BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DLane" data-source="post: 3287921" data-attributes="member: 16557">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</blockquote>

Verification