New Species on Manu Road - Kill Bill Tanager (3 Viewers)

[The Tom]

One way you could choose to look at it is that the death of a single unidentified new to science Tanager spp has the potential to result in something positive for the conservation of that species and any others dependant on the habitat it occupies.

Compare that to the fate of several million Turkeys...intensively farmed etc etc..

Or another way to look at it is the pointless death of a unique new to science Tanager spp that has potentialy nothing positive to offer towards the conservation of its species or others that occupy its habitat .

 

[Jane Turner]

Or another way to look at it is the pointless death of a unique new to science Tanager spp that has potentialy nothing positive to offer towards the conservation of its species or others that occupy its habitat .

Agreed that is the worst case... but its even if nothing contructive did come of it, its still trivial compared to many other issues.

 

[Edward woodwood]

how come everybody is a mega conservationist all of sudden? Distraught at the death of this tanager - wish i'd never mentioned it

btw the Calayan Rail was 'collected' 3 days after the original sighting. See Forktail for subsequent descrioption and pix. Also in Forktail is an article on species limits in Indonesian Thrushes where several new 'species' are proposed on the basis of museum work on skins, thereby giving the forms greater conservation weight as distinct species endemic to a single island - Javan Whistling Thrush (amrchair tick!!!) etc....

also in Forktail is a paper on taxonomic status of Flores Hawk Eagle (armchair tick no. 2 !!!) again work done on specimens. This species will give serious weight to conservation on Flores as Javan Hawk Eagle did on Java. Without work like this these birds would be in even more peril.

hey, we're all talking about the Manu Road for a start - raising awareness!!! Go and see it. I've stood in the place it's been seen - it's certainly possible.....

channel your anger.

 

[Andrew]

If the discoverer of the Kill Bill Tanager just came back from the forest and said "New species up the road, blah, blah . . . ". Few might beleive him so I reckon he might have been right to have collected the specimen as it could even help safeguard the section of forest from logging thereby saving precious habitat for other resident species (birds, mammals et al). It could also open up a wide range of information on the particular Tanager in question and further the conservation cause if something is necessary.

Still, "collecting" is not easy to swallow for birders and it does upset me but we are all human and need to see the bigger picture.

Was this the only bird of this species seen by the discoverer?

 

[Katy Penland]

Sorry about the lack of that handy BF quote-maker ; I used << >> instead since I composed this offline.

FROM TIM YESTERDAY:

<<the precautionary principle point was made - the bird was trapped as it is reasonable to assume it is not on the verge of extinction. As i mentioned, a bird in polylepis forest probably wouldn't be killed.>>

You have no more evidence to support your assumption that the bird is not on the verge of extinction any more than I have to assume that it could be. This is the point -- no one knows because no one has studied it.

Just so I am understanding the "provenance" of this discovery: Two tour guides have found a bird previously undescribed, saw it three times in four years, and the last time it was sighted, it was trapped and killed to determine what it was. No scientific studies were undertaken, were they? Were grants applied for but rejected? These are real questions, not challenging. I'm just trying to understand how the decision was made that it was okay to kill an obviously rarely sighted bird in the absence of any knowledge about that bird.

<<the 'need to know' lets us discover about the bird in order to conserve the species - i know this seems like a paradox but we are only talking one individual here.>>

As others have already pointed out, this is a reprehensible attitude. "Only talking one individual here." Neither you nor Walker nor Lane can say that this is a negligible number *in the absence of data* to support that assumption!

<<impossible to study in the short time they've been viewed>>

No excuse for killing it. Make the time to study it. Get the proper permits, spend the proper time trying to find and record this bird, its movements, its breeding success, etc.

<<impossible to photograph to any useful degreee - only seen three times>>

Ditto above.

<<scientists don't name birds after themselves much these days>>

As my post said, I was being cynical. Whether they do or don't "these days" doesn't matter. It has been done, and I'm sure it'll be done again in the future. Doesn't matter.

<<the people involved are good people. If they weren't interested and actually doing something we wouldn't even know about the species and any problems it may face.>>

I'm sure Walker et al *are* good people, I certainly haven't made any judgements about them one way or the other, only about the methodology and scientific justification for the taking of this bird.

