antshrike69
Well-known member
Ah! I was assuming Diego was talking about adopting the 'Proaves name'. My head hurts.
-
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.
Fenwick's Antpitta (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
- Status
Globalbirder
Well-known member
Just checked Diego's video, but the title has "Endemic XXX Antpitta - Grallaria XXX - Urrao, W Andes (Dusky Starfrontlet Bird Reserve)". How strange! So now there are 4 English names now:
1) Fenwick's Antpitta (name of this thread)
2) Urrao Antpitta
3) Antioquia Antpitta
4) XXX Antpitta
[joking]
Quite some confusion. I guess the English name is not that important, but agree with mjh73 that the Antioquia Antpitta is a fairly elegant solution.
Interesting also that Birdlife International accepts Grallaria fenwickorum.
1) Fenwick's Antpitta (name of this thread)
2) Urrao Antpitta
3) Antioquia Antpitta
4) XXX Antpitta
[joking]Quite some confusion. I guess the English name is not that important, but agree with mjh73 that the Antioquia Antpitta is a fairly elegant solution.
Interesting also that Birdlife International accepts Grallaria fenwickorum.
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
NEVER of course!...
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
... this last change in the title of my video is due in order to keep having good commercial relationships with Ecoturs I was requested again to either use Proaves name (Fenwick's Antpitta) or leave it unnamed and that I should state the name of the reserve in the filename... of course due to personal ethical reasons I WAS NOT GOING TO USE that name so left it blank using those XXX....
SACC or other authorities is what really matters... Birdlife international nothing has to do with systematics!!
d.
ps. again: have had no time to read all former posts in these two threads so I am basically replying to last ones...
antshrike69
Well-known member
The English name that will end up widely used amongst birders and conservationists is more likely to be determined by popular usage than by someone 'setting' a suggested name. There are no issues of priority in the way there are with scientific names. As far as I can see, Urrao AP is the English name currently being used by most British birders but I see no problems with this name. The Fenwick family are still honoured in the species name. Personally, I prefer Urrao AP but am happy to use G. fenwickorum. I find it hard to believe that anyone could object to Urrao AP given that it is a totally neutral name. We're going have to wait for the dust to settle and see which name(s) is in use. :t:
Out of interest, what name is being used in Colombia? (spanish not scientific.....)
Globalbirder
Well-known member
Sounds rather harsh Diego. I am not sure any authority (BOU, AOU, SACC, etc) has a monopoly on bird systematics. I did find that the "Birdlife Taxonomic Working Group" (BTWG) sets the standards by which Birdlife takes and implements decisions on bird taxonomy and nomenclature. They are recognised by IUCN and others. You can find more on http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/taxonomy
Xenospiza
Distracted
I believe that (even) in the Proaves article, Urrao Antpitta was proposed as the Spanish name (sorry, don't know what it would be in Spanish!)
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
I can be biased most sure, but never seen anyone using or referring to these BTWG before in papers, etc... thanks for the additional info on this working group Eric..!
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
if you check the National Ornithological Network e-list (http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/RNOACOL/) you can see people using Tororoi de Urrao or Grallaria de Urrao.. anyways, names in Spanish are barely used by local researchers/birders here in Colombia, we use scientific names here almost all times...
saludos
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Regalado 2011. News & Analysis: Ornithology: Feathers are flying over Colombian bird name flap. Science 331: 1123-1124.
www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6021/1123.summary
"Last May, at the Washington, D.C., home of the Colombian ambassador, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and its partner in Colombia, Fundación ProAves, announced the discovery of a new species of Neotropical bird. ABC touted the feat as “remarkable” for being one of the first times a new species had been scientifically described from an individual captured, measured, photographed, and then released. For George Fenwick, head of ABC, it was a proud moment: The bird, Fenwick’s antpitta (Grallaria fenwickorum), was named in honor of his family.
The problem with the announcement was that it made no mention of the bird’s actual discoverer, a 28-year-old former employee of ProAves named Diego Carantón, and the two preserved specimens he had already collected. How Carantón, his specimens, and the name he had chosen - Grallaria urraoensis - came to be omitted from the taxonomic record is generating bitter debate between Colombia’s leading university ornithologists and ProAves, the country’s best-known private conservation organization, over scientific standards and credit for new discoveries.
ProAves’s leadership, in a lengthy statement expected to be released this week, says Carantón violated his employment contract by secretly collecting specimens, so the foundation was justified in rushing out a paper last May to seize nomenclatural priority - accorded to whoever publishes first - and name the bird after Fenwick.
