• 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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way,
I just read the thread from Diego's flickr site that Globablbirder posted the link to in message #32. It was a very illuminating read.
 
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.

I agree totally - I see nothing wrong with using a benefactor's name as part of a scientific name. Choco Vireo was auctioned off, after all, raising much-needed money in the process. In many parts of the world, funds are at a premium and money always comes in handy for buying or maintaining land.

As is so often the case, I suspect the true story of this Urrao/Fenwick's mess lies somewhere between the opposing versions. Both parties make valid points and I personally have sympathies with both sides. Proaves continue to do fantastic work in Colombia as do many other private and regional organisations and individuals. Diego's continued marketting of Colombia on the web can only be good for the future of ecotourism in the country as well.
 
Hello all,
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.

Both sides are doing there part to help Colombian birds with the resources they have.

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.

:clap:
 
What bothers me most about the description of fenwickorum is that Proaves purposely created a nomenclatural mess. That does no service to the bird's status or protection (nor for that matter the Fenwick's patronym). With this controversy some confusion will reign as to what to call the taxon, which may persist for decades. Caranton discovered the bird, had the type specimens, and the description written and submitted. Proaves chose to rush to print a description based on a voucher-less blood and feather sample, when type specimens were available. For a stable nomenclature, the latter is always preferable. In my opinion the naming rights, which should not be taken lightly, were his to decide. If Proaves had contractual issues with Caranton, there surely must have been a better way to deal with those then to knowingly create a synonymous name at the time of description.

Andy
 
Hi Andy,
I don't believe Proaves acted with the intention of creating a "nomenclature mess". I believe it was more a case of reclaiming what was felt to be rightfully theirs. I think their reasoning was that not only was Sr. Caranton an employee under contract to Proaves but was conducting the surveys under goodwill and the assumption that he would work with Proaves should he decide to publish anything of note from the reserve.
And yes, Caranton did have type specimens, but as has been mentioned on this thread before, they were collected illegally and the last I heard, the local authorities were investigating the situation and Proaves were going to have to pay a fine for this.
Another thing that some people seem to forget is that "proaves" is an organization not a human being therefore it in of itself cannot do such things as conduct surveys, rather, it must hire someone to do them. Sr. Caranton was one such employee. Of course Proaves had to trust that Sr. Caranton would be straight with them, but to cover themselves, Sr. Caranton was made to sign a contract. Apparently, Sr. Caranton broke both the trust and the contract, and this unfortunate situation developed.
I have no doubt that if either side new the mess they were going to create they would have come a compromise prompotly.

Cheers,
 
What bothers me most about the description of fenwickorum is that Proaves purposely created a nomenclatural mess.

Andy, you overlook that the first paper by Proaves, that happens to be very good (well done Avery Bartels), has clear nomenclatural priority and here lies the name - Grallaria fenwickorum. The second paper with an editorial that acknowledged the first paper was published over a month later and this and only this created the nomenclatural mess. As regards the specimens - if it is true that the collection was undertaken illegally or legally - then I think we have clarity to make an informed decision as to which party has acted improperly (see #18 http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=171379).
 
Global Birder
It is clear that the Proaves and the name fenwickorum have priority, that is not in doubt. But it is apparent that Proaves prepared its paper long after Caranton's, and rushed to publish it in it's own journal so that it would have priority. They undoubtedly knew that Caranton was close to publishing his description. Thus, Proaves prepared and published its description knowing that another description was imminent (most likely in page proofs and beyond the point that the paper could be retracted), and in doing so helped create a synonymous name almost immediately. To me, that is unfortunate and the taxon would have been better served if the situation had proceeded differently.

Andy
 
Precedent?

Global Birder
It is clear that the Proaves and the name fenwickorum have priority, that is not in doubt. But it is apparent that Proaves prepared its paper long after Caranton's, and rushed to publish it in it's own journal so that it would have priority. They undoubtedly knew that Caranton was close to publishing his description. Thus, Proaves prepared and published its description knowing that another description was imminent (most likely in page proofs and beyond the point that the paper could be retracted), and in doing so helped create a synonymous name almost immediately. To me, that is unfortunate and the taxon would have been better served if the situation had proceeded differently.

