[Melanie]

The Banggai Crow was photographed for the first time in 2008

http://www.act-parrots.eu/species/projects/2/

[Kenbell]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...isrediscovered

An article of its rediscovery today and it seems that a protection plan is being devised.

Ken

[John Cantelo]

Depressingly, the article mentions that a scientist (evidently not the person who 'collected them) "studied the two century-old specimens, housed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and compared them to the new specimens ........ (my emphasis). Not feathers or blood, but specimens.

So, lets get this right, someone finds a species long thought to be extinct and not seen since 1900 and promptly collects a couple (or more?). I've no idea what proportion of the surviving population that might represent, but suspect neither do the scientists. I'm not wholly against the 'collection' of birds for science, but in the days of DNA surely taking a couple of feathers would have sufficed given the species' undoubted rarity? I'm just hoping that my assumptions are wrong here, but I fear some attitudes to wildlife research are still marooned somewhere in the 19th century,

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

Depressingly, the article mentions that a scientist (evidently not the person who 'collected them) "studied the two century-old specimens, housed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and compared them to the new specimens ........ (my emphasis). Not feathers or blood, but specimens.

So, lets get this right, someone finds a species long thought to be extinct and not seen since 1900 and promptly collects a couple (or more?). I've no idea what proportion of the surviving population that might represent, but suspect neither do the scientists. I'm not wholly against the 'collection' of birds for science, but in the days of DNA surely taking a couple of feathers would have sufficed given the species' undoubted rarity? I'm just hoping that my assumptions are wrong here, but I fear some attitudes to wildlife research are still marooned somewhere in the 19th century,

Here we go again...

This subject was recently discussed at length wrt Pycnonotus hualon Bare-faced Bulbul:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=151256

Richard

[Xenospiza]

Pamela Rasmussen’s views on specimens are well-known anyway – just read the article describing the Bugun Liocichla.
There are far worse troubles for Indonesian birds than a few specimens.

I'm happy to know it really is still there!

[Melanie]

Pamela C. Rasmussen is one of the world's leading experts in identifying bird specimens (her most famous case was the Forest Owlet). The main work was done by Mohamad Indrawan in 2007/2008 who photographed the first Banggai Crows and estimated the population of about 500 individuals. The problem is that the taxonomic status of the crows on Peleng was not verified and therefor BirdLife hasn't recognized the rediscovery until now. Rasmussen has compared the old museum specimens with the new specimens from Peleng and confirmed that is was really the Banggai Crow which was thought to be lost.

[Birding Peru]

Originally Posted by Melanie

The Banggai Crow was photographed for the first time in 2008

http://www.act-parrots.eu/species/projects/2/

Melanie

This link does not work? Do you have the correct one?

Gunnar

[Dave B Smith]

Originally Posted by Birding Peru

Melanie

This link does not work? Do you have the correct one?

Gunnar

Gunnar,
Try this one and scroll down the page.

[Hidde Bruinsma]

And: http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/banggai-crow.html

[Melanie]

There was a similar message in English on the page but it seems that it have disappeared.

Originally Posted by Dave B Smith

Gunnar,
Try this one and scroll down the page.

[Melanie]

It would be nice to read a statement by BLI according the rediscovery and the taxonomical work by Pam Rasmussen but i fear that it will be first published in the updated Red List of Threatened birds in May 2010.

[Melanie]

Filip Verbelen's fantastic photographes of the Banggai Crow can be now seen at OBC

http://orientalbirdimages.org/birdim...Family_ID=&p=1

[birdboybowley]

So the 2 specimens that were pointlessly collected (sorry, pointlessly killed) form part of a population of "...no more than 220, maybe less than 30..." (HBW14). Well done scientists, well done

[Melanie]

Less than 30 sounds rather underestimated as Mochamad Indrawan state in his ZGAP account that it might be about 500.

[birdboybowley]

'Collecting' any birds these days is pointless, especially if it has a low population (even500 is a ridiculously low guestimate). How would people react if a couple of say, Yellowheads (which has a far greater pop of c2500-10000 birds), or Steller's Sea-Eagles (again a healthier pop of still less than 5000) were blasted for the sake of science...? The Banggai Crow is not even a species new to science, but a 'lost' species of which there are already specimens. This is a totally unacceptable practice and without excuse

[Mysticete]

if the removal of two specimens is enough to doom your population (of over 200), than you are doomed anyway.

And without the collection of specimens, there would probably STILL be debate on if these actually were Banggai Crows or not.

[birdboybowley]

Great attitude there M....why would there still be a debate - what can you glean from a bloody dead bird that you can't get from a live one???????????

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

if the removal of two specimens is enough to doom your population (of over 200), than you are doomed anyway.

So you wouldn't object if someone wanted to collect a couple of California Condors and Whooping Cranes? For scientific research of course.

The truth is we know little about critical population levels and genetic bottlenecks and the precautionary principle should be used in such cases.

Chatham Island Robin? heck it was probably doomed anyway - hang on a minute.....

