Is avian taxonomy still dependent on ongoing specimen collection? (3 Viewers)

[cajanuma]

For other readers who haven't waded back through all of this:

1) Dan collected four specimens* of a new Antbird at a single site in northern Peru. The bird is, so far, only known from this location.*

2) Dan says upthread that there are "many territories" in hard to reach areas. He won't say where they are, but we know now they are not in the national park. He has an opportunity to expand further on this point.

3) Dan won't say how many known territories there were prior to the specimens being taken.

[* please correct if this is not the case]

You can draw your own conclusions from Dan not clarifying these points.

A few points from me:

1) I am perfectly prepared to accept it is likely to be more widespread than currently known.
2) Similarly, I think it probably more likely than not that it will be found in the national park in due course.
3) If the collection was based, in part, on an assumption that it the bird is likely to be more widespread and occur in the national park, then why not just say this?

But he has! Read posts 135 and 136 by Dan and Josh and it's obvious they both say this, perhaps not in the explicit wording you'd like but still clearly enough for anyone to understand.

If I read your points 1) and 2), then it seems to be that there is only a minuscule difference between your position and that of the collectors. You essentially acknowledge that it is likely to be more widespread and found in a protected area (that so far remains largely unexplored, hence the lack of records). At this point it's just a minor difference of opinions as to whether the precautionary principle has been violated, right?

That's why I find your statement about how "everyone can draw their own conclusions" so troubling. It implies that that the collectors are guilty of something nefarious, or at the very least of being irresponsible, to an audience primed by your initial post (132) in which you claim - falsely as it turns out - that 50% of the known population was collected.

I mean that's exactly how internet rumors get started (like the Owlet Lode antpitta referred to upthread) and pretty soon we'll be hearing about how greedy collectors wiped out a new species of antbird in Peru. Surely that's not in the interest of anyone, birders or conservationists?

 

[lewis20126]

y your initial post (132) in which you claim - falsely as it turns out - that 50% of the known population was collected.

Well what is that %? I can't work it out, can you?

I have said that it is likely the bird is in the national park - however we don't know this yet. Bugun Liocichla demonstrates that not every roadside sp nov turns out to be common in adjacent areas, hence the relevance of the precautionary principle.

cheers, alan

 

[cajanuma]

Well what is that %? I can't work it out, can you?

Based on what we know from upthread, we have four birds collected, an additional two territories where they have been left unmolested, an unquantified 'many' territories further away from the site of discovery, plus three additional territories found after collection. Even if the 'many' are less than ten, the percentage would be "far less than 50% of the known population based on a very rapid survey of what is likely to be a tiny part of the occupied range".

Sounds a lot less alarmist/accusatory that "50% of the known population", doesn't it?

 

[Smilodon17]

Duncan, since we are splitting hairs here about my failure to use "most", let's split some more -- I'm a woman. I overgeneralized and I guess you overgeneralized by assuming everyone's a man. I missed one (a big outlier) and you failed to account for women. Oops.

Dan,

I was responding to an unqualified statement from Smilodon17 that a population of 4 individuals is not viable. As is demonstrated by the example I gave, this statement is incorrect. Had he stated that a population of just 4 individuals would not be viable for most species, I would not have disagreed; but he didn't.

Your attempt to ridicule me and imply that I am not of this reality by implying that I believe a bunch of ridiculous stuff you just made up doesn't alter the fact that he is wrong.

Cheers

Duncan

 

[lewis20126]

Based on what we know from upthread, we have four birds collected, an additional two territories where they have been left unmolested, an unquantified 'many' territories further away from the site of discovery, plus three additional territories found after collection. Even if the 'many' are less than ten, the percentage would be "far less than 50% of the known population based on a very rapid survey of what is likely to be a tiny part of the occupied range".

Sounds a lot less alarmist/accusatory that "50% of the known population", doesn't it?

