-
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.
New Species of Antpitta from Colombia (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jean Paul Perret
- Start date
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
For those interested in more material of this species here you can see a picture and a video from one of our recent trips.. enjoy!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colombia_birding_diego/4888330912/in/set-72157624591902929/
http://www.youtube.com/user/COLOMBIABirdingDiego#p/u/0/UR77UeR942c
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colombia_birding_diego/4888330912/in/set-72157624591902929/
http://www.youtube.com/user/COLOMBIABirdingDiego#p/u/0/UR77UeR942c
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
URRAO ANTPITTA (Grallaria urraoensis): http://www.youtube.com/user/COLOMBIABirdingDiego?feature=mhum#p/u/0/lw27UFMMjKc
Globalbirder
Well-known member
The video is not working. I was hoping to get some photos at the worm feeder when I was there, but was politely asked not to take photos, so I'm keen to see some images.
Globalbirder
Well-known member
OK, I found videos of the new species of Antpitta. It's called Fenwick's or Urrao Antpitta and the scientific name is Grallaria fenwickorum although it has a synonym of Grallaria urraoensis. There is an interesting write up on this on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grallaria_fenwickorum
I think I should read up on this as it looks like a fascinating situation, plus it is my list!
For videos/photos see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhzqSJCTbro (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_06datvsR-4 (photos and video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUpc5O9-Ek (video)
I think I should read up on this as it looks like a fascinating situation, plus it is my list!
For videos/photos see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhzqSJCTbro (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_06datvsR-4 (photos and video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUpc5O9-Ek (video)
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
Hi globalbirder... I made unavailable this great video (best video available from this species actually!) temporary while I hear something reasonable from ecoturs (proaves name to run their tours) about this situation:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colombia_birding_diego/5207924121/
I made my bookings for a tour, and paid them well in advance and never was advised/warned about this restriction (that actually is nonsense! and does not match any conservation purpose.. if you read Robert Giles [ecoturs/proaves] comments on my flickr or buzz site, you will find that basically his arguments accept that this is merely political and money based issue!!).. so I went there to this reserve with my client (we both birders and photographers) and we found this surprise... of course I could have opted not to do photos/videos, but if they play to be unclear and dirty I have no reason to respect that game at all... if they simply warn you in advance you decide if you visit or not the place under their restrictions... simple!...
I have made some pictures and videos in past trips, you can find them at my flickr and youtube sites
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=colombiabirdingdiego+++"urrao+antpitta"&aq=f
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q="urrao antpitta"&w=27992517@N08
cheers
Last edited:
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
more to read about it globalbirder:
www.ornitologiacolombiana.org/oc9/notaeditoroc9.htm#English
(remember wikipedia can be edited and posted by anyone, so fairness is not guaranteed)
Last edited:
Globalbirder
Well-known member
I have spent a few days reading up on this issue regarding the Fenwick's /Urrao Antpitta from both journal editorials (http://www.ornitologiacolombiana.org and http://www.proaves.org) and a number of comments on other websites and forums including across Bird Forum. Overall, this quagmire is a great shame for Colombia and see they are very divided on this issue. However, we should get some facts straight for Birdforum readers so as not to distort judgments:
It is clear that the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grallaria_fenwickorum) is a fair and balanced account written by many authors that appear not to be involved in either article (see "View History"). It represents the facts presented by both editorials in a fair way and takes no side and has not been contested by either party. The first article published was Grallaria fenwickorum and that name has "priority", hence why it is called that in wikipedia.
I cannot escape the fact that two antpittas were killed and collected in the Colibri de sol reserve without the knowledge or permission of the reserve owners, Proaves. Let's put it this way, if a pair of Ospreys were killed and collected from within an RSPB Bird Reserve without authorisation, even if in the name of science and even if by their own employees, would that be ok? Without too much hesitation, the RSPB and their members (and general conservation public) would be outraged with serious consequences to follow. In that sense I start to understand why Proaves got upset? I'm not saying their actions were justified, just that I am starting to understand why this bird conservation group did what they did.
Globalbirder
Well-known member
I am surprise by the many negative statements from you Diego on the issue of no images of Fenwick's / Urrao Antpitta at the worm feeder in Colibri de sol reserve. I visited several Proaves reserves in Colombia and in no area were there any restrictions for birders (even playback) except at this one worm feeding station for the antpitta. Personally, I was extremely grateful that such a rare antpitta came to worms so readily offering the best views of any antpitta I had seen on my trip. The thought of not photographing it was rather inconsequential considering the effort by the reserve manager to feed and train them (supposedly twice a day everyday to ensure visitors can see them).
Let's put this in perspective. I was in the wonderful Tayrona National Park on the Caribbean coast of Colombia and was taking photos when a uniformed guard asked that I stop taking photos and told me that all photography was prohibited in the Park! I had to go through the camera memory and delete the images I had just taken or else he had to report the "incident". Well, I was a little bothered as no one told me this before paying an expensive entrance fee moments before! Nevertheless I respected the rules and carried on birding with binoculars.
Whatever the reasons at the Park or the Antpitta feeder, it is worth respecting those rules and not exaggerating them to create a situation. The day entrance fee at the park was around 15 quid versus 30 quid for full board and accommodation for the night in Colibri de sol reserve including entrance and antpitta feeding...
There are plenty of public and private areas worldwide that prohibit cameras, so this is not new! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
I just hope you are not "twisting" your minor inconvenience at the expensive of another jab at Proaves... a trend is emerging!
