‘
Here’s something to keep you all amused over the weekend:
When I saw this video clip of the Australian Lyrebird, I thought it had to be an April Fool’s prank. But a quick search on the internets makes it apparent this bird really does have an astonishing ability to mimic sounds. Watch the whole clip! It’s really funny and amazing.’
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
June 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Wow! This is amazing :-O it even mimics the sound of a flute!! I wonder if it can mimic human speech, say Sinatra??
June 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Yeah, Phil, this is covered in Attenborough’s set of videos called “The Life of Birds.” If you’ve never seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. Fascinating stuff.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Does anyone remember when this site was more than a blog?
June 9th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Not me.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
I noticed
June 9th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
As an astronomer, when I saw the title of the post, I thought you meant this lyre.
However, as a birder, I’m pleased to see you giving more well-deserved press to the lyrebird (and to Attenborough — Eddie is right that “Life of Birds” is not to be missed!). It’s a terrific reminder of the amazing richness of our little planet.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Yeah, there’s a story about a farmer telling off his field workers for leaving their jobs early, but they insisted that he had blown the whistle to quit work. Turns out it was a Lyrebird. (Or should that be liarbird?)
June 9th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Lyrebirds are shy but interesting creatures. I used to hear them quite often (and see them less often) while bushwalking near my home when I lived in the Blue Mountains, 100km from Sydney. Their calls can be deceptive just as Ronald’s story recounts.
I have spent time sitting still and quiet near one of their nesting mounds watching them sing – mesmerising stuff!
June 9th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
As amateur birdwatchers who’ve just moved from the USA to Melbourne Australia, my wife and I were thrilled to find that these guys lived in the Dandenong range just an hour by train outside of the city. A while back we went on a quest to hear and hopefully see them. After hearing the calls of several of them in the distance (mostly imitating kookaburras and whipbirds), we were delighted to catch a glimpse of one running across the trail in front of us.
Took a visiting friend (who’s actually the former curator of the Singapore Zoo) to the wildlife refuge in the area where they have one in captivity. We told him about all the amazing sounds it could imitate, but while we watched it we were treated only to ten minutes of its bird calls. Finally, when we were about to give up, it did an exact replica of a passing ambulance! What was really amazing was that, even though we were only fifteen feet away, it imitated the ambulance noise as it sounds from a distance. Fascinating creatures.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:09 am
They have recently learnt how to do mobile phone ringtones as well..
June 10th, 2006 at 1:23 am
In the Cathedral Ranges, north of Melbourne, there is a Campsite called “The Barnyard”. Here the Lyrebirds mimic the Livestock in the Valley, creating a surreal experience.
June 10th, 2006 at 1:57 am
It’s a cool bird, often confused with a peacock and it’s on our 20cent coin too.
June 10th, 2006 at 3:13 am
Have heard lyrebirds in the Dandenongs mimicing Whipbirds, car horns & cameras (without the motor drive unfortunately.)
My wife runs an animal shelter and she’s had, at various times, a Rainbow Lorikeet that mimiced a mobile phone ringing, an Australian Magpie that barked like a dog whenever it saw a dog, and a Galah (Roseate Cockatoo) that, whenever it heard a phone ringing, would say ‘Hello, who’s calling?’ I swear I am not making this up.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:38 am
How tweet.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:59 am
Oh, and one more thing. Exactly what does a lyre-bird sound like itself? I don’t know and I have lived close to bushland as a kid, in North Queensland, and I suspect now that birds I thought I was hearing, may not really have been so. Probably fooled me.
And how do the IDers relate to these wonderous variations in Nature? Can they explain why they should even exist? Doesn’t it put the lie to their idea of Intelligent Design?
Please explain.
Ivan.
June 10th, 2006 at 5:21 am
We have an imitating bird here in the U.S. as well: the mockingbird. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near as impressive as this Australian counterpart, but it is fun to listen to as well.
June 10th, 2006 at 6:40 am
Somewhat off-topic (or tangential maybe), but I just can’t help thinking of that XTC song.
I bought myself a liarbird
He came with free drinks just to blur
The lies falling out like rain
On an average English summer’s afternoon
I bought myself a new notebook
Sharpened my guitar and went to look
If this biz was just as bongo as the liarbird made out
All he would say
Is “I can make you famous”
All he would say
All he would say
“Just like a household name” is
All he would say
Methinks world is for you
Made of what you believe
If it’s false or if it’s true
You can read it in your bible
Or on the back of this record sleeve
I bought myself a liarbird
Things got more and more absurd
It changed to a cuckoo
And expanded filling up with all I gave
I bought myself a big mistake
He grew too greedy, bough will break
And then we will find that liarbirds
Are really flightless on their own
All he would say
Is “I can make you famous”
All he would say
All he would say
“Just like a household name” is
All he would say
Methinks world is for you
There’s no handing it back
If it’s false or it’s true
You can read it in your prayer book
Or on the side of a cornflake pack
I gave away a liarbird
A couple less drinks and now I’ve heard
The truth shining out like sun
On an average English winter’s afternoon
June 10th, 2006 at 6:43 am
I hope they’re not doing the Crazy Frog, or they might soon face extinction…
June 10th, 2006 at 7:22 am
My phone’s ring tone is “Highway to Hell”, and if a lyrebird can do that, I’ll be impressed.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:40 am
That’s not a chainsaw……
… it’s a bird! I saw this over on Bad Astronomy and had to write it up here. It’s a video of an Australian lyrebird, and the bird’s ability to mimic sounds – even man-made sounds, is remarkable. I would…
June 10th, 2006 at 11:01 am
No, American mockingbirds don’t measure up to the lyrebird, but they are fun. I heard one in Houston imitating a car alarm, including the little “beep-beep” at the end that comes when the person turns it off!
But the chainsaw… now THERE’S an achievement.
I suspect an ID adherent would see the lyrebird as one more proof of God’s infinite imagination: something “too complex” to have arisen without a creator.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Not that these aren’t interesting, I’m a bird-lover myself and have been so since I was a toddler… once knew all the birds in my book, some 250 Swedish birds.
But I notice that the main site doesn’t update so often. Would really like to read some more debunking and astronomy there. Some movie reviews, stuff from the news and general facts…
Best regards!
June 10th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Wonderful!
June 10th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I was impressed but not too surprised, since we have mockingbirds where I live. But I am reminded of a question which I have frequently pondered on this subject. Can anyone point to a plausible theory about the survival benefit of such behaviour from the evolutionary point of view? Attenborough seemed to attribute it to mate-wooing. But, as far as I can tell, the mockingbirds regularly deploy their full gamut of ‘songs’ whether it’s breeding season or not.
June 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
All birds can learn songs to a degree. Most learn their song from their parent, but many if raised by foster parents will learn a different song. Some can even be tricked into learning the song of another species. And many species of birds have a variety of songs, some to attract mates, others to mark territory, others even to send signals between individuals. In many species each bird will use a variation on their parents’ or tutor’s song, giving them each an individual song. None of that is particularly suprising. This is particularly true in songbirds
So the ability to mimic other birds is an essential trait of many, if not all songbirds, but it is generally limited to a critical period during childhood. Thus the more robust, long-term learning ability may represent an issue where the learning period is extended indefinately. Maintanence of traits into adulthood that are normally restricted to childhood is an important evolutionary tool that has proved critical many times. So that would explain how such an ability came about, but not why it is useful.
My guess it is may have evolved in species that need to be highly adaptable. Note that parrots, with probably the most variable communication capability, also are most likely the most intelligent group of birds as well. Which led to which I do not know, and they may not be related at all, but it would make sense that a highly intelligent, highly social group of birds would tend to evolve a sophisticated communication system. It is the same with primates.
The ability to produce a wide variety of songs and learn them continuously throughout ones life may be correlated with the ability to adapt to changing environments in general, so females that were attracted to males with variable songs may have had a selective advantage in that they were also attracted to males who were able to adapt to environmental changes. This would then put selective pressure on the males to develop more sophisticated songs to impress the females.
