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="Mysticete" data-source="post: 1797817" data-attributes="member: 67784">I think this has been hashed out (over and over) on the issue of collecting versus non collection.I'll agree with Morlan in that extralimital vagrants are of little use...they are atypical so I am not sure what data they could collectIt's funny that you keep using Tapaculos for your basis on why collecting isn't important, than suggest ornithologists should just follow birds around to infer their diet.  That would be plainly impossible to do with in the example you keep citing!As for Kirtlands, easy:  If you want info on seasonal diet, just collect a feather for isotope analysis <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.  It is only if you want longer term data that you would have to rely on tissues or bone.Not sure where all this stuff about trading and such of specimens is going on.  IN my own experience in mammalogy and paleontology, you are much more likely to get loan situations than outright trading.  When trading occurs, it's usually of abundant material.  For instance, at my school we traded some pronghorn material for some sea otter material from California, both of which were abundant in their respective areas.  And some times a local collection will be "gifted" with just too much material.  A lot of the casualties of the Exon Valdez were distributed far and wide, simply because there wasn't room for them in the relevant collections.  I am not saying trading doesn't go on, but it's not the primary motivation for collecting</blockquote>

Verification