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

[tomjenner]

On several occasions the writers in this thread have mentioned the need to study a bird before it is collected. The reality is that a huge number of species (more than half of the species in the world?) have virtually nothing published on them at all, other than details from specimens. The reality is that field research is time consuming and expensive, and no grant body is going to give money for someone to spend a long time in the field to study a species that has not yet been confirmed, when there are thousands of species that have never been studied that are desperately in need of research.
I don't much like the idea of taking specimens and it would be great if an alternative could be found, but currently there doesn't seem to be one.
Tom

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

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.

Possibly my comment on DNA as a factor for determining species-limits wasn't clear enough. DNA certainly is very useful for this, however, there are a few serious problems at this point (though the future hopefully will solve these problems). One of them has nothing to do with DNA, but rather the fact that few biologists seem to agree on what makes a species - there is no single standard. Second problem is rather specific to the Bulo Burti Boubou; generally a sample from a single specimen is not considered sufficient. The Bulo Burti Boubou is actually the only species I am aware of (though I cant guarantee that something didn't slip my mind) where it was argued that it was a species based on a DNA-sample from a single specimen - the general opinion is that a series is needed to argue that something is more than just a "freak". Finally, there ARE certainly problems with how much DNA is allowed to differ from one species compared to a close relative. This has been especially obvious on the recent analysis of various Neotropical genera where a large percentage of the currently accepted species actually seem to be superspecies (Synallaxis, Atlapetes, Leptasthenura etc.). If we indeed had those exact standards there would be nothing to discuss in terms of North Hemisphere gulls (or Loxia-crossbills for that matter). There are plenty of samples for this group and still no two authorities seem to agree!

Anyway, just to give an example of a (possible) new taxon that is out there and still hasn't been collected because of doubts in regards of status is the by now rather famous "San Isidro Owl" from Ecuador. Other relatively wellknown but so far un-collected taxa (a hummingbird, an antthrush & a thistletail) are known from Apurimac, Peru. Several other examples are out there, though most of them are rather "shhh" at this point (unlike the just mentioned).

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi Rasmus

I know that Frank Lambert has vidoe of a new flycatcher from Peru too - a shiffornis i think. Thakns Tom and Rasmus for your input.

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

I know that Frank Lambert has vidoe of a new flycatcher from Peru too - a shiffornis i think.

Hi Tim,

Actually, there are quite a few examples out there...

1) A new Tapaculo from Junin, Peru. It has been known for several years (there's even a photo in HBW vol. 8!), though no specimens have been collected so far.
2) A possible new flycatcher from Sulawesi (Indonesia). So far only known "captured" on photos and tape-recordings.
3) A possible new sunbird (Cinnyris sp.) from Djibouti (Africa). So far only known from a series of photographs.
4) A Cliff-swallow from Ethiopia that has been tentatively treated as a part of the virtually unknown "Red Sea Cliff-swallow" (H. perdita). However, the descriptions differ and it seems likely that it is indeed a new species.

- I know of two additional taxa from South America and one from from Africa where exact info has not yet been available to the general public (so I am not going to give it either).

So, there is plenty to discover out there

 

[njlarsen]

I would like to try to summarize my thoughts on why describing a new species based on a DNA sequence is as valid as describing it based on a museum specimen (hereafter for short “morphology”. Provocatively, I would like to state that trying to describe a species today without doing a DNA sequence of the most commonly sequenced part of the mitochondrion probably should lead to rejection of the description!

Rasmus is correct in stating that the DNA sequence does not provide any information relative to the biological species concept; as implicitly stated, that is a property that is shared with morphology. Both are able to say something on whether two samples share a proportion of their characters, be they Adenine at a given position or presence/absence of wingbars. Based on the percentage of shared characters you build up a hypothesis of how closely the two samples are related. To say something certain related to the biological species concept, you really have to do field work and looking at if the two types breed pure in a zone of overlap and if they do hybridize, what happens with the offspring; are they selected against.

Morphology interpretation has seen its ups and downs: to take one example, how often have a species developed with three toes in the woodpeckers? How important is this character in relation to others? It should therefore not surprise that there are interpretation problems in DNA sequence comparisons as well. As Rasmus mentions, it is necessary to calibrate the interpretation for each group individually. From a molecular perspective that is not surprising, single base mutations can change the efficiency of the mitochondrial DNA replication.

With regards to the Boubou, it has been criticized for only having data from one specimen that might have been a freak. I would assume that the danger of interpreting things based on a freak is larger if the analysis is based on morphology. The number of species where males and females have initially been described as different species comes to mind. For the Boubou, the initial assumption, if I remember correctly, was that the bird could be a hybrid of two other named birds. The obvious prediction from that is that the mitochondrial DNA should be identical to one of the parents, which was shown not to be the case.

My thesis that morphology and DNA sequence are roughly equally good when it comes to solving problems of speciation can be illustrated with a story that I once heard; I have never read the paper and do therefore not have all details correctly. Therefore the numbers given below are not correct but give an order of magnitude that I think is correct. The story is on the pipit on Canary Islands, which based on morphology was questionable as species. With DNA, the questions remained: there was 50 units difference between meadow and tree pipits (and most other pipit pairs), about 5-10 units variation within meadow pipit, and 25 units difference between the Canary Island pipit and it closest relative. Similar stories have sometimes been marketed as the downfall of DNA analyses, while in reality they show that morphology and DNA are equal in their performance.

Any takers?

Niels

 

[Edward woodwood]

sorry Niels don't have the time
some good points in general but i don't think you'll find much support in the ornithological world - doesn't mean you're 'wrong' though of course. I would add though that specimens are taken for other reasons than just the description of a new species.

problem with Kill Bill Tanager was actually ensuring the individual was obtained - hence shooting rather than trapping was chosen to collect the specimen.

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

Hi Niels,

In general I would tend to agree. However, when looking at descriptions (or splits) of species where there have been a significant amount of doubt, you will note that combinations were used to argue for or against. Not "only" morphology; not "only" DNA - but rather a combination...
An example would be the recent splitting in Otus and Glaucidium by König et al. In these highly problematic and difficult genera they mainly used molecular evidence. In other cases they only used (often insufficient) analyses of voices. Several of these splits have not become widely accepted among scientists (though it seems many "arm-chair tickers" have accepted them readily - that is a different discussion, though!). The reason for this has mainly been because of the general lack of additional analyses in the papers by König et al: Often there were no in-dept analyses of morphology, no in-dept analyses of voices etc. etc. For such problematic genera you just can't limit it to a single type of analyse.
For some of the best examples of in-dept and complete analyses of various difficult genera I would advice anyone to take a look at the numerous papers by Jon Fjeldså (Fjeldsaa). They are text-book examples of how it should be done - even though they can be very difficult for most people (even biologists!) to understand as they are highly scientific in contend and language.

Rasmus

 

[njlarsen]

I will take the last couple of comments to mean that my arguments were not babbling nonsence, just a bit far from mainstream. Thanks

Niels

 

[cuckooroller]

Niels,
No, certainly not babbling nonsense. Rasmus is much more grounded in the niceties of the latest techniques involved in the use of mtDNA analyses presently being used to establish cladal lines than I am having recently studied it also under Dr. Fjeldsaa I believe. I have a background in Genetics, but having read a number of Fjeldsaa's works and intuitively understanding what he is talking about, I realize that I have to find more current papers explaining to me the rationale behind result interpretations accruing from these techniques. It is difficult to say how many on BF may understand what is being talked about in this thread.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi Steve
I fully sympathise! Likewise, i have a background in genetics but to keep up with recent developments to the level Rasmus and Jon Fjeldsaa are working at is well beyond me in the time available.

Rasmus - any chance of a few of those useful references for us genetics lightweights?

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

Hi Steve
I fully sympathise! Likewise, i have a background in genetics but to keep up with recent developments to the level Rasmus and Jon Fjeldsaa are working at is well beyond me in the time available.

Rasmus - any chance of a few of those useful references for us genetics lightweights?

Hi Tim,

Thanks for mentioning me in the same sentence as Fjeldsaa! Saying that I am at his level would be bending the truth, though - I wouldn't even dare saying that I am anywhere near (there's a reason why he is a professor and I am not!).

Anyway, I will see if I can find some exact references as most of the papers I have are pre-publication copies, meaning that I often am not completely sure where they got published... for now, here are a few of them:

Roy, M.S., Arctander, P. & Fjeldså, J. (1999) Speciation and taxonomy of montane greenbuls of the genus Andropadus (Aves: Pycnonotidae). Steenstrupia 24: 51-66

García-Moreno, J., Arctander, P. & Fjeldså, J. (1999) A case of rapid diversification in the Neotropics: phylogenetic relationships among Cranioleuca spinetails (Aves, Furnariidae). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 12: 273-281.

García-Moreno, J. & Fjeldså, J. (1999) Phylogeny and re-evaluation of species limits in the genus Atlapetes based on mtDNA sequence data. Ibis 141: 191-207.

García-Moreno, J. and Fjeldså, J. (2001) Taxonomy of Metallura. Journal für Ornithologie 141:203-205. (Reply to Heindl and Schuchmann; final part in a series on the taxonomy in this genus published over several years)

García-Moreno, J. and Fjeldså, J. (2003) Phylogenetic relationships among Hemispingus tanagers. Ornitología Neotropical 14: 363-370.

Above are just a limited sample where I have exact references easily available. Some may a bit off topic, but I have tried to limit it. In any case there should be plenty of "entertaining" material for at least a few evenings.
Enjoy

Rasmus

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi Rasmus

many thanks - was fortunate enough to meet Jon (and his hat) a few years back - very nice bloke and rather clever too! Pity his book (Bird of the High Andes) isn't so easy to get these days.

I should be able to get most of those references at University of East Anglia - it's in walking distance. Thanks for taking the time.

atb
Tim

 

[Katy Penland]

Niels,
No, certainly not babbling nonsense. ... It is difficult to say how many on BF may understand what is being talked about in this thread.

Agree wholeheartedly with Steve, most assuredly not babbling nonsense! Neither am I a "genetics lightweight" nor any other kind of amateur scientist, but I am extremely interested in and have been following this thread avidly.

Since Tim doesn't seem to have the time to respond to scientifically oriented questions, perhaps he'd take the time to elaborate on his comment: "...specimens are taken for other reasons than just the description of a new species." I'm not asking this to be argumentative; I don't know what those reasons are and would like to be informed.

The reality is that a huge number of species (more than half of the species in the world?) have virtually nothing published on them at all, other than details from specimens. The reality is that field research is time consuming and expensive, and no grant body is going to give money for someone to spend a long time in the field to study a species that has not yet been confirmed, when there are thousands of species that have never been studied that are desperately in need of research.

As far as has been indicated in this thread, the reality is no one has even put forth the effort to *get* grant money to study this bird in a four-year period of time before deciding to "collect" it. I agree that no grantor is going to underwrite an expensive study unless the applicant has sufficient bona fides to conduct such research, but I would venture to guess that tour guides won't be successful applicants (especially in the absence of *any* preliminary data, such as DNA work, photos, vocalization recordings, etc.). Grants are given all the time in the pursuit of the unknown, but much depends on legitimate, if minimal, fieldwork up to that point such as the aforementioned DNA, etc., efforts.

As I also asked Tim but he again didn't have time to respond to this question, either: *Were* grants applied for? *Was* any attempt made to conduct a systematic study of this bird before it was killed?

If not, can I then assume that a grantee (presumably a scientist, not a tour guide) can now more easily approach a grantor, dead bird in hand, and get the necessary funding? If not, what's the next step in gaining an understanding of this presumably new species? Kill another individual?

I'm sorry for the facetiousness here, but this runs so counter to what I understand to be the way research is conducted. If marine mammalogists on board a ship saw what they thought was an undescribed species of dolphin or whale, do you think they'd kill it first without getting photos, tissue samples, scat samples, hanging a hydrophone over the side, and otherwise doing everything possible to compare what they found with what's already in the database? Not a chance. Even if they never sighted that animal again (and studying marine mammals is a whole lot more difficult, time-consuming and expensive than studying birds), I don't know of a single marine mammologist (and I know literally several hundred of them) who would even entertain such an unethical, and in some countries, an illegal notion.

