• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Fenwick's Antpitta (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi All,
Diego has posted the Caranton side of the story, Proaves is in the process of writing an article defending their side of the controversy. I'll post a link when it becomes available.
Cheers,
Avery Bartels,
Ecoturs Guide
 
Hi All,
Diego has posted the Caranton side of the story, Proaves is in the process of writing an article defending their side of the controversy. I'll post a link when it becomes available.
Cheers,
Avery Bartels,
Ecoturs Guide

Hey Avery,
nice to hear from you dude, did you finally went for superb birding at the lower areas in Carmen de Atrato?... Choco Vireo every day ;-) ?

I must say here that I DID posted the "Caranton" side of the story as Avery mentions; that is right of course, but I think it is more than worth to mention that this "Caranton" side of the story is the one that a 100% (ok, maybe not a 100 but something around 90-something % because I guess that still some people in Colombia worship and approve rather questionable practices) of the Colombian local researchers and birders support and feel is the appropriate and ethical one!... that Editorial Note published by Ornitologia Colombiana editors is just simply THE VOICE of the Colombian people in the ornithological community, no more than that. What I think is pretty clear, strong and noticeably about OUR posture, as a local researching/birding community, as a whole, as a country...

It will be interesting reading the new proaves text when available to see what they come with this time; and comical of course! if it is going to be same stile than the previous one they did about this topic (PAGE 4 in http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf/Grallaria_fenwickorum_description_Con_Col_13.pdf, a rather kind of old-aunt told gossip... a shame it was only in Spanish so not everyone could have enjoyed it!) - I would also hope that this new text should not be only an unknown author one signed by a foundation/association/company/whatever, but something more real, written by real people (= the authors that published Grallaria fenwickorum)

please keep us posted!
saludos, Diego.
 

yes Richard, as you said in your original post: "The multiple description scenario just gets ever more bizarre".... bizarre but clearer for several people: they are not allowing freedom of thinking and public/scientific scrutiny... they are just interested in donors, money, names, and having those heavy weight $$$ guys happy!
 
Still waiting to see a SACC proposal posted - but maybe the problem is that two have been submitted...?

Richard
 
This one is going to run and run. A real shame given the fantastic work being done in Colombia by both Proaves but also other local and private conservation initiatives.

I have no problem with organisations honouring their donors (and without cash, reserves would be impossible to establish after all) but the whole Urrao/Fenwick's controversy is damaging local relations. A pity.
 
the whole Urrao/Fenwick's controversy is damaging local relations. A pity.

yes, a total shame Jonathan... actually is LOTS and LOTS of bad relationships and issues between proaves and local ornithological societies, networks, researchers, etc... I know that fact is not too much publicized internationally and they have a good image to the world's eyes (buying lands, conserving things, etc), but here in Colombia, 90% of the ornithological/birding community has had issues with proaves and their modus operandi for everything is absolutely questionable almost in every case!
 
I have to say I find the whole story very sad.
While I can understand the desire to have some means of showing the appreciation of the Fenwick family for their role in helping create the reserve where the bird has been found, I find the idea of naming a bird (or anything) after a benefactor a little crass to say the least. This is 2010 not 1910, you would hope we have moved on.
It is not Fenwick's Antpitta, neither is it Caranton's Antpitta or anyone elses Antpitta for that matter. It was there before the Fenwick's and it will be there after they have gone hopefully! In the 21sts century can't we have names (common and scientific) that have a connection to the bird instead of a connection to a human - whether it be buffing the ego of the discoverer, a wealthy benefactor or the local mayor!
Then perhaps we would be less likely to get into this sad situation of disputes between parties about the circumstances of the discovery.
Urrao Antpitta for me, whatever decision the relevant scientific bodies take for political / procedural reasons.
 
I find the idea of naming a bird (or anything) after a benefactor a little crass to say the least.

that is basically selling it... !

It is not Fenwick's Antpitta, neither is it Caranton's Antpitta or anyone elses Antpitta for that matter. It was there before the Fenwick's and it will be there after they have gone hopefully!

naming lodges, pubs, trails, etc etc etc after anyone that gave money to build them is kind of "ok", but the birds were not built and are not new... it is a rather opportunistic-plain&sad-business view of the whole philosophical and romanticist background of finding a new species of bird...

Urrao Antpitta for me, whatever decision the relevant scientific bodies take for political / procedural reasons.

... Urrao Antpitta for all those people that in our minds we know/feel what should be more appropriate and ethical in this case!
 
...LOTS and LOTS of bad relationships and issues between proaves and local ornithological societies, networks, researchers, etc... I know that fact is not too much publicized internationally and they have a good image to the world's eyes (buying lands, conserving things, etc), but here in Colombia, 90% of the ornithological/birding community has had issues with proaves and their modus operandi for everything is absolutely questionable almost in every case!

Hi Diego Calderon,
I see your company is in competition with Proaves /ecoturs and also see that you detest Proaves bird conservation work and their donors as seen on your many online posts. That's each person's prerogative, but let's be clear, you are most definitely not an unbiased party and appear to be a major antagonist to proaves and their bird conservation work.

I saw first hand several amazing bird reserves run by Proaves and was thoroughly impressed. I witnessed they are dedicated and working hard, far more than in any other country I visited. You should be proud of these reserves and the people managing them, rather than more interested in promoting your own for-profit birding company to the detriment of bird conservation.

During the preparation for my tour to Colombia I was able to speak with Robert Giles and during the tour found out more about him. While I do not know him personally, your online diatribe against him and Proaves is the absolute opposite of what I witnessed. That is a great shame.
 
