lewis20126
Well-known member
he's here so let him answer the question. How many new species for the collection?
cheers,a
-
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
he's here so let him answer the question. How many new species for the collection?
cheers,a
lewis20126
Well-known member
You ignore the key point I made which is that it poor scientific method to have a single sample from a single bird. Why not sample more birds, more widely with non-leathal methods?
"people can recheck your voucher if there is concerns on identity or possible hybridization" You have wandered away from the specifics here. It is not relevant here. If you think it is, then I would be concerned.
cheers, a
lewis20126
Well-known member
I'm sure they are, but I don't need Paul's team to collect the Kingfisher so they can paint it to enable me to identify it!
The best paintings are done by people who have seen the birds in life, rather than rigid in a drawer, where bare part colours are lost, colours faded and the bird is stretched.
cheers, a
lewis20126
Well-known member
I'm sure you are right. In a decade, the Kingfisher will still be in Paul's drawer. In a decade, the Kingfishers will also very likely still be in the mountains of Guadalcanal, well protected by their inaccessibility.
cheers, a
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Alan
For balance, it will be useful to know how many species new to science he will also add. There will undoubtedly be some.
The Huffington post article for me brought home the danger of polluting a debate on the necessity of some collecting with a debate on all collecting.
All the best
lewis20126
Well-known member
Paul S heads up the AMNH bird collection, so I guess he is not (that) interested in any new inverts or ferns. Point noted on the wider expedition remit though.
cheers, alan
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Alan
Noted. I imagine that there must have been at least one endemic invert dependent on at least one endemic fern.
All the best
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
Is there an 'ignore' function on this messageboard? I'm done w/ those such as lewis20126 who are out to simply flood the forum with their own off-topic agenda.
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
Ah, found it! Excellent.
lewis20126
Well-known member
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Let's at least have an end to that dreadful euphemism "collected". Be honest, and say what was done - 'shot', 'strangled', or whatever.
The comments made by Alan et al are not off-topic, they directly relate to the core of this thread. Personally think their comments are spot on.
Always wonder however why people need an ignore button - thought we all had personal inbuilt functions to ignore whatever we wish.
Mysticete
Well-known member
Okay I am just going to pull out of this discussion. There is no point in debating a matter that just gets me aggravated in a thread when people thing "collecting" should be changed to strangling, or that people think massive multi-country expensive collecting expeditions are done solely for the sake of adding trophies.
mb1848
Well-known member
Mr. Sweet said: ..."DuPont's paper. I wonder if he was right? We may be able to test this." Might be a good idea since later a Pennsylvania jury determined the late John E. Dupont a murderer and insane. That is the problem it is a slippery slope first you collect birds and that leads to collecting people. Look at John O'Neil in A Parrot With No Name, he smothers the new parrot species and then later commits a cross country killing spree. Wait I am being told he never committed a cross country killing spree. My position is that some collecting/smothering is necessary but I have a long memory and the currently rational sounding ornithologists of the U.S. especially from Louisiana had in the past spewed such hate and had web-sites chock full of anti-gay anti-vegetarian etc. Luckily they lost and right now people all over Louisiana are gay marrying and protesting rare vagrant bird killing. Wait I'm being told that is not true either. http://intothewoodsandelsewhere.blogspot.com/2009/05/first-united-states-record-of-crowned.html .
MTem
Well-known member
Just found and read this thread.
Like many of my (old) generation here in the UK my lifelong interest in birds, their habits and habitats came from collecting birds eggs as a boy in NE England. As my interest grew I read some of the older bird books written in the early part of the last century where just after a particular bird was first spotted, it was 'collected' usually by a retired Army officer it seemed! I was horrified, and confused, but consoled myself with the fact that the account was from an age of ignorance (and piss poor optics) long since past. It seems not.
I gave up egg collecting as I became older and wiser - I wish those collecting the birds would do likewise; indeed I must confess I thought they had. Although not an avian scientist, I am a scientist and engineer, and as has been said above I remain unconvinced everything to be gleaned from a dead bird could not today be gleaned from photographs, measurements and samples, and the bird released. Without this explanation this example is as reprehensible and abhorrent as the collecting the eggs of wild birds. Logical, not emotional .....
Like many of my (old) generation here in the UK my lifelong interest in birds, their habits and habitats came from collecting birds eggs as a boy in NE England. As my interest grew I read some of the older bird books written in the early part of the last century where just after a particular bird was first spotted, it was 'collected' usually by a retired Army officer it seemed! I was horrified, and confused, but consoled myself with the fact that the account was from an age of ignorance (and piss poor optics) long since past. It seems not.
