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="mckaybailey" data-source="post: 3289154" data-attributes="member: 85190">I'll reply thought I don't expect it to do much good.First, I've spent ten years studying avian systematics. It's obvious many of you have never actually done work in this field of science, so I would suggest trying to temper your opinions on the matter with the fact that 99% of working systematists believe in the value of specimen collection.I realize it might be difficult for some of you to imagine how pictures aren't every bit as good as a specimen, but you've obviously never read a taxon description by someone like Stejneger that was written in the 1800s and trying to figure out what taxon he's referencing when he talks about "fine red-brown barring on the tips of some of the undertail coverts". Details like this are quite frankly impossible to get from a series of pictures taken in the field. You're never going to photograph every physical detail that some future researcher might be interested in, and you're not going to do it in any way that is repeatable (scientific). Believe me, I've written whole papers on the use of digital photographs in systematics. Pictures depend on exposure settings, the light environment, the angle of capture, and many other variables that can't be controlled in the field.If all you're interested in is describing taxa, and all taxa are as different as Bugun Liocichla is from Steere's Liocichla, then I guess it could work, but most of the recently diverged taxa (i.e. the most interesting taxa in many respects) have much, much more subtle differences than that--the difference between red versus reddish-orange undertail coverts. And besides, plenty of specimen researchers are interested in a lot more than whether the bird in this picture is the same as the bird in that picture.Second, except for extreme circumstances, as long as there is good habitat birds specimens can be harvested from appropriate habitat in a responsible manner without doing harm to their numbers. Birds generally replicate much faster than we do and most bird populations (again, assuming there is not a reduction in habitat, which is the real enemy of conservation) are generally quite robust to even fairly extreme mortality. A pair of kingfishers, for example, can raise 3-5 offspring per brood. Assuming just one brood per year and assuming a conservative lifespan of 5 years for an individual, a pair of kingfishers left unchecked would produce 100s of direct descendants. This is obviously unsustainable for the population. Many individuals will have to die. It's a fact--there's nothing we can do about it, and conservation efforts to save every individual would no-doubt do great harm to most of the other species in the area. Responsible collecting is not a threat to the conservation of populations or species.Third, this business about the research not being important is silly. This is basic research. Everything, and I repeat everything, we enjoy from modern technology is built from basic research. If you don't believe in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, then we just have a fundamental difference in philosophy, so there is no sense debating.Further, if you have moral issues about collecting specimens for scientific research, then there is also no sense debating. We can agree to disagree here, but please be honest about your motives. Don't try to say the research isn't worthwhile or that scientists are doing some great harm to populations or species or that pictures are as good as specimens, just plainly tell me you have morals problems with it. I won't agree with you, but I will respect your opinion.That's my view anyway.Bailey</blockquote>

Verification