Re: Bird Science

["Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>]

Well, my experience on the ornithology list was kind of startling given that
I thought I'd also seen the likes of Gary Waggerman (of Austin) on the
Ornithology list - but I believe he specifically was on the TEXBIRD list,
and that could be true of the others I've seen as well.    What I
specifically have observed is a systematic difference between what is
discussed on the Ornith-l list, and what is discussed on the Dinosaur list.

They did leave me rather shaken about the state of intelligence in
ornithology.   Since I expected scientists to be on the ornithology list,
and 12 year olds and quack scientists to be on a dinosaur list, I was doubly
startled and shaken to find all actual scientific discussion of bird
phylogeny and evolution taking place on the dinosaur list.

But I did not observe on the ornithology list, a single point of view and
way of seeing the world of the field of ornithology.   I saw the  point of
view and way of seeing the world of the ornith-l list.    Ornithology is not
even a field but a loose-knit entity composed of anyone interested in
studying birds.    Some of the people on the ornith-l list signed their
names with academic titles, just like people on this list.

What I am saying is that the information that birds together with the
confirmation that dinosaurs are warm-blooded appears to have split the
scientific community between those who can process new information and an
apparent sizable body of those to whom it represents a violation of the good
old days when things were tough and boys got up at 5 AM to feed the horses,
women were not from Venus, and men were not from Mars.

 I don't know what the author of that letter thought he was trying to
accomplish by writing it.  Clearly he meant to tell me to grow up and see
the world his way!   Since I'm 47 years old I am rather immune to that...
Tee, hee, hee, the Internet doesn't confront people with photos of the
correspondent one has stereotyped ideas about.    But he vividly got across
his point of view and that of the person who asked me about women from venus
and men from mars.

These are people engaged in motivated thinking, who get very angry when
confronted with information that even tangentially contradicts cherished
ideas.    They would have to be to be this upset by my question about how
Sibley said doves are related to parrots to have responded to it as they
did.  Sibley's work pertains only to Class Aves and has nothing to do with
whether birds are dinosaurs, unless the last common ancestor of some birds
lay at the root of the Coelurusaurian family tree.   But he committed the
sin of upsetting established ways of thinking about and I think more
fundamentally of studying birds.   Instead of answering my question, or the
equally obvious option of not responding to my post since it didn't interest
them, they felt compelled to take issue with my apparent respect for
Sibley's findings.

I do have access to AUK, of all things, given what the UT Austin libraries
do NOT have.   It is one of the few specialized bird journals they do have.
Forget about Journal of Avian Biology - no, uh-uh.   And how can they have
only one copy of Sibley's Phylogeny of Birds - and six copies of Feduccia's
books well distributed on libraries all over the campus?

I believe I have seen enough of Ficuccia and the problems with his thoughts,
though, and the links between dinosaurs and birds is one subject I have
researched in detail.    I really don't have patience for any more of that
whole argument.    There is no good reason for ongoing argument with people
who clearly do not wish to be convinced.    It's like arguing about
evolution.   It's simply childish.

I am more interested in bird phylogeny and evolution within Aves.   It is
not the first time I have had questions of the how is something related to
something or where did this bird come from sort.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----