This is our Victoria Crowned Pigeon Greeting Card, and the bird is an exotic pigeon native to New Guinea.
It walks at a casual and studied pace across the forest floor, with its steely blue colouring shading into the shimmering maroon and purple on its breast. And wherever it walks it carries its lace-like blue crest that vies for attention with its red iris.
It’s big for a pigeon, more than two feet from head to toe – 75cm in the less poetic metric measurement.
Photograph Works 
What a lovely fellow! I’m assuming this is the Male; ) And sorry, but would it be in poor taste to say that’s a LOT of squab?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They walk on the forest floor, so I think they must be very easy to trap. Therefore, I think they have been ‘tasted’ many times.
(I think the male and the female both look like this.0
LikeLiked by 1 person
But your photo’s far superior!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Confirmation on the male/female similarity (and much more; ) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_crowned_pigeon
LikeLiked by 1 person
You really have to wonder how these animals and birds came to have display accoutrements like these. So extravagant and wonderful – a pleasure for the eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Strictly for their own pleasure, I’d assume 😉
LikeLike
It’s hard to imagine they are the authors of their finery – as in the Victoria Crowned pigeon saying to itself, ‘I think I will go for a delicate tracery of feathers with little feathers at the terminus of each spray.’ And if they are not the authors, then what dictates that they take pleasure in the result? It’s a mystery to me.
LikeLike
Not what I meant at all, David. What we see has taken many centuries of refinement and successful reproduction… What works is successful, what does not is dinner for another species:/
LikeLike
Aha! Now I see we are on the same page. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
So much more going on than just the fanciful feathers we see. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder – created for the species’ own attraction and the ‘pleasure’ of successfully reproducing one’s own genetics – doing the best for where you are, when you are, to ensure survival…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I can see that – the bigger, the brighter, the more this, the more that. Whatever it is, it all points back to indicating that this is a prime member of the species, and therefore more desirable for continuation of the species. Let’s think about attributes of intelligence. Crows are intelligent. They can use tools and fashion tools. Are members of the opposite sex of the species attracted to the best problem solvers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just asked Chris Packham (UK naturalist) this question on Twitter – and a couple of tweets down from that I saw he is hosting a talk this evening on animal intelligence https://www.bl.uk/events/animal-intelligence# and from there to this web site with live cams https://www.wildlifekate.co.uk
LikeLike
That was an interesting question David (re toolmaker/users better providers?). So, assuming you had the chance to hear Chris speak, did he have an answer for you?
LikeLike
Missed the 48 hours of availability, sadly. But assuming that animals are ‘dumb’ only shows the lack of ‘Human Intelligence’, in my opinion :/)
LikeLike
There’s that ‘lack of intelligence’, and there’s also the convenience of not having to think of what it means to eat them.
LikeLike
Well, we – ALL living creatures – are all useful links in the food chain David… Without that, there would be no balance:/. Key word – balance!
LikeLike
What balance, whose balance? The dinosaurs that became extinct long before we arrived on the scene? On the face of it we seem to be doing a pretty good job of messing up the place. But then, we’re only part of the picture – so whose balance?
LikeLike
In general, just interfering with how Nature functions.
LikeLike
But we are, as we have said, part of nature.
LikeLike
There is no “who” in the ‘balance’ of which I speak…
LikeLike
I get that. The word ‘balance’ implies that imbalance also exists. So where does the observer stand to judge or see whether things are in balance or not? As a character in the Addams Family says – There is no normal. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.
LikeLike
Spider eating fly is ‘normal.
LikeLike
Man killing spiders and flies with fly swatter is normal. Man killing spiders and flies with nerve toxin that inadvertently wipes out all animals is normal.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I am referring to how things work without outside interference. Both of these are most distinctly examples of ‘Human interference’ (and Nature would manage quite nicely without us in the picture; )
LikeLike
So we are the fly in the ointment….
LikeLiked by 1 person
More often than not, yes absolutely:/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Deb, how do you regard Nature? Does it have a purpose in the way we think of humans as having a purpose? If we look at humans we can see they have plans, many of them. And they have transformed the world accordingly. Or, one could argue that maybe not, maybe humans are simply choosing between dish x and dish y in much the same way that animals do because humans are not truly conscious – only believing they are. Or one could say that humans have autonomy to break with instinct and change not just their environment but also their perspective. How do you regard humans and Nature?
LikeLike
David, I instantly recalled our conversation from a while back when I read Linda Leinan’s response to Laurie Graves’ comment on her ‘Lagniappe’ blog post: “Sign of the Butcher Bird”…
“Perspective is everything. We think ‘grisly,’ and if the shrike thinks, it probably thinks something like, “Yum!” Besides, think how many flowers may have been saved by birds eating flower beetles and such. “Balance of nature” is more than a pretty concept. “
Thinking that you might enjoy seeing more of her words and images and the commentary therein?
https://lindaleinen.com/2021/04/05/the-sign-of-the-butcher-bird/
LikeLike
I see that, Deb. I was thinking about whether you view Nature as self actuated and self sustaining. Or whether you think there is a conscious force behind Nature?
About the shrike, yes – ‘normal’ is a matter of perspective.
LikeLike
‘A conscious force behind Nature’… Hmm, other than the need for food, water, and reproduction of the species; it’s really all about survival, isn’t it?
Not really much time left when not attempting to provide all of the necessities of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eat or be eaten.
Predator and prey.
Balance
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dinosaurs became extinct as a result of a meteorite slamming into the earth. (Impact crater was found in Siberia, if memory serves?) so not much choice happening in that instance:/
LikeLike
I think maybe the Gulf of Mexico, but either way – yes. Unless one expands the idea of ‘here’ to take in the whole of the solar system, the whole of the universe, everything that exists. And that idea becomes more mainstream as we grasp quantum relationships.
LikeLike
Here, meaning where we live; this planet Earth for which we are the Caretakers and have all too often used for purposes of greed, malice and self-aggrandisement rather the good of our home and the life we share it with. But, in order to properly perform as Caretakers, we actually need to become aware of How. Things. Work. and not just assume that we .know what’s best.
So many combinations and permutations; so much to learn and consider… How can we ever assume to know what’s best? We are all students and ever shall remain so
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t get a chance to hear it. It may be available on something-or-other player.
LikeLike
Just said available for 48 hours afterward… let me know if you find it?
LikeLike
Will do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would also add, take only what you need and leave the rest.
Best to state up front that I have been a student of Nature my whole life – and my viewpoint is not like that of most people; )
LikeLiked by 1 person