A followup to my previous comments. Ted states that October in Peru is spring. This is not necessarily the case. Breeding in Peru occurs throughout the year depending on elevation and the rainy season. In tropical locations near the equator, there are generally two rainy seasons and two dry seasons. They are not uniform and vary depending on whether you are on the east slope or the west slope of the Andes. Ted also stated that the bird singing in Georgetown now coincides with spring/summer breeding period. Now somehow this bird singing in May is spring/summer but October is also ok. Does this mean that a wild bird has completely changed its singing period by 6 months or so. I can't sort this out. I should have mentioned that I have also had singing Rufous-collared sparrow singing in Costa RIca in April and in Ecuador in March. With Ecuador and Peru being neighbors this provides an opposite time of year for it in the near equator region.
There are great examples of this type of breeding variability in the US. Great Horned Owls breed early in the year. White-winged Crossbills can breed any time of the year. Costa's Hummingbirds nest in our southern border area in February and several other hummers nest after the summer rains. Regarding null hypothesis. In the scientific community, hypotheses are not considered true until proven with experiments and observations that can be repeated independently. I think this matches proving an unlikely record to be wild must be where the burden of proof lies. My previous comment > I feel the null hypothesis should be escapee or release unless there is solid evidence to the contrary. > was not interpreted correctly. I am saying that the null hypothesis should be released or escaped, not wild. Then the evidence should prove that it is wild or likely to be wild. I strongly believe that the actual analysis of the thick-billed parrot is it was assumed to be an escape and evidence was compiled to back this assumption and no evidence was developed to prove it was wild. This is the diffilculty with provenance in that no evidence can be developed in support of wild origin other than a pattern of vagrancy. The bird can not be questioned about its origin. A bird that has gone through molts can remove evidence of cage wear. The null hypothesis for plate tectonics is that it did not occur until evidence was developed to the contrary. I have not yet reached my own decision on whether it is wild or not and opinion is not how it should be made. I am unable to reach an informed decision as there is much information that needs to be developed before the CBRC can start its deliberations. I will be very interested to read the report on this interesting sighting. Norm Erthal Arvada, CO -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To post to this group, send email to cobirds@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cobirds+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en.
