5 Swift Parrot at Hackett, ACT
Identification history
| Lathamus discolor | 7 Apr 2022 | Liam.m | ||
| Lathamus discolor | 7 Apr 2022 | Bigfish69 |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
Small flock drinking in drain gully
7 comments
waltraud
wrote:
8 Apr 2022
Bigfish
thanks heaps for uploading the pictures onto CNM and many thanks for the chat the other day. Waltraud
Friends of Mt Majura
thanks heaps for uploading the pictures onto CNM and many thanks for the chat the other day. Waltraud
Friends of Mt Majura
waltraud
wrote:
26 Apr 2022
Birdy, thanks for listing this record as significant.
I thought about it.
w
I thought about it.
w
natureguy
wrote:
26 Apr 2022
Hi guys, I believe the reason this one wasn't reported as significant was since this other one (Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot)) was already marked as significant for the same birds, and was the first report on CNM. Generally we will only flag the first report of a particular record or a rare bird as significant, since many records often make their way into the system and it becomes redundant to have multiple significant sightings of the exact same thing, especially once it is a known record. Not saying that multiple records of the same thing are bad or unimportant, but usually significant sighting is only used once per report.
waltraud
wrote:
27 Apr 2022
Fair enough natureguy
Somehow I think it is significant that a flock of this critically endangered parrot species return to the same spot over several years...
Somehow I think it is significant that a flock of this critically endangered parrot species return to the same spot over several years...
Bigfish69
wrote:
27 Apr 2022
Good afternoon Waltrud and natureguy
Ultimately it depends upon whether we intend to apply significance to the species itself or its presence, and if the latter, at either a territorial or suburban level. Or even regualarity and frequency of it's use of a specific habitat.
Indeed significance may be applied to flock size, and even flock composition (eg gender or age).
Ultimately these contexts (amongst others) will draw conclusion to whether or not it's presence (or indeed absence) is worthy of attention.
Once this factor or factors are established, and agreed upon, can it then be decided the frequency of reporting said significance could be determined.
Cheers
Ultimately it depends upon whether we intend to apply significance to the species itself or its presence, and if the latter, at either a territorial or suburban level. Or even regualarity and frequency of it's use of a specific habitat.
Indeed significance may be applied to flock size, and even flock composition (eg gender or age).
Ultimately these contexts (amongst others) will draw conclusion to whether or not it's presence (or indeed absence) is worthy of attention.
Once this factor or factors are established, and agreed upon, can it then be decided the frequency of reporting said significance could be determined.
Cheers
Amata
wrote:
27 Apr 2022
@Bigfish69 @natureguy @waltraud
I have decided to undo the significance of the sighting. A while ago I emailed Michael Mulvaney about the definition of significance, and he told me that significance ranges from the rediscovery of species thought to have become extinct or just the first record of a species in a particular reserve, even though that species may be common elsewhere. He also said that significance is a way to encourage further sightings. Based on this I think that this sighting is not significant, especially since the 'further sightings' don't appear to be labelled significant. This is similar to what Luke said and it answer's Ben's question by saying how the presence in Place A is more important than Place B because the species may be more common in Place B whilst much rarer in Place A. Would like to hear your thoughts if you have any.
Cheers, Birdy
I have decided to undo the significance of the sighting. A while ago I emailed Michael Mulvaney about the definition of significance, and he told me that significance ranges from the rediscovery of species thought to have become extinct or just the first record of a species in a particular reserve, even though that species may be common elsewhere. He also said that significance is a way to encourage further sightings. Based on this I think that this sighting is not significant, especially since the 'further sightings' don't appear to be labelled significant. This is similar to what Luke said and it answer's Ben's question by saying how the presence in Place A is more important than Place B because the species may be more common in Place B whilst much rarer in Place A. Would like to hear your thoughts if you have any.
Cheers, Birdy
waltraud
wrote:
28 Apr 2022
Guys
many thanks for your thoughts and the discussion. I guess records of migrating nomads such as Sp with a status "critically endangered" are significant but then the most important is the record (thanks again Bigfish!) W
many thanks for your thoughts and the discussion. I guess records of migrating nomads such as Sp with a status "critically endangered" are significant but then the most important is the record (thanks again Bigfish!) W
Location information
- Places Hackett, ACT
Sighting information
- 7 Abundance
- 2 Apr 2022 09:09 AM Recorded on
- Bigfish69 Recorded by
-
Collections
Birds Parrots Bigfish69
Species information
- Lathamus discolor Scientific name
- Swift Parrot Common name
- Sensitive
- Critically endangered *
- Non-invasive or negligible
- 171 images trained Machine learning
- External link More information
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