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

Absolutely untrue -- speaking only for myself, of course. I'm not an animal rightist per se, never have been. However, I think there's no justification for lethal scientific research particularly when all non-lethal avenues haven't been exhausted.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi Katy

sorry for not answering the 'science' questions - i'm very busy though, reading, music, drawing, preparing lessons for the new term - not enough hours in a day. Maybe BirdLife could give you a policy statement on taking specimens or the AOU or IBIS?

I doubt very very much that grants were applied for - the people involved all have day jobs as i said before, and don't have the time to decamp to Manu Road for the weeks, months or years it might take to find the species and study it etc. Hard to conduct a systematic study of a bird seen twice.

museums usually have a series of skins - these are used for future study by taxonomists, artists etc. New species and loads of subspecies have been found in museum trays. I have seen it happen in front of me on occasion! Speciems taken from different locations can also give useful information to taxonomists and conservationists

and i'm also pretty sure that there are very very few people on Bird Forum up to speed with the genetics as used in avain taxonomy at the cutting edge as Niels and Rasmus are. I am a scientist too and edit publications for the Oriental Bird Club but i am far behind these people in my undertstanding.

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

Since Tim doesn't seem to have the time to respond to scientifically oriented questions, perhaps he'd take the time to elaborate on his comment: "...specimens are taken for other reasons than just the description of a new species." I'm not asking this to be argumentative; I don't know what those reasons are and would like to be informed.

Specimens are useful for several reasons. Not at least because they are able to give much information about behavior. In a large percentage of birds from poorly known regions the only info we have on feeding are from such specimens; studies of bill & digestive tracts - not at least stomach contend. This is how we can say that the recently discovered rail from the Philippines, Gallirallus calayanensis, feeds on snails, beetles, millipedes & plant material. They were all recorded in the stomach of the holotype.
Similarly, studies of ovaries and brood-patches have been very useful for determining reproductive behavior (how many eggs, when is the season for breeding etc.). In a large percentage of the tropical birds a nest has not even been found yet! Much of this data would require decades of fieldwork to get. Also remember that fieldwork in a tropical rainforest is very hard; most of the birds are 40 meters up in the center of a dense canopy! A subtropical/temperate rainforest is no easier, as many birds stay in the dense undergrowth of (razor-sharp) bamboo - you can't see any more than 1-2 meters into this type of habitat!

As far as has been indicated in this thread, the reality is no one has even put forth the effort to *get* grant money to study this bird in a four-year period of time before deciding to "collect" it. I agree that no grantor is going to underwrite an expensive study unless the applicant has sufficient bona fides to conduct such research, but I would venture to guess that tour guides won't be successful applicants (especially in the absence of *any* preliminary data, such as DNA work, photos, vocalization recordings, etc.). Grants are given all the time in the pursuit of the unknown, but much depends on legitimate, if minimal, fieldwork up to that point such as the aforementioned DNA, etc., efforts.

As I also asked Tim but he again didn't have time to respond to this question, either: *Were* grants applied for? *Was* any attempt made to conduct a systematic study of this bird before it was killed?

No, there were no applications for grants to conduct a study. First, it is generally hard to get grants for studying what many (non-birders) consider "just another small bird from the other side of the globe". Secondly, the first time the bird was observed (nothing but a brief encounter by Dan Lane), he wasn't at all sure it was anything but a "freak" or perhaps a juvenile of something he already knew (you would be atonished to hear how many species exist where we have absolutely no data on pre-adult plumage). Actually, it was only when he saw it the second time four years later that he felt confident it could be something completely new. Dan Lane may be a tour-guide, but he is also one of the leading authorities on Neotropical birds (he also discovered Capito wallacei in 1996. Recently he was a part of the team that re-discovered Xenoglaux). Normally he works as a biologist at the Louisiana State University (LSU). You will note that many top (bird-)scientists also work as tour-guides. This is not at all unusual. Finally, as already mentioned earlier, the data from a specimen is very valuable; it would often take years (or even decades) of specific surveying to get a comparable amount of data from the wild.

 

[njlarsen]

I have debated whether I wanted to go there, but what the heck: I want to contrast two papers in the most recent issue of The Journal of Caribbean Ornithology (vol. 17 special issue). One is on the phylogeny and biogeography of wood warblers with special reference to the Caribbean species, the other on the phylogeny and biogeography of Amazona parrots in the same region. The first paper painstakingly describes that all samples are from animals that was collected and gives museum references for each; with the exception of samples from one species from Cayman Islands “Due to legislation with no provisions for scientific collecting”. For this bird, a sample was obtained as one remige “from a color banded individual”. No mention is made in this paper of population sizes for each species included. In contrast, the second paper explicitly states that “No birds were harmed or sacrificed for collection of samples”: the sources included road kills, feathers collected from nestlings, as well as feathers, blood samples, or tissue samples from captive birds of which some were sampled after unrelated deaths.

I find the contrast in approach striking especially in relation to the discussion we have had here.

Thanks
Niels

PS (added later): even though it is not specifically stated in the first of these two papers, I have at least two explanations for why the authors wanted the actual birds from which the samples originated saved as museum specimen. The first is trivial: any doubths with regards to species determination can be settled by looking at the skin. The second is a little better: if a species later is split into more races or even species, the bird itself is available so that the precise taxon can be determined based on possible new information that was not available at the time of sampling.

I felt that I had to add this comment as a kind of defence for paper one; I still find it thought provoking to contrast these two approaches.

 

[Katy Penland]

Thank you very much, Niels, Rasmus and Tim for the additional information on reasons for "collecting." Thought provoking, indeed. At Tim's suggestion, I will definitely be doing more research into policies of the various ornithological associations on "collecting".

Despite what is being put forth here on the rationale for doing so, to me much of this justification for "collecting" still smacks of convenience to the "collector" at the expense of the bird, and not just in the Manu Road situation. The justification for lethal scientific research is already condemned (and has been for the past 15 years) in the marine mammal world (vis-à-vis Japan and the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission; Iceland last year started up its own "scientific permit whaling," also condemned by the SciComm) because all the data gleaned from killing the whales could have been obtained through tissue and blubber sampling, photo ID analysis and satellite tagging. This thread has been an eye-opener to me in learning that lethal scientific research is still practiced, and defended to a great extent, in the ornithological world especially in lieu of minimal if any fieldwork (despite how difficult it is to the humans involved).

Which is all the more puzzling when scientists themselves cannot agree on what ultimately determines species or race. As far as the issue of future splits, lumps, and other vagaries of classification that make a skin in the hand apparently worth more than two in the bush, doesn't seem to me as if any progress is going to be made until they do agree. Of course, they can't and probably never will, if the attempts at classifying our own homo sapiens' races is any indication, and the scientists have been at that little game for at least two hundred years with huge sample sizes and easily accessible subjects.

Bottom line: Sounds to me like those of us who find the killing of birds in the name of science unnecessary are forever going to be at odds with those who have no problem doing the killing. And the birds are caught in the middle. At least the Japanese and Icelanders are more honest in their pursuits: "Scientific permit whaling" indicates that the animal is killed as "whaling" means just that. "Collecting," on the other hand, is a shameful euphemism. All IMHO, of course.

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

Which is all the more puzzling when scientists themselves cannot agree on what ultimately determines species or race.

This basically comes down to a fault in us as human beings. We want to put everything into boxes. Well, nature doesn't work that way. Evolution is to blame for this. If something can evolve from one species to another - what is in between? When does it suddenly change from being the original species to being the new? Where is this border? A good example was mentioned by Niels:

...can be illustrated with a story that I once heard; I have never read the paper and do therefore not have all details correctly. Therefore the numbers given below are not correct but give an order of magnitude that I think is correct. The story is on the pipit on Canary Islands, which based on morphology was questionable as species. With DNA, the questions remained: there was 50 units difference between meadow and tree pipits (and most other pipit pairs), about 5-10 units variation within meadow pipit, and 25 units difference between the Canary Island pipit and it closest relative.

So, when is it a new pipit? Where is the border? Is it at 25 units? 24 units? - Or perhaps 26? These are the problems facing the biologists.

Similarly, there are several different species concept. In a simplified version and without too much scientific nonsence two of the main concepts can be described as follows:

1) The good ol' idea: If two individuals can have offspring and this offspring is fertile, they are the same species.

