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

Abstract

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 ...

Response to Comment on "Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide"

“…Pimenta et al raise several important issues with which we agree wholeheartedly: The tendency of governments to restrict scientific collecting of listed species is a disincentive for research on those species that need it most (26,27); DD species are very high priorities for research funding, especially because many of them are likely to be threatened, and conservation priorities should not be determined using threatened species lists alone (28). We believe that greater harmonization between threatened amphibian lists in Brazil is urgently needed and will most easily be achieved by following the approach suggested by Keith et al (29,30).…”

Historia de la ornitología peruanae importancia de las colecciones científicas de aves

“…Como discute muy apropiadamente Remsen (1995) el valor de los ejemplares es bien apreciado por muchos científicos. Ejemplos sobresalientes de usos en diversos campos son los siguientes: taxonomía, sistemática, zoogeografía, variación geográfica (Baker, 1985), anatomía y morfología (Bock, 1985;Raikow, 1985), dimorfismo sexual, características dependientes de la edad/género, muda, secuencias de plumaje (Parkes, 1963), Ecomorfología (Ricklefs, 1980;Fitzpatrick, 1985), ontogenia (Alberch, 1985), biología de poblaciones (Ricklefs, 1980;Allen y Cannings, 1985), época reproductiva (Parkes, 1963), migraciones (Parkes, 1963;Ramo, 1988), comportamiento social (Millar, 1985Moller, 1991), cadenas alimenticias y flujo de energía (Hobson y Sealy, 1991), manejo de vida silvestre (Banks, 1979;Barlow y Flood, 1983).…”

Comunidade de aves no Parque Estadual da Fonte Grande, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brasil

“…Isso ressalta a importância do conhecimento de caracteres morfológicos diagnósticos para evitar os comuns equívocos de identificação em inventários de avifauna neotropical, como bem apontado por WILLIS (2003). Com efeito, a captura e/ou coleta de espéci-mes visando ao exame minucioso de seus detalhes morfológicos deveriam ser entendidas como uma atividade imprescindível para a identificação de espécies crípticas, com recomendação inclusive para a deposição de material testemunho em instituições científicas para futura averiguação de sua determinação taxonômica (FOSTER & CANNEL 1990, MARTINS 1994, REMSEN 1995, GAUNT & ORING 1997, VUILLEUMIER 1998, ROJAS-SOTO et al 2002.…”