• 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.

Is avian taxonomy still dependent on ongoing specimen collection? (1 Viewer)

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

This, and Smilodon's questions about veganism and hypocrisy are classic "whataboutism". Those who support killing birds to prepare museum skins should be able to justify the practice based on its own merits, rather than try to frame it in reference to another issue. You might as well ask why we should care about birds when so many people are being killed in Syria.

I doubt any posters to this thread are "happy" about anything that damages populations and habitats, although I suspect you actually meant "don't seem to care as much". Well, I suspect we all do care about these things too: it's perfectly possible to hold a number of ideas in one's head at the same time, and understand that both can be argued even where one is far more significant than the other. I would also suggest that the possibility of effecting change in the collection practices of a few institutions is a rather more achievable goal for birders than mitigating anthropogenic climate change, or world peace.

I should also clarify that, in my own case, I don't have extreme antipathy towards the idea of scientific collecting. My antipathy is towards what I consider unnecessary killing of birds arising from antediluvian attitudes towards what constitutes a valid specimen. I accept that with invertebrates, for example, there is no currently no viable alternative to lethal collection.
 
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?

So you'd be happy killing half the known population? Just because potential habitat is there, you can't assume that the new species is also there. As pointed out, precautionary principle.
 
This, and Smilodon's questions about veganism and hypocrisy are classic "whataboutism".
Not really, particularly when it comes to a direct comparison like eating chicken. If it's wrong to kill an antpitta to go in a museum, why is it OK to kill a chicken to go in a sandwich? Taxonomists don't go round killing birds for fun - they do it because it's an important part of scientific good practice.

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the questions about the long term benefit of specimen collection, dismissing the practice simply as 'antediluvian'.
 
Threads like this are basically useless: both sides are arguing from completely different starting points and so will never be able to convince each other. Pro-collection advocates come from a viewpoint that collection of specimens has a trivial impact on the population and provides valuable scientific data; Anti-collection folks basically are arguing from the perspective that killing wild birds is wrong. One side is largely based on appeals to reason while the other is an appeal of emotion.

All I can say is: specimens provide a long term archive source of data, in a way a photograph and feather doesn't. It's impossible to say what methods may exist 50 years ago or what scientific questions that will appear that don't even occur to today's researchers. From my own mammal-based perspective, all of my research, and that of my colleagues, relies upon museum collections. This in many cases involves micro and mesowear analysis of teeth, stable isotope and rare earth element analysis, morphometric analyses of shape; CT and MicroCT of specimens, and loads more methods, that either are impossible or very limited in their ability to be collected from live specimens.
 
Not really, particularly when it comes to a direct comparison like eating chicken. If it's wrong to kill an antpitta to go in a museum, why is it OK to kill a chicken to go in a sandwich? Taxonomists don't go round killing birds for fun - they do it because it's an important part of scientific good practice.

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the questions about the long term benefit of specimen collection, dismissing the practice simply as 'antediluvian'.

Yet more whataboutism! What has the rights and wrongs of eating chicken got to do with the rights and wrongs of "collecting" an antpitta? Let's say I do eat chicken, and that it's morally wrong, and I'm a hypocrite... does that make my arguments less valid than a person who is a vegan, and who makes the exact same arguments?

However, to answer your question directly, we make moral distinctions like this all the time. Why is it OK for a British soldier to go to Iraq and kill a member of ISIS, but not OK for me to go up to a person in the street and stab them to death for fun? End result either way is a dead person.

To answer the questions you posed:

Q. Can you put a photograph under a scanning electron microscope or run it through a mass spectrometer?

A. I imagine you can. I also imagine doing so would provide about as much useful information to bird taxonomy as using an actual bird.

Q: Is it just birds that you think shouldn't be collected? What about other taxa - reptiles? Fish? Insects? Plants?

A: See previous post for answer.
 
Not really, particularly when it comes to a direct comparison like eating chicken. If it's wrong to kill an antpitta to go in a museum, why is it OK to kill a chicken to go in a sandwich? Taxonomists don't go round killing birds for fun - they do it because it's an important part of scientific good practice.

Very, very simple answer to that. There's billions of domestic chickens in the world and they're not endangered; there may only be 4 (or at best, a few dozen) of that newly discovered Antpitta.

Any species of land vertebrate which has managed to escape discovery until now is highly likely to have a very restricted distribution and low population, and therefore may not be able to withstand the extra predation for museum supply.
 
To answer the questions you posed:

Q. Can you put a photograph under a scanning electron microscope or run it through a mass spectrometer?

A. I imagine you can. I also imagine doing so would provide about as much useful information to bird taxonomy as using an actual bird.

Q: Is it just birds that you think shouldn't be collected? What about other taxa - reptiles? Fish? Insects? Plants?

A: See previous post for answer.
If you're going to be childishly literal then there is really no point discussing. You seem to be either unaware or in denial of the fact that museum specimens can have other uses besides taxonomy. Many of these such as the analyses mentioned by Mysticete above require actual dead specimens, and simply can't be performed on photos.
 
... Pro-collection advocates come from a viewpoint that collection of specimens has a trivial impact on the population and provides valuable scientific data; Anti-collection folks basically are arguing from the perspective that killing wild birds is wrong. One side is largely based on appeals to reason while the other is an appeal of emotion.

I'm not. I have no problem with specimen collection, if it can be proven that the population of the taxon is sufficiently high to withstand it.

That has not been demonstrated in the current case.
 
Anti-collection folks basically are arguing from the perspective that killing wild birds is wrong.

Nope - I'm not (currently) against the practice because killing wild birds is wrong (as noted above I'm a hypocrite on many levels - I used to shoot wood pigeons and crows on the farm when 'a lad', I support the control of predators of rare, limited populations, and still eat chicken to this day).
I'm (currently) against it because none of you have identified a reason for doing so that meets my criteria for 'valid scientific purpose', especially when the impact on the remaining population is unknown - the Guad kingfisher and the other listed above. I'm still unclear what's in it for the bird species (as opposed to the scientist and the museum) that can't be achieved by photography, feather/blood samples, ringing, tracking, measurements etc. Because the alternatives are 'too costly' doesn't justify the alternative.
Also the worst reason for anything is 'because that's the way we have always done it'. The alternatives to gather the data you discuss seem to exist, but will require changes to custom and practice.

Further I am also very concerned as to the damage this activity would do to birding, bird conservation charities funding and science in general if the practice came under the scrutiny of mainstream media.... or in the UK 'The Countryside Alliance'

Do you use shotguns???

Mick
 
Last edited:
It's impossible to say what methods may exist 50 years ago or what scientific questions that will appear that don't even occur to today's researchers.
(I imagine you meant 'ahead', not 'ago'.)

This type of argument almost invariably enters pro-collection discourses, yet always make me feel rather uncomfortable.
If you justify your 'need' to collect by 'unforeseeable benefits of those collections to future generations' (cf. [here]), you make this need unfalsifiable, meaning that you have left the realms of science.
This is more an appeal to belief, than one to reason.
 
If you're going to be childishly literal then there is really no point discussing. You seem to be either unaware or in denial of the fact that museum specimens can have other uses besides taxonomy. Many of these such as the analyses mentioned by Mysticete above require actual dead specimens, and simply can't be performed on photos.

This discussion is about the use of specimens for avian taxonomy: not other uses. We are talking here about specimens of an obscure antbird, and it is highly probable that these specimens will have absolutely no wider utility than being used to describe the taxon.

I have no idea what Mysticete does, or whether his research has any value beyond being of academic interest to himself and a few others working in the same field, but it is hardly a revelation that a museum-based researcher requires museum specimens to undertake his research.

Science does not live in a moral vacuum. Scientists must work within ethical boundaries, and these change with time. I suspect a lot of medical research has been impeded by changes to what the wider public deems acceptable - for example, cynically trialling new drugs in third world countries with laxer attitudes towards informed consent, lower liability, etc.

If a global ban on killing wild birds for museum collections was imposed today, do you think that would lead to the end of taxonomic studies? Or do you think - as I do - that very little would change? The same authors would probably continue to publish papers in the same journals, using the methodologies outlined in this thread. There would simply be more photographs of living birds, rather than fresh skins in these papers.

Touching upon your point about there being a wider utility to specimens than just taxonomy. Sure, there may be, but I think it is even more unacceptable to kill birds on the basis of "we might think of something to do with the skins in the future" than it is to kill them for a specific but hardly necessary purpose now. We have no idea what techniques will be available in the future - just as we have no way of knowing that those specimens will continue to exist.
 
I found the above discussing moderately interesting.

One observation is "Does anyone participating here attribute any value whatsoever to the life of individual organisms?"

By focusing only on population viability, the answer is "No, individual antbird lives are of no intrinsic value." Most papers by museum folks on collecting issues tend to either start off saying one of these things:
1. "I don't know anything about ethics, so will not comment on that. But I do know about why collections are useful and important." And then you say collections are important and therefore because there is nothing on ethics, then collections are important so collecting stuff is really good. OR
2. "Collecting does not endanger populations" (somewhat dubious claim as there are examples like the Guadelupe Caracara, Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Great Auk where collecting - some of it museum based - doubtless contributed to actual avian extinctions). And then the same thing.

Either way, there is no value attributed to animal life, and if that is the case then because scientific collections are a great resource, you can conclude that all collecting is a great idea.

I think that some of those persons questioning this particular example would actually attribute value to individual organism life. Some of the discussion above is shrouded in population viability issues, but I am not sure that is really where people are coming from in their hearts. I am not sure anyone should feel embarrassed about that. In western "monotheistic theism" based societies most belief systems place zero value on animal lives, people eat meat and so on. Many of the most ardent proponents of museums and collecting these days are from North and South America, and I think it is no coincidence that "monotheistic theism" ideology is very widespread there and that recreational hunting and the eating of meat with most meals is also normal. In some parts of Asia, animal lives are valued. And in some parts of Europe, particularly the UK, many people would identify with a post-religious secular society where vegetarianism is very widespread. So there are cultural differences in where people come from on this topic.

Under a non-religious approach where some value (whatever weight) is placed on individual animal life, then an existentialist philosopher would ask: "Does the scientific or other benefit of the killing of these individual organisms outweigh the negative aspects of killing the organism." Possibly, scientists in the field are best placed to answer that question, but I don't think that many of them ask it very often. Many are just connected with museums being great and think only about whether having more specimens is a good thing for the museum or their study. And probably convince themselves they are not going to cause an extinction, hopefully, but that's it.

So I think there is a bit of a disconnect in terms of where people come from on this issue.

Thomas
 
If a global ban on killing wild birds for museum collections was imposed today, do you think that would lead to the end of taxonomic studies? Or do you think - as I do - that very little would change? The same authors would probably continue to publish papers in the same journals, using the methodologies outlined in this thread. There would simply be more photographs of living birds, rather than fresh skins in these papers.
What on earth would be achieved by such a ban? The number of birds killed for scientific collections is miniscule. There are many, many threats to wild birds and their habitats, but responsible scientific collecting isn't one of them.
 
If a global ban on killing wild birds for museum collections was imposed today, do you think that would lead to the end of taxonomic studies? Or do you think - as I do - that very little would change? The same authors would probably continue to publish papers in the same journals, using the methodologies outlined in this thread. There would simply be more photographs of living birds, rather than fresh skins in these papers.

Your statement indicates a limited knowledge about the field of avian systematics and taxonomy. I suggest opening up a few recent leading ornithological or taxonomic journals (Ibis, Auk, Zootaxa, Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution, etc., and don't forget paleonotological journals) and see what material is being used by those doing taxonomic research. If you look at the methods, tables, acknowledgements, and appendices you will see that close to 100% of these authors rely on museum specimens to do their work. Some may use some unvouchered blood or other tissue samples (of which most taxonomists are highly critical), but these authors are heavily reliant on vouchered specimens as well. There is no substitute for museum collections for doing taxonomic work.

