Sexual equality in birds

[igenlode]

This afternoon on the radio I heard one of the more breathtaking stupid pieces of scientific claptrap that I've come across, from a museum curator none the less, who was (by his voice) a young man bemoaning the arrant sexism of the scientists who defined the 'type specimen' for the majority of birds as being represented by the male of the species. Apparently it had not occurred to him -- as it immediately occurred to the (female non-scientist) presenter -- that if you tried to represent the appearance of bird species using female rather than male specimens then you would simply end up with a vast number of bespeckled 'little brown jobs'; not at all helpful in terms of distinguishing features!

Sometimes ideology can really get in the way...

Comments

[watervole]

Yep, there's not many bird species that have spectacular females...

[igenlode]

Good evolutionary reasons for that, of course -- it's the males who are rendering themselves far more vulnerable by discarding their camouflage in favour of eye-catching plumage.
(Which is odd, given that in most species of garden bird, at least, *both* parents provide food for the young. It's not as if the males are dispensable, like spiders, the moment they have fertilised the females; if the male bird gets taken by a predator due to his flashier colouring then the chances of survival for the offspring presumably plummet!)

[watervole]

I believe the availability of food is the main factor. Where food is abundant (eg. new Guinea), females can rear young alone, and males then develop fancy plumage. Where food is scarce, males look more like females and do more work (eg Emperor penguins).

[igenlode]

Makes sense...

[watervole]

Thank David Attenborough... 'Paradise Birds' is one of Oswin's favourites.