Posted by:
rtdunham
at Sat Aug 13 22:27:24 2011 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by rtdunham ]
>> From your vast experience, and you do have that. It would line up with your second clutches wouldn't it. I am just saying.
I'm confused here. His first post in this thread explains he's had some breed with the others but lay on a later schedule, like this one. So his vast experience could line up with first or second clutch.
>> What gets me is, why do folks automatically go against logic and evidence?
Confused again. I've read the posts preceding yours in this thread and can't find anyone saying it's more logically first OR second. If they're not taking a stand, how are they going against logic and evidence?
>>There is more reason to call it a second clutch, from WHAT WE KNOW, then a late first clutch, based on what we do not know. Funny thought huh?
I'd agree with you that it's more likely a second clutch. By "WHAT WE KNOW" I'm guessing you mean "that which more often is the case". That's evidence, but hardly conclusive. You so often write about learning from what the snakes tell us, I'd think you'd be complimenting those who are keeping an open mind.
>> If you want to debate what it is...
Here's where you really lost me. I've reread the posts preceding yours and i can't find any evidence of anyone wanting to debate anything. To what are you referring?
>>the entire lack of evidence that points to being a first clutch
But Kerby gave evidence of a snake that did just this--lay a first clutch later in the year than others. So I'm not sure what you mean by "entire lack of evidence".
>>Not enough to convict, but enough to investigate further.
I liked your expression here very much. Spot on!
>> And don't feel picked on, when I see this in the field I ask that of the other biologists I am with. I ask them why not, they have no answer either.
Given my confusion at multiple points here, maybe they just don't understand what the question is.
(one more comment in my post below)
[ Hide Replies ]
|