Mike Pennington
Registered Member
redeyedvideo said:
A typically lazy and ill-informed piece of journalism. Barely a word that really deserves to be there.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Scottish Crossbill - dubious split? any DNA proof? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter crossbill
- Start date
A typically lazy and ill-informed piece of journalism. Barely a word that really deserves to be there.
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who liked it and apologies to those of you who didn't.
I'll try to answer some questions if I can. I quoted from a public forum because it seemed to be the only way for me to do it. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that the only people researching this bird are part of the RSPB, which - if the arguments some made on this forum are right - have a vested interest in maintaining its status. The RSPB understand that and have been fine about it - they are well aware this argument is going on. If they weren't comfortable with it I'm sure they would not let me see this new research they are working on.
DocMartin - I can only apologise about the four year thing. There were articles in the Scottish press at that time saying that it had just been declared a separate species following the publication of research from the RSPB. Of course, you can't always believe what is written in the papers!
Lindsay wasn't mentioned because he clearly was not comfortable with this discussion. He deleted many of his posts and did not reply to a message I sent him so I felt it wasn't fair to quote him ... as well as difficult considering the majority of his posts had disappeared.
Saying all that - I still really appreciated all the help I have been given on here and will take your criticisms on board.
Vicky
Thanks to those of you who liked it and apologies to those of you who didn't.
I'll try to answer some questions if I can. I quoted from a public forum because it seemed to be the only way for me to do it. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that the only people researching this bird are part of the RSPB, which - if the arguments some made on this forum are right - have a vested interest in maintaining its status. The RSPB understand that and have been fine about it - they are well aware this argument is going on. If they weren't comfortable with it I'm sure they would not let me see this new research they are working on.
DocMartin - I can only apologise about the four year thing. There were articles in the Scottish press at that time saying that it had just been declared a separate species following the publication of research from the RSPB. Of course, you can't always believe what is written in the papers!
Lindsay wasn't mentioned because he clearly was not comfortable with this discussion. He deleted many of his posts and did not reply to a message I sent him so I felt it wasn't fair to quote him ... as well as difficult considering the majority of his posts had disappeared.
Saying all that - I still really appreciated all the help I have been given on here and will take your criticisms on board.
Vicky
Similar threads
