-
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.
Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Mysticete
Well-known member
While I don't work on birds, I can say pretty much all of my research would be impossible without good collections of museum specimens. This in the past has included sampling bone and teeth for stable isotope analysis, coding of qualitative characters of the morphology, and measurements of bones.
This research has focused marine mammals, new specimens of which largely come from local strandings. However I have made use of important collections that were gathered as part of other scientific projects. The series of Caspian, Baikal, and Ringed Seals available in the Tokyo Museum of Nature and Science were critical to my dissertation research, and were all collected in the 1960s as part of research on radiation levels in marine mammals (or something like that). Had the researcher just collected tissue, it's likely my own research results would have been significantly affected, especially since those specimens had complete life history data which is often absent in older museum specimens or stuff that is dead on the beach.
This research has focused marine mammals, new specimens of which largely come from local strandings. However I have made use of important collections that were gathered as part of other scientific projects. The series of Caspian, Baikal, and Ringed Seals available in the Tokyo Museum of Nature and Science were critical to my dissertation research, and were all collected in the 1960s as part of research on radiation levels in marine mammals (or something like that). Had the researcher just collected tissue, it's likely my own research results would have been significantly affected, especially since those specimens had complete life history data which is often absent in older museum specimens or stuff that is dead on the beach.
Fair comment, Mysticete. Your research sounds fascinating and valuable. I presume that there are massive gaps in our knowledge of marine mammals.
Perhaps these ideas don't really apply to M Kingfisher? We've known for a long time that it occurs on the 2 islands and specimens aren't needed to sort out the morphology. No-one knows how large or small the populations are. I personally don't think any research that required specimens could be justified in this case.
Perhaps these ideas don't really apply to M Kingfisher? We've known for a long time that it occurs on the 2 islands and specimens aren't needed to sort out the morphology. No-one knows how large or small the populations are. I personally don't think any research that required specimens could be justified in this case.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
andrew147
Well-known member
It doesn't seem 'justified' to me. It seems short-sighted, self-interested and utterly disgraceful.
sicklebill
well-known Cretaceous relic
Personally I can't see why photos, measurements and some DNA data can't suffice in these times, irrespective of conservation concerns, it's an ethical question and you can justify it either way depending on where you stand. I was once instrumental in getting 3 Red-breasted Pygmy-Parrots of a potential new subspecies collected, and one died in my hand, it was awful and I decided right then, never again, I just don't have the right. Then the museum in Port Moresby lost the specimens…...
Andrew, your opinion, to use your own words, seems rather short-sighted itself.
Do you not see value in the specimen for what it can teach us about the species? As a bird artist, I would much rather use the specimen as reference material to illustrate the male plumage of the kingfisher over just some photos of birds that are suspected to be the adult male plumage (of which there are no photos, as those published online with this report are the first of this plumage, or so I was led to believe). As a researcher, I'd see a lot of value in a modern specimen of a species that is poorly represented in museums, what with the sizable amount of data now taken for each individual specimen collected vs. what is on specimen labels made even only 50 years ago. As a phylogeneticist, I would much prefer a vouchered tissue sample to one that was from a bird released... Perhaps the options are limited on Guadalcanal for confusing species, unlike with a American tyrant flycatcher or an Old World Phylloscopus, but are there even other tissues of Moustached Kingfisher available to compare with it? That alone may be reason enough! These specimens are not notches on a belt, or squirreled away into an untouchable private collection where no one can see them. They are stored in a museum where any researcher can come and use them. They are, in effect, volumes in a library. As such, I hardly think they are indicative of "self-interest!"
If you think that the one specimen could cause the crash in the species' population, I doubt it would be the case (granted, I am not very familiar with the size of the species' population on the island, but then, I doubt anyone else here on BirdForum is! In fact, I'd say the only people in any position to say are those who collected this specimen, and I'm sure the species' population health was considered when they did it). I would wager that one specimen is unlikely to affect the population on Guadalcanal any more than natural mortality would, so that doesn't make sense as a reason.
Basically, I see your view as emotional, full stop. Such comments fly here on BF after every story reporting a discovery or encounter in which a specimen was collected--certainly, many have already flown in this thread! Members of BF may not like collecting, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have immense value to ornithology and conservation. Those folks may not appreciate it because you do not do work that would involve the use of museum specimens. If you enjoy reading the Taxonomy and Phylogenetics forum here on BF, be aware that easily 95% of the tissues used in any of the studies that are reported here are from birds that were collected as museum specimens! To have such a negative view of the value of modern specimen collection, yet enjoy the topics discussed here, seems a very counter-intuitive juxtaposition!
