New Capito barbet (1 Viewer)

[Richard Klim]

Valéry,

I find it surprising that a conservationist can have such uncompromising views – believing so absolutely in a simplistic 'any killing is wrong' mantra that you're "completely against" control measures to prevent avoidable extinctions, while even suggesting that scientific methods are themselves a threat to conservation.

At a time when there are still huge numbers of unknown species (eg, beneath the oceans), you "strongly think we should stop all 'scientific' collection", and even believe that future discoveries of plants and animals should remain undescribed and kept secret to avoid any risk of collecting. This seems to be a manifesto for the termination of exploratory biological science...

 

[IamWhoIam]

Well I did not mean to say that we are the exclusive holders of that knowledge. Just that most museum scientists have a substantial foundation of population biology and species conservation, through university and graduate level courses in population biology, evolution, statistics, genetics, and conservation biology. We also read current literature, attend meetings, write papers, referee papers on the subject, as well as spend considerable time in the field with these birds. I am not so sure that non-ornithologists have this foundation.

Andy

Collecting is a part of serious research and we (museum people) know where are the borders. Anyway this new trend (taking blood and feathers) is almost the same, because many birds die as a consequence of taking blood and stress during handling. If the population is healthy and numerous there is no problem taking some birds at all. It will recover next year. You people (extreme conservationists) should fight against HABITAT DESTRUCTION, FRAGMENTATION and POLLUTION not the people who have the same aims. There are very few Museums that are collecting birds at the moment, but knowing that fact does not mean that collecting should stop and/or collecting was bad and that's why it is decreasing.
On this subject you have very different opinions, and just lets say that if many people are against it it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Museum are here to save and work on saving wildlife, not to destroy that.
Best regards and think a little before you write all of you

 

[lewis20126]

V This seems to be a manifesto for the termination of exploratory biological science...

We are probably approaching the point soon where we will be losing species faster than they are being described. Therefore, in conservation terms, is description of new species not only solely an academic exercise but ultimately futile? Most of the birds (for example) now being described are rare and localized endemics (which is why its taken so long to find them..) that are extinction prone. "Find it, describe it, lose it", is a probable medium term scenario, despite the very best efforts of a small group of dedicated people, including some of those above.

alan

 

[Richard Klim]

...in conservation terms, is description of new species not only solely an academic exercise but ultimately futile?

Irrespective of conservation aspects, science is about observing, studying, recording, sharing... Some clearly consider it futile, but I'm sure that our quest for knowledge will continue as long as human intellect survives. Surely you're not saying that we've now learnt enough about life on Earth, so let's call it a day.

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Richard,

I love knowledge as well as you do, BUT this knowledge cannot be obtained in adding pressure on the already weakened ecosystems and populations.

It is easy to understand and just need one thing: changing habits. I'm also against ringing because it disturb too much the birds

(many birds die as a consequence of taking blood and stress during handling)

.

The scientists, that are suppose to best positionned to understand the situation of wildife in the world, don't seem to understand than we have been so far, much too far, annd now everything should be done to protect - no destroy more, even for research.

Museum are here to save and work on saving wildlife, not to destroy that.

If you believe this (I think Museum SHOULD BE here to save and work on saving wildlife, not to destroy that - but unfortunately they are not), change the way you work! It is the only think I ask for (and will fight all my life, if needed, for).

Cheers

Valéry

 

[andrew147]

Mysticete, you make a fair point, but I was only replying directly to responses to my own posts. If you go back to my first post, I hope that I expressed a genuine interest in the reasons why conservationists can support specimen collection. So far I have been unconvinced by the arguments, although, subsequent to my first post, most have been delivered in a thoughtful and interesting manner.

I would never have started talking about genocide (or paedophilia) but I can vaguely understand why Valery might draw connections. The situation with the discovery of the new Capito , and the subsequent slaughter of the first 8 individuals, fills me with the same combination of horror/anger that I may feel at examples of humans abusing each other - and the discompassionate defence, of what I consider to be an atrocity, has only further fanned those flames. However, as this is an emotional response, and thus completely subjective, I would prefer to try and avoid using it as the basis for an argument.