<< The people involved aren't exactly scientists either - just extremely well informed and knowledgeable amateurs>>

And this just underscores my questions and concerns about the lack of scientific investigation that occurred over the past four years before these amateurs -- however informed and knowledgeable -- killed a rare bird in the interests of "science."

<<'it was so rare' was a justification for not attempting to trap it - very difficult to do in that environment to a bird no one has seen - might not be seen again for a long, long time.>>

Maybe the tour guides didn't have time to wait for it to come around again after only seeing it 3 times in 4 years, but a proper scientific study of this bird very likely would have provided the time and resources necessary to gain that knowledge. Again I ask: Were grants applied for to do this?

<<what could you be doing worse? That wasn't said. It was 'worse things going on' to get annoyed about.>>

Did you miss the wink at the end of my response?

FROM TODAY:

<<I thought i had made the point ad nauseum that the species will not prove to be on the verge of extinction - plenty of habitat, no similar species in danger etc etc...>>

Sorry this is making you ill, Tim, but just because you repeat yourself doesn't mean you have any more scientific grounds for making this statement today than you did yesterday.

<<if it were in polylepis at high altitude etc etc etc......I am not aware of any specimens taken in at least the last 50 years that have had an impact on a species survival. If anyone can find any........>>

The point is, *no one knows* whether the taking of this bird will have a significant impact on this species. Too late now, isn't it, to be arguing this particular point. The bird is dead.

<<I can't work out why people are getting so worked up about this - seems very reactionary to me? When you have looked at the arguments from all sides people seem come to the conclusion given by Steve above. I'm not aware of any prominent people in the field who oppose this.>>

Jeez, Tim, ask a few specific questions about the scientific methodology employed by two tour guides who killed an admittedly rarely sighted bird without benefit of field study, and you call *that* "reactionary"?! If none of these "prominent people in the field" you refer to raised similar questions, then I would say that the entire area of ethics in bird collection needs to be re-addressed. As I pointed out yesterday, even Van Remsen et al's paper doesn't offer guidelines regarding the dilemma of whether collection is justified if the status of a population is *unknown*. It only "proscribes" actions that could destabilize or otherwise threaten the status quo of a species that is *known.* There's a huge difference.

Again from yesterday: Has there been anything published about this "discovery"? If not, when *will* it be available?

TODAY FOR STEVE:

I don't disagree with the points you so eloquently made except to say that as there has been no field research conducted to determine whether in fact this bird *is* a rare species per se -- because the exact opposite may be true; that it may be abundant and just isn't regularly sighted by tour operators or others who haven't made a systematic search for it -- using this as a political tool to aid conservation activities, whether in developing countries or in our own back yard, is just as dishonest as using it to justify scientific "collection." We don't *know.*

Hopefully, Tim has answers about whether there have been any studies undertaken in the past four years before the decision to trap and kill this bird was made.

 

[Steve Lister]

I get the impression that people regard the collecting of this tanager specimen is somehow unusual. Far from it: collecting specimens is a standard technique in South America, as well as elsewhere, but it is presumably controlled by the environmental bodies and only done under licence (at least I hope it is).

Steve

 

[Jane Turner]

Still, "collecting" is not easy to swallow for birders and it does upset me but we are all human and need to see the bigger picture.

Absolutely Andrew.

 

[Edward woodwood]

yes Steve - you're right of course

I'm sorry but i don't have the energy, time or indeed inclination to post defending this routine piece of fieldwork. I thought it was a piece of good news

yes you are all right
they have killed perhaps the only specimen of this species for their own selfish ends with no forethought to the process at all. They are total amateurs who know nothing about the birds or the area and generally don't give a damn, or do anything with their lives to conserve the birds of the area. Perhaps they should be collected and the birds can disappear in peace.......then no one will ever see them! we wouldnt even know of the 'species' without these talented, dedicated people....

 

[gusford]

yes Steve - you're right of course

I'm sorry but i don't have the energy, time or indeed inclination to post defending this routine piece of fieldwork. I thought it was a piece of good news

yes you are all right
they have killed perhaps the only specimen of this species for their own selfish ends with no forethought to the process at all. They are total amateurs who know nothing about the birds or the area and generally don't give a damn, or do anything with their lives to conserve the birds of the area. Perhaps they should be collected and the birds can disappear in peace.......then no one will ever see them! we wouldnt even know of the 'species' without these talented, dedicated people....

