Reminds me the paragraph in Jurassic park about the normal distribution of some dinosaur sizes, that was suspicious because it was a perfectly normal curve expl

Reminds me the paragraph in Jurassic park about the normal distribution of some dinosaur sizes, that was suspicious because it was a perfectly normal curve explaining not normally distributed events What this man found is not logical in deeper aspects that the journalist shows. Either the paper has more substance that can be pushed in this resume and we are discussing a cartoon of the real work, or something is very wrong here. Statistically wrong. Ecosystems don't work like that. From my couch position and before blindly accepting the bold proposition than a third of the places with nature in North America had vanished; I would test first a few hypothesis that: A) Either a good chunk of the data collectors has vanished (Those people are retired or dead now, or changed jobs in the last anti-science years or the project suffered from too much volunteering dependence), or... B) The data has been poisoned for several reasons, including --1. Several Covid years in a row with everybody closed at home. (Who were out watching birds in 2020, 2021 or 2022?. I hope this is addressed in the article. If not, this factor needs to be addressed and fixed) --2. The data has been greased for publication --3. The data has been pre-beautified for following some agenda --4. use volunteers, receive a polished Turdus... volunteers stop caring after a while when the novelty is worn out or... C) The computer has mangled a part of the data in the process