Subject: [Tweeters] Re: glaucland gull comments
Date: Feb 2 14:44:46 2006
From: Dennis Paulson - dennispaulson at comcast.net


Phil Pickering wrote: "Rather than discouraging using "impressions"
as marks I'd suggest those who are really interested study what lies
behind the impressions so that they might be more usefully conveyed,
since for an experienced birder there is almost always physical
substance to them."

Phil, you and I are shooting for the same goals but coming from
different directions, I guess. My goal has always been in fact to try
to explain what exactly that physical substance is that portrays the
"impression." There is no reason why you should have to b an
"experienced birder" to understand a field mark. If it indeed is a
shorter bill or a larger eye or a different eye-to-bill ratio, then
why not just say that? As different people will surely have different
ideas of "fierce" and "innocent" and "chesty," don't you think it
would be better to abandon such terms to avoid confusion? When a bird
looks "dumpy," isn't it usually because it has a short tail? I'm a
firm believer in that physical substance you talk about, but I'm a
bit more skeptical of impressions.

Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115
206-528-1382


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20060202/1e3b1fbd/attachment.htm