Have you visited a museum to see the contrast in older vs. modern specimens (particularly in the data each has to offer)? Have you had to do research that involved museum specimens? If you answered "no" to either of those questions, then you should really try to do both before you form your opinions on modern specimen collecting. I know of folks who had strong anti-collecting stances until they started to do such research. Guess what? Now they are entirely comfortable with collecting, now that they see the benefits and how those can help preserve habitat as well as inform studies that are not conservation-based! It's not the evil you make it out to be, nor are the collectors heartless killers. Most of us are birders first, and care deeply for the birds and their continued existence on Earth!
Good birding,
Dan Lane
andrew147
Well-known member
Thanks for your reply Dan.
I don't mind that you think my opinion is short-sighted - or that yours differs; nevertheless, it remains my opinion. This subject has been debated at large on Birdform and elsewhere, and I remain unswayed. The opposing factions will probably never come to a satisfactory agreement: some people will always defend unnecessary killing (of endangered species in this case) and some of us will always criticise it.
Your argument about bird art is an interesting one but I still believe it to fall in the category of 'unnecessary'. Further, dead birds as reference do not automatically produce good art: there is good and bad bird art created both with and without specimen reference. Further, this argument is massively extrapolating from the subject at hand: I have never said that no value can come from consulting specimens and nor would I; however, there are already countless millions of dead birds in drawers, and enough is enough! So, until now, there was no male Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher in a drawer in museum - so what? A good bird artist could render this form beautifully and accurately from photographs and a poor bird artist will simply create an unpleasant illustration of a dead-looking bird even with (or perhaps especially due to) extensive reference to a specimen. The specimen is not essential to the artwork.
I will defend my use of the words 'self-interest'. The act of taking another life must always come with a measure of self-interest. As the lives of the researchers involved were presumably not being threatened by the kingfisher, nor - again, I presume - would they have starved unless they ate the kingfisher - the reasons for ending its life would be hard to justify in most situations to most people. Securing this specimen does not offer world-changing advances for humanity! Aside from a globally insignificant population of bird nerds (amongst whom I count myself), nobody will care about the knowledge gained from the death of this bird. I am absolutely fascinated by bird phylogenetic studies and I would be excited to learn the true systematic position of Moustached Kingfisher - is it a true Actenoides or is it closer to (e.g.) Tanysiptera? Nevertheless, in my opinion, the death of this individual is too high a price to pay for such knowledge.
Yes, I do think that one individual may be significant to the continuation of an endangered species. I'm guessing you are familiar with Chatham Island Black Robins? To claim that one individual has no effect on population (as I have often heard pro-collectors do) is unscientific: we cannot presume to know what is lost with the death of an individual. Further, I disagree that the people who were out doing the collecting are the most qualified to have the opinion - they are the ones with the most significant vested interests and the most to lose from a serious challenge to their activity. I would argue that this makes them the least qualified to have any kind of objective view! I hope very much that they did consider the overall population size - although there only seems to be a vague reference to an unspecified number of other calling individuals in what I have read; however, I don't believe that this undermines my point. Your wager is something I have heard before but I would say that it requires an insight into the unknowable and, therefore, in my opinion, is not a valid justification.
My view is emotional - I confess, I am distressed by the slaughter of an endangered bird - and by killing in general. This doesn't make me unqualified to have an opinion, indeed I think that balancing the emotional with the logical generally results in a more comprehensive argument. Further, I see no compunction to discuss my day job as a way to add gravity to my position (suffice it to say – I am not lacking in experience). I hope you can appreciate that to an emotional person, like myself, comments such as 'those folks may not appreciate it because you do not do work that would involve the use of museum specimens' are very inflammatory. Again, placing the people who benefit most from a (debatably) unwholesome activity as arbiters of said activity is highly problematic. You don't think that collecting is unwholesome but you now know that I do – so, Dan, as a thought experiment, please substitute collecting in the modern era for any activity that you do find abhorrent and then attempt to construct an argument using a similar template. Hopefully you will understand why it sounds completely insane to me and to others who think that modern collecting is a foul atavism.