ProAves agrees that Carantón identified the new species. In 2008, while Carantón managed ProAves’s Colibrí del Sol reserve in the Western Andes, he found a wet, unrecognizable bird dead in a capture net. He could not find the bird in any museum collections and eventually captured, and killed, a second bird. “I knew ProAves doesn’t like collecting, but I did it. I wanted to know what the bird was,” Carantón says.
Carantón also did not immediately tell ProAves about the unfolding discovery, and foundation offi cials were furious to learn not only that there were two specimens already in a drawer at Bogotá’s Institute of Natural Sciences but also that Carantón had involved other researchers, including Colombia’s leading avian DNA expert, Daniel Cadena of the University of Los Andes, in the project. “It was a cross, a double-cross, a triple-cross for ProAves,” says David Caro, ProAves’s outgoing executive director.
Initially, Carantón was given permission to publish a description of the new species on the condition that he use the name G. fenwickorum. But negotiations became embittered as ProAves sought final say over the paper and the list of authors. “All the intellectual property of the discovery belongs to ProAves, and we have every right to authorize a publication or not, considering the bird was discovered on our reserve,” read one e-mail that Sara Lara, currently director of international affairs for ABC, sent to scientists and ProAves staff.
To make matters worse, the name G. fenwickorum didn’t sit well with the scientists. In 2008, Fenwick had penned an editorial sharply critical of Colombian museum collectors, accusing them of gratuitously killing endangered bird species. Cadena later resigned from the project, explaining in an e-mail, “I definitely don’t want to be part of a homage to Fenwick.”
When Carantón eventually decided to publish the discovery independently - and name the bird G. urraoensis, after the local municipality of Urrao - ProAves countered by hosting a hastily arranged field expedition. In May 2010, two junior field guides scooped Carantón, publishing a description of G. fenwickorum in ProAves’s in-house magazine, Conservación Colombiana, grabbing the right to name the bird. “It came down to the name,” says Caro. “We needed the name to raise more funds.”
The paper held another dart for the academics who had sided with Carantón. Given Fenwick’s opposition to killing rare birds for science, ProAves had collected only a few feathers and photographs - materials that in a pinch can be accepted as the museum holotype, or reference specimen. However, many collection curators believe a full specimen is needed to create an accurate record.
For F. Gary Stiles, curator of the bird collection at the National University of Colombia in Bogotá, the attempt to designate the feathers and photographs as the holotype is “scientifically irresponsible.”
ProAves’s publication also caused dissent inside the foundation’s leadership. “I thought it was just too much to steal a young man’s discovery of a lifetime that way,” says ornithologist Niels Krabbe of the University of Copenhagen, one of two ProAves board members to resign in protest.
Two months later, a description by Carantón and a co-author appeared, this time in the journal of the Colombian Association of Ornithology. They called the bird G. urraoensis. In a lengthy editorial, Cadena and Stiles said ProAves had probably won naming priority but charged “grave faults” in the organization’s scientific ethics.
Carantón’s defenders argue that Carantón has a “moral right” to his discovery, despite any missteps. They call the case the latest in a series of hard-boiled moves by ProAves aimed at gratifying British and American donors and generating publicity at the expense of Colombian researchers. “They have created a lot of tension in the country,” says ornithologist Luis Germán Naranjo, who is conservation director for the World Wide Fund for Nature in Colombia.
There is little question that ProAves has been successful in protecting birds. Since its founding in 2001, the organization has bought 22,000 hectares of Andean habitat, creating 18 reserves for 91 threatened species. That land includes some of the only known habitat of the Colorful Puffleg, a hummingbird, and ProAves is credited with a resurgence of the rare Yellow-eared Parrot.
Success has brought a list of over 100 mostly foreign donors, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ABC. Paul Salaman, conservation director at World Land Trust in Washington, D.C., and an influential ProAves board member, says “the meteoric rise” of ProAves may have generated resentment. “It wants to get things done, and that upsets people,” says Salaman.
Some researchers still hope G. urraoensis could win out before international bodies that rule on species names. However, Ellinor Michel, executive secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in London, says it will be difficult to unseat G. fenwickorum. “If the publication by ProAves [was] legitimate, then the name they gave will stand,” she says."
