Here we go again...Depressingly, the article mentions that a scientist (evidently not the person who 'collected them) "studied the two century-old specimens, housed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and compared them to the new specimens ........ (my emphasis). Not feathers or blood, but specimens.
So, lets get this right, someone finds a species long thought to be extinct and not seen since 1900 and promptly collects a couple (or more?). I've no idea what proportion of the surviving population that might represent, but suspect neither do the scientists. I'm not wholly against the 'collection' of birds for science, but in the days of DNA surely taking a couple of feathers would have sufficed given the species' undoubted rarity? I'm just hoping that my assumptions are wrong here, but I fear some attitudes to wildlife research are still marooned somewhere in the 19th century,
if the removal of two specimens is enough to doom your population (of over 200), than you are doomed anyway.