For instance, rooster combs’ size and redness are correlated with health, therefor females who are attracted to males with big, red combs are, by extension, attracted to fit males. Many things that animals are attracted to are not so much selective advantages themselves, they are correlated with advantageous traits that are not readily visible. Therefor being attracted to the useless trait means also being attracted to the undetectable useful one. That would be my guess on the issue.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Yet females are still not attracted to overweight, cheeto-eating, video-game-playing males, despite the fact that such males are often very gainfully employed and therefore able to provide well for the female and a potential family.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
And before anyone says it, I rarely eat cheetos and I’ve been married for more than 13 years.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
That is because skininess is considered a sign of reproductive fitness nowadays. Since fatty foods are easily available, the ability to control one’s weight is thus considered a beneficial trait. So are social skills, considering we are a highly social species.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I do eat Cheetos, but I can sing a little. Complex, ain’t we.
[Nice to see no one made reference to burning pants ;} ]
June 11th, 2006 at 9:57 am
A fascinating clip – but as soon as I saw it was a David Attenborough clip I knew it was for real. The man is a legend.
Well here in the UK anyway, and I assumed elsewhere..
Nic
June 11th, 2006 at 11:03 am
David Attenborough is my favourite narrator and TV-host when it comes to nature shows.
My earliest and fondest memories from nature documentaris are his excellent shows.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
I grew up in rural Georgia (that’s in the southeastern United States, not westernmost Asia) in the 70s and 80s, and from my very earliest memories, David Attenborough has been the unchallenged voice of authority on nature documentaries, thanks to PBS. He may not be totally worldwide, but his influence is not limited to the UK.
I hope he hasn’t been lying to me all these years!
June 11th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Hey, dre,
If you see this, what part of rural Ga.? Just curious as southeast Ga. has been my stompin’ grounds for the vast majority of my 47 years.
And, I’m also a HUGE Attenborough fan. The original comment attributing him to the video clip was mine.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Evolving Squid said:
>Yet females are still not attracted to overweight, cheeto-eating, video-game-playing males, despite the fact that such males are often very gainfully employed and therefore able to provide well for the female and a potential family.
Overweight, cheeto-eating, and video-game-playing are not uniquely indicative of financial stability. Sometimes they’re lazy sponges off their parents. And it doesn’t indicate ability to care for the young, or interest in providing for the family, but selfishness – provide for their own interests.
Then there’s the social interaction issue.
June 13th, 2006 at 4:20 am
One (or more) of the mockingbirds on our company grounds does a very good rendition of the sound of a truck “back-up beeper”. It can be rather startling when the bush behind you sounds like it is about to back over you! :0
June 13th, 2006 at 10:21 am
That was a great clip…the camera motorewinder and chainsaw is definitely amazing. Thanks! I wonder how or why it chooses certain sounds among the litany of sounds it hears, such as thunder, other animal calls, et al…basically anything you would hear in the forest.
My grandmother once had a mockingbird here in the US imitating what she was playing on the piano, which confused her at first until she figured it out. For the most part, the mockingbirds outside my window go through a non-stop program of over 20 songs. Apparently they can mimic over 200 different bird songs.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Irishman said: “Overweight, cheeto-eating, and video-game-playing are not uniquely indicative of financial stability. Sometimes they’re lazy sponges off their parents. And it doesn’t indicate ability to care for the young, or interest in providing for the family, but selfishness – provide for their own interests.”
I dont think you need to find a reason that the trait makes the animal more sucessful for an explaination of why it happens.
I’ve always thought the idea that species are attracted to indicators such as the peacocks tail beacause they reveal underlying genetic survival ability must be mistaken. Surely such a system would breakdown quickly as peacocks with bad survival ability happened to learn to grow pretty tails and all of a sudden had loads of bad-surviving-babies.
