Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher (1 Viewer)

Mysticete · Oct 1, 2015

I for one don't have a problem with the collection of the specimen. Solid reasons have been given on why modern day collecting has been valid many times, but I don't see anyone vocally disagreeing changing their mind, because those opinions are rooted in emotion, and logic rarely turns over emotion in my experience.

And as Richard was getting at in the post above me, odds are all of us perform activities every day that are detrimental to birds/wildlife from a conservation or an ethics standpoint. Responsible modern scientific collecting is almost certainly negligible to all the other impacts we have on the environment as members of high consumption first world nations.

andrew147 · Oct 1, 2015

Mysticete said:
...I don't see anyone vocally disagreeing changing their mind, because those opinions are rooted in emotion, and logic rarely turns over emotion in my experience.

...and in my experience, the only people who see the possession of 'emotions' as a negative trait are those who would struggle to muster any.

Richard Klim · Oct 1, 2015

andrew147 said:
...and in my experience, the only people who see the possession of 'emotions' as a negative trait are those who would struggle to muster any.

Did Morgan suggest that emotions were a negative trait? He just acknowledged the reality that emotions often play a major role in forming individual opinions.

Nutcracker · Oct 1, 2015

Mysticete said:
And as Richard was getting at in the post above me, odds are all of us perform activities every day that are detrimental to birds/wildlife from a conservation or an ethics standpoint. Responsible modern scientific collecting is almost certainly negligible to all the other impacts we have on the environment as members of high consumption first world nations.

I wonder, if the researchers revisit the site, whether the local people might decide to return to their old traditional food sources to reduce the impact on local wildlife - the Solomon Islands weren't called the 'Cannibal Isles' for nothing. Would that be 'responsible collecting'? 3

ashley banwell · Oct 1, 2015

One big problem I can foresee is now with all this negative publicity is that when birders like myself try and visit this area the landowners will automatically think I am trying to kill their birds. I have already had problems with landowners on Bougainville, they think I am going to 'get rich' by seeing/photographing their birds. This sighting (not rediscovery as it was never lost) has been big news in the newspapers on Guadalcanal, I just fear if the local chaps there think all these white guys are coming over to remove their birds and therefore deny us a chance to see this 'ghost'

Hidde Bruinsma · Oct 1, 2015

I find it remarkable that several times by several people it has been stated that no male specimen of this bird was ever collected. Literature clearly shows that one of the three specimens is a male. It's just not fully mature. Not that it matters that much to the discussion but detail is detail.

Samizdat2003 · Oct 1, 2015

Hidde Bruinsma said:
I find it remarkable that several times by several people it has been stated that no male specimen of this bird was ever collected. Literature clearly shows that one of the three specimens is a male. It's just not fully mature. Not that it matters that much to the discussion but detail is detail.

That's not my understanding. Do you have a citation for the male?

Paul Sweet · Oct 2, 2015

Hidde Bruinsma said:
I find it remarkable that several times by several people it has been stated that no male specimen of this bird was ever collected. Literature clearly shows that one of the three specimens is a male. It's just not fully mature. Not that it matters that much to the discussion but detail is detail.

You are incorrect.

The type is female see Mayr 1941 http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bits...dfSource/nov/N1152.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The two additional specimens collected by Cain & Galbraith on the Oxford University Expedition of 1953

see: http://biostor.org/reference/1278/page/46

Paul Sweet · Oct 2, 2015

I've been trying to post the following to OB but can't seem to get a message through so here is my posting.

Dear All

As a member of the team on the recent Guadalcanal expedition I feel obliged to say a few words in response to the recent comments on OB and elsewhere.