2) If two populations differ and are isolated from each other, they can be considered species. This would (almost) mean that subspecies is a thing of the past. Everything we call a subspecies would be a species then.

Currently most biologists prefer the good ol' idea in no. 1. However, in recent years possibility 2 have been gaining a lot of recognition. Personally I (and so far most) people prefer version 1 with a few modifications.

As far as the issue of future splits, lumps, and other vagaries of classification that make a skin in the hand apparently worth more than two in the bush, doesn't seem to me as if any progress is going to be made until they do agree.

The obvious advantage of having a specimen is that you can access the data when you need it. This data would often be impossible to get otherwise - unless you are willing to spend a lifetime putting up mist nets in some jungle to get sufficient sample material yourself. A bird may have a massive range but occur in very low densities (like many of the tropical Accipiter). Without specimens we could be mislead to think that some species are endangered when they are not. A few years ago a new Forest-falcon (Micrastur mintoni) was described from Brazil. At first we might have thought that it was gravely endangered. But rather Whittaker went through a number of museum specimens and discovered that this new species was much more widespread than previously thought. Many specimens had simply been mis-ID'ed previously. So, instead of undertaking an expensive, lengthy and perhaps fruitless survey he could check museums for specimens. Money could have been wasted on saving what we now know is a rather widespread species; instead they can now be channeled into species that really are endangered.

Bottom line: Sounds to me like those of us who find the killing of birds in the name of science unnecessary are forever going to be at odds with those who have no problem doing the killing. And the birds are caught in the middle. At least the Japanese and Icelanders are more honest in their pursuits: "Scientific permit whaling" indicates that the animal is killed as "whaling" means just that. "Collecting," on the other hand, is a shameful euphemism. All IMHO, of course.

To be honest, I find your connection between Japanese Scientific permit whaling and the examples among birds mentioned in this thread unfair. Anybody with a basic knowledge of "Japanese Scientific permit whaling" know that it is nothing but an excuse to catch whales for consumption. I doubt *any* significant info has come out of this (though someone could perhaps prove me wrong). Contrary to this is the collection of a few specimens of some bird that can (and often has) given an immense amount of knowledge we wouldn't have otherwise. You also say that "those of us who find the killing of birds in the name of science unnecessary". Please go back and read post #75 again. Collecting isn't done just for the "fun" of it, there are very good reasons! Obviously, if a bird is in such a grave situation that collecting a few specimens could put it in danger of extinction - it should NOT be done. I doubt that anybody (be that scientists or "normal" birders) will disagree on this. However, if the bird is NOT considered to be in such a grave danger, I see NO reason why collecting a few specimens for scientific purpose is unethical - no more than killing a chicken for our own consumption and if you are against that then we're looking at a totally different discussion (the usual "vegetarian versus non-vegetarian"). Even if a bird is considered vulnerable, collecting a few samples is often much better than starting a lengthy and expensive survey. Things move rapidly in many of these countries and the bird could very well be gone before the survey is finished (for terrible examples of this have a look at some of the taxa discovered recently near Iquitos, Peru)! No, I'd rather get the info fast by collecting a few (note; a few) individuals - and then use the new knowledge and money on actually saving the whole species while we still have the chance! It would be nice if we lived in a world where money for surveys/conservation was an unlimited resource. But that is far from being the case. Also realize that getting money for research on the beloved whales is much easier than getting money for a survey on some small bird in the Amazon. Even if we did choose to do such surveys many of them would be fruitless. A rather obvious examples of this is the thousands of birders/scientists who have visited Manu (SE Peru). Even with all of these bird-interested visitors a large percentage of the birds in this region are virtually unknown. Yes, we know the voice of the bird; yes we know how it looks - but that's just about all! Not at least because it is virtually impossible to follow many of these birds for any more than half an hour - then they disappear rapidly into the dense growth where human beings have no possibility of following...

Fin! Hopefully nobody will find above too offensive (!) - if so it certainly wasn't ment that way - rather it should be taken as a small walk through the realities of today.

Rasmus

 

[Katy Penland]

Thanks for the many good points, Rasmus. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond -- I've been offline more than on the past few days, what with houseguests here for our 4-day holiday weekend.

