> Eric Boyd wrote:
> >Well, I'll rethink -- but I still think that mere variation such that
> >"adopted birds sing songs more like their adopted, not biological, parents"
> >is stretching the definition of meme pretty far. If it could be shown
> >that, say, a robin can be raised to sing like a chick-a-dee, you'd have me
> >convinced.
>
>
> Of what?
>
> Robins are born with brains wired to sing like robins. More importantly,
> robins are wired to respond to robin songs. There are many parts of this
> song that are 'set', and then there are parts where variation is allowed.
> Within this part of the song, some variables might be a result of mutation
> and heredity. Other variables are undoubtedly the result of the the songs
> heard as a chick. I think it is unlikely that a robin can be trained to
> sing like a chickadee. Doing so would reduce it's chances of mating to
> virtually zero, so not only is it unlikely to be possible, there might even
> be mechanisms in place to prevent it from happening.
>
> corey
>
> ps I think that adopted birds mimicking their adopted parents is an
> excellent example of a meme. It doesn't much resemble the common example of
> memes, but it fits the definition perfectly.
>
>
Then again, there are such creatures as mockingbirds (not to
mention catbirds).