a Pete B snip followed by > my comments.. 
It is incumbent upon any researchers to scrutinize other peoples work. It is not "demeaning," they expect it.

>First thanks for taking the time to explain the turtle analogy to me. I did not originally get that. I guess my thinking is sometimes just a bit too concrete.

>Of course you above conclusion is correct. However I would also suspect the flaw in any quail/pheasant study has little to do with wild predatory bird population.. 1) I would believe their diet was different and at least in wild population and 2) small shifts in survival rate does impact population < but not so much in domesticated birds where loss is just figured into some production strategy. I seem to recall that part of the problem with DDT was 1) it half life and 2) where it accumulate.

>Come Sunday I will discuss this issue (DDT) with a former custodian of collection (first at the Smithsonian and then here*) and see what he can add to my lack of understanding of the issue. I try not to wed myself to any of these 'hot button' issues but tend to touch base with folks with lots of expertise to see what light they can shed on the topic... Not unexpectedly even they sometimes do not always agree.  

>Lastly the fellow who I worked for at Bayer (formerly Monsanto) has sent me a link to the study.... After I read I will consult with him and the previously mentioned folks about what this study means.

*I seem to recall in prior conversation with him that a number of the predatory bird studies were done in South Texas and are likely still held in the collection at TAMU and secondly he likely know the folks and the reputation of the folks who did that work. 

Gene in Central Texas...    

Gene in Central Texas...

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html