I understand this is a lovely story, and I'm not going to win any fans with this comment, but it seems possible to that this could be BS of one sort or another.
Can we really believe in the science, without considering the possibility of flawed humanity in the equation? Eg scientists have visited Midway Atoll for at least 70 years. The scientists managing the tags are not known to us, but we can assume that it is not just one scientist.
In all those years could one of those scientists made an error? Could one have even intentionally sought this sort of fame, on behalf of the species that they will have invested so much time going to visit etc? All it would take is to mislabel a few tags - sticking the same number on younger birds and who would know the difference?
These lies could even be justified altruistically - by making these wonderful birds appear to also be the most long-lived, one would raise their profile and with that increase the funding that becomes available to help them (and the researchers that monitor them). Alternatively, there is the possibility that some people simply have a 'loose screw', or see a potential benefit from lying.
Put simply, I don't know if this story is true - I'm not assuming it to be so. As for any claim, I do see reasons why it could be orchestrated, and I don't have any evidence for why it should be taken on trust.
Albatrosses are monogamous, so a particular bird can be recognized both by its band and its mate. Apparently Wisdoms mate only recently stopped appearing with her, so any shenanigans like are alleged to have happened with Jeanne Calment would be complicated. You'd have to fake the survival of two beings, not one, by, for example, capturing both members of the pair and swapping their bands onto the legs of another, similar bonded pair.
Can we really believe in the science, without considering the possibility of flawed humanity in the equation? Eg scientists have visited Midway Atoll for at least 70 years. The scientists managing the tags are not known to us, but we can assume that it is not just one scientist.
In all those years could one of those scientists made an error? Could one have even intentionally sought this sort of fame, on behalf of the species that they will have invested so much time going to visit etc? All it would take is to mislabel a few tags - sticking the same number on younger birds and who would know the difference?
These lies could even be justified altruistically - by making these wonderful birds appear to also be the most long-lived, one would raise their profile and with that increase the funding that becomes available to help them (and the researchers that monitor them). Alternatively, there is the possibility that some people simply have a 'loose screw', or see a potential benefit from lying.
Put simply, I don't know if this story is true - I'm not assuming it to be so. As for any claim, I do see reasons why it could be orchestrated, and I don't have any evidence for why it should be taken on trust.