source of drugs that they did before they wrote this piece?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Just read the entire paper. Headlines are funny things. Not at all communication in the sense of understanding each other but more a case of responding to a previously recorded vocal sequence (a “contact call”) from another whale that was actually already familiar to this whale (came from the same group) and then recording the interval and temporal differences between playback and whale response (and changes within the whale’s responses) while at the same time observing the whales behaviour across three defined phases - engagement (when the whale first responded; agitation (when the whale seemed excited/agitated; and then disengagement (when the whale decided to swim away). Basically, can be summed up as: whale heard a familiar call, replied back with its own varying calls, arguably in a pseudoreplication/mimicking manner to the repeatedly played back recording, then got bored after 20mins and swam off. More a case of responsive “conversing” without anyone knowing the meaning or what was being said. But not to criticise. This is science. Conduct research, report findings and postulate, allow others to review, question, repeat and ultimately improve the sampling methods and thereby results, in a constantly evolving cycle of greater understanding.