Curious Naturalists

In response to Niko Tinbergen's, Curious Naturalists, it seems very obvious that he had an appreciation of the wildlife that he was working with. Although throughout the reading I continued to wonder why his experiments were necessary. He played many games and conducted experiments on various wildlife, but I am not quite sure what the gain was. Yes, he did get his work published, but it seems that much of his findings were unable to progress. Aside from curiosity, why do we need to know whether or not a bird will eat a caterpillar that appears to be flat as opposed to one that is three dimensional, by way of showing its shadows? His studies were very interesting and I appreciated learning about the species they applied to, but I would have equally, if not more greatly, appreciated a naturalist's observations without performing experiements.

Some of the work performed by Tinbergen involved different species of birds and taking a look at their senses. In contrast to the book I read previously, Corvus: A Life with Birds, I felt that Woolfson's apprectiation and knowledge of birds was so much greater because she had spent years with these animals. She observed them, yes, out of curiosity, but did not feel the need to perform experiments to understand their behavior. She observed their habits on a daily basis as if they were loved ones, because they were. She did not judge their behavior, she accepted it as it was, and she was not looking for a specific outcome.

One of Tinbergen's experiments was to judge the role of shadows in a jays relationship with his food, would the jay eat a caterpillar turned upside down as opposed to right side up? Tinbergen used caterpillars which he injected with cyanide and placed them in different positions to create shadows and to create situations with few or no shadows. In a similar experiment, he used moths painted different colors and twigs which resembled caterpillars. I do not feel the need to post the results to these tests because they were inconclusive and in my opinion, unecessary.

I feel that treating these birds as subjects creates a certain type of relationship. I do not believe that Tinbergen would have been capable of having the same kind of relationship or even appreciation of wildlife as Woolfson had in her life with birds. Even though Tinbergen's studies took time and effort, it seems like the easy way out. The back cover of Curious Naturalists includes a quote from Tinbergen, "This book describes the activities and some of the discoveries of a small number of naturalists who have joined me, at one time or another, in the pursuit of our common hobby: the study of behavior of animals in their natural environment." In the book, Tinbergen describes the testing locations, man-made boxes, cages or even in a lab setting. And really, how often will a jay find, in his "natural environment" a metal cage and an array of cyanide injected caterpillar treats? These are not the same results that would be attained in a creature's natural environment.

It would be interesting to see, in contrast, what Tinbergen would have found by only observing wildlife. By still looking for the same outcome, but by observation alone. This reminds me of my readings of the Dunne-za and their opinion of short term observers of wildlife. It was difficult for them to have respect and trust the results of people who had only been observing animals for a short time. Tinbergen was not only observing his subjects for a short time, but he also was creating tests for them that were far from what would take place in their natural environment.

At the end of the chapter, Studies of Camouflage, Tinbergen comments on his growing apprection of wildlife as he performs these experiments. By reading this book I do have more appreciation of the species that he mentions. He describes their aesthetic beauty, their colors and markings in great detail. But most of my appreciation and compassion for these animals is due to the fact that they had to put up with these tests, that they had no choice. The tests were not necessarily cruel, but they were unecessary and did not benefit the animals who had to undergo them. They were performed for the sole benefit of the creators, to fulfill their curiosity.

Tinbergen states, "We often felt that there is not less, and perhaps, even more, beauty in the result of analysis than there is to be found in mere contemplation." (Tinbergen, 154) I question what Tinbergen means when he uses the word contemplation. I feel that this word has inclination towards a quickness in delivery and outcome, whereas observation takes time. When you are observing something you have the understanding that it will not be quick and will possibly be without a deadline.

Tinbergen does not relate to wildlife in the same way as Woolfson or the Dunne-za. It seems as though he sees wildlife as if it were on this earth for humans to enjoy, to ponder, to look at, and to be given a sense of awe. For these reasons, Tinbergen appreciates wildlife, but he does not show compassion or respect for it. "I believe that I myself am not at all insensitive to an animal's beauty, but I must stress that my aesthetic sense has been receiving even more satisfaction since I studied the function and significance of this beauty." (Tinbergen, 154) In this statement, Tinbergen shows that most of his appreciation of animals stems from their aesthetic beauty and by their functions which he labels as such, those that do not tell us anything significant about his subjects.