New Species on Manu Road - Kill Bill Tanager (1 Viewer)

loads

I like the name Kill Bill Tanager and I hope it is kept.

As for a headline in any learned paper, the tilte should be Kill Bill Tanager Killed

Its scientific name could be Tangara mortus billae!

cuckooroller said:

Jason,
Unfortunately, you must collect at least one just to describe it and propose the recognition of a possible new species. Necessary also for the genetics workup to figure out intragroup relationships and taxonomical collocation.

Click to expand...

Not true.

tell us a bit more there Chris......

i'm not sure exactly what current best practice is myself.

Any new species in last ten years NOT been 'specimened' ?

Alright, the one I know about was Bulo Burti Boubou found in Somalia in 1989 (E.F.G.Smith et al). The short version of the tale is: Unidentified shrike sp. seen in the field, mist metted, DNA taken, identified as a new species and released back into the wild. Alright, it's not the last ten years (not sure why this would be relevant).
I have the Ibis paper around here somewhere, if you PM me with your address, I'll send you a copy.

Hi Chris, last ten years is relevant as it would show if there is any modern trend towards not taking specimens - i.e. there would be a few examples.

to put it another way how many species from pre 1990 were described sans specimen?

I have that ref Chris but cheers for the offer

the bird was actually captured and taken to Germany for further study....being released at a later date. This may have been possible with Kill Bill but would have been extrremely difficult i guess. Mist netting a tanager on the road wouldn't be easy to say the least. It was so rare and Barry et al were pretty amazed to find it anyway that it would be a risk to even try and mist net it and have it disappear......

atb
tim

I dislike the name "Kill Bill" on general principle but especially if it's being named after some stupid movie which will be forgotten by next year.

I also wonder whatever happened to the "precautionary principle" when it comes to "collecting" individuals from a species the status of which is unknown? At what point does our need to know outweigh a possible species' (and at least that individual's) right to exist? How about studying this bird for a while, gather a few thousand photographs, try to find other individuals or at least a nest, before killing it? Or, in my most cynical of moments, does killing it right away merely insure that the bird in the hand is worth a whole lot more to the scientist in terms of who describes/publishes first and/or gets a species named after him?

I'm sorry, but to say "it was so rare" as a justification for ultimately killing it sounds like hubris to me. IMHO, of course.

I think most of your points are answered above Katy

Kill Bill Tanager is just a silly name my mate came up with the other day......

it's hard to study a bird that people have waited four years to even find. Taking a specimen allows at least proof of its existence and relationships to be determined which is neeed if conservation plans are to be implemented - if they are needed. Governments need hard evidence as they tend to delay and obfuscate as much as possible.

This isn't directed at you by the way Katy:
this seems to be a case where people suddenly get all principled while ignoring much worse things going on in their everyday lives. If i were to be cynical i'd say how about actually doing something to aid bird conservation rather than sniping at birders and scientists at the forefront of their field who dedicate their lives to studying and protecting Peruvian birds - such as Barry Walker.

Tim Allwood said:

I think most of your points are answered above Katy

Click to expand...

Which ones? None of what I asked has been answered -- raised, maybe, but not answered -- particularly the one concerning the precautionary principle. Van Remsen et al do not address the issue in their paper of what the scientist is to do if a possible new species is discovered; they do, however, use the word "proscribed" several times when cautioning against activities that could further threaten the destabilization of *existing* populations. In the absence of any proof of abundance, one would think that killing a rarely found individual would also be defined as a "proscribed" activity.

Kill Bill Tanager is just a silly name my mate came up with the other day......

Click to expand...

I was just tossing in my tuppence worth since others were, too.

it's hard to study a bird that people have waited four years to even find. Taking a specimen allows at least proof of its existence and relationships to be determined which is neeed if conservation plans are to be implemented - if they are needed. Governments need hard evidence as they tend to delay and obfuscate as much as possible.

Click to expand...

And *my* point was, four years is hardly a drop in the bucket in terms of scientific study, particularly where it doesn't sound like, from what's been said here, that continuous investigation has been going on throughout the four years. Having said that, until a paper on the subject is published and available for all to read -- not treated "hush-hush" as has been implied -- it's hard to reasonably defend or criticize the methods used.

This isn't directed at you by the way Katy:
this seems to be a case where people suddenly get all principled while ignoring much worse things going on in their everyday lives.

Click to expand...

What could I be doing in my everyday life that is "much worse" than killing an obviously rare and possibly critically endangered animal? Are you saying that until I, e.g., quit burning fossil fuels, I have no right to respond to other environmental or conservation issues?

