Scientific Collecting

Goodman, Steve; Lanyon, Scott M.

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010314.x

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the elimination of documentation of geograhical provenance by specimen vouchering (Reynolds et al 1994;Lehn et al 2007) has never been justified with actual data (Resetar and Voris 1997;Stuebing 1998;Ponder et al 2001). Furthermore, legal restrictions limit field biologists to small permitted samples, which have minimal detectable impact on populations when removed from the gene pool (Hedges and Thomas 1991;Goodman and Lanyon 1994;Rocha et al 2014). Most new species are described from older collections because biologists seldom recognize new species when first encountered (i.e., Siler et al 2009Siler et al , 2010Welton et al 2010a,b), and because describing a new species can take decades (Bebber et al 2010; this paper).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Species of Stream Frog of the Genus Hylarana from the Mountains of Southern Mindanao Island, Philippines

Brown

2015

Herpetologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Species of Stream Frog of the Genus Hylarana from the Mountains of Southern Mindanao Island, Philippines

Brown

2015

Herpetologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thresholds for "good" v incomplete information were an important feature of our analyses. Because most local avifaunas in Mexico exceed 100 species, and because of the need for representation of different sexes, plumages and seasons, we arbitrarily set "good coverage at 1000 and "intermediate" at 300 for overall specimen numbers (see calculations in Goodman & Lanyon 1994, Remsen 1995, providing about ten and three specimens per species, respectively. For single species, we considered 30 specimens as good coverage in museums and ten as intermediate on the basis of thresholds commonly accepted for quality of statistical tests (Walpole & Myers 1972).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for continued scientific collecting; a geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens

Peterson

Navarro‐Sigüenza

Benítez-Díaz

1998

Ibis

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The geographic and spatial distribution of more than 22 1,000 bird specimens collected in Mexico was analyzed on a grid of 1" blocks to assess adequacy of representation of the country's avifauna in world systematic collections. Frequency distributions of specimens per block, specimens per species expected in blocks and total specimens per species were all severely right-skewed, with a few blocks well sampled but most represented by very few specimens. Overall, seven scattered blocks out of about 240 were considered well sampled. The best sampled species in the country (House Finch carpodacus mexicanus) and the best sampled Mexican endemic species (Russet Nightingale-thrush Catharus occidentalis) were characterized by uneven and inadequate spatiotemporal sampling, especially in autumn, when plumages are generally fresh and most useful for studies of geographic variation: sampling for a species close to the median of the distribution (Great Black-hawk Buteogallus urubitinga) was scattered and inappropriate for statistical analysis. Results suggest strongly that sampling of Mexican birds is incomplete, that continued scientific collecting is needed to complete knowledge of the country's avifauna and that similar collecting efforts will be necessary throughout much of the tropics. Winker (1996) provided a fascinating essay documenting that world systematic collections, the cornerstone of knowledge of biological diversity, are aging rapidly, becoming less and less useful for biodiversity studies as fewer scientific specimens are added each year."The diversity of life is known to us only through the efforts of taxonomists and systematists and the reference specimens they have preserved. The specimen record is of incalculable importance because it allows repeated examination for scientic verification and further study.

show abstract

Section: Don't We Have Enough Specimens Already?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The world's museums house no more than nine million specimens of birds (Goodman and Lanyon 1994). Although this might seem to be an enormous number and more than adequate for all future research projects, those who use museum collections for research know otherwise (Stiles 1983b, Goodman andLanyon 1994). After these nine million specimens are distributed among the 9,000 species of birds and among the approximately 180 countries of the world, the number of specimens that can be applied to a particular project is reduced drastically.…”

Section: Don't We Have Enough Specimens Already?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of continued collecting of bird specimens to ornithology and bird conservation

Remsen¹

1995

Bird Conservation International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBecause museum scientists and conservationists are natural allies in the struggle to preserve biodiversity, conflict over the legality, morality, and value of collecting scientific specimens is counterproductive. Modern bird specimens contain a variety of data, summarized briefly herein, that are applied to numerous questions concerning the biology of birds, many of which have direct and often critical relevance to conservation. In particular, continued collecting of specimens has been shown to be critical in determining species-level classification in birds; unless species limits are established correctly, conservation priorities cannot be established reliably. Objections to collecting specimens are summarized and discussed. Calculations are presented to show that the effect of collecting specimens on most bird populations is insignificant. Moral objections to collecting specimens seem to reflect a lack of awareness of the extent and causes of natural mortality, as well as a failure to recognize the magnitude of unintentional mortality inflicted on bird populations by routine human activities. The reason why more specimens are needed than currently exist in museum collections is that most existing specimens lack the data needed for most kinds of modern analyses, and even common species are represented by inadequate samples for research. Reasons are given for why equivalent data cannot be obtained solely from living birds that are subsequently released. Objecting to collecting specimens because it sets a bad example for developing countries trying to establish an environmental ethic is counterproductive in that it draws attention away from the fundamental units of concern for conservation biology: the population, and the habitat that supports it. Biological specimens differ from some other scientific specimens (e.g. archaeological) in that they are renewable resources whose removal does not deplete a country's national heritage. Misconceptions about museum scientists and their motives are discussed. Regarding collecting permits, recommendations are presented concerning (1) numbers of specimens, (2) percentage of specimens left in the host country, (3) species composition, (4) deposition of specimens, and (5) processing permit applications. Regulating agencies are often overly enthusiastic in restricting scientific collecting, which is the only kind of mortality that is so highly controlled and yet from which bird species might derive benefit, whereas the same or sister agencies often permit and even encourage activities that are responsible for massive mortality in bird populations. Given that (1) the goal of scientists, conservation agencies, and governments is protection of populations, not individual birds; (2) scientific collecting has no measurable impact on the vast majority of bird populations; (3) scientific specimens represent an important source of information on bird biology and conservation; and (4) existing scientific collections are largely inadequate for answering many questions that could ...

show abstract

Scientific Collecting

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

A New Species of Stream Frog of the Genus Hylarana from the Mountains of Southern Mindanao Island, Philippines

A New Species of Stream Frog of the Genus Hylarana from the Mountains of Southern Mindanao Island, Philippines

The need for continued scientific collecting; a geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens

The importance of continued collecting of bird specimens to ornithology and bird conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About