• 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.
My Proposal:
I have said this before (Dec. 18 post #56 and also alluded to it in an earlier post) and I will say it again; the best thing for both sides and for conservation in Colombia is the following naming: Urrao Antpitta Grallaria fenwickorum or Fenwick's Antpitta Grallaria urraoensis
A combined paper with the best parts from both papers included, with an internationally respected journal (Condor perhaps, who have already expressed their interest in Caranton's paper).
Authors in following order: Caranton, Barrera, Certuche, Bartels (if the portion I contributed towards was used in said manuscript).
Comence re-noegtiations between Proaves and Caranton ASAP, with Caranton getting choice of whether he wants scientific or common name.

However, I could understand if no self-respecting journal would want to go near this with a ten-foot pole!

The way I see it, neither side deserves to be applauded in this debate, Proaves for their scientific irresponsibility with their incorrect depositing of specimens, the lack of impartiallity on the part of the "referee" with the Condor, and the question of should they have published in the first place (to name a few); and Caranton for the illegality of his collecting/reporting and the taking advantage of Proaves funding for personal gain which, as refered to by Globalbirder, sets a dangerous precedence for future research.

However, given that all the pertanent research has been completed and for the sake of establishing a name in the near future I still believe that this is the correct way forward and for the best for all parties and for conservation in Colombia. Plus, it ensures that neither side "wins" and that both sides are left regretting their lack of cooperativeness and loss of sight of the REAL, important issues: conservation, scientific rigour and mutual respect.

I personally congratulate both Cadena and Stiles for abstaining form taking part in the SACC vote and I strongly believe that even though this debacle has dragged on for a long time, that the current proposal is set out to establish that one-or-the-other name will win out when (as I state above) neither is deserving.

Thus I would strongly suggest to SACC that they drop the current proposal and wait for a proper conclusion to be reached between the two parties where neither feels vindicated in their many irrational and unacceptable decisions.

It is time that the egos were dropped and both parties started acting in a mature fashion (ie, actually talking honest facts to each other with the goal or reaching common ground and an acceptable compromise, as opposed the BS that has been dominant in previous discussions).

My humble opinion,

Avery Bartels
 
Last edited:
The issue is that you can't "Redo" the description. Most journals have policies whereby they will not publish already published information (except perhaps in a review or synthesis type paper). The names are already described and out there. The scientific name is really a decision for ICZN (if someone should eventually write a proposal). The common name however could be something you could compromise on.
 
Last edited:
My Proposal:
...the best thing for both sides and for conservation in Colombia is the following naming: Urrao Antpitta Grallaria fenwickorum or Fenwick's Antpitta Grallaria urraoensis
Although some might consider that to be a sensible compromise, in practice the only name that really matters is the applicable scientific name. Every author and authority (checklist committees etc) will anyway be completely free to use the English, Spanish etc vernacular names of their choice, irrespective of any common name proposed by the describers.
 
Vernacular names

if there is 2 names in English WHY Birdlife makes up a new one!?... totally irrelevant!.. actually, seems to me they lose credibility adding noise with this non-published 3rd name ... more and more noise/players added to this stuff...!
I guess it was intended to demonstrate neutrality (even though BLI seemingly assumes that fenwickorum will have priority). But as I said before, ultimately it's only the scientific name that really matters - we can all invent as many alternative English names as we want...
 
Last edited:
Yep, as Richard says, only the scientific name matters. BLI probably wants to remain neutral until all the issues associated with this bird are cleared up (which could take awhile).

Maybe a good alternative name would be "Cursed Antpitta" :)
 
Hopefully this will not hurt Proaves in the long run....although I suspect the situation between them and Columbian ornithologists was already in a bad state. I don't think ABA will suffer much ramifications at all from this.

The situation is already having widespread ramifications on what should be used for a holotype, which is going to affect organisms other than birds (including my own group, marine mammals).

I was rather annoyed to see that despite talking with Proaves people, Gunnar didn't really give their side. I don't see either side really budging on this issue.
 
Hopefully this will not hurt Proaves in the long run

do not think so, of course this and much more stuff (see below) will be hurting them in the future.. and of course, not just for free...!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8140419/In-search-of-the-lost-frog-of-Colombia.html


The 2nd paragraph was edited and changed for the lines you can read in the online version.. fortunately, the original version can still be read here: http://www.ifrog.us/news/in-search-of-the-lost-frog-of-colombia/..
 
Last edited:
Man, I cant believe that this thread continues! We can only hope that conservationists in Colombia can eventually make peace and unite to help preserve and promote that countrys amazing biodiversity.
 
...much more stuff (see below) will be hurting them in the future...
Diego, you clearly have strong views on ProAves and its work, but this is getting way off the topic of the discovery and description of the antpitta, and outside the scope of this sub-forum.
 
Last edited:
Yes, agreed. This discussion should be focused on specifically the nomenclatural issues associated with this bird, not get into conservations politics, etc.

FYI, illegal collecting of specimens is a pretty grave offense. I have heard of researchers being banned from countries for such an offense, careers ruined, and museum collections being put under heavy supervision when such things happen. From what I can see, this issue has been acknowledged but considered a relatively "minor" point
 
Yes, agreed. This discussion should be focused on specifically the nomenclatural issues associated with this bird, not get into conservations politics, etc.

FYI, illegal collecting of specimens is a pretty grave offense. I have heard of researchers being banned from countries for such an offense, careers ruined, and museum collections being put under heavy supervision when such things happen. From what I can see, this issue has been acknowledged but considered a relatively "minor" point

Some time ago, a post rather clearly said that the local authorities did not find proof of illegal collecting. Illegal lack of reporting was found, so only that point should really be discussed from now on.

Niels
 
I think this and all the other discussions have been good.
In introducing Bionomina a new Journal Mr. Dubois said:
“Science progresses both by continuous increase of factual knowledge and theories, and by “revolutions” that challenge once admitted facts and theories. Debates, confrontations and even polemics are essential for the development of science, and freezing discussions and criticisms through any “conservative” system (either promulgated by States, or unofficial but dominant ideas imposed, e.g., by providers of salaries and funds for research, by research directors or simply by editors and referees of journals) hampers scientific progress.”
“Science does not need “politically correct” thinking, it needs debates, contradictions and free expression of disagreement. The tradition of discussion and confrontation of divergent opinions on all scientific matters was very lively in the scientific periodicals of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which often published papers defending opposite points of view, including sometimes several successive replies from either side.”

As a member of the warrior-caste this makes complete sense. I remember reading of an encounter of Audubon and Richardson with Mr. Vigors that got pretty nasty. “Richardson tried to smuggle him into the Society's rooms; J.J. Audubon succeeded but they were discovered, and ignominiously removed themselves from the building.”

This journal just published a draft BioCode which has good bits for both sides of this. It contains a rule that would have allowed the field biologist to get priority by just posting it online with an official group. The good bit for pro-aves is that the code does not require a skin if a published illustration exists.
http://www.mapress.com/bionomina/content.htm .

For a good guide for naming new species which disagrees about no requirement for a series of skins:
http://www.taprobanica.lk/ .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top