Talk:Tambalacoque
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Tambalacoque is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality. | |
It would appear to me trivial that this tree is the one upon which Gerald Durrell's book The Mockery Bird is based, yet I was unable to find any clear-cut reference in my edition of the book, nor in Google. Would anybody happen to know if this is the case? -Itai 22:07, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I started the Durrell page, but I'm afraid I have no idea. Obviously he knew and wrote about Mauritius, but I don't know whether he was specific about the tree. DavidWBrooks 00:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the dodo and the dodo tree wee what durrell had in mind when he chose to write mockery bird as a "fable". all the information, including softening seed shells by digesting it - fits. and of course, the mockery bird is the dodo. Check the official biography by Douglas Botting.
Pradiptaray 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Argument too strong?
Why? Temple's hypothesis was one of (nearly) obligatory mutualism. This has been roundly rejected. Read Cheke's account in Studies of Mascarene Island birds (pp 17-19) for details. While Cheke isn't exactly one of the most soft-spoken scientists I've come across, it is a potential career-breaker to call a hypothesis "folklore" and one does not do this lightly (except in private ;-) ). Cheke in effect details how Temple came to his hypothesis through a series of inadvertent errors and insufficient field study. -- Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tone is a hard thing to argue about, but I don't see any particularly large problems. Perhaps some of the issues (such as the reasons for the decline of the tree) could be discussed without mentioning Temple at all, but the tone isn't that far off. Does someone who supports the tag have a suggested wording or summary of what they would change? Kingdon (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't find it harsh at all. 75.7.3.207 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"