If i were to be cynical i'd say how about actually doing something to aid bird conservation rather than sniping at birders and scientists at the forefront of their field who dedicate their lives to studying and protecting Peruvian birds - such as Barry Walker.

Click to expand...

I didn't think anyone here got "all principled" -- some very reasonable questions were raised about the logic and defensibility of killing something in the interests of "conservation." An oxymoron if I ever heard one -- again, *particularly in the absence of knowing the status of the species*.

Regardless of how much one "actually does" "to aid bird conservation" doesn't proscribe one's right to question, criticize or otherwise voice an opinion. (As many of us are fond of saying here in the US, none of us have to have *been* a president to criticize the presidency.) I can rattle off the names of any number of scientists who are "at the forefront of their field" who have lost sight of the big picture in the single-minded pursuit of their own research agenda. I am by no means saying that's even remotely applicable here, just making a point to your counterpoint.

the name point was answered - it is so obviously not serious!

the precautionary principle point was made - the bird was trapped as it is reasonable to assume it is not on the verge of extinction. As i mentioned, a bird in polylepis forest probably wouldn't be killed.

the 'need to know' lets us discover about the bird in order to conserve the species - i know this seems like a paradox but we are only talking one individual here.

impossible to study in the short time they've been viewed
impossible to photograph to any useful degreee - only seen three times
scientists don't name birds after themselves much these days
the people involved are good people. If they weren't interested and actually doing something we wouldn't even know about the species and any problems it may face. The people involved aren't exactly scientists either - just extremely well informed and knowledgeable amateurs
'it was so rare' was a justification for not attempting to trap it - very difficult to do in that environment to a bird no one has seen - might not be seen again for a long, long time.

what could you be doing worse? That wasn't said. It was 'worse things going on' to get annoyed about.

Tim Allwood said:

the 'need to know' lets us discover about the bird in order to conserve the species - i know this seems like a paradox but we are only talking one individual here.

Click to expand...

Good grief Tim! Nice hole you've dug yourself there.
One minute you're telling us how few times the species has been seen, the next it's "only 1 individual". Given we don't know the size of the population, who is to say that this 1 specimen wasn't crucial to the species' survival.
I think you need to find a stronger argument for justifying your neanderthal beliefs.

CJW said:

Alright, the one I know about was Bulo Burti Boubou found in Somalia in 1989 (E.F.G.Smith et al). The short version of the tale is: Unidentified shrike sp. seen in the field, mist metted, DNA taken, identified as a new species and released back into the wild. Alright, it's not the last ten years (not sure why this would be relevant).
I have the Ibis paper around here somewhere, if you PM me with your address, I'll send you a copy.

Click to expand...

Also worth remembering that when the "Tyne & Wear" petrels were first mist-netted no one knew what they were and there was speculation that they might be a new species. No one needed to kill any to establish that they were Swinhoe's.

CJW said:

Good grief Tim! Nice hole you've dug yourself there.
One minute you're telling us how few times the species has been seen, the next it's "only 1 individual". Given we don't know the size of the population, who is to say that this 1 specimen wasn't crucial to the species' survival.
I think you need to find a stronger argument for justifying your neanderthal beliefs.

Click to expand...

CJW,

I share your concerns, but object at characterizing Tim's dedication in Bird Conservation as "neanderthal beliefs"

I had intended to limit my only previous comment in this thread to that of a mere iteration of the practical reasons that justify the collection of animal specimens, be they birds, mammals or whatever. The issue in question is one that elicits emotional responses in all well-meaning people and I consider all of the various viewpoints surrounding it as valid to a lesser or greater extent. It is rather easy for informed and educated people, and we are educated people on this site, to make the evisceration of just about any question, such as the one on the table, an exercise in the dialectics of the Sofistika and logic ad absurdum. There is no use in trying to rebut the various positions on this same level and it is a “fool’s game” to attempt to do so.

Anyone with a predominately conservationist agenda, such as Tim’s, sooner or later comes to the conclusion that for a great number of reasons the “collection” of specimens is, unfortunately, beneficial vis-à-vis the description of hitherto unknown species, be they birds or otherwise. Nonetheless, this is, generally, a conclusion that must be approached with all of the precaution and misgivings that it merits.