 

[GMK]

Valéry,

Sadly, I have to say that I find your views more “extreme” and less balanced than those of the most ardent proponents of the true “Victorian” era, when it really was the case that “what’s hit is history, what’s missed is mystery”.

Conservation organisations like BirdLife are constantly urging some (recalcitrant souls) with new species to describe to get it done as quickly as possible, because without a name conservation will not happen (it’s human pedantry to need a name put to something, but it's also a fact of life). No taxon—bird, bee or bear—can appear on a list of endangered animals unless it is named. Period. And the second simple fact is that the best means of proving (or denying) a new species or subspecies is a specimen. You (and some others) will argue that Laniarius liberatus, named as a species on the basis of blood and then kicked into synonymy on the same basis, proves that a type is not needed. But actually, as I think Thomas Donegan mentioned the other day, liberatus might actually, after all, merit recognition (and conservation) as a subspecies. A type specimen would make it a whole lot easier to examine these issues.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that name a species and everyone just accepts it. There is (usually constructive) debate about many new forms, and their validity, even remarkable new taxa like Serendib Scops Owl have been questioned since their description. Good papers, which your remarks suggest you haven’t read, such as Vuilleumeier et al. (1992, Bull. BOC 112A), closely critique descriptions of new species. Informed debate, and sometimes rejection of these names, will generally not be possible without specimens. The simple fact is this, blood or a couple of feathers, and a sound-recording, even some photographs of the whole bird will not conclusively prove or disprove the case for and against taxa. Examples are easily given; if you aren’t aware of any, then I can only recommend that you broaden your reading horizons.

In the meantime, the “new” species that you are apparently “suppressing” are not being done any favours by your “enlightened” attitude to collecting. You are merely consigning them to the dustbin of history, unless they are peculiarly fortunate to somehow escape the onslaught of human development. Even if you don’t believe in collecting, which is your prerogative, you should still make an effort somehow to describe them. The Code doesn’t preclude you from not doing. Your contribution/s might not be readily accepted by museum scientists, but as they are apparently just “bird killers” and “criminals” (which latter, of course, is wholly incorrect because they collect under—not easily given—licenses, but … why let facts get in the way of emotions…?) then that won’t perturb you too much. One thing is for sure, whichever side of the collecting argument you sit, without names, no conservation organisation can do much for those birds!

 

[lewis20126]

Irrespective of conservation aspects, science is about observing, studying, recording, sharing... Some clearly consider it futile, but I'm sure that our quest for knowledge will continue as long as human intellect survives. Surely you're not saying that we've now learnt enough about life on Earth, so let's call it a day.

A frequent arguement used by scientists (including museum collectors) is that "we can't conserve what we don't know about". Well it's rapidly becoming obvious to me that "we can't conserve what we DO know about." Assuming this premise to be true for a moment, where would that leave the rationale for collecting? Science for science sake? Most other branches of science, even particle physics, depend on some relevance to the real world, to justify their relevance, in respect of budgetary provsion at least.

Some recent developments (ProAves, Jotocotoco) suggest, just possibly, we can conserve some localised, rare species in the last fragments of habitat . Time will tell whether these pioneering initiatives are succesful over the long term. A "conservation pessimist" is rarely disappointed.

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

The simple fact is this, blood or a couple of feathers, and a sound-recording, even some photographs of the whole bird will not conclusively prove or disprove the case for and against taxa.

Bugun Liocichla? Anyone that doesn't believe in that one should be certified!

Apologies for the pedantry, I agree with much of the argument in respect of responsible type specimen collection, even though I disagree with the size of some type series. I'll include the new barbets in that.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Science for science sake? Most other branches of science, even particle physics, depend on some relevance to the real world, to justify their relevance, in respect of budgetary provsion at least.

My daughter has just completed a PhD on 'nonassociative constructions from inverse property quasigroups'. I'm of course very proud of her work, but struggle to see any relevance to the real world.

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Hi Guy,

Have you seen the "San Isodro Owl" in Ecuador? It is not officially described because never collected, but you know the bird I'm talking about anyway. Without collecting, or at least catching, probably we cannot prove it is a full species, or "just" a sub-species or Black-banded or Band-bellied Owls. But finally where is the problem? The owner of the lodge refuses, fortunately, "his" bird being caught. But this bird attract people, so makes money, and will be protected for that. So why does it need to be collected? Situation is good, and can apply to many more populations!

I heard, unfortunately, that the bird was found elsewhere (Peru?). It is no at risk to be killed. For nothing.

You argue we need to know to protect. But we cannot make a nature reserve for every species of bird, mammals, frog, insects and spider, can we? Or if yes, we would eventually protect all the remaining nature... what I already ask anyway, and I don't need to collect new species for that.

Andy argue with the NP created thanks to the new barbet. But this place hold 800+ species. You need the barbet to create the national park because the system is what is is. But who can change the system? the scientists themselves!

800+ birdspecies is by far a sufficient argument to protect this forest. No need of ONE more species, even if it is endemic.

"My" strategy would be: you find a good primary forest full of bird and other diversity. Make the necessary to protect it! Once protected, we can organise birding (with limited disturbance) and other naturalist visits that will produce money and will be the best example to protect more other places. On the process, the barbet will be found by a field observer... is it a problem? May be we will not prove that in case of contact with another barbet, he wouldn't interbreed freely. Is it THAT important?

If our classification would be a little less accurate without the collecting, it is not that important. Conservation is much more important.

Don't think I say that because I don't understand taxonomy. I'm publishing lists, and I teach taxonomy since 2003 (I've been teaching in 6 countries in 3 different languages).

But the concept should never replace the reality. Reality is that we a destroying, wasting as crazy the remaining natural wonders and ressources on this world. I guess you see that as well as I do. And I'm sure we have to change radically our relationship with nature and other species to have a chance to stop this terrible situation. This starts with naturalists and scientists studying nature.

Will it be enough? I don't know. I'm not very optimistic, but I keep some hope. Why not a "hundredth monkey" phenomenous on human?

(I'm not sure this hundredth monkey story is true, but I noticed similar effects on bird populations several times).

When 3/4 of your house has been burnt, you work against the fire, not adding fire elsewhere, as little as it would be, even to prove that the remaining of the house is at risk...

 

[lewis20126]

My daughter has just completed a PhD on 'nonassociative constructions from inverse property quasigroups'. I'm of course very proud of her work, but struggle to see any relevance to the real world.

I'm sure her supervisors convinced someone of a possible commercial application. Possibly.

a

 

[etudiant]

I'm sure her supervisors convinced someone of a possible commercial application. Possibly.

a

Afaik, Goldman Sachs is actively hiring mathematicians to help create and manage their abstruse investment models. The mathematics/physics PhD son of a good friend wound up there recently, somewhat to his professors chagrin.

 

[GMK]

Not quite sure I see the link between the “San Isidro” owl (yes, I’ve seen it, for the record) and any of your “suppressed” new species, Valéry. The owl is well known and Mitch Lysinger and the people working at the lodge are all, to greater or lesser degrees, benefiting from those birds not being collected. (However, I seem to recall that Mitch is only against “his” birds being collected, for quite understandable reasons, rather than “it” being collected at all, i.e. somewhere else.) Also incidentally, I don’t believe the owls recently seen in Peru are the same “thing”, but let’s suppose they are; why is that unfortunate? Because one might be collected? You think it better that a bird species is rare and confined to a small area, or is more abundant and widely distributed? Personally, I’d prefer the latter scenario, whether that means a type is sacrificed or not. I prefer thinking at the population level, rather than in terms of individuals, but that seems to be symptomatic of our difference in opinion over whether collecting is “right” or not.

Anyway, returning to your point, which I still don’t thoroughly understand. How does the “San Isidro” owl relate to your “suppressed” new species’ conservation? The owl isn’t suppressed—people know about it and pay to visit the area. Your “purported” new species are apparently known only to you, or perhaps to you and other people of the “faith” not to collect. There’s no attention given to these birds, much less to the areas they inhabit and the plants, animals and other birds in the same place. Fine if these areas are within conservation units (perhaps?), but if they are not? Meanwhile, potentially no ecotourist puts money into the local economies of the place/s where these “new” birds occur because no one knows about them. Or perhaps they do? Perhaps your new birds are in Nairobi NP and thousands of people are seeing them every year, and they’re already ipso facto protected.

