• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Spectacled Flowerpecker (2 Viewers)

I think one type is acceptable given the widespread distribution. I would prefer to avoid, but the conservation status is unlikely to be affected.

cheers, a

It's not the effect on the conservation status of this species, which I agree is probably negligible, but the principle. This species wasn't undescribed in anything other than the narrow and increasingly meaningless sense used by taxonomists. All that has changed is there is a dead one in a drawer somewhere, and another notch on a few academic CVs. The abstract is factually incorrect to state that the lack of a holotype prevented earlier description. All that was required was to designate a photograph or even a painting as depicting the holotype, both of which have been available for years.

And lf course, it probably won't be just one specimen. If other individuals are mist netted, they will get potted too. Got to have a decent series, preferably from multiple locations.
 
In case of Spectacled Flowerpecker, there was a strong suspicion this is a morph of some other species. Although I agree, that in principle it could be clarified by DNA from a sample of feathers of blood without harming the bird.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top