There are many that remember such hair-raising stories as the Stephens Island Wren and might ask themselves - “….and if, the only remaining male had been collected by some nutty Museum collector…”. Of course, this species was wiped out by a single cat!! Is it conceivable, that the historic excesses of past-generation Collection Teams may have condemned certain bird species to extinction? It probably is. One can only hope that modern day Ornithologists and qualified Amateurs are painfully aware of the dangers of intervening especially in restricted ecotomes in the collection of undescribed species. I personally do not believe that we now have a bunch of megalomaniacs out there squatting behind gun-sights holding their breath and waiting for an unknown bird to pop up out of the bush.

In the Western culture that we live in we have, at times, a tendency to lose sight of the political and human pressures that are in play in locus in most of the rest of the world, and, in particular, in so-called underdeveloped countries. How many times have we intoned a paean “Save the Amazon”. Great, how!! We must be aware of the dire financial straits of the local people in these threatened environments even as we are trying to conserve, to the best of our small abilities, what remains of their precious ecosystems. Of course, this involves, in most cases, having to deal with corrupt local politicians, that at the behest of usually Western interests, have no qualms in inducing local poor people in the rape of their own ambient. For money.

I believe that it is a major consideration taken by people in the field that are conducting research whether or not, and in what measure, a given restricted and specialized ecotome is being presently threatened. For example, I can imagine that a conservationist may be spurred by the knowledge that an unexplored remnant patch of primary forest is about to be cut down forever. This would certainly be a stimulus to get in there and try to discover what is there, maybe unknown, before it is forever lost. One of the few effective weapons at disposition of researchers in the struggle to protect habitat is the description of new species.

It is not, unfortunately, enough just to come out and say that there is a new undescribed species without presenting proof. Basically, this is because local and extra-local economic pressures have absolutely no interest in nurturing and accepting this type of justification for habitat conservation.

The description of a new species, however, provides a focalizing nucleus around which to form a coalition of local and world-wide conservation groups. Political pressure can now be brought to bear. Voices can be raised. For me, this is the practical reason that I can philosophically accept as a valid tool the use of “collection” of animal species. I would be shattered at the thought that this very tool could cause the final extinction of a species. But, on the whole, this is one of the few tools that conservationists have looking at the larger picture.

I can not speak for Tim Allwood, but I am satisfied that our views coincide on this and so link elbows with him. This is just my viewpoint. In a perfect world people are good and always do right things even about their own environment. This is not a perfect world!

Come on Steve, I wasn't criticising Tim's conservation beliefs (in fact, I am full of admiration for the work he does in this field). I was only criticising that which supports the unnecessary taking of 'specimens' to confirm a species' status, especially when that species' conservation needs or population isn't known.

Did I miss something - I didn't see Tim advocating the taking of specimens... I merely saw him suggesting that its not quite the henous crime that it is being portrayed as and needs to be taken in perspective.

Hi Jason - yes it's a dilemma. But the people involved are very experienced and all committed conservationists. I trust their judgements.

Click to expand...

Jane the comment "we are only talking one individual here" appears to be an advocation to me.

I thought i had made the point ad nauseum that the species will not prove to be on the verge of extinction - plenty of habitat, no similar species in danger etc etc...
if it were in polylepis at high altitude etc etc etc......I am not aware of any specimens taken in at least the last 50 years that have had an impact on a species survival. If anyone can find any........

and for the record i am fully behind the taking of specimens - this one included - for the reasons eloquently put above by Steve. A lot of new species have been discovered in museum trays including recently in Peru.

If the thing can't be caught but only photographed it would be difficult to assign it to genus. The bird has been killed and tentatively assigned to a genus - you can't propose scientific names and keep changing them as you find out more about the bird. Even if cuaght and measured there's still a lot of useful/vital skeletal etc information that is needed to clarify the species' status

I can't work out why people are getting so worked up about this - seems very reactionary to me? When you have looked at the arguments from all sides people seem come to the conclusion given by Steve above. I'm not aware of any prominent people in the field who oppose this.

I am theoretically opposed to killing anything, but pragmatically can see that the death of one individual may be a necessary evil. Conservation of a species and its habitat is only likely once the identity and genetic relationships are identified.

Like Tim I appreciate that eminent CONSERVATIONISTS understand the complexities of dilemnas better than I. Its not as if we are talking about a bunch of Victorian trophy hunters here.

too true Jane

i too don't like the idea of anything being killed - I don't like the arms trade, third world debt or the death penalty etc etc and these are more deserving of my ire than Barry Walker and co.

One way you could choose to look at it is that the death of a single unidentified new to science Tanager spp has the potential to result in something positive for the conservation of that species and any others dependant on the habitat it occupies.

Compare that to the fate of several million Turkeys...intensively farmed etc etc..