I gave up egg collecting as I became older and wiser - I wish those collecting the birds would do likewise; indeed I must confess I thought they had. Although not an avian scientist, I am a scientist and engineer, and as has been said above I remain unconvinced everything to be gleaned from a dead bird could not today be gleaned from photographs, measurements and samples, and the bird released. Without this explanation this example is as reprehensible and abhorrent as the collecting the eggs of wild birds. Logical, not emotional .....
mckaybailey
Well-known member
It seems there are still a lot of amateurs on here that think pictures, measurements, and DNA samples are all systematists need from a bird. As I said before, 99% of systematists believe in the value of actual specimens in addition to field pictures, measurements, and DNA samples.
This isn't, as Alan suggested, because specimen collection is some sort of industry we've all created that we must perpetuate to survive. We survive by contributing systematic research. Specimen collection isn't an end for us, it's a tool for answering questions about the natural world. Many of you are on this forum because you're interested in these questions, so it seems you find value in what we are doing.
I'll admit, it's a bit frustrating for me as a professional to be told by someone who has never conducted a systematic study of birds what I need to do my job. I can't even imagine using a series of pictures to do what I do. Think about how this would work in practice. Most of my studies involve characterizing geographic variation in plumage. This is important for answering, for example, how many species may exist in a complex, where one species' range starts and another stops, where one species may be hybridizing, etc.
To do my work, I would need to pull out multiple pictures of each individual. These pictures would be taken by different people, at different times, with different cameras, of varying sophistication, with different exposure settings, in different field conditions, in different light environments, at different angles to the bird, etc., etc. The number of extra variables would be maddening. (I realize that some skins change color a bit when they age (we call this foxing), but I can currently account for this fairly easily with a single variable (collection date).)
I realize most of you are only interested in bird identification, but a working scientist is interested in much more than this. The biggest difference, I think, is that a scientist is interested in the unknown. Compared to a specimen, a photograph has a very low ceiling for what new information you can pull from it. I think some of you may take our knowledge-base for granted. When I do a study, I can't trust that field guides show the distinguishing characteristics of taxa or that illustrated ranges are correct. I'm usually conducting my study because all of this has been poorly studied. There is still an awful lot we don't know about even basic bird systematics, especially in places like East Asia, New Guinea, or the Amazon.
As I said, doing my work with pictures instead of specimens would be impossible. What if, for example, I think I notice a potential pattern that all individuals of such-and-such species from Iriomote Island, Japan have black patches under their wings. This is my new hypothesis. To test the hypothesis with a series of pictures, I have to hope the underside of the wing was photographed. Then I have to wrestle with the possibility that some of the dark patches I'm seeing in the pictures are shadows. And on and on. In a practical sense, this would make my work maddeningly difficult and much, much less accurate. I can only image the backlash I would get if I try to publish and the parade of professional naysayers that would follow with their own interpretations of the pictures.
Surely you can all see how much weaker a foundation these new picture-based studies would provide for future studies that might depend on my delimitation of the Iriomote Island taxon to address more general questions about evolution or biogeography.
Specimens provide a potential for new discovery that is simply unmatched by field photographs. I am personally very much against killing unnecessarily. I don't hunt, I don't fish, these are not the kinds of activities I enjoy in the slightest. I collect birds because it's necessary. Further, I don't collect often--very few people do these days. As some here have pointed out, we already have a lot of excellent collections. However, there are still holes, and I collect where it helps fill these holes. I know that my specimens will be rich sources of new information for future researchers, as previous collections have been for me.
Bailey
This isn't, as Alan suggested, because specimen collection is some sort of industry we've all created that we must perpetuate to survive. We survive by contributing systematic research. Specimen collection isn't an end for us, it's a tool for answering questions about the natural world. Many of you are on this forum because you're interested in these questions, so it seems you find value in what we are doing.
I'll admit, it's a bit frustrating for me as a professional to be told by someone who has never conducted a systematic study of birds what I need to do my job. I can't even imagine using a series of pictures to do what I do. Think about how this would work in practice. Most of my studies involve characterizing geographic variation in plumage. This is important for answering, for example, how many species may exist in a complex, where one species' range starts and another stops, where one species may be hybridizing, etc.
To do my work, I would need to pull out multiple pictures of each individual. These pictures would be taken by different people, at different times, with different cameras, of varying sophistication, with different exposure settings, in different field conditions, in different light environments, at different angles to the bird, etc., etc. The number of extra variables would be maddening. (I realize that some skins change color a bit when they age (we call this foxing), but I can currently account for this fairly easily with a single variable (collection date).)
I realize most of you are only interested in bird identification, but a working scientist is interested in much more than this. The biggest difference, I think, is that a scientist is interested in the unknown. Compared to a specimen, a photograph has a very low ceiling for what new information you can pull from it. I think some of you may take our knowledge-base for granted. When I do a study, I can't trust that field guides show the distinguishing characteristics of taxa or that illustrated ranges are correct. I'm usually conducting my study because all of this has been poorly studied. There is still an awful lot we don't know about even basic bird systematics, especially in places like East Asia, New Guinea, or the Amazon.
As I said, doing my work with pictures instead of specimens would be impossible. What if, for example, I think I notice a potential pattern that all individuals of such-and-such species from Iriomote Island, Japan have black patches under their wings. This is my new hypothesis. To test the hypothesis with a series of pictures, I have to hope the underside of the wing was photographed. Then I have to wrestle with the possibility that some of the dark patches I'm seeing in the pictures are shadows. And on and on. In a practical sense, this would make my work maddeningly difficult and much, much less accurate. I can only image the backlash I would get if I try to publish and the parade of professional naysayers that would follow with their own interpretations of the pictures.
Surely you can all see how much weaker a foundation these new picture-based studies would provide for future studies that might depend on my delimitation of the Iriomote Island taxon to address more general questions about evolution or biogeography.
Specimens provide a potential for new discovery that is simply unmatched by field photographs. I am personally very much against killing unnecessarily. I don't hunt, I don't fish, these are not the kinds of activities I enjoy in the slightest. I collect birds because it's necessary. Further, I don't collect often--very few people do these days. As some here have pointed out, we already have a lot of excellent collections. However, there are still holes, and I collect where it helps fill these holes. I know that my specimens will be rich sources of new information for future researchers, as previous collections have been for me.
Bailey
MTem
Well-known member
First can I thank you Bailey for your comprehensive attempt to explain why you think you couldn't do your work without a collected specimen. However, I am left with a distinct impression that you are trying to justify the way YOU DO IT, rather than the way IT COULD BE DONE.
Digital photographs are virtually free, videos can be of spellbinding detail - heck we can see the spot on a cow's arse from 15,000ft! I would venture to suggest in these days of CGI someone could even make a hologram of the whole bird down to the minutest detail. A virtual specimen if you like. Now tell me it isn't so......
As an added benefit the specimen could be shared amongst academics globally electronically - surely a big plus.
Would mean you'd have to change your habits though .....hmmm
I worked most of my life in an industry where 'anything's possible' was the mantra, and 'tradition' and 'custom and practice' were dirty words and an excuse for sloppy thinking. Feels a bit like that here I must admit.
I could still be convinced 'collecting' birds in today's world is still justified, but I'm not there yet.
Mick
Digital photographs are virtually free, videos can be of spellbinding detail - heck we can see the spot on a cow's arse from 15,000ft! I would venture to suggest in these days of CGI someone could even make a hologram of the whole bird down to the minutest detail. A virtual specimen if you like. Now tell me it isn't so......
As an added benefit the specimen could be shared amongst academics globally electronically - surely a big plus.
Would mean you'd have to change your habits though .....hmmm
I worked most of my life in an industry where 'anything's possible' was the mantra, and 'tradition' and 'custom and practice' were dirty words and an excuse for sloppy thinking. Feels a bit like that here I must admit.
I could still be convinced 'collecting' birds in today's world is still justified, but I'm not there yet.
Mick
Last edited:
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Paul
OK - I have read the Remsen paper once. I will read it again more thoroughly.
I am but an amateur so probably not worth listening to.
I am finding the paper pretty poor. The use of the potential split of North American red crossbill into at least seven new species as justifying continuing collection I found very surprising and I found the following statement pretty bizarre - 'unless specimens continue to be collected, the current decades will be viewed as a dark age of scientific history, the time when scientists were unable to make permanent records of biodiversity because of opposition to scientific collecting.'
Is there anything less than twenty years old that provides a more reasoned justification? Indeed I note that the list of draw-backs of live study is followed by the sentence - 'technological advances will certainly obviate a few of these problems'. Maybe that will save us from the dark ages?
All the best
mckaybailey
Well-known member
Hi Mick,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Yes, I'm justifying the way to do it now because I am doing it now. I'm all for improving and thinking about how IT COULD BE DONE, but until we have the technology to replicate all of the value we can get out of specimens, I have to get my work done with what's available: specimens.
I use digital photography an awful lot in my research. I can imagine it might be possible to one day replicate all the value there is in specimens with some sort of scanner and tissue samples, but I can tell you with some authority that we aren't there yet. If you or someone else would invent such technology and write a paper demonstrating that everything we can learn from a specimen can be replicated with a field scan, I would be all for it. As you say, it would be much easier to access world-wide specimen collections and no birds would need to be harmed. Sounds great to me!
However, I haven't seen such technology applied to specimen research, and I don't think it's fair for you to assume I'm unwilling to change my habits or that I'm using traditional methods "as an excuse for sloppy thinking". Surely in your industry, you didn't all change practices until a better practice was worked out. Yes, I can image that one day we may have the technology to conduct some pharmaceutical research without the use of lab rats, but I wouldn't expect a pharmaceutical researcher to abandon the use of his lab rats until such technology was available to him. To me, that's completely unreasonable.
Bailey
Last edited:
