas or kabbasten, meaning to suppress or stop. Other possibilities are from the heraldic word caboshed - the emblem of an animal which is shown full face but cut off close to the ears so that no neck shows. Webster's New World Dictionary suggests it may derive from the old German word "kiebe", meaning carrion.
The most likely explanation, however, is that by the Irish poet Padric Colum, who theorised that it comes from the Gaelic "cie bias" meaning "cap of death", the mask worn by the executioner at the block or the black cap ofthe judge when delivering the death sentence. The words are pronounced "ky bosh".

from the phrases website

Sean
 
Thanks, Sean. I´d heard as a schoolkid circa 1970 that it came from Irish "Caipín an Báis" (pronounced ´Kopeen-on-Bawish´, meaning also Cap of Death). No reference, though. Meanwhile the GSW hasn´t been seen in Howth today. So I guess it´s not the beginning of a natural (re-?) introduction.:)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that link, Graham, it was really useful. As it points out, the use of "Eve" implies that there was just one female at the time, whereas in reality that particular female left descendants up to the present day, whereas her fellow females eventually did not. The real significance lies with just how far back in time you find the MRCA (this can be guesstimated using the rate of mutation on mDNA). If the MRCA for a group only went back a few generations, then this implies a genetic bottleneck (=small population).

Pete
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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

Back
Top