Hi MJH,
Worth checking my thoughts on this. I realise Diego Calderon has a biased view of this - so it is worth you reading my notes after several days reviewing this case:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1996125#post1996125

Bit of selective quoting going on there Globalbirder ;)

To reiterate the thrust of my post I find the whole concept of naming a bird after a person distasteful. I am not grinding a specific axe against Proaves, it would appear that neither of the sides in this story are whiter than white.

If we are going to name new birds after benefactors where do we draw the line?
Tesco's Warbler?
Bin Laden's Bustard?
I know not everyone will agree with me, but to me it is a very possessive concept which reflects a Victorian attitude to the natural world that I though we were over. Apparently not.
 
.... Bin Laden's Bustard?

As a school science teacher, just scanning through the ~65 new bird species described during the 2000's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_species_new_to_science_described_in_the_2000s), it is worth noting that 35 are named after a person (including many benefactors), 16 for morphological differences and 14 for locations (mostly islands). Every year since Carl Linnaeus, people that provided support have been credited with species names. I see everywhere I go that field researchers and field conservationists across the tropics are severely restricted by a lack of funding, so why could they not offer to credit benefactors?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest what a new scientific name means for any bird, but it does bother me that we are not doing enough to save these new species that are often highly endangered.

Can we afford to quibble over names when species are being lost forever?

If Tesco's wants to cough up a million pounds to save the next new bird species for science, I'd be happy to see their name attached to the species...
 
I see everywhere I go that field researchers and field conservationists across the tropics are severely restricted by a lack of funding, so why could they not offer to credit benefactors?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest what a new scientific name means for any bird, but it does bother me that we are not doing enough to save these new species that are often highly endangered.

Can we afford to quibble over names when species are being lost forever?

If Tesco's wants to cough up a million pounds to save the next new bird species for science, I'd be happy to see their name attached to the species...

If only such pragmatism were more widespread. Far better to focus on what can actually be achieved rather than who score what points along the way.

James
 
As a school science teacher, just scanning through the ~65 new bird species described during the 2000's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_species_new_to_science_described_in_the_2000s), it is worth noting that 35 are named after a person (including many benefactors), 16 for morphological differences and 14 for locations (mostly islands).


Good ol' Wikipedia, one of my new species from this period is not only given the wrong vernacular name (despite correctly quoting the title of the paper, in which it is given) but the scientific name is misspelt, to boot. Classic.

On topic, despite that I already posted sometime ago that I find ProAves' behaviour in this matter far from creditworthy, I wholeheartedly agree that there's nothing "distasteful" about organisations or individuals honouring their benefactors in this way. What ultimately matters is the conservation of biota and not the "handles" humans choose to label them with.
 
It doesn't bother me in the slightest what a new scientific name means for any bird, but it does bother me that we are not doing enough to save these new species that are often highly endangered.

Can we afford to quibble over names when species are being lost forever?

If Tesco's wants to cough up a million pounds to save the next new bird species for science, I'd be happy to see their name attached to the species...

I agree, if that's what it takes to get funding so be it. If I had the choice between accepting a donation with slim strings attached or watching yet another species disappear I would not be quibbling over the name.

But in my opinion it is a sad inditement of human selfishness that some might want to see (or feel the need to offer) a 'return on investment' other than the pleasure of knowing one less creature has been wiped from the planet by our actions (or inaction).

PS I'm not sure the 18th century is a good time to look for precedents for anything.....
 
Sounds like a strong statement about an entire century 8-P

Niels



Even more pertinently, the implication that 18th-century authors of avian names (e.g. Linnaeus, the Gmelins, Boddaert, etc.) tended to name birds for people, which is what was being suggested, is demonstrably untrue!
 
Hello all,
Although I was somewhat of a fringe player in this grand debate (I was a late addition co-author on the "Fenwick's" paper, but have not had the time to be involved much on this thread), I feel that this thread is winding down as far as relevance and human relations go so perhaps we should wrap it up.
Diego, I have to say, like Globalbirder I did find some of your comments rather harsh especially as we have yet to hear any concrete examples to back up your claims of the apparent widespread disdain for proaves within the colombian ornithologist community. That being said, you are not the first person I have heard express this view although others who have discussed this with have also failed to produce any examples of why this would be the case.
So as to try to relieve any smears cast on to certain relavant parties' reputations let me say that I personally know both Diego Calderon and Robert Giles and my experiences with both of them have been excellent. Both of them I first met while conducting research on the Antpitta at the colibri reserve.
As many of you may be aware Robert has spent the last decade raising awareness around the world about the plight of many of the worlds most endangered species that occur in Colombia. He has also personally contributed significantly towards land aquisitions often at quite short notice. I have regular correspondance with him and if I had to find a fault it would be that he seems a little too busy with Proaves and Ecoturs, to be healthy.
During my brief aquaintace with Diego it was obvious that he too felt strongly about the plight of many of his countries endemic species. I don't think that there is anyone out there who is as actively promoting colombia on the web as him. That sort of promotion is an activism of it's own and whether it is for his own company or not, he is generating tourism dollars in areas where it is most needed. In addition, the fact that his tours are based around privately and cooperatively owned reserves is an assett to conservation in Colombia as it provides much needed funding for smaller conservation efforts that lack the world publicity of organizations such as Proaves.
Both sides are doing there part to help Colombian birds with the resources they have.

On a side note, I agree with those that say "who cares what the bird is called the important thing is that is is recognized and protected as warranted". Whethere naming it after donors or explorers,or sites, or physical characteristics...so what?

It is easy to say this with the benifit of hind-sight but to me, the vital decision in this whole saga was made by Sr. Carantron when he decided to keep his discovery from Proaves. This is the moment that, for me, set the tone for what came after.

Hopefully both sides have learned a lesson, and let's focus on what's important...the birds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top