This expedition was an multi-disciplinary biodiversity survey of the poorly known highlands of Guadalcanal. The expedition team consisted of over 30 scientists from the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Australia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Taiwan, Japan, the UK and the USA. Also participating and instrumental to this work were the Uluna-Sutahuri people, the owners and guardians of this land. Much of the Solomon Islands are threatened by logging and mining interests and the Uluna-Sutahari are working towards establishing a protected area on their lands. As part of our surveys specimens were collected: ferns, orchids, dragonflies, ants, fishes, lizards, frogs, bats and yes, birds. It goes without saying that all this is fully permitted and endorsed by the Solomon Islands’ government. It should not come as a surprise to OB members that scientific collecting is ongoing, and now more than ever documenting biodiversity is critical for conservation (see many papers published in Forktail for example). In the last two decades there are very few countries in the OB region that have not permitted judicious collecting by natural history museums and universities. Sadly there seems to be a lack of understanding of the importance of such collecting for basic research as well as conservation. I’m not going to go into the general importance of collecting here, but will refer readers to some references. Regarding birds see Remsen http://bit.ly/1O5LErc and for more on the general importance of specimen collection see Rocha et al. http://biology.unm.edu/Witt/pub_files/Science-2014-Rocha-814-5.pdf .

On the status of the species in question, it has been classified as Endangered by IUCN and Birdlife http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/factsheet/22726883 with the caveats that “ further research may reveal it to be more common” and “there are no data on population trends”. From data provided by David Gibbs an estimate of some 1500 individuals was proposed. Given the amount of suitable habitat within the elevational range of this species (900 to at least 1500 m) this is probably a low estimate. Several individuals were seen and heard (and recorded by Frank Lambert) along an approximately 2 km trail at 1200 to 1400 m. A quick look at Google Earth will show that the habitat at this elevation is undisturbed and consists of at least 20% of the land area of Guadalcanal (total 5,302 km2). With this information we decided that collecting a specimen would have no long term effect on the population.

The charge of trophy collection shows a lack of understanding of the value of museum specimens. The AMNH collections are heavily used by ornithologists from around the world for a huge range of projects. As an example anyone who uses a field guide or consults a monograph is a direct beneficiary of specimen collecting. All taxonomy is based on specimens, including for example the recent HBW taxonomy, for which Nigel Collar has extensively used our collections. As far as immediate information goes we can now properly describe the previously unknown male plumage and compare this to the Bougainville bird which will inform us on its species status. Also of interest, is the higher level relationship of the Melanesian taxa placed in Actenoides to the others found far to the west in the Philippines and Indonesia. With high quality genetic samples this relationship can now be elucidated by comparing DNA sequence to existing data (also obtained from specimen collection). Allegations of pseudo-science are also unfounded. I give the following two examples of specimen based science papers that may be of interest to OB members and that were authored by two members of our team http://bit.ly/1RiFxjd & http://bit.ly/1WAlBvn

Finally I would like to inform readers that to my knowledge no one has done more than Chris Filardi for bird conservation in the Solomon Islands. Chris has been involved in working with local people to set up community based conservation areas in critical sites for endemic birds for example the Imbu Rano lodge on Kolombangara. http://www.kolombangara.org/imbu-rano-lodge

Folks if you really care about conservation you should be attacking logging, agribusiness and mining interests that are the real threat to biodiversity in Melanesia, not naturalist biologists who actively working to save it.

Respectfully, Paul Sweet

lewis20126 · Oct 2, 2015

Interesting defence by PS which uses a numbers of the standard defences:
1) collection as prerequisite to conservation. An entirely false argument. Collection is not a prerequisite. Protecting the habitat is sufficient. It is protected by its inaccessibility.
2) genetic samples. An entirely false argument. Collection of a single bird is not necessary, better scientific method to take blood and feather samples from a larger sample of birds.
3) The field guide argument. A very weak argument in this instance. Everyone here knows what a Moustached Kingfisher looks like! Indeed that is why the collection is the collection of a trophy alone. A single specimen of an iconic species, used in the post expedition publicity, but the bird in life used in publicity, not the dead bird.

I do think the bird may well be commoner than "Endangered" but I do find it interesting to see DG's estimates used (now) to justify this collection, when the expedition was so quick to dismiss / downplay DG's sightings! The irony doesn't seem to have dawned...

cheers, alan

lewis20126 · Oct 2, 2015

Trophy?

Wiki " A trophy is a reward for a specific achievement, and serves as recognition or evidence of merit. Trophies are most often awarded for sporting events, from youth sports to professional level athletics. In many sports medals (or, in North America, rings) are often given out either instead of or along with trophies.

Originally the word trophy, derived from the Greek tropaion, referred to arms, standards, other property, or human captives and body parts (e.g., headhunting) captured in battle. These war trophies commemorated the military victories of a state, army or individual combatant. In modern warfare trophy taking is discouraged,[1] but this sense of the word is reflected in hunting trophies and human trophy collecting by serial killers."

cheers, a

Hidde Bruinsma · Oct 2, 2015

The original citation of the immature male was published in 1980 by John E. duPont and David M. Niles in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (Vol.100 No. 4). The holotype collected by R.H. Beck was judged wrongly sexed when it was compared with the 1953 adult females.
Later publications have cited the immature male such as HBW Vol. 6, Kingfishers, Bee-eaters & Rollers by Fry etc. and of course Forshaw and Cooper Kingfishers and Related Birds.

l_raty · Oct 2, 2015

Hidde Bruinsma said:
The original citation of the immature male was published in 1980 by John E. duPont and David M. Niles in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (Vol.100 No. 4). The holotype collected by R.H. Beck was judged wrongly sexed when it was compared with the 1953 adult females.

[here]

Paul Sweet · Oct 2, 2015

Hidde Bruinsma said:
The original citation of the immature male was published in 1980 by John E. duPont and David M. Niles in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (Vol.100 No. 4). The holotype collected by R.H. Beck was judged wrongly sexed when it was compared with the 1953 adult females.
Later publications have cited the immature male such as HBW Vol. 6, Kingfishers, Bee-eaters & Rollers by Fry etc. and of course Forshaw and Cooper Kingfishers and Related Birds.

Thank you Hidde, I stand corrected. Was not aware of DuPont's paper. I wonder if he was right? We may be able to test this. In any case the recently collected specimen is certainly an adult male of which the plumage was previously unknown. I will check the tag on the type on Monday to see if there is any additional information.

John Cantelo · Oct 2, 2015

lewis20126 said:
Interesting defence by PS which uses a numbers of the standard defences:
1) collection as prerequisite to conservation. An entirely false argument. Collection is not a prerequisite. Protecting the habitat is sufficient. It is protected by its inaccessibility.
2) genetic samples. An entirely false argument. Collection of a single bird is not necessary, better scientific method to take blood and feather samples from a larger sample of birds.
3) The field guide argument. A very weak argument in this instance.
cheers, alan

Very well said.

I'd also argue that the way in which photos of this handsome bird have so quickly bounced across the internet and attracted attention from the press demonstrates that, in conservation terms, high quality photos are more a more valuable tool for conservation than a specimen moldering in a drawer somewhere. Collecting like this could even be counterproductive as many birders might prefer to keep localities to themselves rather than give details to museums etc who may 'collect' the bird. Times have moved on and, in the era of DNA sampling etc., the wider public do not regard collecting like this as acceptable.

lewis20126 · Oct 2, 2015

"The Department of Ornithology maintains one of the largest collections of bird specimens in the world. The research collections of the Department number nearly one million specimens; these include skins, skeletons, alcoholic preparations, eggs, nests, and tissue samples for molecular biochemical studies. A large number of type specimens and rare or extinct species are also found in its collections. The specimens represent all continents and oceans and nearly 99 percent of all species"

How many of the remaining 1% did Paul complete with the recent expedition? I assume the Kingfisher specimen filled one of Paul's gaps? Must look great in the tray.

cheers, a

Mysticete · Oct 2, 2015

lewis20126 said:
Interesting defence by PS which uses a numbers of the standard defences:
1) collection as prerequisite to conservation. An entirely false argument. Collection is not a prerequisite. Protecting the habitat is sufficient. It is protected by its inaccessibility.
2) genetic samples. An entirely false argument. Collection of a single bird is not necessary, better scientific method to take blood and feather samples from a larger sample of birds.
3) The field guide argument. A very weak argument in this instance. Everyone here knows what a Moustached Kingfisher looks like! Indeed that is why the collection is the collection of a trophy alone. A single specimen of an iconic species, used in the post expedition publicity, but the bird in life used in publicity, not the dead bird.

