New Species of Antpitta from Colombia (1 Viewer)

[YourBirdOasis]

This is such a dramatic story! Please keep updating us, I am following this one.

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

more info recently posted: http://www.petitiononline.com/RNOA/petition.html

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

Important UPDATE!
An official communication from the museum where G.fenwickorum "type feathers" were "deposited" just been released:

https://sites.google.com/site/giebu...adoalacomunidadornitologicayalaopinionpublica

(view or download attachment)

It is all in Spanish, so basically it says:

* Alonso Quevedo from Proaves gave an envelope with feathers labeled as "Grallaria sp." to Diego Lizcano, a professor at Universidad de Pamplona.

* No comment was made of the importance of the samples contained!

* The envelope was sent to the museum director unsuccessfully, so Diego Lizcano received back the envelope and it was left in the "teaching" cabinet until last week when they were asked if they had this material and they got updated of the situation with this antpitta.

* The university and museum clearly state:

1. this material sent by ProAves is not been cataloged in the museum so it still has not a proper collection number.

2. Differently to what the Grallaria fenwickorum description published by Proaves affirms, at Pamplona University we do not have a tissue collection and they do not have anything cataloged under number 699.

3. We never received from ProAves the ID of the collected species; we only received the name of the genus, the collector name (Luis Felipe Barrera) and locality (see attached photo in the document).

4. We were never informed by ProAves about the high importance of the feathers they were sending to us; not even that was a holotype, so the material was not cataloged or stored properly at our institution.

5. The material did not bring collecting permits.

6. We never received from ProAves any copy of the publication of this species or any information about the species they described.

.. after these clear points Diego Lizcano gives general background info on the museum, and states that the institution where he works, can not guarantee the preservation of this samples in the long term due to several reasons including they do not have any ornithologist there. Also, he said they decided to give this material to the proper authorities so it can be storaged in a museum where can be safely kept.

at the end he adds photos of the samples and the label it had while in their museum...

you can take a look by yourself:
https://sites.google.com/site/giebu...adoalacomunidadornitologicayalaopinionpublica

WHAT A MESS and how big lack of care by these "collectors" can be!!!

 

[YourBirdOasis]

The plot thickens! Mailing an envelope with some feathers, a collector name, and a locality and expecting it to be cataloged just reeks of desperation.

 

[George Edwards]

I am surprise by the many negative statements from you Diego on the issue of no images of Fenwick's / Urrao Antpitta at the worm feeder in Colibri de sol reserve. I visited several Proaves reserves in Colombia and in no area were there any restrictions for birders (even playback) except at this one worm feeding station for the antpitta. Personally, I was extremely grateful that such a rare antpitta came to worms so readily offering the best views of any antpitta I had seen on my trip. The thought of not photographing it was rather inconsequential considering the effort by the reserve manager to feed and train them (supposedly twice a day everyday to ensure visitors can see them).

Let's put this in perspective. I was in the wonderful Tayrona National Park on the Caribbean coast of Colombia and was taking photos when a uniformed guard asked that I stop taking photos and told me that all photography was prohibited in the Park! I had to go through the camera memory and delete the images I had just taken or else he had to report the "incident". Well, I was a little bothered as no one told me this before paying an expensive entrance fee moments before! Nevertheless I respected the rules and carried on birding with binoculars.

Whatever the reasons at the Park or the Antpitta feeder, it is worth respecting those rules and not exaggerating them to create a situation. The day entrance fee at the park was around 15 quid versus 30 quid for full board and accommodation for the night in Colibri de sol reserve including entrance and antpitta feeding...

There are plenty of public and private areas worldwide that prohibit cameras, so this is not new! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

I just hope you are not "twisting" your minor inconvenience at the expensive of another jab at Proaves... a trend is emerging!

I'm very late to this thread, but just on the point of taking photos in a nature reserve and the regulations stated in the pdf "Toma de Fotografia": http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co...pdf/Resolucion_017_23_07.TomadeFotografia.pdf

In my opinion, these regulations are a classic example of the worst example of badly-thought-out Latin American red-tape and over-regulation. The author is obviously not sure if she is protecting cutural artefacts, promoting the National Parks organisation, protecting nature, charging professional photographers, or promoting tourism (not likely!). Even the way the tariff structure is presented is absurdly badly written and apparently completely arbitrary.

Somewhere buried deep in there is a fee exemption for tourists, but presumably (it is not clear) you would still have to make a written application for permission to take a photo, which can take "up to 45 days to be granted". Why, if permission would be granted and the fee would be waived? The whole thing is absurd and in a world where everyone very soon will have a high definition camera on his phone, largely unenforceable.

Every country has a different perspective on rights with respect to photography. I understand that on private property, owners should have the right to regulate photography. Privacy, protection (ie in this case conservation), and monetization are the three guiding principles that should apply. But just because ProAves or the Colombian Parks association own the land, I don't think that gives them the moral right to prevent or control dissemination of visual information of the species that live on their land, just because they can. That seems to go against the spirit of their mandates. If they want to charge a fair fee for photography, or prohibit flash, I have nothing against that, but it should be a simple matter of pay at the gate for amateurs.

This argument has nothing to do with protecting species, which everyone is of course fully behind.

As for the original controversy, as a lay observer reading between the lines, with no bird research experience I might add, it seems like many researchers before him, the discoverer tried to go behind the back of his employer, for obvious personal motivation, and got busted. The best that the opposing arguments can come up with is "that's not for you to decide, but a judge" which is about as mealy-mouthed as it comes!

The thrill of discovering a new species must be extraordinary for a young researcher, especially in our times. But I would assume that the bird would have got discovered eventually as long as the ecosystem remained intact and owned by ProAves, with or without his help - so in my mind it is fitting that ProAves should reward their donors with the naming honors. They are the ones that really ensured the survival and identification of that species.

Plus why on earth can't a species be established without killing the bird? Capture, measure, photograph, sample DNA, stools, record voice, pluck the odd feather if you like, maybe X-Ray? Isn't that enough? As a poster above points out, just imagine if an entirely new species were found in Cumbria or Florida. Would the discoverer immediately kill one?

Plus I don't buy the museum's story. Sounds like they're just trying to shift the blame after getting a rocket from some minister.

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

I'm very late to this thread, but just on the point of taking photos in a nature reserve and the regulations stated in the pdf "Toma de Fotografia": http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co...pdf/Resolucion_017_23_07.TomadeFotografia.pdf

In my opinion, these regulations are a classic example of the worst example of badly-thought-out Latin American red-tape and over-regulation. The author is obviously not sure if she is protecting cutural artefacts, promoting the .....

These regulations are absolutely over-regulations and have no clear ends.. just set and sometimes mandatory for some people, non-mandatory for some others... possessional photography for the ignorant NP staff (ignorant for sure about photography topics I mean, not anything else...) is a guy with a big non-point&shot camera with a large tele lens!.. ie: I have never been bothered while doing digiscoping photography at National Parks!.. why?.. because I have a small point&shot camera with a spotting-scope ... see?.. those regulations and how they are enforced are just garbage!

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

ps. George, on an explanatory note, when you cited globalbirder text in your last post: "Originally Posted by Globalbirder: I am surprise by the many negative statements from you Diego on the issue of no images of Fenwick's / Urrao Antpitta at the worm feeder in Colibri de sol reserve" he was talking about me (Diego Calderon) and not about the researcher that described the Urrao Antpitta (Diego Caranton).

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

Check last news at: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop479.html

BUT I WOULD SUGGEST all followers of this thread switch to another one where more people had commented and keep active:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=171372

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

urraoensis accepted by SACC: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop479.html