In my case, it is not counter-intuitive to be fascinated by the results of phylogenetic research and repulsed by some of the chosen methodology. I don't see specimen collection as necessary to the continued study of Avian phylogeny and I believe that it should be replaced with non-lethal methods. There are some progressive individuals working towards that end and hopefully a day will come when I don't feel nauseous reading scientific papers and I don't feel compelled to spend my time explaining to bird lovers and conservationists why it might actually be wrong, indeed counter-intuitive, to kill endangered birds.
I’ll be interested in your reply Dan but I am unlikely to contribute to further discussion. I have said what I wanted to say and have a very busy day ahead of me.
Good (non-lethal) birding to you too!
Andrew
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
The topic of collecting has been discussed numerous times on BirdForum. Although I haven’t actually checked previous threads, my impression is that that those who’ve argued for or against collecting have tended to be from America and Europe respectively (myself excluded!), perhaps indicative of a transatlantic difference in general attitudes to collecting – at least amongst birders?
Last edited:
Mysticete
Well-known member
I am skeptical there is any at all regional difference between Europe and North America regarding collecting, and mostly any perceived difference is a sample size artifact. I think you simply have more US bird researchers keeping an eye on birdforum and posting when they see the issue come up, probably as a result of discussion here on NACC checklist proposals and related issues. As far as people who are birders but who only at BEST dabble in research, or at least relevant research, *80% are either from the UK or were at least born there. I think the NA vs Europe difference is solely a researcher vs hobbyist difference, and that you would (and do find) the same difference if you were to look at US researchers versus US hobbyists.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Perhaps another relevant factor in the case of US vs UK attitudes is that academic research into avian systematics and taxonomy – often collection-based – is thriving in the Americas (and also in Scandinavia and elsewhere in continental Europe...) whilst almost non-existent in Britain today. (In comparison, British institutions seem to be much more focused on avian ecology etc.)
Last edited:
lewis20126
Well-known member
If the trapped male was collected - and I've not seen that in writing - then the (single) specimen is, IMO, little more than an expedition trophy.
Most museum workers would surely advocate a series of specimens, without which intra-specific variation cannot be defined. I seem to recall both Grallaria ridgelyi and Dan's Capito wallacei having longer type series than I thought was warranted, given the known populations at the time of discovery, but that justified for the aforementioned reason.
An inconvenient example for advocates of the targetted collection of rare species, as a prerequiste for their conservation, is presented by Liocichla bugunorum. I have noticed American researchers have almost always remained silent on that bird!
cheers, alan
Most museum workers would surely advocate a series of specimens, without which intra-specific variation cannot be defined. I seem to recall both Grallaria ridgelyi and Dan's Capito wallacei having longer type series than I thought was warranted, given the known populations at the time of discovery, but that justified for the aforementioned reason.
An inconvenient example for advocates of the targetted collection of rare species, as a prerequiste for their conservation, is presented by Liocichla bugunorum. I have noticed American researchers have almost always remained silent on that bird!
cheers, alan
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
Can we get a seperate forum for Collecting vs. Not Collecting threads? I'm fricking sick & tired of every post on the TAXONOMY forum being taken over for this 'discussion' (in quotes because no one is changing their mind here - myself included).
ENOUGH already! Stop derailing threads for your own agenda!
ENOUGH already! Stop derailing threads for your own agenda!
ashley banwell
Well-known member
Birdwatch mag extract:
'The male – the plumage of which was previously undescribed – was taken as a specimen for further study at the American Museum of Natural History.'
I'll spare you pages of my further thoughts except for these:
What are they planning to study about it I wonder?
Not all research is at all important.
Field guides can be illustrated adequately by a combination of existing skins and field observation and they're not that important anyway. We've all used some really sh£t field guides over the years and managed just fine.
What's wrong with so-called emotion? It's why we use crash test dummies instead of live humans isn't it.
And I mentioned Bugun L earlier in this thread to a resounding silence.
I quite agree that this argument will not be solved on BF but while articles like this one are published and posted, I imagine they will be met with this response again and again.
'The male – the plumage of which was previously undescribed – was taken as a specimen for further study at the American Museum of Natural History.'
I'll spare you pages of my further thoughts except for these:
What are they planning to study about it I wonder?
Not all research is at all important.
