• 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.

Undescribed (1 Viewer)

Rasmus, I should make myself clear:

I was unhappy about keeping secret the existence of a distinctive, new bird in the region regularily visited by birders. And not describing the bird for 10 years although it was distinctive.

There may be valid reasons why proper description of a new bird is difficult and can take years. Area is difficult to visit. Sonograms must be collected and compared. Skins in hard to reach museums must be studied. DNA tests are needed as final proof. But none of these applies there.

You said before that there are many undescribed birds but known for years among birders and ornithologists. Discoverers didn't keep them secret. And nobody sneaked their description for them.

It is more general thing - scientists exist to propagate knowledge in the society. Scientific ethics speaks against hiding discoveries from others. Remember these archeologists who find important historical artifacts and don't let anybody see them nor publish themselves?

OK, I may be harsh. Maybe the bulbul would be eg. threatened by bird trade (although I doubt). But for now it looks rather like carelessness.

In this case, if birders were aware that there is a new bulbul in the region, they might look for them and eg. discover them at other localities, or get some data about the behavior, how common/threatened it is etc. And have lots of fun.
 
Last edited:
Jurek, it appears we were speaking about two different things; you primarily about the knowledge of this species' existence, while I primarily about its formal description (i.e. it receiving a scientific name). That said, there are quite a lot of fairly distinct species that have been known for a comparable period to this species before being described, but were not common knowledge. Indeed, when knowledge of such species is widely available before a species is officially described (i.e. receive its scientific name), it is usually because: a) It's from a region birders visit with some regularity, i.e. leaders of tours and their birding companies have an interest in spreading the knowledge of the possible existence of the new species. b) It's urgently threatened, and to promote conservation there's an interest in acknowledging the new species. c) A general paper on the birds from the specific region is found is published, in which the new species is briefly mentioned. When "a", "b" or "c" don't apply, it's common for such species to be not be publicly announced. I (and I am sure several other BF members) am aware of several such species, but cannot say I plan on making their existence public, when knowing that scientific descriptions are on the way, and they don't match the before mentioned caregories. The few people actively involved in formally describing new species have too many things to do and too little time, meaning that descriptions, which typically have to be written in whatever time they can spare from their "primary" job (teaching at universities, guiding, managing conservation organisations, etc), often end up postponed.

Anyhow, to get this back on track, here are two nice photos; first being the "semi-new" hermit mentioned in post #130 and earlier, second being an interesting Tolmomyias from north-eastern Brazil.

* http://www.wikiaves.com.br/fotos/m0028/28941g.jpg
* http://www.wikiaves.com.br/fotos/m0029/29790g.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rasmus and others: I have today several times read and re-read posts 137-142, as well as the ICZN Code of Ethics, and I cannot help but feel that the code as written got it wrong. I understand the reasoning behind clause 2 to be to avoid someone else trying to work on any species that he or she through the grapewine had heard about and thereby trying to steal someone elses thunder. However, it is written so that there is no exception for those cases where there truly were two independent discoverers, and that lack of an exception just feels wrong to me. I have for most of my life worked in a field where the only thing that really mattered was the original date of publication (sometimes the original date of submission for publication), and where the original date of discovery really did not have any influence, so I might be biased in another direction.

Any comments, please?

Niels
 
Last edited:
njlarsen said:
However, it is written so that there is no exception for those cases where there truly were two independent discoverers, and that lack of an exception just feels wrong to me.
Click to expand...

As written, it would favour the person who made the discovery first, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, as I also noted in post #138, the ICZN Code of Ethics is only a recommendation, not a strict requirement. So, for that reason alone, it is not strictly necessary to include a number of exceptions (even if it actually has the 1+ year exception, mentioned in last part of #2). If I knew about species X being discovered by someone else and I knew they almost had a scientific description with a name ready, I could disregard this entirely and rapidly publish my own scientific desciption with a name. Sure they'd probably be mad at me for breaking rule 2 in the Code of Ethics, but the scientific name I published would still be valid as the Code of Ethics only is a something people are urged (but not required) to follow. The name I published would only become invalid if I messed up the description (e.g. forgot to assign a type) or someone later was successful in lobbying for having it suppressed by the ICZN (which is unlikely to happen based only on the rules in the Code of Ethics; http://www.iczn.org/The_Bulletin.htm).
 
Rasmus et al,

Does anyone have an update on the description on this one?

"though a pos. new thrush of the Hauxwell's group does occur in nearby Peru - it has a pale eye-ring rather like that described by Hornbuckle"

Having seen an apparently rufous-tailed Hauxwell's type (but no grey-taileds!) at Moyobamba, N Peru a few weeks ago (within the range of the new grey-tailed thrush?), I wonder if these two birds are supposed to be sympatric (in part) or allopatric?

Thanks, alan
 
Does this form of Hauxwell's Thrush range into Ecuador? I'm concerned now that one I got at the Napo Wildlife Center last year might have to come off my list in the event of a split, as I didn't observe the tail color. :/
 
Puerto Montt storm-petrels

Dowdall et al 2009. Unidentified storm petrels off Puerto Montt, Chile, in February 2009. Dutch Birding 31(4): 218-223.

These strange storm-petrels (mentioned earlier on the ID-FRONTIERS list) are illustrated and discussed, with suggestions that they could represent a previously undocumented cold-water form of Oceanites gracilis, or even a new species.

Richard
 
Hi, anybody know of any study of the "Indian" Cuckoos with a 3-note song in the Philippines? This was being talked about as a possible new species more than 10 years ago.

I'm not aware of any populations of Cuculus micropterus with anything other than tonal variations on the familiar 4-note song.
 

Similar threads

sicklebill
Type locality for Frill-necked Monarch Arses lorealis
Replies
6
Views
914
sicklebill
sicklebill
jurek
Unbirded localities of the world
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
MiddleRiver
MiddleRiver
Mysticete
Taxonomy in-flux updates
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
11K
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
redpandacat
Chinese population of Dusky Eagle Owl - Ketupa coromanda
Replies
2
Views
676
redpandacat
redpandacat
T
AOS NACC/SACC taxonomic committee governance and structures (no discussions on patronyms)
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Mike Earp
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top