Is avian taxonomy still dependent on ongoing specimen collection? (3 Viewers)

[Britseye]

Before all this distracting talk of veganism and palm oil develops into an ad hominem slugfest, can we not forget this question from upthread, please....

Can you honestly argue a credible case that describing a relatively cryptic new species will have any contribution to conservation whatsoever?

Or perhaps provide some unequivocal examples where it has?
Is it ever discussed whether it's actually necessary to take a specimen in individual cases or is it just policy to shoot first and ask questions later?
Who would make the decision in an individual case, if there was a choice?
Is the idea that taking a specimen is necessary just an unexamined assumption that's been in place for 300 years?

 

[MTem]

DLane, Josh,

First of all thanks for the full responses - it can only help if we try to understand each others perspectives given I suspect our basic objectives and intent are common. In common with many I suspect, I seriously thought we had given this collecting lark up along with bear baiting, so all this is a bit of a shock.

So could you please go on to answer DMW's point above please - why would photographs, video, feather and blood samples, field sampling and notes, etc., not suffice in the conservation debate? What EXACTLY do you get in addition to these non-lethal measures with a dead bird? And more significantly what do you NOT get if you leave it be, and is that missing element really THAT important to justify it's death, especially in this case when it seems a long-term viable population had not been established as existing?

Please....

Mick

In case my (thanks and) question to the collectors gets lost in the ensuing slugfest can I respectfully repeat it please? I really would like to understand this as it defies all my current instincts.

To be clear I am a hypocrite on many levels, have never been birding in South America, and i am not a vegetarian or vegan. I am a Chartered engineer who worked for an oil major for 23 years, never touched (or felt the need to) a collected specimen - unless you count the grey squirrels I shoot on my land. Not sure any of that removes my right to ask these questions though..... although I of course equally understand I have no 'right' to a reply. Just learning here ...

Mick

 

[lewis20126]

Do you realize that if there are four individuals left the population is not viable. Imagine the population bottleneck and the inbreeding that will result in those four individuals and their offspring reproduce and this assumes that all the individuals survive. The population is already doomed in your scenario.

Just a reminder of what you said earlier.

cheers, alan

 

[Britseye]

Wait --- I avoid foods with palm oil, I mostly bike but drive a Prius when I need to, I am a vegan, I believe that deforestation is a serious problem as is global warming. My entire research platform is focused on studying species' responses to climate change. I have seen deforestation destroy an incredible amount of endemic bird habitat in Peru over just a few years.

My question about veganism is directly related to the question about collecting. You value the lives of a handful of bird species while eat chickens without thinking twice when you throw away a carcass or poo out what you needed from it.

P.S. the Chatham Island Black Robin is a nice looking bird. I googled it. It is endangered because people introduced predators to the island. Yeah, ok so one female 'saved' the species. Who is going to do that for all new species? Are you going to go down to Peru and round up some pairs and figure out what conditions they need to breed? What are you going to do when some individuals die during your breeding project?

Whoa, hold on! There are legitimate arguments for being against collecting, but can you point to any shred of evidence that collection has had even the slightest impact on the population of Jocotoco Antpitta? I know some extremely misleading claims were made about the collection of a couple of birds in Peru (see here for a rebuttal: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/ABCletter.html) but this is exactly how false rumors get started

We don't know the number of Jocotoco Antpittas in the World so let's call it 'X'

Let's kill 3 of them (or 4 or 5 or whatever)

How many Jocotoco Antpittas are we left with (X-3)

there's the evidence that exterminating them had 'even the slightest impact on the population.' (the minus sign is a negative, if it had been positive I would have written +) It could be expressed as a percentage except we don't know how many there are. But we do know as a starting point that there are three (or four or five...) less than when we came here so at least we've got something to be working with.

 

[lewis20126]

I'm only guessing but I assume the principle is a constant for you in your profession?

It is a very important principle in the area in which I currently work, but the principle holds across all sciences.

cheers, alan

 

[Britseye]

It is a very important principle in the area in which I currently work, but the principle holds across all sciences.

cheers, alan

First do no harm! :t:

 

[Smilodon17]

ok so we leave those 4 birds alone. We leave them alone to be checked off a list by birders. What happens when that forest is destroyed? You never answered any of the other (more important) questions.

Just a reminder of what you said earlier.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Several posters to the current (Sept 2015) Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher thread: [http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=312128] suggested setting up a new forum on (the acceptability of) collecting, to avoid individual threads being diverted onto this subject.