Disagreements over collecting have the capacity to sound like petty squabbles while Rome burns. I agree with you and others that conservationists are fighting a probably losing battle to save the scraps of what’s left of this planet. Only humans can decide whether that battle is even worth fighting. But one thing is for sure, people who collect birds and birders who don’t like collecting any birds, under any circumstances, are in reality on the same side. Andy’s example, even if you and others don’t like it, or the example of Fundación Jocotoco in Ecuador, if you’d prefer that, prove the point that museum scientists, birdwatchers and nature lovers are on the same side. Scientists at least in the main know that, and make the same point in print. When you cease to use misguided (and sometimes downright incorrect) terms like “criminals” and “bird killers”, or say that museums make no contribution to nature conservation, then your opinions will be taken more seriously by those holding contrary views. You don't possess a prerogative on how conservation should be practised.

 

[njlarsen]

800+ birdspecies is by far a sufficient argument to protect this forest. No need of ONE more species, even if it is endemic.

The one endemic, flagship species is enourmously helpful when it comes to convince politicians and money people that an area needs to be protected. Maybe if you were living in Utopia it would be different, but in the real world, not.

Niels

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Hi Guy,

Last post for me on the subject this year.

Collecting = killing. Killing is unacceptable. I guess before slavery was officially banned from our countries, some never ending talks like this (not through internet) happened, with many arguments used both sides. Fact is slavery is unacceptable, even if it would help economy, comfort, knowledge or whatever.

I'm sure it is easy to prove that medical research for infantil diseases would go faster if tests could be conducted on collected specimens of young human. Whatever it is true or not, we even don't talk about it, because killing/collecting a kid is unacceptable (some case are knowns from poor countries and this is disgusting).

Killing/collecting a newly discovered population is also unacceptable and disgusting. That's it. I wouldn't even consider it, except that -as crazy as it is- some people are doing it! When I think about, I feel ashamed to be human.

As you say "But one thing is for sure, people who collect birds and birders who don’t like collecting any birds, under any circumstances, are in reality on the same side", so it is even more choking that it comes from "my side". Because I'm ashamed to be human when I see a lot of terrible behaviours - but I could say, I belong to another group. I respect human, I respect life, I respect animals and nature. But even not! Within "my" group, naturalists, ornithologists, birders, whatever, it is the same: human is able to terrible behaviour. Just try to understand, a second, the point of view of the bird. If you are killed by a lion, you are dead to feed a lion. Sad, ok. As the bird eaten by a sparrowhawk. But imagine you... or somebody of your family, killed because somebody else wants to know what do you have (or your relative has) in the stomach?

I didn't say, or at least I didn't mean "museums make no contribution to nature conservation" nor "I possess a prerogative on how conservation should be practised." It is even not my speciality (teaching identification and taxonomy are).

May be we cannot prove scientifically that collecting is unacceptable (I'm not able to prove neither that killing a kid is unacceptable) but even if you would prove it is necessary for conservation, I would reject it. However, no one proved anything; all argument are very disputable.

Instead of being 100% intellectual and let the brain control everything, we should may be let some space for the "heart". I'm quite sure it would help a lot in most of the problems humanity is facing...

Bye

 

[GMK]

Valéry

This will be the last post from me too on this subject. I have tried to tackle the issues you have raised, but I don’t think you have attempted to do likewise. You have instead tried to move the goalposts when I kicked the ball in response to your moves. Your 120% commitment to nature conservation is unquestionable, but unfortunately we must beg to differ as to whether collecting can play a part in that. All I can say is that most leading international nature conservation organisations don’t appear to share your view, which to me says something. Doubtless it says something (different) to you too, but the simple fact is that while governments continue to issue licenses to collect birds (hence my comment that you were wrong to regard it as “illegal” and the scientists who pursue it as “criminals”) then my view—that collecting has a worthwhile role to play, not only in taxonomy and nomenclature, but also conservation—might have fewer adherents but will nevertheless hold sway.