Richard (with thanks to Kevin Winker for posting on NEOORN)
www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6021/1123.summary
"Last May, at the Washington, D.C., home of the Colombian ambassador, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and its partner in Colombia, Fundación ProAves, announced the discovery of a new species of Neotropical bird. ABC touted the feat as “remarkable” for being one of the first times a new species had been scientifically described from an individual captured, measured, photographed, and then released. For George Fenwick, head of ABC, it was a proud moment: The bird, Fenwick’s antpitta (Grallaria fenwickorum), was named in honor of his family.
The problem with the announcement was that it made no mention of the bird’s actual discoverer, a 28-year-old former employee of ProAves named Diego Carantón, and the two preserved specimens he had already collected. How Carantón, his specimens, and the name he had chosen - Grallaria urraoensis - came to be omitted from the taxonomic record is generating bitter debate between Colombia’s leading university ornithologists and ProAves, the country’s best-known private conservation organization, over scientific standards and credit for new discoveries.
ProAves’s leadership, in a lengthy statement expected to be released this week, says Carantón violated his employment contract by secretly collecting specimens, so the foundation was justified in rushing out a paper last May to seize nomenclatural priority - accorded to whoever publishes first - and name the bird after Fenwick.
ProAves agrees that Carantón identified the new species. In 2008, while Carantón managed ProAves’s Colibrí del Sol reserve in the Western Andes, he found a wet, unrecognizable bird dead in a capture net. He could not find the bird in any museum collections and eventually captured, and killed, a second bird. “I knew ProAves doesn’t like collecting, but I did it. I wanted to know what the bird was,” Carantón says.
Carantón also did not immediately tell ProAves about the unfolding discovery, and foundation offi cials were furious to learn not only that there were two specimens already in a drawer at Bogotá’s Institute of Natural Sciences but also that Carantón had involved other researchers, including Colombia’s leading avian DNA expert, Daniel Cadena of the University of Los Andes, in the project. “It was a cross, a double-cross, a triple-cross for ProAves,” says David Caro, ProAves’s outgoing executive director.
Initially, Carantón was given permission to publish a description of the new species on the condition that he use the name G. fenwickorum. But negotiations became embittered as ProAves sought final say over the paper and the list of authors. “All the intellectual property of the discovery belongs to ProAves, and we have every right to authorize a publication or not, considering the bird was discovered on our reserve,” read one e-mail that Sara Lara, currently director of international affairs for ABC, sent to scientists and ProAves staff.
To make matters worse, the name G. fenwickorum didn’t sit well with the scientists. In 2008, Fenwick had penned an editorial sharply critical of Colombian museum collectors, accusing them of gratuitously killing endangered bird species. Cadena later resigned from the project, explaining in an e-mail, “I definitely don’t want to be part of a homage to Fenwick.”
When Carantón eventually decided to publish the discovery independently - and name the bird G. urraoensis, after the local municipality of Urrao - ProAves countered by hosting a hastily arranged field expedition. In May 2010, two junior field guides scooped Carantón, publishing a description of G. fenwickorum in ProAves’s in-house magazine, Conservación Colombiana, grabbing the right to name the bird. “It came down to the name,” says Caro. “We needed the name to raise more funds.”
The paper held another dart for the academics who had sided with Carantón. Given Fenwick’s opposition to killing rare birds for science, ProAves had collected only a few feathers and photographs - materials that in a pinch can be accepted as the museum holotype, or reference specimen. However, many collection curators believe a full specimen is needed to create an accurate record.
For F. Gary Stiles, curator of the bird collection at the National University of Colombia in Bogotá, the attempt to designate the feathers and photographs as the holotype is “scientifically irresponsible.”
ProAves’s publication also caused dissent inside the foundation’s leadership. “I thought it was just too much to steal a young man’s discovery of a lifetime that way,” says ornithologist Niels Krabbe of the University of Copenhagen, one of two ProAves board members to resign in protest.
Two months later, a description by Carantón and a co-author appeared, this time in the journal of the Colombian Association of Ornithology. They called the bird G. urraoensis. In a lengthy editorial, Cadena and Stiles said ProAves had probably won naming priority but charged “grave faults” in the organization’s scientific ethics.
Carantón’s defenders argue that Carantón has a “moral right” to his discovery, despite any missteps. They call the case the latest in a series of hard-boiled moves by ProAves aimed at gratifying British and American donors and generating publicity at the expense of Colombian researchers. “They have created a lot of tension in the country,” says ornithologist Luis Germán Naranjo, who is conservation director for the World Wide Fund for Nature in Colombia.
