Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  avifauna
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The author discusses the etymology of few words used in Polish criminal jargon, from the 19th century until the interwar period. All the analyzed words are zoonimic metaphors. The author focuses on terms derived from the names of birds. In this text the author pesents the lexemes in the oldest Polish sociolectical dictionaries, e.g.: bażant (pheasant), sikora (tit), słowik (nightingale), wrona (crow), kogut (rooster), dzięcioł (woodpecker). The author sets semantic motivations of names and he collates information from several languages for this purpose (he reaches for texts from the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries). Mainly presented words didn’t survive, today they aren’t appearing in non-standard dialect.
EN
One of the forms of cognitive tourism is the ornithological tourism, also called birdwatching. Poland has an enormous natural potential. Ornithological tourism is developing more and more dynamically, therefore it is crucial that it is properly understood and organized. The aim of this paper is to review information about ornithological tourism and to present the basic knowledge of avifauna in Poland. It is important that people involved in the ornithological tourism are already experienced in terms of knowledge and behavior, aware and responsible. Self-education and familiarity with the closest environment ( natural environment in the place of living) are substantial in the process of gaining knowledge. Installation of nest boxes, birdfeeders and tables with descriptions and drawings of birds in city parks and gardens can play an important role in the proces of environmental education. Apart from trails and educational paths, the infrastructure harmonious with natural landscape will be essential in open areas. It will enable observations for the tourists and at the same time it will protect the nature, i.e. birds. The elements of such infrastructure can be shelters, look-outs, walls and observation towers. The form of gaining knowledge and shaping attitudes which is interesting nowadays is participation in discussions on online forums, membership of associations and attending ornithological events. In case of protected areas, observation with the use of webcams should be considered.
EN
The studies on bird mortality along 12 transparent acoustic barriers near roads in Bielsko-Biala (Poland) were conducted from March to October in 2017. The aim was to characterize avifauna striking glass barriers and to relate frequency of collisions to time, developmental stage, sex, vicinity of noise barrier. During the breeding season of birds, 102 collisions of birds with screens, belonging to 25 species, were found. The most collisions were found in June, when 29 victims were observed. In this month, the largest number of juveniles (imm.) was also determined - 17 victims, the lowest number of collisions was at the end of the breeding season (September and October), where the number of collisions did not exceed 7 victims. The largest family of birds hitting the screens are Paridae, which account for as much as 31.4% of all victims. The largest number of collisions occurred with the participation of adults (ad - 68.) while 34 were young victims. The most active young birds were in June, when 17 collision victims were found. From the side of the road, as many as 60 fatalities were observed, while from the other side of the habitats - 42. As for the sex of individuals, most probably there were males (42), and there were 28 females. We conclude that acoustic screens should have nontransparent: stickers, stripes, dots, foils or be replaced by greening walls or earth embankments.
EN
The process of mythologization of avifauna has been analyzed in order to study the relation between man and nature, and more precisely, between the Renaissance humanism and natural sciences. One issue is puzzling in this field – why did educated and well-read humanists mythologize nature, including the avifauna? Why did authors, for whom in principle criticism was an elementary indicator for perceiving reality, got rid of it so easily? 16th century authors with humanist education did not reconstruct nature but art, and they searched for its ideal in ancient works filled with mythologization of the nature. Humanist erudition required describing mythical animals and equally mythical symbolic of those animals. In this way one could prove that he knew ancient texts well. Reconstruction of such nature as it really existed was an attitude that was unworthy of a humanist artist. Hence the store of knowledge and ignorance that existed in those times was translated into a particular, often mythologized, text written by a Renaissance author.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.