Hi all,
?
I apologize to tweeters, Hal, Bob, Devorah, Dennis, ?(all my vast superiors in bird/biology knowledge btw) for keeping this thread alive, I avoided reading tweeters for two days in the hope of having the self-discipline to let this die, but here?s the problem:? I suspected my views would come across as a prudish defense of the Barn Swallow?s English moral decency, they apparently did, and I?m not willing to let that stand.
?
What set me off originally wasn?t the science but Chris Hill?s apparent delight in ?bursting the bubble? of people who were feeling sorrow over the death of a Barn Swallow.? In a world where the people-oriented nesting strategy of the Barn Swallow is beginning to unravel, we don?t need people taking joy in squashing others? sympathy for dead swallows.
?
Secondly,? Dennis implies that Barn Swallows raise the kids and let them go, like a European Starling parent would.? This is not always (ever?) true.? All through August and September, when we swim at Lake Washington, we see Barn Swallows in the sky flying upward to meet in mid-air?this is an adult feeding a young.? Our swallows keep shepherding all the kids back to sleep at night at the nest on our front stoop, late at night, chastising the ones who try to stay out later than they should, for 7-14 days after fledging.
?
The point is also made that since they don?t mate for life, they aren?t likely to care about each other?s mate.? That seems real deductive to me.? If your friend shows up starry-eyed with a new partner they?ve only known for 3 weeks and will dump in another 5 weeks, does that mean they don?t care about them?? If this is strictly a business arrangement, why, seriously, do most of the mated pairs that have ever nested at our house always sit so close together on the wire when they aren?t working?? Sitting further apart would help them spot raptors in the distance.
?
Also let?s look at the Guillemot example.? It doesn?t disprove grief. ??That?s one common mistaken assumption going on here--the presence of one thing doesn?t prove the absence of something else.? In both the Barn Swallow and the Guillemot case, the presence of ?horniness? shouldn?t be used in and of itself ?to argue the absence of grief.? Although, it certainly also, I?ll admit, doesn?t prove the presence of it either.? But I?m arguing that everyone should be more scientific and careful about admitting that in many cases we aren?t exactly sure what any given animal is thinking or not thinking at any given moment.? Thanks
?
Ed Newbold ednewbold1 at yahoo.com residential Beacon Hill, Seattle
?
?
?
?
?
?
?