Caribbean Hummingbirds

“Flowers, not flirting, makes Sexes Differ-Caribbean Hummingbirds,” is a technical article, as its name suggests, that expounds on the differences in the sexes of Caribbean Hummingbirds and declares that flowers proposes the sex of the birds and not flirting. This piece by Susan Milius is geared towards a scientific audience and persons of the society that are interested in ecology of birds. This article being expository, intends to educate her audience on the findings of Ethan J. Temeles in his exploration of difference in the sexes of Caribbean Hummingbirds. The title suggests that the article would cover a wealth of information, but the body of the exposition does not support this claim. Instead, Milius uses the jargons to convey limited

Considering the content and the selected audience, one would expect the article to be formally written. The author does not fulfil this expectation. The article is introduced with an informal statement: “Let’s not get so obsessed…” Reiterating the scientific content of the article, the opening statement would suggest otherwise. Furthermore, the author personalizes the article in this instance with the use of the first person perspective, but is not consistent with this. The writer goes on to comment on Tameles findings by stating “To be fair…” This is a colloquial expression that aims to clarify an argument put forth by Tameles. “…downright gaudy,” is another example of the colloquial language used by the writer that seeks to inform readers of the characteristic of the Heliconia genus without euphemizing its traits. The writer uses informal language throughout the passage, despite its content and its audience, which proves to be ineffective, as it does not contribute the development of the article as

The author introduces the researcher on whose investigation this article is centered on, by citing his remarks on the particular subject being highlighted. This is a suitable approach in introducing the article and the author, since it suggests to the readers that this piece is credible. Milius continues to express the discoveries of Temeles and ensures that that her audience is aware that the claims made are of the researcher and not the author of this article. This is commendable, as serves as reassurance to readers that the piece is indeed authentic and not of the writer’s sole opinion. This observation is dominant throughout the article, however Milius makes references to snakes, weasels, and predatory birds without being keen in expressing the mentioned conclusions as seen here: “Based on anatomical studies, scientists have argued…” Furthermore, the author declares that researchers report results in “… the July 21, Science.” This is inadequate credibility and does not provide sufficient reference. The author of this exposition provides credible sources, but this is not consistence throughout the