As I understand it, from Josh's post, the 'three new territories' are recent (and welcome!), though cannot have been factored into any decision to take the specimens. Hence the importance of the unquantified 'many' territories further away from the site of discovery.

cheers, alan

 

[DMW]

Duncan, since we are splitting hairs here about my failure to use "most", let's split some more -- I'm a woman. I overgeneralized and I guess you overgeneralized by assuming everyone's a man. I missed one (a big outlier) and you failed to account for women. Oops.

My apologies.

 

[DLane]

I am making my comments/questions from a position of ignorance of the whole process (albeit with a scientific based degree - if Chemical Engineering could be counted as such in this context!). I am trying to understand why an activity I thought long consigned to the past is still practiced, and to highlight the reputational risk to conservation issues I hold dear that I see from its continuation. The world of 'trial by public opinion' is one that I have personal experience of (here I might be more experienced than you and your colleagues), and trust me it is not one you want to enter. There be dragons there, my lad!

But thanks for wading through the personal stuff to give me your perspective. It is appreciated.

My thanks to you, MTem, for your candor. And, indeed, trial by public opinion seems to be the rule of the day now that the internet gives all an equal voice, whether they are actually informed or just speaking out on a knee-jerk reaction to something that just troubles them viscerally.

I can accept that you have trouble with collecting, and it's entirely understandable that it seems counter-productive to you in light of conservation. But a few posts back, I tied in how our (LSU and Field Museum) Peru program has had direct impact seeding pro-conservation mentality Peruvians (post 197). Conservation requires good science to act, and good science requires data that is objectively documented and can be repeatedly verified. Specimens provide this like no other form of documentation can. But in addition, I believe in the value of pure science (that is: knowledge for its own sake), and taxonomy also falls in this category. That is why DMW's comments that some "cryptic new species" doesn't matter to conservation and thus there is no need to collect struck me as so egocentric and nearsighted. Clearly, taxonomy is a matter of interest, regardless of its application to conservation, to those reading this forum because they wouldn't be here if it wasn't. And, sorry to break it to those of you who don't want to admit it, all this taxonomy discussed here has involved specimens that had to be collected by museum collectors.

You may recall my comments from the Guadalcanal Kingfisher ridiculousness (http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3290507&postcount=106) where I explained that just getting photos and measurements and then releasing the bird alive simply cannot attain the kind of documentation that is necessary when conducting taxonomic work. Specimens simply cannot be replaced by these methods, no matter how much others on this forum think otherwise. I am willing to bet that those who insist otherwise are also those who have never carried out avian taxonomic research, so their comments are not based on any personal experience (I'd love to be proven wrong!). I find it interesting that even Thomas Donegan, who has been outspoken against collecting elsewhere, seems here to be far less critical (by the way, thanks for your most recent comments, Thomas). He clearly uses museum specimens a great deal in his own taxonomic work, and I hope he has realized the value they have, and that newer specimens have even more than those from a century ago. In the streaming talk he gave that is now available online from Neotropical Bird Club (http://www.neotropicalbirdclub.org/Video/agm_2016/Talk3 edit Donegan.mp4), it is instructive that one of his comments is that he experienced problems of "small sample sizes." Indeed, small sample sizes pose a problem in much scientific work (as I'm sure you with your science background can attest). If he admits this is a problem with *what we have in museums now* then it's clear that there is need to acquire more samples to be able to have more robust datasets.

Museum collectors are mindful of what they are doing, contrary to what others here may want you to believe, and as I said above, collecting specimens is done only when we feel that we are not going to harm populations (you can see my reasons for collecting the antbirds in post 195). Josh Beck pointed out above (post 136) that one territory had been repopulated by a new bird within a few days of having collected one of the pairs! This means that there are floating individuals searching for territories out there (e.g., more birds than available habitat) around Flor de Cafe. So clearly, we have not done undue harm to the local population, much less the world population.