I seriously doubt it is the only Kill Bill tanager left. If it is then is was doomed anyway!

 

[Jane Turner]

I seriously doubt it is the only Kill Bill tanager left. If it is then is was doomed anyway!

Oh that's an interesting point... I wonder what would happen if you modelled the trade off between the percentage reduction of the population against the genetic-viability of the population...

You'd have to factor in the longevity of the species (guessing since you clearly can' know.. eg 3 years for a typical tanager!)

I can imagine an argument that says if the percentage reduction in the population caused by the removal of one specimen was serious, the species is already doomed and all you are doing is hastening its demise slightly and at least making sure it is at least recorded.

 

[gusford]

Perhaps we are splitting hairs here Jane!
They killed a specimen of the Cayalan (?) Rail recently didn't they - I know there were quite a few about. Perhaps it would have been better to record the calls & do a playback to see if there were others knocking about.

Maybe its an aberrant? (Don't knock - just thinking aloud here)

 

[njlarsen]

Sorry for joining this thread late, but I have just read entries #1 - #50. One thing that has not been said is that until the time of the above mentioned African Shrike, it would be unrealistic to rely on DNA data to determine if a species was new; however, once the probable confusing species have been sampled, it is easy to compare a new DNA sequence with these. And there has been at least as many splits proposed based on DNA sequence data (also of South American Birds) as has been proposed based on skinned birds in the museums.

I believe that a lot of the defense for collecting is based on habits that are pre-DNA. Some of the background literature is so old that DNA sequencing was hardly invented!. In the http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/GuideToUse/collecting.htm paper that was sited above has no references past 1994 and the majority is from the 70ties where no-one even dreamed about using DNA methods for anything at all!

I realize that there are advantages to skin collections, e.g., for field guide writers and drawers, and that we all benefit from these. However, let us return to the one shrike that was set free in Afrika; to the best of my knowledge, the species has not been seen in the wild since then, and if it had been collected therefore would have been a significant part of the world population as it is known (total = 1 bird). What is to prove that the pattern for this Tanager is different?

Niels

 

[CJW]

I don't suppose it helps that the area the Boubou was caught was in the middle of a warzone and thus, reduces the chances of future observations.
But you are correct, the species has never been seen since.

 

[gthang]

Just started reading this thread. ANy pictures of the Kill Bill Tanager?

lol... At first I thought this was an April Fool's joke. but seeing how it is August, not April, I began to wonder... Then I thought that it was a tanager with a yellow and black pattern with a facial feather arangement to make it look like Uma...

 

[Motmot]

This thread makes me remember another one full of "moral problems" against culling those b****y Ruddy Ducks...

Thanks for the info on the tanager Tim, very interesting

 

[Edward woodwood]

yes there are photos (I've seen three of the specimen) but not on the web i don't think.

I spoke to several people about the bird at BBWF and a genus has been proposed - an abberant bird is not thought a possibility

i will repeat the point about the tanager''s 'population' again. A tanger on Manu is unlikely to be very rare/directly threatened - hence the decision to collect this. Birds in remnant patches of forest ie Polylepis etc probably would not be killed. A judgement has been made on the likelihood of its distribution

DNA taxonomy is being revised quite radically at the moment (Joel Cracraft has proposed a new sequence that upsets a lot of the Sibley Monroe data - it is not the final solution as was envisaged a few years back.)

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread as it is obvious that a few people don't seem to be aware of the realities. I'd just like to mention a few things about the Bulo Burti Boubou from Somalia, sorry if this has already been done:

1) It was considered highly endagered - something the new tanager from Peru almost certainly isn't. There is (still) plenty of habitat for the tanager, it just appears to be very hard to find/see. There are several un-described species "out there" not known to the general public but known to a few (I myself know three such taxa; two, possibly a third, in South America, and one in Africa), where specimens have not been collected. Often not because they didn't have the possibility, but because of doubts about the population size.
2) The Bulo Burti Boubou may have been released - but it didn't appear to survive the "experiance". Despite several surveys in the area this species has not been relocated.
3) The description of this species caused somewhat of an out-cry. Basically for the reasons given above - we didn't know anything about the internal. It is likely to be highly threatened, but we don't know if a specialization of feeding is in part to blame for this.
4) For above reasons NO OTHER species (at least that I am aware of) have been described in a similar fashion. There are still important authorities who are questioning the validity of the Boubou - not at least because a single sample of DNA reaveals little. It could be nothing but a freak. It should be mentioned that - if I remember correctly - they saw two individuals, and captured one of them. This obviously indicates that it more than just a "freak". This is even more complicated as the relatives are generally poorly known aswell!
5) It should also be mentioned that DNA is far less obvious as an indicater of what is a species and what is not, than many people seem to think. The exact borders in how much DNA must differ from one species to another are far from resolved. It even seems to differ from genus to genus! People seem to think that a single strain of DNA solves everything, but there is far more to it; you need to look at bottleneck populations, isolating mechanisms, sufficient samples etc. etc. Otherwise, gulls could easily have been solved several years ago - and they are still being discussed; even with plenty of DNA samples around!

So, in general - popular or not - specimens are still needed for good reasons. Obviously not in the manner it was done 100 years ago where local populations could virtually be extirpated by collectors so the museums in Europe could have 200 specimens of some new species. Only qualified people (i.e. scientists) should take specimens, most "normal birders" wouldn't have a clue about how to treat DNA samples etc. anyway. Luckily, few countries allow anything but "pro's" to collect specimens. Today hunting, habitat destruction etc. is of far greater importance than collecting a few specimens of something new...

 

[ground-roller]

If the population of the tanager was so small that taking one individual would affect its conservation status in any way it would be doomed to stochaistic extinction anyway.

Surely only people oppossed to killing any animal could object to collecting specimens.

 

[Jane Turner]

If the population of the tanager was so small that taking one individual would affect its conservation status in any way it would be doomed to stochaistic extinction anyway.

That's what I was trying to say above...less efficiently. I'm obvously opposed to killing anything for no good reason.. and would not collect a spcimen myself.. however I can see that there are circumstances where it would be necessary and as I say up there somewhere, I trust the conservationalists involved to make that difficult decision.

 

[njlarsen]

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread as it is obvious that a few people don't seem to be aware of the realities. I'd just like to mention a few things about the Bulo Burti Boubou from Somalia, sorry if this has already been done:

1) It was considered highly endagered - something the new tanager from Peru almost certainly isn't. There is (still) plenty of habitat for the tanager, it just appears to be very hard to find/see. There are several un-described species "out there" not known to the general public but known to a few (I myself know three such taxa; two, possibly a third, in South America, and one in Africa), where specimens have not been collected. Often not because they didn't have the possibility, but because of doubts about the population size.

5) It should also be mentioned that DNA is far less obvious as an indicater of what is a species and what is not, than many people seem to think. The exact borders in how much DNA must differ from one species to another are far from resolved. It even seems to differ from genus to genus! People seem to think that a single strain of DNA solves everything, but there is far more to it; you need to look at bottleneck populations, isolating mechanisms, sufficient samples etc. etc. Otherwise, gulls could easily have been solved several years ago - and they are still being discussed; even with plenty of DNA samples around!

Per 1 above: I am very relieved that to hear that mindless collecting have been avoided in a few cases.

I believe that the initial responce to this report originates with the fact given that a single bird had been seen, and it is now collected. The arguments for this bird having a potentially large area with similar biotopes to live in, and therefore hopefully to be a bird that is neither threatened nor rare, were only given later after the discussion had heated up.

In an ideal world, it should be possible to catch one or more birds of the undescribed species, take photos etc, take a blood sample, and release the bird within 1- maximum 2 hours. In the case where a population is small, this is probably the best way to get *some* information on the species in a way that is probably not going to harm it in any significant way. I agree that the Boubou story is problematic in that the bird was only released after a long period in captivity, which resulted in changes in the area where it had originally been captured (burned over if I remember correctly).

With regards to the usability of DNA sequences, I think you are exaggerating the drawbacks relative to the advantages. I am a molecular biologist by trade, even though I now make my money by teaching human genetics. I believe that the usability is larger than your input would indicate, even with intra species variation.

thanks
Niels