Andy

Darwin and Wallace, anyone, for a publishing precedent?
MJB
 
... They undoubtedly knew that Caranton was close to publishing his description.

It is worth taking a few minutes to read both editorials before judging the situation Andy. The whole editorial by Proaves was explaining why they decided to proceed and publish knowing full well that their employee had already tried to get the species published in the American journal “Condor”. The Americans rejected it because the relevant permits/permission was not available. That might give some indication of the problem. In an age where specimen collecting is under scrutiny, it is important that ornithologists follow relevant laws and guidelines in each country.

I did notice that Proaves published in print and online their article on 16 May. The second paper from 25 June was only published online as an individual PDF and was not incorporated in one printed or online edition. I think there is little doubt that the second paper was intentionally published, rightly or wrongly, to cause confusion and a mess.

I think we all agree with you Andy that this whole issue is unfortunate and the taxon would have been better served if the situation had proceeded differently.
 
A similar situation has popped up with a certain Paleontologist here in the states, who is rather infamous on publishing quick and dirty species descriptions in a journal where he is the chief editor. Even though pretty much everyone believes the whole situation is dodgy, the guy's name still has priority. Like it or not, G. fenwickorum is probably here to stay.
 
I did notice that Proaves published in print and online their article on 16 May. The second paper from 25 June was only published online as an individual PDF and was not incorporated in one printed or online edition. I think there is little doubt that the second paper was intentionally published, rightly or wrongly, to cause confusion and a mess.
QUOTE]



Without wishing to comment further on the ethics of this case (that fenwickorum has priority is not, and never has been, in question), the above is not exactly an accurate representation.

Both Conservacion Colombiana and Ornitologia Colombiana are fundamentally online only, i.e. their existence as print journals is more or less solely to fulfill the demands of Art. 8.6 of the Code. The second description exists not just as an individual .pdf, but it has always formed part of an online issue, no. 9, of Ornitologia Colombiana, available here http://www.ornitologiacolombiana.org/revista.htm to this day. One of the five publicly accessible libraries (see Art. 8.6) in which copies of previous issues of both journals have been deposited to date is that of the Natural History Museum, Tring.
 
Antioquia Antpitta

Grallaria fenwickorum 'Antioquia Antpitta' seems set to be recognised by BirdLife International (presumably in BirdLife Checklist V4, 2011):
www.birdlife.org/globally-threatene...rum-newly-described-and-critically-endangered

So, recognising the priority of fenwickorum, but (diplomatically) adopting a neutral vernacular name. At least the species will be on the 2011 IUCN Red List (CR?), irrespective of disputes about nomenclature.

Richard
 
Last edited:
That now gives us 3 names to argue over..

I thought it was a fairly elegant solution to be honest - a neutral english common name, and the scientific name still recognising the contribution of the Fenwick family to creating the reserve where they have been found.
 
However it does not give any credit to Caranton. As much as I disagree with some of the choices that Caranton has made, he did put an aweful lot of time and effort into publishing a good paper.
Thus, if it is not going to be one or the other I would suggest "Urrao Antpitta" Grallaria Fenwickorum. At least then both sides receive their deserved recognition.
I am sure that both sides would begrudgingly accept this whereas a third name would simply complicate matters.
 
Hi all... after November and December trips have had really no time to catch up with these threads about Urrao Antpitta but for sure will try to have some time later to read everything carefully and reply [specially to Eric (Globalbirder)'s posts]... meanwhile, just wanted to update you about my video of Urrao Antpitta: I "have been allowed" (jeje, sounds funny, doesn't it!?) to keep it online only after adding the reserve specific name to the video filename in Youtube... so now, you can again enjoy THE BEST VIDEO EVER MADE of this species available on the web clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw27UFMMjKc .... if they only have been clear from the beginning... what a pain...
saludos and enjoy the video!
more later, d.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top