It is not within my gift to set up a new forum but I thought it might be worthwhile setting up a thread where views can be posted on this matter and people can be directed from other threads to a live thread. Perhaps a mod could make this a "sticky" if it provides the said function?

I hope to provide links to threads and posts from this thread to existing posts - some of Dan Lane's recent posts (for example) are well-reasoned rebuttals of the anti-collecting stance and will be linked in due course.

I'm not a fundamentalist on this. My own view is that collecting of (new) avian specimens may be acceptable IF the targeted species is new for science and has a population demonstrably able to sustain the collection of a short type series. I think 1-2 specimens would be appropriate. However the question as to whether it is necessary at all should always be asked. Bugun Liocichla (a distinctive species of course) demonstrates that collection of a full specimen is not necessary for a species to be accepted by the scientific community.

I do not support extensive specimen collection in isolated forest fragments, trophy collections of known species or extensive collecting to supplement existing museum stocks.

More soon

cheers, alan

A reminder of the OP here, my (new) bold.

cheers, alan

 

[Britseye]

ok so we leave those 4 birds alone. We leave them alone to be checked off a list by birders. What happens when that forest is destroyed? You never answered any of the other (more important) questions.

Maybe it's because I don't understand your question that makes it seem as though it is tangential to the issue at hand? The forest is destroyed? Are you saying it might not have been destroyed if you had a corpse rather than a photograph? Or are you suggesting it's a more noble testament to a bird's demise to have it stuffed and mounted and exhibited in a museum rather than have a digital representation of it?

 

[Smilodon17]

You can't study a photograph in the detail that you can study a specimen. You can't get DNA from a photograph. You can't study a bird's skeleton or internal anatomy with a photo. Also, a huge majority of specimens are not mounted or exhibited, they're in protective cases where they are preserved so that they can be studied. Evolutionary perspectives (like what you would get from genetic data) in addition to morphology (from all parts of the animal), ecology, and behavior are all necessary components to conservation.

The questions are related to my first post (below). Here are the ones that weren't addressed:

What if the new species habitat is destroyed and the bird goes extinct? How much value does that photograph have after the bird is extinct?

What if for whatever reason you can no longer go to the locality the bird was found ever again? What value does that photo have?

What if someone finds fossils in the region of the new bird species? You know the only way to identify fossils is with skeletal material. What if someone finds fossils in a location where the bird is not found today? If the latter happens then it suggests that the species range was larger historically and the modern range and individuals probably deserve protection.

What if there is some plumage difference or morphological difference that you need to measure in the lab that you couldn't measure in the field? What if the only characters that can be used to diagnose the new species can't be measured in the field?

Maybe it's because I don't understand your question that makes it seem as though it is tangential to the issue at hand? The forest is destroyed? Are you saying it might not have been destroyed if you had a corpse rather than a photograph? Or are you suggesting it's a more noble testament to a bird's demise to have it stuffed and mounted and exhibited in a museum rather than have a digital representation of it?

 

[Farnboro John]

You can't study a photograph in the detail that you can study a specimen. You can't get DNA from a photograph. You can't study a bird's skeleton or internal anatomy with a photo. Also, a huge majority of specimens are not mounted or exhibited, they're in protective cases where they are preserved so that they can be studied. Evolutionary perspectives (like what you would get from genetic data) in addition to morphology (from all parts of the animal), ecology, and behavior are all necessary components to conservation.

The questions are related to my first post (below). Here are the ones that weren't addressed:

What if the new species habitat is destroyed and the bird goes extinct? How much value does that photograph have after the bird is extinct?

What if for whatever reason you can no longer go to the locality the bird was found ever again? What value does that photo have?

What if someone finds fossils in the region of the new bird species? You know the only way to identify fossils is with skeletal material. What if someone finds fossils in a location where the bird is not found today? If the latter happens then it suggests that the species range was larger historically and the modern range and individuals probably deserve protection.

What if there is some plumage difference or morphological difference that you need to measure in the lab that you couldn't measure in the field? What if the only characters that can be used to diagnose the new species can't be measured in the field?