Globalbirder
Well-known member
I think I found out more on why photography and filming is prohibited in National Parks in Colombia. See this page and use Google translate:
http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/PNN/portel/libreria/php/decide.php?patron=01.02021710
There is some 12 page PDF document explaining how to seek "special permission" to take photos in Colombian parks, but this seems quite complicated and can not understand it. See:
http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co...pdf/Resolucion_017_23_07.TomadeFotografia.pdf
The second specimen can't fairly be counted because it wasn't collected deliberately. The same happened to the type specimen of the Yariguies Brush Finch that now is in a museum drawer. A subspecies proudly publicized by Proaves as having been described without the collection of a specimen. Deaths in mist nets are infrequent but not exceptional. The deliberate collection of one specimen of the antpitta was perhaps without permission but that can be questioned. See the second editorial for more on that. If it really was is up to a judge. Not Proaves. Even if a judge ruled in their favour it would only give them the right to things like economic compensation. Not the right to take the honours from the true discoverer. If you haven't seen it this is the second editorial
http://www.ornitologiacolombiana.org/oc9/notaeditoroc9.htm#English
Last edited:
Just like a trend is emerging in your defence
On balance I don't think anyone has questioned that Proaves has done some great stuff for conservation in Colombia. This is important to remember no matter what side people feel they are on in the antpitta case.
Globalbirder
Well-known member
I have spent a few days reading up on this, especially both editorials... so it is ok to collect just one and accidentally collect the other, but apparently the collector reported neither to his employer (under contract to do so). Something strange there - certainly both parties are at fault!
You can read more here:
http://www.proaves.org/rubrique.php?id_rubrique=451
and the English editorial:
http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf/Conservacion_Colombiana_13_English_editorial-2.pdf
Like I said before you cannot count something not done intentially. The second was a mistake and one that happens sometimes when mist netting. Proaves have been involved in lots of mist netting in all their reserves and knew the risk before anyone ever knew about this antpitta. It happened to the type specimen of the Yariguies Brush Finch and because of how much mist netting Proaves have done I bet the Brush Finch wasn't the first (or last) time. Rare occurrence but not exceptional and a known risk when mist netting.
To the one collected deliberately because it can be questioned. I would never condone something done illegally and if that is what happened here the collector should be punished. But this is where we differ. The second editorial questions if collecting was done without the necessary permits. Proaves say it was done without the necessary permits/in breach of his contract and you take their word as judgement in the case. I would never support one side of the case also acting as judge. That is for an uninvolved judge to determine. Not Proaves. Not the collector. Proaves went even further than acting as judge. They also took the honours of the discovery from the actual discoverer. In all likelihood it will forever be known as Grallaria fenwickorum with Barrera and Bartels as species authors. Not the actual discoverer. Taking the honours is something no real judge could ever rule because an individuals moral rights are protected in most (if not all) countries. Unless the second editorial is mistaken Colombian law also fully protects an individuals moral rights.
I can only agree with your last sentence. I'm sure both sides made mistakes and in hindsight I'm sure both wish they had done some things differently. There are two losing sides and no real winners. Not that many Colombian people working with birds. I hope the two sides will be able to work out their differences and work together in the future.
Last edited:
Globalbirder
Well-known member
Absolutely agree with you Roy'N. Both parties in this dispute should show whatever documentation is needed to provide they could or could not collect these birds. Of course, this was all within Proaves private property (their bird reserve) so would have thought they had some rights. Even so both editorials (and subsequent comments) from either side should show evidence. I would have thought both groups would want to prove they are right? Or perhaps they are both wrong? What a mess.
IF Colombian law is like the ones I know with they do. This is easier to describe with an example. If I work as a scientist for a university or company I have the right to publish my discoveries. Then other scientists will always associate the person who made the discovery - me - with the discovery because whenever they have to cite something it would be my article. It will also show on my curriculum vitae and for a biologist it's difficult to beat a species description. But in standard contracts the university or company I was hired by would own the discovery beyond that f.e. if it could be developed further or there were money to be made. If I was hired by GlaxoSmithKline and discovered a new drug I could publish an article about it but they would make the money. (often a contract clause where they can require that you wait until they secured a patent.)
Not easy to transfer to a bird discovery because an organisation can't own a species but in theory they could own things like specimens and other samples and co-own photos taken when he was employed by them which could be used to promote their organisation and work. Ultimately ownership of biological samples probably depend on Colombian environmental and anti-biopiracy laws that may prevent private ownership of important biological samples even if no one is likely to gain money from it.
Like said before only IF Colombian law is like the ones I know and much of this is theoretical. Even if all this perfectly match Colombian law, the discoverer wanted to sue, could find a judge that was willing to hear the case and ended up winning it's not like anything would change. Grallaria fenwickorum with Barrera and Bartels as species authors remain fixed. Whatever people call it I'm happy at least some of the distribution is protected in Colibri del Sol Reserve.
Robert Giles
Member
I'm just returning from a long birding tour around Colombia and see the interest in this issue of Grallaria fenwickorum.
So briefly I will share what I have been told: ProAves has not yet contested the editorial published in Ornitologia Colombia (associated with the second description of the same species) or many subsequent emails criticizing ProAves for their publication as they and Diego Caranton (collector) were involved in a legal investigation into this situation.
Shortly after the second [urraoensis] paper was published [June 25 2010] using the two specimens from Colibri del Sol Bird reserve, the government authority for assigning permission for collecting, instigated an investigation. For many months, ProAves and Diego Caranton had to present all evidence and documentation regarding the specimen collection, plus interviews. I was told that the process was completed in November and a decision is pending.
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
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.
saludos and enjoy the video!
more later, d.
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
ps. pics from that trip when the video was made are available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/colombia_birding_diego/sets/72157625491928315/
Similar threads
