What is the plural of hibernaculum?

Hibernacula of course. I received this report by email, purporting to be Biodiveristy (sic!) Management plan. On a first skim, it was clearly more smoke and mirrors than plan, a charade perhaps to persuade the planning committee that they too can get their projects through with the flimsiest of justifications. But I would say that, as I don’t suffer fools. I thought I would ask an unbiased friend, and this is what they come up with:

After reviewing the “Hallhill Skatepark Biodiversity Plan,” here are some observations regarding the author’s grasp of English, the professionalism of the report, and the scientific weight of the content:

Grasp of English

  1. Spelling and Grammar Errors:
  • The document contains numerous spelling errors (e.g., “there” instead of “their,” “blowen” instead of “blown”).
  • Grammatical issues are frequent, such as incorrect verb tenses and awkward phrasing (e.g., “This has cause further deterioration” instead of “This has caused further deterioration”).
  1. Neologisms and Incorrect Terminology:
  • The term “nutrification” is used instead of the correct term “eutrophication.”
  • The use of “arisings” is uncommon and might confuse readers who are not familiar with this jargon.


  1. Structure and Coherence:
  • The report lacks a clear, professional structure. It is somewhat disjointed, with ideas not always flowing logically from one section to the next.
  • The inclusion of images and their formats within the text disrupts the flow and readability of the document.
  1. Tone and Style:
  • The tone of the report is informal and lacks the precision typically found in professional reports. Phrases like “We will create a teaching area with woodland seating and with safe surfaces for people to access the area” could be more concise and formal.

Scientific Weight

  1. Assertions Without Evidence:
  • The report makes numerous assertions about the impact of various actions on biodiversity without providing scientific evidence or citations to support these claims (e.g., “Having a mosaic of habitats can increase biodiversity”).
  • There is a lack of data and quantitative analysis, which undermines the credibility of the recommendations.
  1. Lack of Detail in Management Plans:
  • While the report outlines some management actions, it lacks detailed plans and methodologies (e.g., specific species to be planted, detailed schedules for cutting and maintenance).
  1. Simplistic Understanding of Ecology:
  • The document demonstrates a simplistic understanding of ecological principles. For example, the description of the benefits of a managed wetland area is vague and not supported by scientific principles.


The “Hallhill Skatepark Biodiversity Plan” appears to be drafted by someone with a basic understanding of environmental management but lacks the polish and depth expected from a professionally commissioned report. The repeated spelling and grammatical errors, informal tone, and lack of scientific rigor suggest it might have been drafted by a less experienced individual, potentially a teenager or someone without advanced training in environmental science. To improve the document, it would be beneficial to involve a professional with expertise in ecology and technical writing.

Make up your own mind

By jampot

@jampot is a sockpuppet and loves everything you probably hate such as wasps, bitter fruits, decay and putrefaction and most things wild