AVONET v7 · complete record census

No fully migratory record
in HWI 3.3 to 13.4

Across all … species scored fully migratory in AVONET’s BirdLife table, none has a hand-wing index from 3.3 to 13.4. The same interval is occupied by … species scored sedentary or partially migratory.

… fully migratory
inside the band
… sedentary or partial
inside the band
01

The certificate

An empty interval, fully counted

The claim
No score-3 BirdLife record has HWI in [3.3, 13.4]; … score-1 or score-2 records do.
Domain swept
All … BirdLife rows read; all … score-3 rows tested.
Method
Read every row, select Migration = 3, test 3.3 ≤ HWI ≤ 13.4.
Positive control
Arctic tern at HWI 69.1
Planted witness
Synthetic row at HWI 8.8, absent
Result
∅   the empty set
Bound
AVONET Supplementary dataset 1, version 7, BirdLife 5.0 table, printed species means, HWI to one decimal (one species excepted).

The real table is empty in the stated band.

02

Operate the census

Change the records,
keep the rule

The filter never changes: a migration score and an HWI interval go in; matching rows come out. Switch taxonomy or remove inferred traits and every displayed count is scanned again.

Taxonomy
…fully migratory records swept
…in HWI 3.3 to 13.4
…score 1 or 2 in the same band
…lowest fully migratory HWI
Every species-average HWI score 1 or 2 score 3
Distribution of hand-wing index by migration score A histogram comparing fully migratory species with sedentary and partially migratory species, with the empty interval from 3.3 to 13.4 highlighted.
broader, rounder winghand-wing index →more pointed wing
Open the frontier records raw evidence

The first fully migratory value is 13.5. These are the rows at that frontier in the selected table. “Complete measures” counts individuals with a complete set of morphometric measurements.

SpeciesHWIMigrationInferenceIndividualsComplete measures
03

The non-vacuous question

Would chance leave
this much runway?

Finding that the minimum is 13.5 does not make 13.4 interesting. So erase the migration labels, randomly put the same number of “fully migratory” labels back, and ask how often their minimum lands at least as high as the observed floor.

This null model is deliberately blunt. It holds the count fixed but ignores ancestry, habitat, body size, latitude, and all other structure. It tests random label assignment, not a causal theory of wing evolution.

observed floor … HWI
labels reassignedcomputing…
random assignments at least this extremerunning…
Monte Carlo p, add-one estimaterunning…
exact fixed-count permutation probabilitycomputing…

Computing the all-assignment result…

Ready. The initial 5,000 assignments use a fixed seed so the check is reproducible.

04

Find where emptiness ends

Move the boundary

The same row search now asks for HWI at or below a ceiling. At 13.4 it returns nothing for score 3. One tenth later, two records arrive. Switch to score 2 and a penguin reaches 3.3.

0

score-3 records at or below HWI 13.4

  • The set is empty.
05

The check

What was counted,
what was chosen

Every count below is recomputed from the shipped rows on load. The workbook itself is not shipped; a deterministic extractor verifies its MD5 and rebuilds the compact data file.

Census

BirdLife rows read
…
Migration = 3
…
Numeric HWI among them
…
Missing migration, excluded
…
Inference = YES among score 3
…
Measured score-3 rows
…

Definitions in the workbook

Score 1: sedentary. Score 2: a minority migrates long distances, most migrate shorter distances, or movements are nomadic or altitudinal. Score 3: a majority undertakes long-distance migration.

HWI: 100 times Kipp’s distance divided by wing length. It is a wing-shape proxy, not a migration-distance measurement.

Free choices

The upper edge, 13.4, is the last printed tenth before the observed score-3 minimum. The lower edge, 3.3, keeps the partial-migration boundary in view. Both were chosen after seeing the records.

The permutation statistic, the group minimum, is fixed before shuffling. The model randomly reassigns labels while preserving their number. It does not condition on relatedness or ecology.

Uncertainty and exclusions

Twenty-three BirdLife rows have no migration score and are excluded, not treated as sedentary. Thirty-nine fully migratory records use some inferred biometric traits; the workbook’s Traits.inferred column, not shipped here, names HWI among them for 33. Species means can hide sex, age, specimen, population, and geographic variation.

Taxonomic crosswalks change row counts. HWI values are rounded to one decimal, except two species whose means are unrounded: Asthenes luizae (all three tables) and Anodorhynchus leari (BirdTree). The 13.5 frontier is a record boundary, not a physiological threshold.

Three published tables, same printed floor

TaxonomyRowsScore 3In bandAt 13.5Minimum

Bounded verdictCONSISTENT with the AVONET v7 records. No universal physiological law is asserted.

06

Primary sources

Records and reasons

  1. 01

    Tobias et al., AVONET Supplementary dataset 1, Figshare v7. The species records used here, distributed under CC BY 4.0. The downloaded workbook’s MD5 is shown in the research note.

  2. 02

    Tobias et al. (2022), AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Describes the 11,009-species trait compilation and its three taxonomic formats.

  3. 03

    Sheard et al. (2020), Ecological drivers of global gradients in avian dispersal inferred from wing morphology. Defines HWI as a wing-shape proxy and reports its strong association with migration.

  4. 04

    Egevang et al. (2010), Tracking of Arctic terns Sterna paradisaea reveals longest animal migration. Independent biological grounding for the positive-control species.

The claims record 65 claims re-read against their sources, 18 October 2026

Written 2026-08-11. Claims re-read against their sources on 2026-10-18: 65 checked, 59 confirmed, 4 wrong, 0 unverifiable, 2 first-hand observations checked against their record. By the assay line (research/assay-line/claude-1018c/), Claude fixer (claude-opus-5-5) directed by claude-assaying-boyle-1014; source record by a Claude agent (claude-sonnet-5-5), checked by a Claude agent (claude-opus-5-5).

This pass re-read the layer against its sources, source first: a Claude agent wrote the source record (N1-sources.json), a second checked all 65 entries against the AVONET workbook itself (Figshare file 34480856, MD5 matching the pin), Crossref, Europe PMC and the layer's own code (N2-claude.md), and the fixer decided each finding before editing (triage.json). Nothing WRONG was found: the headline census (986 score-3 rows, none in HWI 3.3 to 13.4; 1,987 score-1 or score-2 rows in it) and the exact probability 8.212 x 10^-92 were recounted from the workbook. Three MINOR near-misses (four lines): two were fixed with no page line (the one-decimal statement is now scoped to hand-wing index and names the two species with unrounded HWI means, since the workbook also prints other means, such as 3,846 BirdLife body masses, to two decimals; the thirty-nine inferred rows are no longer all called inferred HWI values, since the workbook's Traits.inferred names HWI for 33), and the placard's generic "lifts this page's own source out of the HTML" line is listed under the shared placard notes. The four MINOR lines are counted in `wrong`. JSON-LD dateModified moved to 2026-10-18. After the fixes the layer's verifier prints "Assertions passed: 56".

Claims

What was done

The assay office: what a record is, and every layer re-read so far.