Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher (3 Viewers)

[l_raty]

RBA Reader poll: Killing and collecting in the name of science

Has this already been posted ?
http://www.rarebirdalert.co.uk/v2/C...g_in_the_name_of_science.aspx?s_id=1035191396

 

[lewis20126]

Still no reply from CEPF on that AMNH funding proposal, though I wouldn't expect anything from an Org funded by the EU.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

I'm still chasing the Phase 1 proposal from AMNH to CEPF

Meanwhile, I'm told there is a proposal (LOI) for a proposal "Advancing a Conservation Strategy for the Uplands of Guadalcanal: Phase II", submitted very recently.

I wonder if this is another collecting expedition for AMNH, dressed up as a "Conservation Strategy". I suggest if you don't want to support further unwarranted specimen collection of already described species, you write to CEPF and object to this proposal.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Still not sure why Chris Filardi has been singled out for worldwide vilification for collecting one specimen of a poorly-known but apparently locally-common taxon, whilst larger-scale scientific collecting (of less charismatic taxa?) continues without attracting specific comment. eg, Galen et al (in press)...

Sample Collection.
We collected 140 house wren specimens from a range of elevations (120–4,454 m above sea level) in the Peruvian Andes and adjacent lowlands. All specimens were preserved as vouchers in the ornithological collection of the Museum of Southwestern Biology of the University of New Mexico and the Centro de Ornitología y Biodiversidad (CORBIDI) (Lima, Peru).
All birds were live-trapped in mist nets and were sacrificed in accordance with protocols approved by the University of New Mexico Institutional Care and Use Committee (Protocol 08UNM033-TR-100117; Animal Welfare Assurance number A4023-01). All collections were authorized by permits issued by management authorities of Peru (004-2007-INRENA-IFFS-DCB, 135-2009-AG-DGFFS-DGEFFS, 0377-2010-AG-DGFFS-DGEFFS, 0199-2012-AG-DGFFS-DGEFFS, and 006-2013-MINAGRI-DGFFS/DGEFFS). For each of the 140 house wren specimens, we collected 20–60μL of whole blood from the brachial or ulnar vein using heparinized microcapillary tubes. Red blood cells were separated from the plasma fraction by centrifugation, and the packed red cells were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen. We collected liver and pectoral muscle from each specimen as sources of genomic DNA and globin mRNA, respectively. Muscle samples were flash-frozen or preserved using RNAlater. All tissue and blood samples were subsequently stored at −80 °C.

 

[lewis20126]

collecting one specimen of a poorly-known but apparently locally-common taxon, ...

says who?

BLI lower end estimate is 250.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Paul Sweet / AMNH is clearly the prime mover behind the specimen collection, otherwise the specimen would have remained in Guadalcanal.

cheers, a

 

[Morg]

Thought the BB News and Comment comments in the latest issue a little critical of this Kingfisher specimen collection, yet this was followed up with a story praising the identification of the Acadian Flycatcher.

Surely the multiple DNA sequences that the Dunge flycatcher was compared to were from birds euthanised and preserved in museums? That there were sequences available from multiple individual birds of several species was stressed as important for the (admit it, trivial) identification of this vagrant.

Collecting the male Guadacanal Moustached Kingfisher was unsavoury - I bet no-one on this forum would actually want to do it - but luckily some are willing to do this type of biological work.

For those who have spent a significant proportion of their lives leafing through the plates and text of field guides and handbooks, and I'd count myself in that bracket, the uncomfortable reality is that museum specimens provide reference material for the illustrators and writers of these publications.

 

[Nutcracker]

That was then; this is now. Past collection is "written off", so no longer relevant to the [environmental] cost debate (though was probably significant in e.g. the final extinction of Great Auk).

But more to the point, with advances in DNA sequencing, it is no longer necessary for provision of reference samples; this can now be done non-lethally.

 

[lewis20126]

but luckily some are willing to do this type of biological work.
.

Collecting species, considered to be globally endangered by BLI? I don't consider that to be a "lucky" circumstance at all.

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

For those who have spent a significant proportion of their lives leafing through the plates and text of field guides and handbooks, and I'd count myself in that bracket, the uncomfortable reality is that museum specimens provide reference material for the illustrators and writers of these publications.