Field guides can be illustrated adequately by a combination of existing skins and field observation and they're not that important anyway. We've all used some really sh£t field guides over the years and managed just fine.
What's wrong with so-called emotion? It's why we use crash test dummies instead of live humans isn't it.
And I mentioned Bugun L earlier in this thread to a resounding silence.
I quite agree that this argument will not be solved on BF but while articles like this one are published and posted, I imagine they will be met with this response again and again.
Hear hear! I too am sick of seeing every thread turn into a "What a bunch of savage killers those museum collectors are! Oh, looky here, another wonderful paper on taxonomy! Ugh! That one ALSO involved collecting! Wow! Someone has discovered another news species!! Wait, you mean they collected it?!"
However, I feel obliged to respond to others' comments above: being emotional and having an opinion is fine, but then to say that your emotional opinion gives you enough information to judge the collection of modern museum specimens as "useless" and "self-interested", etc., is not fine. You clearly don't use specimens and you can't seem to judge their usefulness. I respect your dislike of collecting, but that does not mean that your opinion cancels out its importance. That was my point above, and was what moved me to respond as I did.
Yes, there are good bird artists and poor bird artists. I think everyone will agree that Ian Lewington is excellent, for example, but many of his illustrations in HBW of birds which he clearly had little reference material are simply inaccurate (some woodcreeper and Neotropical barbet plates immediately come to mind)! Why? Because he wasn't sitting in front of good museum specimens when he illustrated the birds! Good photos won't show everything (you can't look at the back side of the bird, or under the wings of a perched bird, for example. A specimen will show most everything one needs to see. Furthermore, a modern specimen will mention on the tags many of the characters that would be missing after the preparation such as soft part colors)... and accuracy is important to identification, no? OK, you think accurate, well illustrated field guides aren't important? Yet, we all hear folks complain bitterly about every field guide and how it could be better. In addition, ecotourism to countries seems to spike after a better guide is published, so those two things suggest that your opinions are in the minority. You think that phylogenetic studies aren't important? Clearly that can't be true, or you wouldn't bother reading this forum!
But to go back to Snapdragyn's comment: if, in future threads, those who want to cry out against collecting do so in a separate "I hate collecting" thread, so it does not pollute the present thread with more such comments, I, for one, would be happy and would gladly keep my peace! Such back-and-forth really distracts from the interest of the topic at hand, and clearly gets none of us anywhere.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
When I started posting to this forum several years ago, I had a (naïve) vision that it could develop into a useful (albeit poorly structured) searchable resource for sharing news of developments in avian evolution, systematics, taxonomy and distribution.
It’s always disappointing when potentially informative threads are swamped by the repetitive promotion of other agendas.
Last edited:
lewis20126
Well-known member
Richard
Your many posts and threads in this forum are very much appreciated by many.
In this case, if you look back at your opening post, the only "new news" was the trapping (and it turns out collection) of the bird. There is no new taxonomy here, simply the collection of a trophy in a difficult to reach location, although well known to birders here, and visited by at least two who have viewed the thread in the last few days.
So, nothing new at all other than the collection of the trophy, at a location well known and well protected by its (near) inaccessibility (ask Ashley!).
cheers, alan
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Per Richard's link in the first post:-
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/factsheet/22726883
'If each call relates to a different bird, then the local density was 75 calling birds per km2, but much forest at this altitude is unsuitable for this species (D. Gibbs in litt. 1994, Gibbs 1996, Dutson 2011).'
'Apparently absent from the many patches of more open forest, secondary scrub and bamboo that occur in areas damaged by cyclones and land-slides (D.*Gibbs in litt. 1994, Gibbs 1996, Dutson 2011). On Guadalcanal, it is reported to nest in holes in the ground, sometimes in forest but usually in riverbanks (Gibbs 1996).'
All the best
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/factsheet/22726883
'If each call relates to a different bird, then the local density was 75 calling birds per km2, but much forest at this altitude is unsuitable for this species (D. Gibbs in litt. 1994, Gibbs 1996, Dutson 2011).'
'Apparently absent from the many patches of more open forest, secondary scrub and bamboo that occur in areas damaged by cyclones and land-slides (D.*Gibbs in litt. 1994, Gibbs 1996, Dutson 2011). On Guadalcanal, it is reported to nest in holes in the ground, sometimes in forest but usually in riverbanks (Gibbs 1996).'
All the best