I guess distilled down to its essence, my objection to "collection" is science's need for information at the expense of an animal's life when science itself can't quantify or qualify what the definition of species is, with or without skins in hand. Is it really rational to continue killing animals for "museum specimens" when scientists can't agree on what constitutes a species? All of the salient points of your "species concept" and Niels' pipit observations just point up the fallibility of a profession constantly in flux (because what it studies is in constant evolutionary flux). I'm not saying that science and its methods must be perfect; of course not -- but I do think it's unscientific and unethical to kill something about which virtually nothing is known and particularly where no effort has been made to study it alive first in its natural habitat.

As a non-scientist, I risk sounding unsympathetic, but what's the rush? If it takes one or ten scientists a lifetime to gather information on one or a handful of hitherto unknown species, so what? I'm sure the animals in question would appreciate being spared. Is a human scientist's time more valuable than the animal life s/he's interested in? Isn't it reasonable that in that time spent on research, perhaps those animals under study would continue to reproduce, creating more subjects, and hopefully being more readily found? Conversely, even if one or ten scientists "collected" their study subjects and determined them to be new species: (1) Realistically, how quickly could those scientists agree with each other on whether it was indeed a new species or just a new race of an existing one; or neither? (2) Would they even agree on the method or concept by which a specific or racial determination could be made? (3) Realistically, how quickly could political or social mobilization occur to protect any endangered habitat from further degradation (assuming Items 1 & 2 were accomplished)? And (4) if Items 1-3 occur only to have to be dismantled 10 or 20 years later based on some newer scientific disagreement or re-definition, couldn't the negative political fallout be a hindrance to further environmental efforts in that, and other, areas (the "chicken little" or "cry wolf" syndrome)?

Perhaps as a non-scientist, I'm asking questions that are so basic as to be naïve, so for that I apologize and sincerely welcome elucidation.

(Sorry about the use of << >> again below, but I usually compose longer responses offline so don't have BF's handy-dandy quote boxes!)

<<To be honest, I find your connection between Japanese Scientific permit whaling and the examples among birds mentioned in this thread unfair. Anybody with a basic knowledge of "Japanese Scientific permit whaling" know that it is nothing but an excuse to catch whales for consumption. I doubt *any* significant info has come out of this (though someone could perhaps prove me wrong). Contrary to this is the collection of a few specimens of some bird that can (and often has) given an immense amount of knowledge we wouldn't have otherwise.>>

Unfortunately, most people *don't* have a clue about "scientific permit whaling". My intent was to point out that at least in one taxonomic order, lethal research is no longer being tolerated. I'm sorry if I implied that data collected from birds killed was worthless; that wasn't my intent.

<<You also say that "those of us who find the killing of birds in the name of science unnecessary". Please go back and read post #75 again. Collecting isn't done just for the "fun" of it, there are very good reasons!>>

I never said it *was* being done for the "fun" of it. My use of the word "unnecessary" was quite deliberate based on the posts where morphology and DNA analyses were being compared and where neither used in isolation was apparently considered satisfactory. When a bird is trapped, is it not measured thoroughly? Photographed thoroughly? If blood and tissue samples are also taken and the bird released relatively unharmed, how is having a skin in a museum beneficial years later? Assuming, of course, all the data gathered at the time of trapping is shared among the scientific community. I wish institutions of all kinds would spend more time working on delivery systems for the sharing of data so that a researcher doesn't have to spend months tracking down specimens that should only take minutes.

BTW, are vocalizations considered part of a bird's morphology?

<< However, if the bird is NOT considered to be in such a grave danger, I see NO reason why collecting a few specimens for scientific purpose is unethical - no more than killing a chicken for our own consumption and if you are against that then we're looking at a totally different discussion (the usual "vegetarian versus non-vegetarian").>>

I'm neither a vegetarian nor an animal rightist. My sole, and increasing, concern is simply the lack of scientific agreement on what constitutes species and race before animals are killed as pawns in a game where the rules are constantly changing.


<<Even if a bird is considered vulnerable, collecting a few samples is often much better than starting a lengthy and expensive survey. Things move rapidly in many of these countries and the bird could very well be gone before the survey is finished (for terrible examples of this have a look at some of the taxa discovered recently near Iquitos, Peru)!>>

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this situation. Could you elaborate?


<<No, I'd rather get the info fast by collecting a few (note; a few) individuals - and then use the new knowledge and money on actually saving the whole species while we still have the chance!>>

Not to belabor the question, but I quite honestly don't see how this will be accomplished until science can decide what constitutes "species." As has been reiterated in this thread by the pro-collection faction, "we can't save what we don't know."

Exactly!


<<It would be nice if we lived in a world where money for surveys/conservation was an unlimited resource. But that is far from being the case.>>

I don't know of *any* discipline where survey or conservation funding is "unlimited" -- well, except for oil exploration under the guise of tectonic plate action, substrate slippage, and measuring underwater meteor craters.

<<Also realize that getting money for research on the beloved whales is much easier than getting money for a survey on some small bird in the Amazon.>>

And it's easier to get bird research money than it is for studying the desert pupfish. I agree, there's a pecking order, and I think it's unfortunate that the more "charismatic" creatures seem to be at the top of the list. Doesn't mean it's not possible, and it shouldn't deter from those truly interested from trying. If not attempted, then for sure there will be no money granted.

<<Even if we did choose to do such surveys many of them would be fruitless. A rather obvious examples of this is the thousands of birders/scientists who have visited Manu (SE Peru). Even with all of these bird-interested visitors a large percentage of the birds in this region are virtually unknown. Yes, we know the voice of the bird; yes we know how it looks - but that's just about all! Not at least because it is virtually impossible to follow many of these birds for any more than half an hour - then they disappear rapidly into the dense growth where human beings have no possibility of following...>>

Believe me, even though I've never been to Central or South America, I do understand how impractical field research in dense and rugged forested areas is. *All* field work is, and some areas are far more challenging than others. Given a choice, I'd rather try to net birds in a tropical rainforest than dive under the ice in Antarctica looking for algae!

<<Fin! Hopefully nobody will find above too offensive (!) - if so it certainly wasn't ment that way - rather it should be taken as a small walk through the realities of today.>>

Not at all offensive, Rasmus, in fact, it's extremely interesting and educational. I'm just having a difficult time getting my head around what is apparently "standard operating procedure" when it comes to "collecting."

 

[jurek]

I guess distilled down to its essence, my objection to "collection" is science's need for information at the expense of an animal's life when science itself can't quantify or qualify what the definition of species is, with or without skins in hand. Is it really rational to continue killing animals for "museum specimens" when scientists can't agree on what constitutes a species? All of the salient points of your "species concept" and Niels' pipit observations just point up the fallibility of a profession constantly in flux (because what it studies is in constant evolutionary flux). I'm not saying that science and its methods must be perfect; of course not -- but I do think it's unscientific and unethical to kill something about which virtually nothing is known and particularly where no effort has been made to study it alive first in its natural habitat.

As a non-scientist, I risk sounding unsympathetic, but what's the rush?

Katy, liking or disliking scientists and science is not a matter. Being sure about if it is a species is necessary for conservation. If nobody is sure if the species is real or phantom, money for conservation or even study. Authorities will not set a reserve or logging ban for a phantom bird.

I for some time doubted in collecting specimens. I still believe that a set of good photographs can be more informative and accessible than the dry skin. But I think one bird in average passerines can be taken.

There is a case of Audubon's lost birds. Audubon painted, among others, several birds which were never seen by anybody else. It took many years of discussions and searches until everybody agreed that they were freaks - because no other evidence emerged. In case of tanagers in rapidly declining tropical forest, such question may be never answered.

I remember a case of Talaud rail (or Talaud bush-hen?) few years ago. Scientists saw an unknown rail. After a few days they simply bought a freshly hunted rail offered on a local market, which became a type specimen. So scientists treat the specimen with respect (probably a pile of paperwork went to take it out of Indonesia), birdwatchers think about protecting a rare species. And local people simply catch dozens of rails for a dinner. Big discrepancy, isn't it? This convinced me that taking specimens is really the least important thing in the bird protection.

PS. Can somebody direct me to an info about tanager, anyway?