I'm just a simple lad but:

- nobody was suggesting only keeping photographs but taking DNA, measurements, loose feathers etc - modern science has a multitude of ways of obtaining diagnostic material non-lethally;

- a live specimen can be ringed or satellite tagged to gain more information about the individual's movements and lifestyle, and/or the species' distribution, habits and habitat;

-digital photography stands a much better long-term chance of preservation than biological material, especially since it can be copied to a myriad different locations and media for safety;

-if you want detail take photos from closer with something better than your phone;

-digital photos can be geotagged to create a permanent, copyable record of the location;

-it's my understanding that fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex were "identified" without reference to modern remains: additionally I would like to see your justification for equating the value of a fossil ID to the life of a modern organism of uncertain population and/or distribution:

-speaking of morphological and other differences, what if the most obvious difference between two closely related species is call/song? - you aren't going to hear that after the bang of the shotgun:

- how in the name of all that is holy are you going to justify shooting everything you see in order to dissect it to see if there is a difference from a known species that you can only detect in the lab? The suggestion that you need to collect in case something can only be diagnosed in the lab is a completely lunatic statement: how will you know to collect an individual unless you already have a diagnostic feature that prompts you to pursue it?

-in answer to your point about study, we learn more about species from study of live individuals than from study of dismembered ones, as the difference in internal detail between Ostrich, Emperor Penguin and Marvellous Spatuletail is less than that between savanna, Antarctic and rainforest and animals' lifestyles in each.

All in all, the benefit to science is greater from live than dead individuals of species, particularly now that so much can be learned non-lethally.

John

 

[birdboybowley]

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Smilodon17]

I never judged you on your simplicity or lack thereof. I was asking honest legitimate questions. You make a bad case for yourself and your viewpoint when you get defensive and rude.

First and absolutely foremost, no research scientist goes and shoots everything they see both because of permitting and for obvious, obvious reasons.

You have logistical issues with your plan. Do you know how hard it is to re-find a banded bird in the Amazon? How about your permits? Where are you going to get the money for your tags? Do you know that often calls and songs are recorded and that information is associated with the specimens? How are you going to get a field crew together to do your work? Are you going to pay them? Who is going to do the work? Museum scientists?

Bird fossil identification is a little more difficult than a description of a t-rex, by the way. Read some papers about fossil birds and comparative osteology.

Photographs do not capture the full range of variation within a species. Species descriptions based on photos have been wrong e.g., Strix omanensis. You destroy feathers when you do DNA extractions on them. How about repeatability of your study?

I don't really want answers to any of these questions (above or below), but I want you to think about the following:

How much do you know about museums and what they do? What do you think is going on? Is that based on facts. What are the logistics of your plans, and do they make sense in localities that are actively subjected to habitat destruction? What is your real motivation here?

[add some claps from a fanboy here]

I'm just a simple lad but:

- nobody was suggesting only keeping photographs but taking DNA, measurements, loose feathers etc - modern science has a multitude of ways of obtaining diagnostic material non-lethally;

- a live specimen can be ringed or satellite tagged to gain more information about the individual's movements and lifestyle, and/or the species' distribution, habits and habitat;

-digital photography stands a much better long-term chance of preservation than biological material, especially since it can be copied to a myriad different locations and media for safety;

-if you want detail take photos from closer with something better than your phone;

-digital photos can be geotagged to create a permanent, copyable record of the location;

-it's my understanding that fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex were "identified" without reference to modern remains: additionally I would like to see your justification for equating the value of a fossil ID to the life of a modern organism of uncertain population and/or distribution:

-speaking of morphological and other differences, what if the most obvious difference between two closely related species is call/song? - you aren't going to hear that after the bang of the shotgun:

- how in the name of all that is holy are you going to justify shooting everything you see in order to dissect it to see if there is a difference from a known species that you can only detect in the lab? The suggestion that you need to collect in case something can only be diagnosed in the lab is a completely lunatic statement: how will you know to collect an individual unless you already have a diagnostic feature that prompts you to pursue it?

-in answer to your point about study, we learn more about species from study of live individuals than from study of dismembered ones, as the difference in internal detail between Ostrich, Emperor Penguin and Marvellous Spatuletail is less than that between savanna, Antarctic and rainforest and animals' lifestyles in each.

All in all, the benefit to science is greater from live than dead individuals of species, particularly now that so much can be learned non-lethally.

John

 

[Britseye]

I'm just a simple lad but:

- nobody was suggesting only keeping photographs but taking DNA, measurements, loose feathers etc - modern science has a multitude of ways of obtaining diagnostic material non-lethally;

- a live specimen can be ringed or satellite tagged to gain more information about the individual's movements and lifestyle, and/or the species' distribution, habits and habitat;

-digital photography stands a much better long-term chance of preservation than biological material, especially since it can be copied to a myriad different locations and media for safety;

-if you want detail take photos from closer with something better than your phone;

-digital photos can be geotagged to create a permanent, copyable record of the location;

-it's my understanding that fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex were "identified" without reference to modern remains: additionally I would like to see your justification for equating the value of a fossil ID to the life of a modern organism of uncertain population and/or distribution:

-speaking of morphological and other differences, what if the most obvious difference between two closely related species is call/song? - you aren't going to hear that after the bang of the shotgun:

- how in the name of all that is holy are you going to justify shooting everything you see in order to dissect it to see if there is a difference from a known species that you can only detect in the lab? The suggestion that you need to collect in case something can only be diagnosed in the lab is a completely lunatic statement: how will you know to collect an individual unless you already have a diagnostic feature that prompts you to pursue it?

-in answer to your point about study, we learn more about species from study of live individuals than from study of dismembered ones, as the difference in internal detail between Ostrich, Emperor Penguin and Marvellous Spatuletail is less than that between savanna, Antarctic and rainforest and animals' lifestyles in each.

All in all, the benefit to science is greater from live than dead individuals of species, particularly now that so much can be learned non-lethally.

John

:clap::clap::clap: an excellent passionate defence, John. That's got my day off to a good start.

 

[Britseye]

Smilodon wrote:

You have logistical issues with your plan. Do you know how hard it is to re-find a banded bird in the Amazon? How about your permits? Where are you going to get the money for your tags? Do you know that often calls and songs are recorded and that information is associated with the specimens? How are you going to get a field crew together to do your work? Are you going to pay them? Who is going to do the work? Museum scientists?

Not only is this distracting from the main premise you're also getting a bit ahead of yourself there, buddy. Logistical 'problems' have been surmounted before and they will be surmounted again with or without corpses.

Do we know what happens in museums? Presumably not as much as you or you wouldn't have brought it up as a line of argument? I do know enough about the human condition and the nature of 'collecting' however - I am a reformed twitcher for one thing - to know that over acquisitiveness is a constant companion. The Collection can take on a life of its own and the collector's instinct becomes to plug the gaps by all means necessary. As the collection becomes more extensive and new additions become less and less frequent, each potential new acquisition takes on the sheen of a must-have new trophy. I don't blame the collectors of today necessarily. Collecting specimens has been entrenched and institutionalized in the human psyche for at least 300 years. Elaborate justifications can always be constructed to defend this behaviour and party-line phrases such as 'we do this to help preserve the birds' take on a mythical construct. In the modern world these justifications don't seem to carry a great deal of weight. If we birdwatchers are supposed to be united in the same cause, how can we be campaigning to stop the slaughter of birds in the Mediterranean and then turning a blind eye to killing for killing's sake in order to sacrifice a few more specimens on the altar to the Great God Science.

Science has its place but the history of the conservation movement owes more to the sentimentality and compassion of simple bird-lovers. Indeed it was a reaction to the wanton killing of birds that lead the great and good ladies of the nascent RSPB in the late 19th century to instigate protection efforts. They didn't send out a team of researchers to investigate the effects the killing had on the local bird population or any such masculine, heroic data-collecting, evidence-based intellectual activity. They just cared. Science doesn't understand compassion because it can't see it or measure it, it falls outside the remit of its domain. But it has an effect on the world, therefore it must exist as an actual thing.

I am leaving the Internet chat arena now for several months due to work commitments. I'll be surprised if there's not a wealth of rebuttals and referenced papers on here by the time I get back as the career academics have their say. I'm sorry I won't be able to answer them directly.

 

[MTem]

Just for the record I'm still with Farnboro John and Britseye here. But another question. How do you 'collect'? Is it really a shotgun? What does that do to contaminate the 'specimen', never mind the risk of wounding and trauma to the bird? (I did imagine mist nets and drugging)

Also the question of what we lose if we don't have the specimen seems VERY limited in it's forward benefit for the species (as opposed to the museum and the scientist). Perhaps there are things that just aren't worth the cost to know right now.

