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="birdboybowley" data-source="post: 1581437" data-attributes="member: 60953">Having just received my latest copy of OBC's Forktail publication I of course read with interest the chapter surrounding the discovery and description of the new species of bulbul in Laos. Having seen some excellent photos already on the 'net and reading how blood samples etc were taken it still strikes me as pointless as to why two specimens were killed....why does this still go on today with all the equipment we have at our disposal? Are photos, film and DNA not enough?? I genuinely don't understand. I seem to recall someone once telling me that without a type-specimen then the bird isn't viewed as a 'real species' - not sure how true that is and it seems quite pathetic really if it is. I also remember being told that there are quite alot of undescribed species in South America and observers are asked not to make it too widely known as they don't want people coming to 'acquire' specimens - again don't know how true it is.I admit that I find skins particularly useful being a fieldguide illustrator and the vast collection at Tring is morbidly fascinating but most were collected decades ago in a less-enlightened age where they didn't have anything like the photographic and recording equipment we use now. The photos I've seen of these live bulbuls would be more than adequate and alot more useful than a drying skin (for things like the bare-part colouration which fades over time) as a reference if I were asked to paint one. What do you all think?</blockquote>

Verification