Hi Jon,
Hope things are good your end. It's pouring here after a very dry spell but the forecast for next week is excellent so, at the risk of sounding like someone even more elderly than I am, the gardens need the rain!
Also noted in a blog last week a profusion of tadpoles this year. I can confirm a similar picture hereabouts. I was about to give Matilda Whiskers Gertrude Treacle the garden excavator (Lord, my wife's juvenile anthropomorphism is catching) aka the dog a dunking in the mill pond after her hideous habit of devouring or rolling in other dogs' crap, when I paused as the water looked a bit odd.
The shallows were solid with well developed tadpoles, more than I can remember in 45 years staring into water. This week I've noticed a lot of activity on the surface from young frogs. Also interesting was a predator chasing fry and frogs. As the pond contains no pike I can only assume it was a large perch or perhaps (less likely) another species turned frog and fish-eater; bream for example are known for predatory ways beyond a certain size. The obvious thing to do would be cast a small frog shaped lure (which bizarrely I have!) to discover who the culprit is but a lack of time precludes such experimentation.
Back to the point: Charles Paxton raises an issue I've often pondered, namely how much referencing to include in blog posts. Although I do include links sometimes I feel complete citation would kill the flavour of the posts. I can assure you my two penn'orth are thoroughly researched, even to the point of scouring the loft books for sometimes incidental details that are probably only of interest to me!
If a reader does want to take issue with a point or just wondered where the original conclusion/observation came from they can do it through the comments column or have my email to pursue the issue further. The worry is references might be as long as the article itself which would be a shame. All IMHO as ever,
Blessings,
Colin
No comments:
Post a Comment