Kakapo? Don't bother - it probably doomed.

Cheers,
a

[birdboybowley]

I was just thinking of those two birds A!! How about Mauritius Kes, Pink Pigeon, Crested Ibis...may as well jus let them go....oh no wait, a concerted conservation effort and NOT killing them and we now have sustainable populations. M's opening statement in his previous post has to be one of the most irresponsible and ridiculous things I've read on BF (and that's saying something!!)

[Melanie]

Don't forget, the Banggai Crow was heavily hunted on Peleng before the rediscovery. Maybe the description of the two newly collected specimens will help that the hunting on this bird on Peleng will stop.

[Mysticete]

your comparing two birds which are well represented in collections (condor and crane) and two species with much much lower populations (you chose to ignore the whole "if two birds are removed from a population of two hundred" line)

Establishing that the Bangaii crow WAS the Bangaii crow is well worth the loss of two birds to the population.

(AND WE GO AROUND AND AROUND IN CIRCLES)...

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by birdboybowley

'Collecting' any birds these days is pointless, especially if it has a low population (even500 is a ridiculously low guestimate). How would people react if a couple of say, Yellowheads (which has a far greater pop of c2500-10000 birds), or Steller's Sea-Eagles (again a healthier pop of still less than 5000) were blasted for the sake of science...? The Banggai Crow is not even a species new to science, but a 'lost' species of which there are already specimens. This is a totally unacceptable practice and without excuse

Completely agree.

Don't buy the excuses given trying to justify the killing of these specimums - I echo BirdBoyBowley's question, what could you gain by killing these birds, over and above what could be gained by the photographs, detailed field descriptions and, if necessary, live catching for detailed measurements/DNA or whatever.

The words of Rasmussen, explaining her conclusive verification, "The morphometric analysis I did shows that all four unicolour specimens are very similar to each other, and distinctly different from Corvus enca specimens. We also showed that the two taxa differ in eye colour - an important feature in Corvus. Not only did this confirm the identity of the new specimens but also the specific distinctness of Corvus unicolor, which has long been in doubt."

All she did was measure the dead things and look at the eye colours, hardly a difficult task to do on live birds! This is a hark back to Victorian times, 'tis simple a disgrace that a bird with a population in the mere dozens, or even perhaps hundreds, should be further depleted by so-caled scientists.

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

your comparing two birds which are well represented in collections (condor and crane) and two species with much much lower populations (you chose to ignore the whole "if two birds are removed from a population of two hundred" line)

Establishing that the Bangaii crow WAS the Bangaii crow is well worth the loss of two birds to the population.

(AND WE GO AROUND AND AROUND IN CIRCLES)...

I'm afraid I don't understand any of the first sentence. You have previously argued that fresh specimens (of known species) are a necessary part of scientific method. What if I was studying the evolution of crane, condor or parrot stomach linings.....

Cal Condor - c200-300
Whooping crane - 300-400?
Kakapo - 120?
CI Robin - 300?
Bangai Crow - 50-500

I suspect that much more was learnt by Filip Verbelen recording and photographing the birds in the wild than inspection of the new specimens. And that should not denegrate the work of PR who has done a lot of brilliant work across the oriental region.

Cheers,
alan

[birdboybowley]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

Establishing that the Bangaii crow WAS the Bangaii crow is well worth the loss of two birds to the population.

I'm still shocked that you can really actually believe this.....scary, very scary

[Mysticete]

First off:

I am willing to bet that researchers that monitor any of the 4 examples you listed probably known exactly when and where birds of any of those 4 species die, because they have continual monitoring. So if I wanted to do a big anatomical study on the kakapo, I could probably rely on animals killed in accidents or from natural causes, either captive or wild individuals. Most animals which enter museum collections nowadays are either accidental deaths or dead zoo animals, and active collection is generally limited to areas with poor prior sampling

Secondly, you make it sound like researchers go into a forest and blast ever living thing they see. They don't. They collected only 2 birds, of a species which only had two other specimens in existence. BIG DEAL. How many birds a year are killed by the locals as pests or for food? Arguing that a prey species of the locals will be endangered by the loss of two specimens for science is ridiculous.

Thirdly, I think most people have a naive viewpoint on what data you can actually collect from a few photos. A dead specimen is useful in that you have a source for unlimited DNA/isotope analysis, you have a voucher so that other researchers can go back and double check your work, and you have a safety net should something happen to your samples. Researchers can't "double-check" morphometric measurements on living birds released back in the wild. Beyond that sometimes specimens, including holotypes, just are not preserved well enough to allow the type of analysis a fresh specimen can produce; some old taxidermy practices for instance damage DNA. Also two more specimens at another museum do provide a back up in case the original specimens are either lost or destroyed.

Lastly, I am a museum based researcher. I have done both systematic work on right whales as well as my current paleoecological work on pinnipeds. Most of the measurements I take are impossible on living animals. There is plenty you can learn from a dead specimen that you just can't learn from a living animal.