There is little question that ProAves has been successful in protecting birds. Since its founding in 2001, the organization has bought 22,000 hectares of Andean habitat, creating 18 reserves for 91 threatened species. That land includes some of the only known habitat of the Colorful Puffleg, a hummingbird, and ProAves is credited with a resurgence of the rare Yellow-eared Parrot.
Success has brought a list of over 100 mostly foreign donors, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ABC. Paul Salaman, conservation director at World Land Trust in Washington, D.C., and an influential ProAves board member, says “the meteoric rise” of ProAves may have generated resentment. “It wants to get things done, and that upsets people,” says Salaman.
Some researchers still hope G. urraoensis could win out before international bodies that rule on species names. However, Ellinor Michel, executive secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in London, says it will be difficult to unseat G. fenwickorum. “If the publication by ProAves [was] legitimate, then the name they gave will stand,” she says."
Richard (with thanks to Kevin Winker for posting on NEOORN)
Last edited:
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
..... lovely!
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Byron Palacios on NEOORN today:
Richard
A very sad situation.
Richard
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Incidentally, on NEOORN yesterday, Van Remsen confirmed that no proposal to add the species has yet been submitted to SACC.
Richard
Globalbirder
Well-known member
Example: RSPB warden found collecting birds illegally
Yes - this is a very sad situation. A bird conservation organization is liable to pay a huge fine, ironically because their employee illegally collected specimens and hid his actions from his employer is not just sad, its OUTRAGEOUS.
What precedent is being set for staff working in nature reserves?
Say an RSPB Reserve Warden couldn't identify a breeding species (e.g. an mysterious looking pair of Reed-type Warblers) in his reserve... should he/she just proceed to collect it even though they knew it was wrong? Of course they would not. But Diego Caranton did - not only did he collect birds, but intentionally hid this fact that he did (obviously in the knowledge that he was doing wrong). I know exactly how many RSPB members and supporters would tolerate such behaviour in their reserves - NOT ONE! I can not speak for the RSPB, though I would be confident that if a Reserve Warden or researcher or anyone collected birds in an RSPB reserve they would be standing in court, not celebrated by the ornithological community.
So then, why would ProAves turn a blind eye to such behaviour in their bird reserves???
I now see why ProAves is fighting this...
Yes - this is a very sad situation. A bird conservation organization is liable to pay a huge fine, ironically because their employee illegally collected specimens and hid his actions from his employer is not just sad, its OUTRAGEOUS.
What precedent is being set for staff working in nature reserves?
Say an RSPB Reserve Warden couldn't identify a breeding species (e.g. an mysterious looking pair of Reed-type Warblers) in his reserve... should he/she just proceed to collect it even though they knew it was wrong? Of course they would not. But Diego Caranton did - not only did he collect birds, but intentionally hid this fact that he did (obviously in the knowledge that he was doing wrong). I know exactly how many RSPB members and supporters would tolerate such behaviour in their reserves - NOT ONE! I can not speak for the RSPB, though I would be confident that if a Reserve Warden or researcher or anyone collected birds in an RSPB reserve they would be standing in court, not celebrated by the ornithological community.
So then, why would ProAves turn a blind eye to such behaviour in their bird reserves???
I now see why ProAves is fighting this...
Globalbirder
Well-known member
BTW, you can follow that post at: http://www.proaves.org/article.php?id_article=980 and read a detailed "Response" article published in Conservacion Colombiana clarifying the situation and results of the Colombian government investigation that vindicates ProAves and finds Diego Caraton guilty of illegal bird collecting: http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf/CC14/Conservacion_Colombiana_14_12-response_fenwickorum.pdf
Robert Giles
Member
Eric, thanks for posting that link. You're quite right of course. The only thing I would take issue with you very slightly is that you say that "ProAves is fighting this".
We (I say this as the only non-Colombian member of the junta) are not really trying to fight anyone, we just want to put the historical record straight and move on, to get on with job in hand of saving endangered birds in Colombia in a collaborative and positive way.
Due to the successful work Luis Rubelio Garcia (ProAves reserve guard) in feeding the species with worms, many people have had the opportunity to see this species at close quarters in the ProAves Dusky Starfrontlet reserve. It remains the sole location for this CR species and fortunately the 20-30 pairs are well protected in the reserve that was established in 2005 (long before the species was discovered) with the personal support of the Fenwick family.
We (I say this as the only non-Colombian member of the junta) are not really trying to fight anyone, we just want to put the historical record straight and move on, to get on with job in hand of saving endangered birds in Colombia in a collaborative and positive way.