I don’t take any heart from being on the “winning” side in that respect, because an intelligent person such as yourself, who even “teaches” taxonomy, should not only recognise that collecting (of a responsible nature) plays a role, but in fact lies at the heart of it. Name-bearing types are the bedrock of taxonomy; I can honestly say that I never encountered someone purporting to be a taxonomist (which you must be if you teach the subject, otherwise you are not qualified to so do) who espoused an alternative philosophy.

There is no counter response to the philosophical issues that you’ve raised concerning killing birds; this matter was already discussed by Van Remsen >15 years ago. If you believe that to wilfully kill any sentient being is wrong, that is your prerogative and absolutely valid; there’s no “scientific” answer, because it is a matter of personal philosophy not science. You and I are both vegetarian. Equally, I don’t own a car, I don’t own a cat, and I don’t live in a high-rise building, all of which kill birds. There are many other trappings to our modern life, which we don’t even think about, impacting the lives of the beings around us. A great many of them kill more birds per annum than scientific collecting does in decades. Badly sited wind farms and lighthouses could be two.

You say you didn’t mean that museums make no contribution to nature conservation, but I would ask you to re-read your post (numbered 65) in which you stated “(I think Museum SHOULD BE here to save and work on saving wildlife, not to destroy that - but unfortunately they are not),”. How else would someone reading that post interpret your view. Too many people post without reading what they’ve written and taking time to think about it. OK, it’s only the internet, but if you want someone to take you seriously, then you should at least do that much.

 

[andrew147]

The fact that collecting has been an aid to our understanding ('the bedrock of taxonomy' as GMK says) is indisputable. However, the question of why it needs to continue has still not been satisfactorily answered - and the first does not automatically answer the second.

Clearly, molecular studies do not always provide the answers, even to species designation. Where genetic studies reveal extensive paraphyly (e.g. Sporophila), species recognition will still be based on factors which can be observed – which are possible, with care, in the field.

The argument that flagship endemic species are necessary to promote conservation is a very persuasive one but it is not dependent on collecting and does not tell the whole story. There are numerous examples of subspecies being recognised as conservation priorities and the same for localised populations of widespread species. Sadly, I find it unlikely that Grallaria fenwickorum/urraoensis is ever going to be considered important much beyond the readership of this forum.

The question of how many collected individuals are ‘too many’ seems to be of genuine concern to some of the pro-collectors but surely this is facile (is it okay to collect 5 but not 6?) and enough recent studies (e.g. on Colluricincla & on Cyanoliseus, where over 100 individuals of each were collected) indicate that vast collections are still being made.

Some of those arguing in favour of collecting have said that newly discovered species are not affected by limited collecting. Well, you are claiming to know the unknowable! I don’t follow all of Valéry’s arguments regarding individuals, but it cannot be overlooked that every specimen is an individual – with a different genome, with propensities towards different behaviours, with potentially different ways of surviving diseases or hazards. We cannot presume to know what is lost when individuals are killed.

Fundamentally, I think that people are largely unimaginative and fearful of transgressing protocol. Collecting will continue because that is how it has always been done and so often people don’t need another reason to continue doing something, no matter how disagreeable it may be.

 

[lewis20126]

The argument that flagship endemic species are necessary to promote conservation is a very persuasive one but it is not dependent on collecting and does not tell the whole story.

My earlier example of the Begun Liocichla is a powerful one. An apparently rare, local and spectacular species that has generated positive benefits to local village communities in NE India.

...and yet there is no type specimen. But I don't think you'll find anyone from a Museum or Birdlife International saying that the species doesn't exist, is of doubtful validity or that its conservation depends on the collection of a specimen.

Do exceptions prove the rule?

I rather suspect that the many new Herpsilochmus species in South America will require specimens to quantify the small morphological characters which distinguish them from other closely related species. Ironically however the best features for identifying them is song - and birds in trays aren't much good at that...

Cheers, alan

 

[birdboybowley]

Last 2 replies.....:clap: