My Proposal:
I have said this before (Dec. 18 post #56 and also alluded to it in an earlier post) and I will say it again; the best thing for both sides and for conservation in Colombia is the following naming: Urrao Antpitta Grallaria fenwickorum or Fenwick's Antpitta Grallaria urraoensis
A combined paper with the best parts from both papers included, with an internationally respected journal (Condor perhaps, who have already expressed their interest in Caranton's paper).
Authors in following order: Caranton, Barrera, Certuche, Bartels (if the portion I contributed towards was used in said manuscript).
Comence re-noegtiations between Proaves and Caranton ASAP, with Caranton getting choice of whether he wants scientific or common name.
However, I could understand if no self-respecting journal would want to go near this with a ten-foot pole!
The way I see it, neither side deserves to be applauded in this debate, Proaves for their scientific irresponsibility with their incorrect depositing of specimens, the lack of impartiallity on the part of the "referee" with the Condor, and the question of should they have published in the first place (to name a few); and Caranton for the illegality of his collecting/reporting and the taking advantage of Proaves funding for personal gain which, as refered to by Globalbirder, sets a dangerous precedence for future research.
However, given that all the pertanent research has been completed and for the sake of establishing a name in the near future I still believe that this is the correct way forward and for the best for all parties and for conservation in Colombia. Plus, it ensures that neither side "wins" and that both sides are left regretting their lack of cooperativeness and loss of sight of the REAL, important issues: conservation, scientific rigour and mutual respect.
I personally congratulate both Cadena and Stiles for abstaining form taking part in the SACC vote and I strongly believe that even though this debacle has dragged on for a long time, that the current proposal is set out to establish that one-or-the-other name will win out when (as I state above) neither is deserving.
Thus I would strongly suggest to SACC that they drop the current proposal and wait for a proper conclusion to be reached between the two parties where neither feels vindicated in their many irrational and unacceptable decisions.
It is time that the egos were dropped and both parties started acting in a mature fashion (ie, actually talking honest facts to each other with the goal or reaching common ground and an acceptable compromise, as opposed the BS that has been dominant in previous discussions).
My humble opinion,
Avery Bartels