To re-iterate a point I've made before, I think on the day this topic comes under the spotlight of 'public opinion' I think it can only serve to diminish the status of science in general and birding in particular. I urge change before that day comes.
Mick

 

[King Edward]

I'm just a simple lad but:

- nobody was suggesting only keeping photographs but taking DNA, measurements, loose feathers etc - modern science has a multitude of ways of obtaining diagnostic material non-lethally;

- a live specimen can be ringed or satellite tagged to gain more information about the individual's movements and lifestyle, and/or the species' distribution, habits and habitat;

...

All in all, the benefit to science is greater from live than dead individuals of species, particularly now that so much can be learned non-lethally.

John

You're putting forward a false dichotomy here. Collecting a small number of specimens from a population does not stop you doing any of the above - indeed I'd hope it would be best practice when collecting with the aim of describing a new species to also gather that kind of supplementary information (certainly sound recordings and behavioural observations which can't be taken from a dead specimen). Although, in reality what is practically doable during a field expedition is likely to be rather less than what you might want ideally.

I do find it very odd that many people have such an extreme antipathy to the idea of scientific specimen collecting, involving the deaths of a very small number of individuals which will be preserved for long term scientific benefit, while being perfectly happy with other practices which are vastly more significant in terms of animal deaths and damage to populations and habitats

 

[MTem]

I do find it very odd that many people have such an extreme antipathy to the idea of scientific specimen collecting, involving the deaths of a very small number of individuals which will be preserved for long term scientific benefit, while being perfectly happy with other practices which are vastly more significant in terms of animal deaths and damage to populations and habitats

King Edward (HRH or potato?)

Assuming I'm lumped into this category two questions please

1. what EXACTLY is this long term scientific benefit that can only be achieved by killing the birds? (And who does it benefit?)
2. what other practices are you assuming I'm happy with? (tolerance and the unwillingness to 'take up arms' does not necessarily infer 'happiness')

Mick

 

[Nutcracker]

A suggestion for a guideline for good practice, perhaps?:

"Specimens shall only taken when the take is certain to be less than 0.1% of the verified population"

By 'verified population', I mean actual counted individuals, not estimates from area of potential habitat.

 

[King Edward]

King Edward (HRH or potato?)

Assuming I'm lumped into this category two questions please

1. what EXACTLY is this long term scientific benefit that can only be achieved by killing the birds? (And who does it benefit?)
2. what other practices are you assuming I'm happy with? (tolerance and the unwillingness to 'take up arms' does not necessarily infer 'happiness')

Mick

The fact is that for the past few hundred years the science of taxonomy has been based on the collection of physical specimens and their preservation in institutions where they are available for reference and study long into the future. There is a great deal of value in scientists being able to study the actual physical specimens rather than just images of them - how do you propose to examine details of a bird's skeleton from a photograph? Likewise if you want to analyse maybe the ultrastructure or pigment composition of the feathers, or extract isotopes or environmental pollutants. Can you put a photograph under a scanning electron microscope or run it through a mass spectrometer?

In many cases the value of having the specimens only becomes apparent in the future - e.g. DNA can be extracted from specimens collected long before DNA was even discovered. Yes, DNA can now be analysed from small blood/tissue samples taken from a live capture, but that's not necessarily the case for other analyses. Essentially, I don't see the requirement for abandoning centuries of good scientific practice for some woolly ethical notion of "it's wrong to kill birds". Is it just birds that you think shouldn't be collected? What about other taxa - reptiles? Fish? Insects? Plants?

It's true that with modern binoculars, cameras etc. you can do a very great deal without the need for collecting. Certainly for regular birders, naturalists etc., and when you're dealing with species that are well known and can be identified in the field. But there is still an important place for collecting, especially for basic taxonomy and especially for certain taxa (e.g. most insects).

On the second question, just about everything we do in modern life has negative impacts of some kind on the natural world. Farming, mining, manufacturing, transport etc. All have massive impacts. I could list things in detail, but I don't really see the point.

A suggestion for a guideline for good practice, perhaps?:

"Specimens shall only taken when the take is certain to be less than 0.1% of the verified population"

By 'verified population', I mean actual counted individuals, not estimates from area of potential habitat.

Totally ridiculous. E.g. for the antpittas above, to collect 2 specimens are you really suggesting that the scientists involved should have spent day after day trekking through difficult terrain trying to identify 2000 individual birds in the field. How long do you think that would take? How much disturbance would it cause to the target and other species? And who on earth is going to pay for such a pointless exercise?