Due to the successful work Luis Rubelio Garcia (ProAves reserve guard) in feeding the species with worms, many people have had the opportunity to see this species at close quarters in the ProAves Dusky Starfrontlet reserve. It remains the sole location for this CR species and fortunately the 20-30 pairs are well protected in the reserve that was established in 2005 (long before the species was discovered) with the personal support of the Fenwick family.
Last edited:
MJB
Well-known member
Birding Peru
Well-known member
Hi all
I have summerized all the events in a blog post on birdingblogs.com as well as all the relevant links to have all in one place easily accessible. Have a peak!
I admit there is nothing new in the post, but I do make some questions - which I don't expect will be answered.
Would it not have been better for ProAves if they had:
1. Abstained to publish? Surely, they could have given the Fenwick name to another species – for instance that new undescribed Megascops in Santa Marta. Carantón would have to face the legal consequences of his actions.
2. Accepted that Caranton chose any name he pleased and go ahead and publish together.
On the other hand when it comes to Caranton:
Why all this trouble? Would it not have been better to work with ABC, knowing that a specimen was obtained without proper permits?
I suppose the answer really lies in the fact that the relationship between ProAves and the Colombian Ornithologists was damaged long before this issue. The parties simply entered the arena with locked positions - hence the disasterous messy result.
I have summerized all the events in a blog post on birdingblogs.com as well as all the relevant links to have all in one place easily accessible. Have a peak!
I admit there is nothing new in the post, but I do make some questions - which I don't expect will be answered.
Would it not have been better for ProAves if they had:
1. Abstained to publish? Surely, they could have given the Fenwick name to another species – for instance that new undescribed Megascops in Santa Marta. Carantón would have to face the legal consequences of his actions.
2. Accepted that Caranton chose any name he pleased and go ahead and publish together.
On the other hand when it comes to Caranton:
Why all this trouble? Would it not have been better to work with ABC, knowing that a specimen was obtained without proper permits?
I suppose the answer really lies in the fact that the relationship between ProAves and the Colombian Ornithologists was damaged long before this issue. The parties simply entered the arena with locked positions - hence the disasterous messy result.
Last edited:
Globalbirder
Well-known member
Very good blog Birding Peru. Some thoughts on your questions having already reviewed all the editorials / responses / comments, etc.
I understand that once a new species is described, the name attached to it cannot be undone. So a post-publication legal actions appears pointless - what would you gain?
The reasoning I see for the Fenwick family being credited with this antpitta is clear - the Fenwick's were the sole supporter to buy and protect the land that established the Colibri del Sol Reserve (the core area for the species as I understand) and supported ProAves costs of Diego Caraton. Given that the new species was found on a reserve the Fenwick's can be credited for, seems appropriate to credit them.
So why would Caraton credit the name to an administrative sub-division (municipality) rather than the family that has committed to saving this and many other wonderful species at his reserve?
I think you've hit the nail on the head here Birding Peru. From what I can see - there has been a boiling resentment of Proaves for years. They have achieved so much (I've seen firsthand several of their great nature reserves) so saddened for Colombia to see the face off between bird conservation vs. ornithological community. They would benefit from both taking a step back and talking with each other....
I understand that once a new species is described, the name attached to it cannot be undone. So a post-publication legal actions appears pointless - what would you gain?
The reasoning I see for the Fenwick family being credited with this antpitta is clear - the Fenwick's were the sole supporter to buy and protect the land that established the Colibri del Sol Reserve (the core area for the species as I understand) and supported ProAves costs of Diego Caraton. Given that the new species was found on a reserve the Fenwick's can be credited for, seems appropriate to credit them.
So why would Caraton credit the name to an administrative sub-division (municipality) rather than the family that has committed to saving this and many other wonderful species at his reserve?
I think you've hit the nail on the head here Birding Peru. From what I can see - there has been a boiling resentment of Proaves for years. They have achieved so much (I've seen firsthand several of their great nature reserves) so saddened for Colombia to see the face off between bird conservation vs. ornithological community. They would benefit from both taking a step back and talking with each other....
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
SACC proposal 479 - Recognize the newly described species Grallaria urraoensis?
"479. Reconocer la especie recientemente descrita Grallaria urraoensis como especie (Luis Sandoval)"
at the bottom of the page
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~remsen/SACCproproster.html
"479. Reconocer la especie recientemente descrita Grallaria urraoensis como especie (Luis Sandoval)"
at the bottom of the page
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~remsen/SACCproproster.html
- Status