I do think the bird may well be commoner than "Endangered" but I do find it interesting to see DG's estimates used (now) to justify this collection, when the expedition was so quick to dismiss / downplay DG's sightings! The irony doesn't seem to have dawned...

cheers, alan

with the caveat that I do not do molecular phylogenetics,

1) Its a lot easier to get designation of a habitat in many parts of the world for protection if you can accurately survey the current diversity, and it also allows you to track changes in the historic sense, which can be appropriate with today's changing climate

2) My understanding is that feathers and blood are not the most DNA rich portions of the organism. I know when I was in grad school the phylogenetics labs tended to use the the liver, which can't exactly be extracted from a living bird. I know you can get DNA from blood and feathers, but giving the former is mostly composed of unnucleated red blood cells and the latter is mostly keratinized dead tissue, I suspect the quantity and quality of the DNA extracted is limited. We have moved beyond the state in phylogenetics where you can just publish a cytochrome B gene and everyone will take your results at face value.

Of course there are other reasons why collecting the specimen is important for those sort of analysis; if something in the preparation goes wrong, you have fall back material to go back to, people can recheck your voucher if there is concerns on identity or possible hybridization, new methods may come around in the future that today's scientists are not aware of and didn't collect for, and collection of a specimen allows statistical assessment of morphology in a way that can't be seen in photos and in hand. (See Bailey's post in the collecting thread. This of course assumes that only the skin is being collected...if other tissues or skeletal material is (hopefully) collected alongside the specimen, than there is more material for things like stable isotope analyses, reproductive studies, morphological systematics, etc)

3) Obviously field guides are made using photographs, etc, but I would hazard a bet that the top rated field guides, and the ones you use...are almost all created using specimen vouchers.

Mysticete · Oct 2, 2015

lewis20126 said:
"The Department of Ornithology maintains one of the largest collections of bird specimens in the world. The research collections of the Department number nearly one million specimens; these include skins, skeletons, alcoholic preparations, eggs, nests, and tissue samples for molecular biochemical studies. A large number of type specimens and rare or extinct species are also found in its collections. The specimens represent all continents and oceans and nearly 99 percent of all species"

How many of the remaining 1% did Paul complete with the recent expedition? I assume the Kingfisher specimen filled one of Paul's gaps? Must look great in the tray.

cheers, a

Seriously?

If my eyes were rolling any less right now they would fall out of my skull...

Mysticete · Oct 2, 2015

John Cantelo said:
Very well said.

I'd also argue that the way in which photos of this handsome bird have so quickly bounced across the internet and attracted attention from the press demonstrates that, in conservation terms, high quality photos are more a more valuable tool for conservation than a specimen moldering in a drawer somewhere. Collecting like this could even be counterproductive as many birders might prefer to keep localities to themselves rather than give details to museums etc who may 'collect' the bird. Times have moved on and, in the era of DNA sampling etc., the wider public do not regard collecting like this as acceptable.

In a month the public will completely forget that Kingfisher even exists, or even that there is endangered habitat on Guadacanal. They will have moved onto the next cute animal or source of armchair outrage. In a decade though, that Kingfisher will still be available for scientific research at the AMNH.

lewis20126 · Oct 2, 2015

Mysticete said:
1) Its a lot easier to get designation of a habitat in many parts of the world for protection if you can accurately survey the current diversity, and it also allows you to track changes in the historic sense, which can be appropriate with today's changing climate
QUOTE]

All of this is true of course in a general sense but not directly relevant in this case. The location is already very well protected by the extreme difficulty in reaching it, not by any current or future designation as a "protected area".

I'm not sure what you mean by "track changes in a historic sense". As a primary habitat, I wouldn't expect any changes, other than any attributable to climate change (or rare weather events), unless the habitat is degraded by man, in which case any alleged designation as a "protected area" will have failed anyway.

This was a specimen collecting expedition, dressed up with the bells and whilstles which collectors now feel obligated to wheel out, to deflect attention from the central motivation.

cheers, alan

Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

-------------------------

Stop Brexit!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

laurent raty

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread