Is avian taxonomy still dependent on ongoing specimen collection? (1 Viewer)

[lewis20126]

Several posters to the current (Sept 2015) Guadalcanal Moustached Kingfisher thread: [http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=312128] suggested setting up a new forum on (the acceptability of) collecting, to avoid individual threads being diverted onto this subject.

It is not within my gift to set up a new forum but I thought it might be worthwhile setting up a thread where views can be posted on this matter and people can be directed from other threads to a live thread. Perhaps a mod could make this a "sticky" if it provides the said function?

I hope to provide links to threads and posts from this thread to existing posts - some of Dan Lane's recent posts (for example) are well-reasoned rebuttals of the anti-collecting stance and will be linked in due course.

I'm not a fundamentalist on this. My own view is that collecting of (new) avian specimens may be acceptable IF the targeted species is new for science and has a population demonstrably able to sustain the collection of a short type series. I think 1-2 specimens would be appropriate. However the question as to whether it is necessary at all should always be asked. Bugun Liocichla (a distinctive species of course) demonstrates that collection of a full specimen is not necessary for a species to be accepted by the scientific community.

I do not support extensive specimen collection in isolated forest fragments, trophy collections of known species or extensive collecting to supplement existing museum stocks.

More soon

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Black Tinamou

Current work suggesting that two species are involved has depended on identifying vocal differences and not on specimen analysis. See thread here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=295057

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Value of museum collections

See various here, though not much debate: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=208808

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Cryptic Treehunter

New species (now extinct) from Alagoas identified from existing specimens. I cannot recall whether these specimens were "historic" (locale collection) or a previous targeted collection for the similarly extinct Alagoas Foliage-gleaner:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=286229

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

Omani Owl

This well known example can be used to illustrate many of the arguments: the value of historic collections, the ability to sample from and document live birds which might be very rare, the value of robust and comprehensive analysis of a species group, rather than a single taxon:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=268028

cheers, a
.

 

[Nutcracker]

Scottish Crossbill

The highly dubious methodology of equating a distinct crossbill call type with a late 19th century type specimen (which, needless to say, wasn't sound-recorded :-O)

 

[amears]

Sorry to go on - since quite a bit in post #37 of the MK thread from Dan seemed to be responding to my brief ideas, I would like to enlarge on what I meant; and some of this has certainly appeared in previous MK posts written by others, so apologies for that.

I don’t like long posts, I don’t feel they are what BF is designed for but sometimes I guess you have to do it to be altogether clear.

My note, #15: Collecting the bird adds to knowledge about it. Can't really agree with that, you gain far more by field study. Everything else a specimen gives you can be gained from photos and small tissue/feather/blood samples unless you're going to study its kidney function of something like that, which we can all agree is totally different to what we're discussing here.

OK, I admit that literally, collecting the bird adds to knowledge about it but I added the caveat regarding novel research. I suppose what I was trying to say is that taxonomic studies can be done without collecting it, as can everything you need for a complete description.

I’d suggest that there is not much else we need to study that warrants the taking of a specimen of an endangered forest kingfisher that has only just been re-re-discovered. Someone has just posted on BF that we can now study the bone structure of MK, for example. We don’t need to do that for a Moustached K, we already know loads about forest kingfishers.

My note, #36: Not all research is at all important

There seems to be an underlying assumption by some on the thread that all research is important and that a good deal can be excused to make sure it can happen. I wanted to question that.

An example (I’m certain there are thousands): a few years ago I contemplated embarking on a research-based dissertation to upgrade my post-grad. It never happened for various reasons but if it had, I am sure I would have produced a piece of work that could very fairly be described as unimportant. It would have had its place as another tiny speck of knowledge added to the whole and it would have had value. But it would not have been important. Crucially, the cost would have been acceptable too – quite a bit of time and effort on my part and some on my tutor’s, I doubt it would have needed much more than that.

Just dipping into the 12-page pdf provided above by Alan (thank you) on Museum collections in ornithology (#3), I quickly found this:
An example of a ‘critically important research project’ is given as the ‘Role of ultraviolet reflectance of eggs and host specificity in cuckoo biology’.
Maybe it is critically important but I can’t see it myself.

My note, #36: 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.

Google Bugun Liocichla images. Add to those the stunning photos that have been published in trip reports and magazines. These could easily be used to produce outstanding field guide plates (I’m a great fan of paintings over photos). This is a simple fact. Additionally, we have measurements and we know the calls. We have everything we need to wedge it securely into a new field guide. The same applied to Moustached K at the point that those super photos were taken. I can’t believe anyone can disagree with that.

I love field guides. I spend an unhealthy amount of my time pouring over the incomparable Collins guide (Britain), not to mention a plethora of other guides from around the world. What I don’t love is the African Pitta plate in the SA Sasol guide, which has obviously been painted from a skin by someone (no names) who has/had never seen a pitta and has made a guess at what they really look like (hint: they look nothing at all like chickens). For the record, I’m very fond of this field guide and have used it for about 8 weeks in the field (so far).

The old Phillipps ‘Borneo’ guide is really rather horrible but it’s perfectly adequate for the accurate ID of 99% of the birds. I actually love it and am hugely grateful to Karen Phillipps for putting it together. Mine is, literally, in pieces, it has been used so much.

How important are field guides? Important enough for illustrators and authors to spend a lot of time looking at skins, and most importantly, if they want their guide to be authentic, looking at the birds in the field. Not important enough to require newly taken specimens of a rare bird.


I’ve found the Moustached K discussions to be very interesting and they have certainly made me think. I have used skins personally albeit only informally and only via photos kindly taken by friends; and photos often appear in the OBC mag, the best thing that ever drops through my letter box. I’m well aware of their value – more so as a result of this thread – and for one reason or another, we’ve amassed an enormous collection worldwide to date. I can see the value of trying to keep it as complete as possible. There’s no rule that says we can’t tweak how we record newly discovered species or forms though, as the years roll by and as our world changes; ditto for limiting the bounds of research in some ways.

I will now shut up!
Andy.

 

[lewis20126]

My note, #36: 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.

Google Bugun Liocichla images. Add to those the stunning photos that have been published in trip reports and magazines. These could easily be used to produce outstanding field guide plates (I’m a great fan of paintings over photos). This is a simple fact. Additionally, we have measurements and we know the calls. We have everything we need to wedge it securely into a new field guide. The same applied to Moustached K at the point that those super photos were taken. I can’t believe anyone can disagree with that.

I love field guides. I spend an unhealthy amount of my time pouring over the incomparable Collins guide (Britain), not to mention a plethora of other guides from around the world. What I don’t love is the African Pitta plate in the SA Sasol guide, which has obviously been painted from a skin by someone (no names) who has/had never seen a pitta and has made a guess at what they really look like (hint: they look nothing at all like chickens). For the record, I’m very fond of this field guide and have used it for about 8 weeks in the field (so far).

The old Phillipps ‘Borneo’ guide is really rather horrible but it’s perfectly adequate for the accurate ID of 99% of the birds. I actually love it and am hugely grateful to Karen Phillipps for putting it together. Mine is, literally, in pieces, it has been used so much.

How important are field guides? Important enough for illustrators and authors to spend a lot of time looking at skins, and most importantly, if they want their guide to be authentic, looking at the birds in the field. Not important enough to require newly taken specimens of a rare bird.
.

I agree with much of this. For example, contra Dan's view, bare parts are much more easily determined by reviewing photographs, than relying on reading the label on a skin, however fresh. In that case, one has to trust the collector.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

The highly dubious methodology of equating a distinct crossbill call type with a late 19th century type specimen (which, needless to say, wasn't sound-recorded :-O)

Loxia is a great example of a genus which has entirely defeated taxonomists. Specimens will tell you almost nothing without linked vocals. The live birds are far more helpful.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Specimen collection

Quite a lot of debate on this thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=283465

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Collection of vagrants

I will try and dig out the links on this, but this relates to recent collection in North America of vagrants such as Crowned Slaty Flycatcher, Great White Egret and so on. There is of course no need for this and indeed if tolerated it creates an incentive for collectors to commit locale fraud. It is far better to have other forms of robust documentation and a wider audience of the live bird for the record to be acceptable in future.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Vagrants

I will try and dig out the links on this, but this relates to recent collection in North America of vagrants such as Crowned Slaty Flycatcher, Great White Egret and so on.

Another recent example...

Withrow & Schwitters 2012. First North American record of the Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) confirmed by molecular analysis. Western Birds 43(4): 259–265. [pdf]

 

[Mysticete]

Another recent example...

Withrow & Schwitters 2012. First North American record of the Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) confirmed by molecular analysis. Western Birds 43(4): 259–265. [pdf]

I've anecdotally heard though that the bird in question was in pretty poor condition when found or refound, so collecting may have only sped up the inevitable or even been an act of mercy.

It's not like the outer Aleutians are Moorhen paradise...

 

[Mysticete]

Collection of vagrants

I will try and dig out the links on this, but this relates to recent collection in North America of vagrants such as Crowned Slaty Flycatcher, Great White Egret and so on. There is of course no need for this and indeed if tolerated it creates an incentive for collectors to commit locale fraud. It is far better to have other forms of robust documentation and a wider audience of the live bird for the record to be acceptable in future.

cheers, alan

Direct Collection of vagrants is extraordinarily rare though stateside...the only place I know where it still occurs with any regularity are the restricted outer Aleutian islands. I am also really really really skeptical about the fraud issue being at all an issue...I just don't see any reason for people to do this, especially given how the birding scene operate in the US.

Generally yes though I don't think vagrants should be collected unless it is for rehabilitation. Mostly because its not worth the negative publicity and because it could potentially lead to paranoia (See the herp community, where there is zero sharing of info, even of common snakes, because of concerns about collecting by private individuals).

Although I have come across stories of listers/photographers who themselves acted in ways towards vagrants that are probably as ethical as shooting vagrants. I wonder how many of those people who loudly argue against scientific collecting also loudly argue against suppression of info on sensitive or endangered species.

 

[Mysticete]

My note, #36: Not all research is at all important

This really really really rubs me the wrong way, so I feel obligated to reply.

Just because you find something is not important, doesn't actually make it so. Science builds upon itself...data that you find trivial might be very important to understanding how some processes work in the natural world, which could have future impact on conservation amongst other things.

Here in the US (and I can't imagine its not endemic to the states), there are no shortage of people who would like to completely defund huge sections of science and environmental regulation because "they don't think it's important".

and that reasoning is the EXACT REASONING I have heard many times about saving endangered species. "Who cares about some little forest bird on some dinky island in the South Pacific. Its extinction will not affect my life one iota" "Sage Grouse? Isn't that just some sort of weird turkey? I would rather we have more jobs than some weird bird." "Cats are cute. Why should I care if they are eating birds in that preserve...they deserve to live too"

And so forth. So while you might not think some science is important, just realize that this particular argument feeds into the same public mentality that has given all of the above

 

[Mysticete]

Loxia is a great example of a genus which has entirely defeated taxonomists. Specimens will tell you almost nothing without linked vocals. The live birds are far more helpful.

cheers, alan

Loxia though is an exception that proves the rule. Out of something like 10,000 bird species, you have maybe a handful of species or species complexes that have gone through some sort of sympatric speciation which has resulted in behavioral differences which precede molecular changes and whose morphological specializations are either absent or subtle.

 

[Richard Klim]

AK Common Moorhen

I've anecdotally heard though that the bird in question was in pretty poor condition when found or refound, so collecting may have only sped up the inevitable or even been an act of mercy.

It's not like the outer aleutians are Moorhen paradise...

OK, it might not be a good example. But in general I feel uneasy about the collecting of extreme vagrants, even though it would rarely have any conservation impact.

Of course it would be absolutely taboo in Western Europe as it could deny a 'tick' to a multitude of hopeful twitchers!

 

[lewis20126]

Direct Collection of vagrants is extraordinarily rare though stateside...the only place I know where it still occurs with any regularity are the restricted outer Aleutian islands. I am also really really really skeptical about the fraud issue being at all an issue...I just don't see any reason for people to do this, especially given how the birding scene operate in the US.
QUOTE]

Locale fraud was very common in the British Isles and is a very easy fraud to commit. I for one always wondered about the US Crowned Slaty Flycatcher record in this context - it is just such an odd record. We only have the collector's word for the location. Far better for video, photographs and 100 witnesses.

cheers, alan

 

[Nutcracker]

Another recent example...

Withrow & Schwitters 2012. First North American record of the Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) confirmed by molecular analysis. Western Birds 43(4): 259–265. [pdf]

Molecular analysis can of course be done without killing the bird - if it was moribund anyway, catch it, feed it, take a feather for DNA, and release it. Same result for science.

 

[John Watson]

I was on the Birdquest trip to the Philippines (1993 ?) that discovered the Bukidnon Woodcock on Mount Kitanglad. In fact, I was standing next to the Swedish chap who accidentally flushed it. We immediately realised it was very likely a new species, because at the time there weren't any known woodcock there (but couldn't rule out a massive range extension). I also realised that it was the likely cause of a strange noise I heard at dusk, which Simon Harrap was very quick to record.

A couple of years later, I heard that a US university (Cincinatti ?) had taken a specimen of this new species, before any research had been done on its population, range, habits or other critical factors.

As you might imagine, I was almost in tears about it. I realise the importance of specimen taking, but collecting a recently discovered species is just disgraceful. What's the urgency, unless it's to score points over other establishments at the expense of the conservation of a new species ??