I didn't need Sweet and Filardi to collect this specimen, for someone to then paint it, to then identify it. Did you?

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Galen et al (in press)[/URL]...

Specific comment: Gross, likely pointless, likely counter productive.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Specific comment: Gross, likely pointless, likely counter productive.

OK, at least one specific comment. :t:

 

[Morg]

That was then; this is now. Past collection is "written off", so no longer relevant to the [environmental] cost debate (though was probably significant in e.g. the final extinction of Great Auk).

But more to the point, with advances in DNA sequencing, it is no longer necessary for provision of reference samples; this can now be done non-lethally.

But the Guadalcanal Kingfisher is now "written off" as you put it - so what's the difference...

 

[Morg]

But more to the point, with advances in DNA sequencing, it is no longer necessary for provision of reference samples; this can now be done non-lethally.

I don't think DNA samples are the be all and end all to be honest. Are you really saying that we should have no reference male of this species in any museum anywhere in the world?

 

[Morg]

Collecting species, considered to be globally endangered by BLI? I don't consider that to be a "lucky" circumstance at all.

cheers, a

You seem pretty interested in splits and lumps in the world birding scene, which are obviously often going to be informed by reference to DNA taken from museum specimens - and we trust that DNA because we can go back and refer to the specimens again in the future.

As birders who enjoy looking at living birds but also enjoy having discussions about the science of taxonomy - we are lucky that there are people who are willing to do the kind of things that that the science involves - that's all I meant.

While I don't think it is wrong to ensure a museum specimen in this case (as no equivalent reference material exists), I'm not saying that killing a kingfisher is something I would do, would like to do, would like anyone else to do, etc. I do think that the untargetted collecting of birds should be stopped entirely.

 

[Morg]

I didn't need Sweet and Filardi to collect this specimen, for someone to then paint it, to then identify it. Did you?

cheers, a

I didn't need it to happen, but the option now exists.

 

[birdboybowley]

To paint the bird all you need is decent photos...and when the bird is in your hands then you can't ask for better. I know, I've painted one for a fieldguide.....

 

[Nutcracker]

Are you really saying that we should have no reference male of this species in any museum anywhere in the world?

Yes; I don't see that it's necessary, nor is it required by ICZN even for a new species* (not just the other sex of a known species). Some new species have been described without it.

* ICZN requires a holotype specimen, but this doesn't need to be a whole individual, it can be part of an individual - some feathers, a DNA sample, and so on.

For the record, I have no objection to naturally dead birds being collected for museum specimens.

 

[njlarsen]

Richard,
I want to ask one question about your mention of the House Wren collection and comparing it to the original collection: how big a percentage of the likely population was collected in each case? I think you have to define the relevant HW population very narrowly before you can say it is getting up there, as if the entire collection came from one valley or some such [and that valley had an isolated population]. Otherwise the numbers collected are much more insignificant compared to our current understanding of HW populations than the collection of that one woodpecker.

Niels

 

[thomasdonegan]

I'm told there is a proposal (LOI) for a proposal "Advancing a Conservation Strategy for the Uplands of Guadalcanal: Phase II", submitted very recently.

I wonder if this is another collecting expedition for AMNH, dressed up as a "Conservation Strategy". I suggest if you don't want to support further unwarranted specimen collection of already described species, you write to CEPF and object to this proposal.

You might want to write instead querying the methods, if this is a concern.

Funds for conservation of this area sound like they might be a better use of my taxpayer contributions to the EU than the funding of agricultural subsidies, cultural policies and the extraordinarily inefficient and low quality bureacracy that these institutions preside over...

In relation to a project in one part of Colombia, I recall with some regret querying whether specimens would be taken and mentioning one widely criticised specimen-taking event, when reviewing a follow up grant proposal on the same species in the same locality. The project leaders replied that collecting was not proposed as part of the project, which was good enough for me and so I recommended to support it. The grant givers decided not to touch it, on the back of the previous controversy. That in my view was a very bad outcome for conservation. I am not sure who was to blame for that outcome, the grant-giving organisation who wanted to avoid links to a past controversy or the researchers whose past behaviour gave rise to concerns. Or the reviewer for "highlighting" the issue. However, a lot of stick subsequently came my way for raising concerns like this. So anyway, do be careful..... and consider the wider picture.