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

cheers, alan

Alan, please illuminate for us: what is the area in which you currently work?

It seems to me that your smugly-held principle is a lovely ideal, but that it is really not often used in most of science:

"Do we know that nuclear fission won't blow up the world through all-out nuclear war?" "Not extactly." "Ok, let's not do it then."
"Let's send a space probe out to the edges of our galaxy with information on who we are and where we live!" "Wait, might that not potentially lead a dangerous alien race right to our door and annihilate us all?" "Maybe.” “Consider that plan scrapped!"
"Let's innoculate this horse with a virus that is killing people." "But wouldn't that potentially kill the horse?" "I suppose it's a possibility..." "Well then, no!"
"I will give you prescription antibiotics for the infection." "But what if these antibiotics eventually cause a supergerm that will no longer respond to antibiotics and will cause a pandemic?" "Oh yeah, nevermind. Good luck with that!"
"We will send medics into the underdeveloped country to help all those poor, sick people whose lives were destroyed by decades of war." "But their culture will not allow them to cut back on the number of children they will produce, who will stand to live longer lives with lowered death rates and we'll end up with global overpopulation!" "Shoot, didn't think of that. Ok, forget that idea, let 'em die miserably!"

Science wouldn't really progress if it was constantly stymied by unknown potential issues and unforeseen consequences that we'd have to use such precaution against. Yes, those who practice science have to weigh potential outcomes and the lesser of two evils is the one chosen in most cases (actually three evils: the least, inaction, would not be useful). I believe I can say that we did just that.

Meanwhile, back in Flor de Cafe, our decision to collect the birds involved several aspects:
1) the threat of the loss of the forest patches that were home to the birds collected to locals converting them to sun coffee plantations (which has been happening even after the discovery of Scarlet-banded Barbet, so any comment that the discovery of the antbird would immediately halt clearing is obviously not true).
2) the afore-mentioned national park that was staring at us over our shoulders with quite a bit of appropriate habitat, and the use of educated guessing and previous experience to extrapolate to potential distribution and conclude that the species is not likely to be restricted to Flor de Cafe
3) the fact that we didn't have permits to visit said park for the purposes of strolling, much less collecting
4) it seemed more important to us to get appropriate documentation of the existence of this bird while we had the opportunity, rather than potentially lose it to habitat destruction in the time necessary to get permits for the park, do an exhaustive search of all possible habitat and establish a factual and exact world population. Which actually doesn't exist for about 99.999% of the world's birds.
5) to be sure that birders, benefiting from the discovery by going to the site and seeing the bird some day, would be able to snipe at us online using blatant misinformation and without having actually investigated the situation, visited the site, or otherwise offset their negative remarks by providing evidence that they are actually adding usefully to the conversation.

So, Alan, other than not apologizing for having now, twice, incited an anti-collecting furor through the use of unverified hearsay that is demonstratively false (let me link to a Wikipedia page here, since you did so above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation), what is your point?
 
Last edited:
2. Google Chatham Island Black Robin.

Indeed, this is a case where one female brought the bird back. But, as I believe someone else pointed out: how much money and effort went into that result? Would it be realistic to expect that such could be raised for *every species* (especially if it wasn't even recognized as existing yet) that was down to such a small number? If you believe it could be, I think you have identified yourself as not of this reality.
 
I find it incredible that you guys try to link creation of protected areas with on-going collection of whole-bird specimens, or imply that killing birds for 'science' is a necessary component of conservation. It's the 21st century... documenting avian diversity has never been easier. Can you honestly say that it is not possible to inventory a location's biodiversity to the point that you can advocate creation of a protected area, without collecting? Can you honestly argue a credible case that describing a relatively cryptic new species will have any contribution to conservation whatsoever?

I find it incredible that you even read this forum if you don't! If a "relatively cryptic new species" is so uninteresting to you, and has no use to conservation, then what's the point of even bothering with bird taxonomy at all? Why does this forum even interest you enough to bring yourself to read it, or are you simply here to troll people unnecessarily?