I certainly hope that the description of the new antbird will bring more attention to the region, and increased tourism will perhaps cause the locals to think twice about how much forest they clear there for sun coffee... but I doubt ecotourism dollars will offset the money they make from growing coffee (or whatever other crops they grow there, I have heard that there are some narcotics grown in the area too!), and hold little hope that the area around Flor de Cafe will remain even as forested as it was this year for much longer. More colonists are coming in, and they all need to make a living. A targeted community-oriented program, perhaps something Josh may be hoping to implement, may help, but with the sheer number of people in the area, more clearing is inevitable. But I am cheered by the fact that the Cordillera Azul park immediately adjacent to the site seems to be in very good shape, and that there appears to be habitat there that should also have the antbird.

 

[thomasdonegan]

Your problem is clearly in guessing that people attribute the same weight to each animal life and are incapable of distinguishing between different animals.

You would then attribute value to animal life only based on how rare something is. If your mother or even your dog were to die at the hands of another, you might be upset. Hey, I'd be really upset if someone broke into my house and gratuitously killed my stick insects.

In science, there are lots of interesting papers producing fascinating results like this one on human phylogeny, in which no voucher specimens are taken, because to do so would be morally repugnant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764

And yet, with non-human animals (yes, birds; but even for the highest non-human primates), vouchers are regarded as mandatory by the mainstream. Whales are slaughtered on a massive scale in the name of "scientific collecting", most of it not by scientists, but this modus operandi where "animal species not animal individuals have value" causes a lot of damage, cruelty and ill behavior in the world.

This outcome of the scientific community's approach to "the value of life" seems almost based on a quasi-religious philosophy that human life is sacrosanct and all animal life is valueless (except at the species/population level). If there is one thing biology has taught us, however, it is that all animals are very similar to one another, made of "the same stuff" and there is probably a big sliding scale in relation to sentience, probably consciousness and other right-to-life-relevant aspects.

And if we only care about species preservation, then why do we care about the reported habitat destruction in Peru near where these antbirds live. Nothing is extinct yet, right? And those people need to make some money and have a home to live in. So let them fell all the forests, just leave a few hectares per 100 km intact and then one bigger patch for the larger species every 1000 km or so. That will do the trick.

Thomas

 

[DLane]

For other readers who haven't waded back through all of this

I think you've forgotten some:

1) Alan isn't above using misinformation to instigate "trial by public opinion" (thank you MTem for that phrase).*

2) Alan does not seem apologetic for using said misinformation. In other words, the ends justify the means.*

3) If the tone Alan has set is to mean anything, then it is clear that whatever I say in response could be taken to be truth or a lie (since he himself seems to have no problem with non-truth), so what is my incentive to respond to his interrogation?

4) Alan has made it clear that he lives by the Precautionary Principle (which he helpfully defines in post 152), but he won't tell us what his own work is that allows him to so smugly judge others by said principle. Oddly, I'd never heard of the principle before.

5) Alan has never given any reason for us to think that he is speaking from a position of knowledge or experience when talking about what is and is not necessary in the study of avian taxonomy.

You can draw your own conclusions about Alan's character from the above statements.

*=correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[lewis20126]

I think you've forgotten some:

1) Alan isn't above using misinformation to instigate "trial by public opinion" (thank you MTem for that phrase).*

2) Alan does not seem apologetic for using said misinformation. In other words, the ends justify the means.*

3) If the tone Alan has set is to mean anything, then it is clear that whatever I say in response could be taken to be truth or a lie (since he himself seems to have no problem with non-truth), so what is my incentive to respond to his interrogation?

4) Alan has made it clear that he lives by the Precautionary Principle (which he helpfully defines in post 152), but he won't tell us what his own work is that allows him to so smugly judge others by said principle. Oddly, I'd never heard of the principle before.

5) Alan has never given any reason for us to think that he is speaking from a position of knowledge or experience when talking about what is and is not necessary in the study of avian taxonomy.

You can draw your own conclusions about Alan's character from the above statements.

*=correct me if I'm wrong.

Good stuff Dan. I'm only disappointed you didn't include any quotes from teen comedies.

cheers, alan

 

[DMW]

That is why DMW's comments that some "cryptic new species" doesn't matter to conservation and thus there is no need to collect struck me as so egocentric and nearsighted.

Dan,

Could you please stop misconstruing what I wrote. I did not - and would not - make the above comment that you attribute to me.

Cheers

Duncan

 

[DLane]

I find it incredible that you guys try to link creation of protected areas with on-going collection of whole-bird specimens, or imply that killing birds for 'science' is a necessary component of conservation... Can you honestly argue a credible case that describing a relatively cryptic new species will have any contribution to conservation whatsoever?

From this, I read "the collection and description of a relatively cryptic new species does not have conservation value". Please tell me where I am misunderstanding you.

 

[MTem]

My thanks to you, MTem, for your candor. And, indeed, trial by public opinion seems to be the rule of the day now that the internet gives all an equal voice, whether they are actually informed or just speaking out on a knee-jerk reaction to something that just troubles them viscerally.

I can accept that you have trouble with collecting, and it's entirely understandable that it seems counter-productive to you in light of conservation. But a few posts back, I tied in how our (LSU and Field Museum) Peru program has had direct impact seeding pro-conservation mentality Peruvians (post 197). Conservation requires good science to act, and good science requires data that is objectively documented and can be repeatedly verified. Specimens provide this like no other form of documentation can. But in addition, I believe in the value of pure science (that is: knowledge for its own sake), and taxonomy also falls in this category.

And my thanks to you for your extensive explanation and response.
I think this last sentence is the critical issue. As I have commented in other threads on other issues I feel today most issues are polarised into clear cut 'black or white'. I find grey a more appropriate colour. While I too feel the pull of 'knowledge for its own sake' and applaud and encourage it in most cases, I'm afraid it doesn't automatically always extend to the point of the life of another creature. To justify that the acquired knowledge has to have currency, especially when (as in this case I think) the knowledge acquisition could be deferred until the benefit (and cost) of acquisition was better determined. Surely?

I now accept and understand this practice continues, and better appreciate its benefits and puspose, and I have absorbed and reflected on your input to this debate. Can I hope and assume you have done so on mine, especially relating to the damage it can do to broader public opinion?

And do you use shotguns???

Mick

 

[DLane]

I think this last sentence is the critical issue. As I have commented in other threads on other issues I feel today most issues are polarised into clear cut 'black or white'. I find grey a more appropriate colour. While I too feel the pull of 'knowledge for its own sake' and applaud and encourage it in most cases, I'm afraid it doesn't automatically always extend to the point of the life of another creature. ... Can I hope and assume you have done so on mine, especially relating to the damage it can do to broader public opinion?

And do you use shotguns???

Mick,

As I said, I can understand that modern collecting seems unnecessary, but as my points above should show, I don't think there are any practicing taxonomists who would give up specimens and their virtues and work without. I agree that taking a life in the name of science is not done easily, and that is true in my case. But I do see taxonomy as having value as both a pure science and also as an important building block for other applied sciences, including conservation. If you review all the various threads in the Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature, there are many different aspects of this study that have applied uses: site lists which lead to plotting of species richness across landscapes, centers of endemism which lead to Important Bird Areas, etc. These are all very central to conservation initiatives, and they require knowledge of what birds are and where. The collection aspect is not only about taxonomy, either, it is a component of the surveys that museums have been doing to poorly-known and rarely visited areas, and the specimens themselves have far more use than just being used in taxonomy. Since this forum is centered on taxonomy, that is clearly the most mentioned use here, but there are many others, several papers can illuminate those. Links to some of these (some may not permit access to full article):
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/5/455.short
http://alt.zfmk.de/BZB/B51_H2_3/B51H23S0.PDF
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...nservation/links/55e78ac008ae21d099c1525c.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1998.tb04391.x/abstract
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v095n01/p0178-p0192.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10030703.x/full

As for your question about how specimens are collected today: we use several means. Obviously road and windowkills and the like are common ways to receive salvaged birds, particularly from the local community around the museum. On museum expeditions to remote regions, we tend to use mist net captures and shotguns, when such use is permitted by national and local authorities and landowners.

 

[George Sangster]

If we take a step back and look at the big picture, we see that all institutes that had active collecting programs during the past 2-4 decades have made major contributions to avian phylogenetics (from intra-specific to Aves-wide phylogenies), including but not limited to LSU, AMNH, Kansas University, Field Museum, Zoological Museum University of Copenhagen, Swedish Museum of Natural History and Australian National Wildlife Collection. These specimens have provided the basis for many 100s of scientific papers, which in turn have been useful for many 1000s of other scientific studies. As abhorrent as continued specimen collection may seem to many non-taxonomists, the specimens collected in recent decades have contributed to the growth of ornithology in many important ways and will continue to do so.

I am not aware of any institutes without an active collecting program that contributed as much to avian phylogenetics as those that did have such a program. Simply put, continued collecting by dedicated institutes produces important, useful knowlegde.

I view specimens as the backbone of systematics. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, non-vouchered tissue samples and locality data provide additional important data useful for systematics (incl. biogeography, taxonomy) but cannot replace specimens. These types of data are complementary, and for a 'complete picture', we need all of these.

 

[MTem]

OK George, Dan I can only accept your expertise and experience when describing the benefits of continued collection, and again I thank you (and others) for taking the time to describe why you continue this practice today, surprising, nay, astonishing, that it was to me at least to find that it still continues.

Can I also ask therefore that all of you practitioners do (as I had to do in my previous day job) prepare what you are going to say when a hack journalist in search of a sensational story sticks a microphone under your nose when you are least expecting it and asks..

"OK, Mr. Conservation Scientist explain to our listeners how blasting birds out of the sky in their thousands, not to mention possibly the last of their species in some cases, to fuel your studies and your careers is any different to the Maltese spring hunters and grouse and pheasant shooters who you lot vilify at every opportunity?"

You have 30 seconds (at most), and will not be allowed to refer to notes or presentation charts.

And don't say that the question is inflammatory, inaccurate, inappropriate, irrelevant or contains factual errors - of course it is ..... ALL journalist questions are framed thus. Watch the news sometime.

Please prepare for this - it WILL happen to one of you, and what you say could have more long term impact on conservation than ALL of your taxonomic studies put together. The use of shotguns to collect is NOT good news here....

On this aspect, please accept my experience and be prepared, as I have now accepted yours on the scientific dimension.

Happy Xmas to all.

 

[Mysticete]

Can I also ask therefore that all of you practitioners do (as I had to do in my previous day job) prepare what you are going to say when a hack journalist in search of a sensational story sticks a microphone under your nose when you are least expecting it and asks..

"OK, Mr. Conservation Scientist explain to our listeners how blasting birds out of the sky in their thousands, not to mention possibly the last of their species in some cases, to fuel your studies and your careers is any different to the Maltese spring hunters and grouse and pheasant shooters who you lot vilify at every opportunity?"

You have 30 seconds (at most), and will not be allowed to refer to notes or presentation charts.

And don't say that the question is inflammatory, inaccurate, inappropriate, irrelevant or contains factual errors - of course it is ..... ALL journalist questions are framed thus. Watch the news sometime.

As someone who has actually spoken to journalists about my science, generally speaking that doesn't even remotely sound like any of my media contact has been carried out. The kind of "gotcha" question tactics so prolific in certain areas of news coverage that deal with politics and the like don't generally pop up in interviews with journalists when it comes to a reporter covering the release of a new study. We generally have more to worry about just in explaining what our study says and making sure the reporter understands it well enough to summarize it correctly. While collecting birds for science is a raging controversy on this forum...I think you will find it doesn't make front page news except in the most niche journals

 

[MTem]

Just because it hasn't happened to date, doesn't mean it won't of course. As you know I'm not talking about technical journal journalists or specialists. I would clearly prefer it never occurs also.

Indulge me, think what you would say on CNN or CBS or FOX news and test how it sounds to a non birding friend.

Anyway I've either made my point, or not .... So to avoid recycling the same basic point let's leave it there.

 

[Farnboro John]

If we take a step back and look at the big picture, we see that all institutes that had active collecting programs during the past 2-4 decades have made major contributions to avian phylogenetics (from intra-specific to Aves-wide phylogenies), including but not limited to LSU, AMNH, Kansas University, Field Museum, Zoological Museum University of Copenhagen, Swedish Museum of Natural History and Australian National Wildlife Collection. These specimens have provided the basis for many 100s of scientific papers, which in turn have been useful for many 1000s of other scientific studies. As abhorrent as continued specimen collection may seem to many non-taxonomists, the specimens collected in recent decades have contributed to the growth of ornithology in many important ways and will continue to do so.

I am not aware of any institutes without an active collecting program that contributed as much to avian phylogenetics as those that did have such a program. Simply put, continued collecting by dedicated institutes produces important, useful knowlegde.

I view specimens as the backbone of systematics. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, non-vouchered tissue samples and locality data provide additional important data useful for systematics (incl. biogeography, taxonomy) but cannot replace specimens. These types of data are complementary, and for a 'complete picture', we need all of these.

I suspect there is some deliberate obfuscation of cause and effect here. It has been explained upthread that collecting expeditions cost a lot to undertake: so one would expect that the institutes with the funding to undertake them will have bigger programmes than those that can't afford to. It is also a no-brainer that collecting expeditions are going to be launched by institutions specialising in taxonomy related matters - doh!

What is once again not being explained or indeed admitted is how much work can be done without specimens, and what work is done using specimens that can't be done by any other means. It is very difficult to accept that the elements mentioned throughout the thread "cannot replace specimens" when there is no explanation of the added value of specimens. It is surely obvious that the sort of thinking hobbyists that haunt threads like this will not accept a simple assertion that it is so but will seek to test that assertion. The more that test is avoided, the less anyone is inclined to believe that the assertion is valid.

One key omission is the explanation of why a tissue sample from an animal that survived the experience is labelled "non-vouchered" (though identifiable and comparable with other samples by modern scientific methods rather than mediaeval comparison of corpses). I also haven't really seen evidence upthread that "specimen" is being used precisely, rather than to indicate everything from a fresh corpse to a prepared skin, the latter being essentially no more use than a photograph.

I expect the answer to be that institutions don't think tissue samples are as useful as voucher specimens. This however is not a calculated state of affairs, or even a thought out position: it is simply because their antediluvian bureaucracies have not kept pace with the logical effects of the developments in science - a bit like the UK Parliament only just moving from writing its laws on vellum! The relative importance of the genome from the tissue sample and the deteriorating skin in the drawer are in fact now reversed for identification and classification purposes, but the animal-consuming hunter-gatherers of the institutions cling desperately to their Victorian attitudes.

So, George, cards on the table. What, realistically and exactly, can't you do with non-lethal methods - which include taking tissue samples from birds that have been comprehensively measured, photographed, call-recorded, behaviourally observed and so on? Only when you can identify work that is literally impossible without bodies can you reasonably claim to justify any collecting.

While we're on the subject, how many institutions do you think should each be allowed to take their "full range of variation within a species" to fill the cabinets in their climate-controlled storage? Surely it is essential to have international agreements limiting the total take (is this calculated in advance?) and frequency of repetition. Do these exist? I certainly hope a multiplicity of institutions such as listed above don't look at the discovery of a new hummingbird on a single Peruvian mountain and exclaim "Good heavens, our collection is incomplete! Send the gunners to get us a couple of dozen at once!"

I will put my own cards on the table here: I started reading this thread a long time ago with an assumption that a certain level of collecting was essential. The longer it has gone on, the further I have moved from that position, and one of the reasons is the impression from the pro-lobby that they are privy to a level of insight that means they should not be questioned. That arrogance - typified by George's post and enhanced by a consistent refusal to address reasonable questions - offends.

John

 

[George Sangster]

John,

First, I'm disappointed to see that you construe my previous post as 'arrogant'. I just gave my opinion based on experience. Most professionals are staying well away from these overheated exchanges on specimen collecting just to avoid these personal attacks. If you want an expert's input and rational exchange of ideas, then don't insult them. Also, I'm not in the business of reading minds so if there is anything you want me to elaborate on just ask. Simple stuff.

Second, you suspect me of 'deliberate obfuscation of cause and effect' when I pointed out the strong correlation between institutes that have an active collecting program and those that have contributed the most to avian phylogenetics in the past decades. You imply, without offering any evidence, that this is just a side-effect of these institutes having more money or being interested in taxonomy. In reality, money for both collecting and lab work has to be applied for and granted. Just check the acknowledgements sections of the papers from the museums I listed above. Their collecting is done for a purpose: increase knowledge. Obviously these institutes deliver that. That's why they continue to be funded. With rare exceptions, natural history museums do not simply 'have money' and then decide to do some collection and phylogenetics. The growth of avian phylogenetics is strongly connected to the collection of specimens and associated fresh tissue material.

You asked for things you cannot do without a specimen.

Things you can definitely not do with a live specimen are examine its skeleton and examine all other aspects of its internal morphology. Skeletons and internal organs are routinely being collected along with the skin.

Another thing you can definitely not do with live birds is compare them directly with a series of live/dead birds of another closely related taxon, let alone multiple taxa. Direct comparisons are vital to the taxonomic study of species, especially cryptic species. With cryptic species complexes it is often necessary to make comparisons with the holotypes, and failure to do so may result in the description of invalid species. Obviously, no museum will allow their holotypes to be taken into the field for comparisons. Having worked with various cryptic species, I can assure you (non-arrogantly) that photographs are suboptimal at best and rarely if ever allow unbiased comparison of colours. Photographs work fine when patterns are being compared but colours are problematic.

Realistically, if you catch the birds in the field you can only do a limited amount of work if you want to avoid completely exhausting the bird and subjecting it to torture. If you want to avoid collecting specimens but still want to collect a similar set of data/materials (except the skeleton, trachea and internal organs), one would have to subject the bird to:
- catching
- ringing/marking (to avoid re-trapping the same bird)
- taking 20+ measurements in various handling positions
- taking numerous photographs with a colour standard under good light conditions (not guaranteed in tropical forests)
- collecting feather mites, ticks and lice
- inducing the bird to vomit and collect its stomach contents
- taking a blood sample (for endoparasites and genomic work)
- taking a feather sample (for isotope work)
For individual research questions you may be able to obtain a few of these data/materials but there is no way you can obtain all of this from a live bird in a wet, remote tropical forest within a reasonable time and without seriously harming the bird in the process (i.e. stress, physical exhaustion).

Some will say that you don't have to do all of this at once; you can simply revisit the population when you actually need the data. In some cases this may work, but generally speaking this is not feasible, let alone affordable for researchers. If data are collected from live birds only, and only a small number of data/materials are retained, other scientists will have to revisit the populations again and again. This will be especially problematic for comparative studies which deal with multiple species. A scientist interested in the diet of petrels or the wing morphology of rails cannot simply fly around the world, visit all relevant breeding areas and do a little field work everywhere. Generally speaking, if there is no material in collections, comparative studies will simply not be carried out. The research question will not be addressed.

Also remember that many new species have only been identified as such after collection, i.e. when the specimens were closely examined in the museum. Without collection, these would not have been examined in great detail in the field because there was no indication that there was something special going on. As others have pointed out, specimen collecting is not only of value for current research but also inspires, enables and benefits future research.