The way i think it really works is that it just does.. The tail, singinig ability, etc, is indicitave of nothing, but is nevertheless attractive to the opposite sex. once such a system gets going the females who are most attracted to pretty tails mate with the males who have the prettiest of the pretty tails and produce male babies with the prettiest tails and female babies most inclined to be attracted to pretty tails.
I know it sounds like a bit of a circular argument and doesnt answer the question of how it starts. But leaving that aside it is clear that sexual selection like this can push evolution in a strange, pointless direction and produce starteling abilities (impersonation) or colours with no survival purpose other that attraction.
Also I’m not saying this is the case with the lyre bird, just pointing out it’s not necessarily necessary to search for a survival value to explain it’s ability.
Liam
June 14th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Liam said:
Yes, that is a description of sexual selection. However, the missing element is that prettier tails are presumed to make the peacock easier for predators to spot, and harder for them to escape. Different selection pressures work against the big tails. So how come the big tails win out, despite being a disadvantage? That is the point of understanding how it makes the animal more successful.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Good point Irishman, But I think the comment made earlier covers that point. The BlackCat says in post # 24492, “….. Many things that animals are attracted to are not so much selective advantages themselves, they are correlated with advantageous traits that are not readily visible. Therefor being attracted to the useless trait means also being attracted to the undetectable useful one. That would be my guess on the issue.
I suggest it may be a “Boy named Sue” syndrome. (Remember the Johnny Cash record way back when?) If you had to battle for existence, but also needed to carry a huge colorful decoration almost all the time, a la the name “Sue”, ( no reflection on all the Sues in the world), then you would be the better fighter. If not, the genes would not get passed on. Simple as that.
That there is a Lyrebird means that tactic worked at least. With the environment varying over the centuries, some changes take much longer to happen. What use is the human appendix? Or the residual back legs of the whale? They (the legs) have almost disappeared, but not quite in some species. It is the hidden advantage that is important.
Ivan.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:21 am
icesmith said: “Therefor being attracted to the useless trait means also being attracted to the undetectable useful one.”
It’s a good point but i’m not sure.. I think there doesn’t need to be ANY underlying adavntage of the pretty tail. There could even be a strong disadvantage. Remember, evolution only gives the apperarance of trying to go in a smart direction but really it could stump itself and create a species that is only attracted to the prettiest but most burdened members rather that the best survivors, and actually wipe itself out. I’d be interested to know if this kind of thing happens…
Liam
June 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Liam, though I wrote the words attributed to me, (actually I copied and pasted them), I cannot take credit. I was quoting The BlackCat who says in post # 24492, “….. Many things that animals are attracted to are not so much selective advantages themselves, they are correlated with advantageous traits that are not readily visible. Therefor being attracted to the useless trait means also being attracted to the undetectable useful one. That would be my guess on the issue.” (said The BlackCat).
Unfortunately, I originally forgot to close the quote mark at the end. Sorry ’bout that. But generally I stand by what was said.
Your assertion that “… evolution only gives the apperarance of trying to go in a smart direction but really it could stump itself and create a species that is only attracted to the prettiest but most burdened members rather that the best survivors, and actually wipe itself out.” is a generalisation that could be proved for some species, but I feel the vast majority just gets on with trying to exist, you know, where’s the next meal coming from? There are symbiotic relationships across most of the Life-forms, some highly unlikely, Others rely on good seasons, where there is abundant food available, meaning that somebody had an easier time for a while. It seems that an inbuilt control mechanism obtains. I think Human-kind is starting to realise this and recognises that there is no free lunch, because it has to be paid for somewhere, somehow, and sometime, eventually.
We tend to not appreciate the timescales involved, or imagine that they all have the same duration, and that the effects are all equal. A small variation in food supply for one creature, may have dire consequences up the food chain. A snake can exist for a month on one decent meal, it managed to catch. I reckon the next day if another suitable meal came along it would have it for desert, and not say “Nah, I’ve already dined this month”. No, it would try to eat as much as it could, and the left-overs would provide a meal for some other scavenger. I grant there are probably as many scenarios as species.
Ivan.