I wasn't referring to nit-picking. With that, I would make sure of context. As we are on a captive husbandry forum, the context is information that can help in this area.
Information on animals in the field, including animals in captivity are missing. Yet, the animals are the same bag of genes.
While reading and nit picking is great, it can be academic, This word is a sore spot, while in the field with my degreed, great friend and field partner, he was questioning my use of academic. As it sort of pea-ed off academics. Google academics and pay attention to 2.
An easy example is, take ranching and farmers, but grow something, cows, sheep, plants. They do it. Then there universities working on genetics and with the intention of helping the farmers and ranchers by creating better stock. In the lab, the work is academic(not proven) once that stock hits the dirt and proven, its no longer academic and its proven with positive results. The test is when theory hits the dirt. In our case, peer reviewed data is not aimed at captivity, and its not aimed at helping animals in nature. The information you read, has not been field tested, or tested in the lab, with animals. It seems to be data taken, for the sake of taking data. To obtain a degree and add to a data base(to be included) I question the current purpose.
We are all allowed to take whatever path we want. For instance, do you read for a purpose, or to be entertained. most reading is for entertainment value, as the reader is not going to apply the information.
Or do you read to apply the information, say, improve captive results, or improve your understanding of X species in nature.(non academic purposes)
Or do you read to gain an academic knowledge to pass an academic test. You see, they are all valid, but of different context.
The context here is, to be applied, and that application will have results. end part 1

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]