-->>>>>>> Next Section <<<<<<<
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII


> From: "MBlanchrd" <MBlanchrd at aol.com>
> Durn it, I thought this was the age of high faluting
> technology...we birders
> are still dragging our knuckles when we try to describe bird
> sounds to each
> other. What a hoot it must be to listen to us squabbling
> amongst ourselves:
> "NO! It's beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
> "Well, if you ask me, it's more like bebebebebebe."
> "I think you're BOTH wrong. Everyone knows it's spee."
>
> You think this is difficult? Try to get two birders to agree
> on how to
> pish.......

You're right -- this is the age of technology. So there should be a
webpage or two that have various bird sounds on it. Then various
birders can listen to them and submit their impression of what
the sound actually should be written as. Perhaps a moderator
(D.Victor?) could compile and distill them. Then another page
of the website could present the reference sounds plus the majority
agreed-upon ways of specifying them. After that when someone wants
to describe some type of trill, say, they need only visit the website
and listen to a few to decide which kind they heard and know how to
write it down. Nothing like have a set of reference sounds that are
widely available. THis would also help in describing the various
degrees of rapidity, liquidity, harshness, melodiousness, etc.

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to also have a way of describing songs, just
by their pitch, such as:

--
---
-- -- -- -- -
---

which is something like how I think of the white-crowned sparrow
songs I hear.
(Note that there are four internal notes in a row, not three). If
the alphabet can
describe happy and sad faces in e-mail, it shouldn't be too hard to
elaborate
on the above to describe various aspects of birdsong.

On second thought, perhaps I'm just getting carried away here, as is
my wont.

Bob Mauritsen
bluetooth at csi.com