I'm sorry if you think that conservation has not benefited from bird collecting, but unless you actually are in the field, I don't know if you are in a position to say such things.

Particularly in Peru, where I have some experience, the creation of a bird watching culture through the publication of field guides and other literature in Spanish (translated from works in English that were ONLY possible to produce through the knowledge gained from specimen collecting) has immensely increased a pro-conservation mentality in young Peruvians, both in wealthier cities and in small outlying villages.

The establishment of Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul, a huge national park, is, I would argue, a conservation success. Those proposing the park used the image of Scarlet-banded Barbet, a bird that was discovered during collecting expedition at a site never before visited, as its flagship species. Do you want to tell me that Peruvian officials weren't impressed by that bird's appearance and uniqueness and realized the importance of preserving its habitat?

Even EcoAn, an organization that has done some good conservation work in Peru (even though one of its founders seems incapable of avoiding making sniping comments about collectors when he himself was one), seem unable to avoid working in sites where collectors made major discoveries that were important enough to motivate their action. I recall a comment made about Xenoglaux somewhere above. It was (wait, let me do the calculations here.... ok, carry the 2...) THIRTY years between that bird's first encounter with humans (and subsequent collection), and the first time it was found outside of a mistnet (oh, but by people armed with recordings obtained by collectors). After which, EcoAn established a small reserve within a larger protected area, specifically because the owlet was there, which was only established through the efforts of museum collectors.

Sorry, I think you must be thinking of some other activity when you say collecting and conservation are not at all related...
 
Last edited:
OK, getting a bit pi$$ed with all this ad hominem stuff.
Can you pro-collection folk please get the point that there are some of us here who were seriously shocked that this lark hadn't died out with Queen Victoria and are trying to understand why it is still judged necessary by clearly highly educated, rational scientists who (presumably) share our interest and love of avian fauna.
Thomas may indeed have opened another interesting aspect, because for sure I'm in the camp that does place value on the life of animals other than humans, but not to the extent I won't kill and eat some of them. Hence I'm just trying to understand the justification, and highlight the reputational risk (especially currently in Europe) I feel it represents if scrutinised by mainstream media. Specifically the campaign against the slaughter of migratory birds in Southern Europe, and grouse shooting in the UK. Now I know these are unrelated issues technically, but in today's 'post truth' world of Trumpian reality what the hell makes you think that wil matter a jot?

So stop being defensive and start convincing. I note Andy Kratter's suggestion above and I will try to do that.
 
Citing Strix omanensis in your game of top-trumps seems a little bit like shooting yourself in the foot. The existence of 2 species of Strix in the Middle East was established despite the existence of specimen material, not because of it. Had Robb et al not heard and recorded their 'new' owl, we would still think there was a single species of Strix... despite the existence of skins in various museum drawers.


If you had actually read the paper that first postulated that S. omanensis is a synonym, you will see that this is not quite the case. Shirihai had already realised years before that a second taxon was involved, but without vocal material had held himself in check (and having been a little burnt by his premature description of a certain Indian Ocean Puffinus). Nevertheless, his foresight wrt this owl is why he has a bird named for him. You are correct that the input of Robb et al. was quite critical in the process of realising that there was a second species involved, but museum specimens, and appropriate analysis thereof, were also entirely necessary building bricks therein.

You like to drag up the case of these owls on Birdforum quite regularly, Duncan, so it would make sense to have appraised yourself of what the different papers actually say and demonstrate.

Ooops, I forgot, it is the post-truth world now, so facts are irrelevant...
 
And to DLane above the examples you cite sound like side effects from the collecting expedition, not from collecting per se, or only historical in justification. The field guide would today be from photographs, and the Barbet could have been used as the park justification and emblem without its demise surely.
I have no doubt expeditions to remote locations are valuable for conservation purposes, but that doesn't immediately extent to taking the need to take dead birds home, does it?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top