On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Don Baccus wrote:
> David Wright:
> >The next one would *not* be sexable as a result of capture of this bird.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Well, actually we don't know, do we??? Why? [emphasis added ^]

Er, yes, we do. Because one specimen cannot reveal the degree of overlap
between winter males and females (which is what we need to find out).
How it can be otherwise?

>
> Well....
>
[dw]> >We (out here in Cascadia) simply don't know how much overlap in
> >plumage characters there is between males and females of this species.
>
> So with enough diligence and effort my statement might be true.

No amount of diligence and effort on *this individual* (the topic of
your statement) would change that.

> Regardless, it has little to do with my point, I only offered
> this as support for the concept that ongoing education of
> scientists and field techs is important, regardless of whether
> or not any direct scientific knowledge falls out of the
> learning effort.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. You were discussing learning
how to sex winter c-c longspurs *as a result* of determining the sex of
*this individual*. Maybe you didn't mean that (?), but that *is* what
you said...

> Yes, but should we so easily give up the moral high ground in
> the fight to define impropriety?

It's more a matter of simply not giving the bad guys an easy shot at
something that would be difficult to defend as "good for science."
I'd prefer to save defenses of the high ground for cases that warrant
them.

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu

PS: Is the bird still around, by the way?