Dimorphism in Rainbow Lorikeets

Accepted “wisdom” is that Rainbow Lorikeets are not sexually dimorphic.

To the keen eye, however wild Rainbow Lorikeets *are* sexually dimorphic.

Dimorphism can clearly be seen by observing mated pairs of wild Rainbow Lorikeets.

You will notice that in almost all mated pairs, that the colouring of the breast is subtly different.

The male will generally tend to have more orange on his breast, extending further toward the wings than the female. He will also generally have less yellow on his body.

The head of the male is also a slightly different shape, slightly squarer to that of the female.

The female may be of slightly slighter build and will have more yellow intermingled with the orange of her breast.

The blues of the female will generally tend to be a lighter hue, sometimes seeming to be tinged with grey whilst the males have a deep navy colour to them.

This image is a perfect example of the sexual dimorphism:

Sexual dimorphism in Rainbow Lorikeets

In the image above, the male is on the left, the female on the right.

How do I know this?

Spending 40 years feeding wild Rainbow Lorikeets and several years as a carer for them.

When it comes to sexual dimorphism in Rainbow Lorikeets that have been selectively bred however, the above may not be an accurate means by which to determine their sex.

Captive bred birds tend to be selectively bred for the traits that humans find desirable; and in Rainbow Lorikeets, that means bright orange breasts and a deep blue undercarriage.

No GST – no carbon tax – never ever

The carbon tax.

Such a hot topic of conversation.

Alan Jones is on a witch hunt. Without science on his side, he resorts to populism.

This saddens me. Alan is an intelligent, wealthy man; that he would resort to populism is an indictment on his moral and mental capacity or lack thereof.

Which of these videos is the bigger lie? Which of these broken promises had a bigger impact on our lives?

Does a 10% tax on just about everything cost you more than a 0.002% tax on a couple of things?

That is, does a GST of 10% on 80% of what you consume cost you more than a Carbon Tax of 0.002% on 20% of what you consume?

YouTube Preview Image

YouTube Preview Image
Firstly, you have the idiots who are running a scare campaign for Uncle Tony (not for the Liberal Party mind you, only for Uncle Tony Abbott), who have the backing of that ubiquitous oxygen thief; Alan (honestly, I don’t like the male members of the Australian olympic swimming squad in anything other than a platonic way and I hate everything that the left leaning types do though I’ll never speak out about their compassion for homosexuals) Jones.

Secondly, you have Tony “I am appealing to the lowest common denominator, and they appeal to me, because we share the basic common principles of bigotry, ignorance and fear” Abbott; parrotting Alan “The Parrot” Jones.

That Alan had a bit of a completely non gay crush on John Winston is a matter of the public record.

Does he have more than a non gay crush on Mr Abbott?

Mr Abbott is a very fit physical specimen, if it weren’t for his bigotry; I’d want to take him to bed.

Imagine the stamina, imagine what kind of gagging action one could precipitate once one had hold of those ears…

But seriously…

Whilst once I clung to the left, the ALP; I have abandoned them.

I flirted with the Greens; though could never vote for such hypocrites.

I tried Liberal once, and am sure that it was my vote that killed Kim Beazley.

I don’t have a party of choice, they are all reprehensible, self serving cunts.

The crap that Abbott and his minions are carrying on with thought, that is a bit too much.

Have a look at this out-out-outsourced group who are acting on behalf of (I can’t give you their identity, even though I have discerned it):

- The Liberal Party
- A mining company
- A prominent Australian individual
- Alan Jones
- A small minded wanker
- A lobby group that has members who think that the earth is flat.

In the end, what is worse, a tax on just about everything that impacts 100% of us (the GST) – a tax introduced by a government that Tony Abbott has proudly described himself as being a senior, policy making member of; or:

A tax on a couple of things that will ultimately impact perhaps 50% of us – if that?

I am not sure, please help me decide.

YouTube Preview Image

 

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand…

Future Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull

The man who should be PM

I need not make much more of a comment on the following piece than this:

Malcolm Turnbull needs to challenge Abbott for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

He was only defeated by one vote last time around, and he is the only politician in Canberra with anything that could possibly be called a semblance of vision.

Decide for yourself.

Malcolm Turnbull – the greatest opposition leader to never win office.

Andrew Bolt has had a go at my gay marriage speech in his blog today.

As far as I can see he has two points to make.

First he says that if you recognised gay unions with the title of marriage you open the door to polygamy. This is the weakest and worst sort of argument used against any change and known as the “slippery slope” argument – if first you make one change then a whole series of other changes will follow. As any lawyers reading this blog will know, judges treat arguments like this with the contempt they deserve.

But let us deal with the substance. There is no demand, no lobby, no support, no constituency for legalising polygamy under the Marriage Act. If you needed a contemporary, as opposed to a traditional or cultural, justification for not recognising polygamy it can be found in our, and most societies’, view of the equality of men and women.

Second he says that the whole purpose of marriage is a permanent relationship, that gay couples (gay men he is speaking about here) are more likely to be promiscuous and have extra-marital affairs and that therefore if gays are allowed to marry they will influence the understanding of marriage among the straights who will accordingly become more promiscuous.

This must be the longest bow of all – all those chaste and monogamous heterosexuals out there are about to become slavering, dissolute, philanderers because gay couples are according to Mr Bolt less faithful to each other than men and women.

And he wonders what I am talking about when I speak of the hypocrisy of the sanctimonious. Open your eyes, Andrew! If a heterosexual married couple want to find an example of marital infidelity, adultery, promiscuity they hardly need to look out for any gay couples they know. How many of their friends’ marriages are breaking up? How many of their friends husbands or wives are playing up?

Or they can turn on the television or open a magazine or newspaper. Where shall we start?

Take Hollywood – most of the news is about who is having an affair with whom, whose marriage is breaking up, who is getting married for the umpteenth time.

What about politics? Take Silvio Berlusconi for example, would he have been, could he have been, more promiscuous if there had been gay marriage legalised in Italy. Could he have had even more bunga bunga parties?

Finally, and speaking from my own experience, the gay couples I know who have told me they would like to have their unions recognised as a marriage have generally been together for a very long time and lead lives of demure domesticity.

This man, Malcolm Turnbull; should be Prime Minister. Sadly, we will never be so lucky as to enjoy his measured wisdom. He is too “liberal” for the Liberals and too “Liberal” for Labor.

So very sad.