Richard Klim
-------------------------
Niels, your point is of course valid. If the Guadalcanal team's assessment of the kingfisher's abundance was wrong to the extent that collection of even a single specimen would threaten the viability of the population, then there's indeed a case to answer. But many of those who've expressed outrage have done so simply on the basis that any collecting is unnecessary and wrong, full stop, and yet don't seem unduly concerned about numerous other studies.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.
(I agree with Thomas that certain studies arguably involve excessive collecting, and perhaps the House Wren study is an example...)
Another aspect that should be taken into account when comparing the two is that whilst the House Wren study fulfills scientific curiosity about an aspect of the physiology of the species, the goal of the Guadalcanal expedition is to secure the conservation of a threatened ecosystem - surely a worthy cause (irrespective of opinions on the methods employed).
Last edited: