Meet the Blue-winged Amazon Parrot - New Species (1 Viewer)

[KevinL]

Hi All, I came across this news release of a new parrot species found in Yucatan Peninsula. Species was called the Blue-winged Amazon Parrot (Amazona gomezgarzai). Here is the news release, enjoy:

Red-faced encounter: rare new species of parrot discovered in Mexico

Ornithologists stress importance of conserving the blue-winged Amazon parrot, with no more than 100 of the birds thought to be in existence

www.theguardian.com

 

[KC Foggin]

A fantastic find and so beautifully captured discovery.

 

[SzimiStyle]

Hi All, I came across this news release of a new parrot species found in Yucatan Peninsula. Species was called the Blue-winged Amazon Parrot (Amazona gomezgarzai). Here is the news release, enjoy:

Red-faced encounter: rare new species of parrot discovered in Mexico

Ornithologists stress importance of conserving the blue-winged Amazon parrot, with no more than 100 of the birds thought to be in existence

www.theguardian.com

5 years old story.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

5 years old story.

And not recognized as a valid species today

 

[Kratter]

The description was a real shoddy piece of science: (PDF) A new species of Mexican parrot? Reasonable doubt on the status of Amazona gomezgarzai (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae)

 

[gusasp]

The description was a real shoddy piece of science: (PDF) A new species of Mexican parrot? Reasonable doubt on the status of Amazona gomezgarzai (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae)

Whoa, now that’s a mike dropping rebuttal, great work! I’d say beyond shoddy, closer to fraudulent. Multiple questions arise. How on Earth could such a paper have been written in the first place, let alone be published, especially after the reviewers’s critique? Where’s the response from Silva et al to the rebuttal? Why hasn’t the study been retracted? And where’s the pressure from the scientific community to do so? This is all very disturbing.

 

[l_raty]

Where’s the response from Silva et al to the rebuttal? Why hasn’t the study been retracted? And where’s the pressure from the scientific community to do so? This is all very disturbing.

The work is, so far as I can assess, published and Code-compliant, and the name introduced in it is nomenclaturally available. (I.e., it would be a potentially valid name for any species deemed to include the holotype shown in the paper.) The work even went through peer-review which, technically, makes it of a higher standard than what the Code requires. "Retraction" would not change anything to this.

The practice of "retraction" is at best controversial. See Dubois 2020 for comments as to why it should generally not be embraced. This practice serves no clear desirable purpose; it distorts and falsifies the scientific record, of which all publications, including the "shoddy" ones, are part.

 

[Mysticete]

Retraction really should be restricted to the most extreme and blatant abuses of science, especially if the paper is actually harmful to people. See the retracted fraudulent paper which started the whole "vaccines cause autism" mess.

 

[jts1882]

The scientific process has sort of worked. Despite some failings in the peer-review process that allowed it to be published, the paper received a convincing rebuttal and the proposed species hasn't be accepted five years later. The proposal for a new species is as dead as ...

 

[KevinL]

I feel the fool now. This article popped up on a news feed. Made me think it was breaking news of the day. I did think it odd that they didnt collect a specimen and instead relied on dna to make the determination as a species. I also thought it odd that a bird as charismatic as a parrot would not have been previously identified. When saw the article, I did a search of the forum of the common name with no results. So I figured it had not been discussed yet. My bad, sorry to cause such a stir.

 

[Ian Lewis]

I feel the fool now. This article popped up on a news feed. Made me think it was breaking news of the day. I did think it odd that they didnt collect a specimen and instead relied on dna to make the determination as a species. I also thought it odd that a bird as charismatic as a parrot would not have been previously identified. When saw the article, I did a search of the forum of the common name with no results. So I figured it had not been discussed yet. My bad, sorry to cause such a stir.

No need to feel the fool!

You brought up the issue of an apparently invalid species that I, and undoubtedly many others were aware of, and the subject of poor scientific reporting.

All of which is interesting.

Ian