The wikipedia article also doesn't mention that 20 year number that is most likely made up and notbased on statistic.
Also keep in mind that these are wild animals, so life expectancy rules of stone age humans would be the only thing similar (i.e high child mortality, minor injuries can kill you etc.).
Finally, the article also mentions that her tag has been replaced six times. So, there may be older tagged birds. But if they lose their tag once, they become young animals again. Which would skew any statistic.
> But if they lose their tag once, they become young animals again. Which would skew any statistic.
How important these tags are for estimating bird life expectancy? If they are, isn't this going to cause, like, typically updating the Bayesian priors towards less longevity than they actually have? I'm not working in this field at all, so I'm guessing there are methods in use to counter this?
There are statistical frameworks that allow for demographic parameters to be estimated from mark recapture data, and in those frameworks you can allow for different priors on tag loss, but generally I don't think it is used for calculating maximum lifespan. Typically that is just done from direct age estimation with limited inference. In the case of Wisdom, she was banded first as a mature adult in 1956, and the age of maturation is known for the species.
Also keep in mind that these are wild animals, so life expectancy rules of stone age humans would be the only thing similar (i.e high child mortality, minor injuries can kill you etc.).
Finally, the article also mentions that her tag has been replaced six times. So, there may be older tagged birds. But if they lose their tag once, they become young animals again. Which would skew any statistic.