Ornithologists kill critically endangered hummingbirds – an open letter
In a paper recently published in The Auk, October 2018, (Sornoza-Molina et al 2018) a group of ornithologists collected seven specimens of a hummingbird new to science, and then declared that because of its extremely small range, it must be critically endangered (CR under IUCN Criteria). They tried to justify the killing by claiming that because once the birds had been killed, and others moved into their territories, the species range must be limited by the available habitat. This seems a bit perverse, since they had already killed the birds. What would their conclusion have been if no individuals had occupied the vacant territories?
There was an outcry several years ago when in 2006, ornithologists from Louisiana State Museum killed an extremely rare antpitta (the Jocotoco Antpitta) simply on the grounds that it was the first time it had been seen in Peru (previously only known from Ecuador (where it too had been killed as a museum specimen).
The days when it is necessary to kill extremely rare animals in order to describe them scientifically have long gone. In the case in hand, excellent photographs were taken, and DNA was collected and used to confirm the identification.
In 2010, a new species was named after conservationist and ornithologist George Fenwick, based on photographs, feathers and DNA. Consequently, there was no justification for the killing of seven specimens. A couple of feathers and good photographs would have provided all the evidence needed to publish a description of a new species.
The authors of the paper would certainly have been aware of the controversy surrounding this outdated practice – one of them, Sornoza, had in the past been Director of the Fundacion Jocotoco, a major bird conservation charity in Ecuador. It is perhaps even more reprehensible that a respected journal of a respected ornithological society (the American Ornithologists Union) should consider it suitable for publication.
Collecting for museums was an important part of the scientific past of ornithology, and there is still a case to be made for preserving specimens in museums. However, there can be no justification for killing a new species of bird, when you consider it to be critically endangered. No doubt when IUCN/Birdlife International publish the next Red List, they will include this species, and among the reasons to be given for its endangerment, will presumably be ‘collecting for museums’.
Gerald Bertrand, John Burton, Richard Porter, Martin Woodcock.
[registration_form]
Utterly appalling. Given the widespread and very vocal condemnation of ‘collecting’ endangered birds and the availability of alternative methods of confirming their unique character, this looks like a deliberate and considered snubbing of conservationists by the authors and editors/publishers of “The Auk”. Quite simply, it cannot be justified on any level.
John, profoundly disagree – as you will see below once (if!) Mark approves my contribution. Real conservationists will applaud AOUs decision to publish this excellent piece of science.
“Real conservationists” as you put it, Andy, might just feel removing seven specimens from the gene pool of a critically endangered species outweighs what marginal gain to science there might be in collecting them. One thing for sure is that there are seven fewer birds in the field to study. Not being a scientist I hesitate to judge the value of the science in the AOU paper but I’d question how much of it is down to the collection of so many specimens and to what degree non-fatal methods would have provided just as much information. Looking at the wider picture, how many birders out there will not now report finding a new species they believe to be ‘critically endangered’ if they think a museum collector may nip out and help themselves to what can only be considered an excessive number of ‘specimens’. Scientists must, of course, primarily serve science but that is not the only consideration in a case like this. Being ‘good science’ is not and should not be the sole consideration here.
I await a list of the ‘real conservationists’ who applaud the deliberate killing of a Critically Endangered bird. So far (6 days later) none sem to have come forth.
My first thought was – is there money involved? Selling the specimens to museums etc may be pretty lucrative?
Mark, in my opinion this piece is inflammatory nonsense. Let’s be clear – the collection of specimens for deposition in a museum collection and subsequent study is still the benchmark for the description of new species – and for very good reasons outlined elsewhere. You know perfectly well that preservation of individuals of a species is not conservation of a species. It’s preservation of habitat that conserves species. If any species is adversely affected by the removal of seven individuals, then that species is not viable anyway, in the long term. Now to examine some of the deatil in this piece; “They tried to justify the killing by claiming that because once the birds had been killed, and others moved into their territories, the species range must be limited by the available habitat.”. No, they didn’t. They collected the birds in order to examine and then describe a new species. They make no attempt at justification, not least because they don’t need to. Their observations that territories “were readily or eventually occupied by other individuals” were a by-product of the collecting and they offer an excellent reason for the species current status (using tools from a paper by our own Ian Newton!). Next; “It is perhaps even more reprehensible that a respected journal of a respected ornithological society (the American Ornithologists Union) should consider it suitable for publication.”. No, it’s a sign of the respected position in ornithology and science in general that they publish sound science in a climate of anthropomorphic claptrap from certain quarters – this blog post not excepted! Finally (sort of) we come to “No doubt when IUCN/Birdlife International publish the next Red List, they will include this species, and among the reasons to be given for its endangerment, will presumably be ‘collecting for museums’.” This is really is beneath contempt. This species will be on the Red List (probably) because of it’s restricted range, likely small population, threats from human activity (grazing by cattle and horses, areas transformed into crops and pastureland, pine plantations and gold mining concessions) as expertly considered and described by the authors in this very well researched and written account. I’d be interested in your own view, which you don’t offer here. Not like you to keep your head below the parapet!
Collecting a new species may be the bench mark but it is archaic and quite clearly unnecessary.
Andy – your choice of language is telling, and your arguments both flawed and archaic.
In your terms, the birds were not killed, but “collected”, and objecting to the killing of individual (endangered) birds is part of a climate of “anthropomorphic claptrap”. This is the mindset of the Victorian cabinet collector and big game hunter – other species have no sentience, and are only there for our pleasure and edification.
You claim that because conservation requires habitat conservation rather than the preservation of individual birds, the killing of seven indivduals of an endangered species is of no practical significance. This argument will come in handy for every shooter – “yes, I did shoot those Stone Curlew. But if shooting a handful of individuals adversely affects the species, then it’s going to die out anyway, so – no biggie”. As you concede, it is reasonable to presume that this species is Red Listable – at least until more information is acquired. So we should apply the precautionary principle and confine ourselves to taking detailed measurements, photographs and blood samples from live birds. If in the future it transpires that the population is robust enough to withstand it, it might even be feasible to kill individuals for further study. But in the midst of this great anthropopogenic extinction event, it’s no longer good enough to treat living creatures as if they are stamps for our collection, “because that’s what we have always done”.
Michael, you won’t be surprised that I disagree! I’m happy to write “killed” if you prefer. “Collected” is the usual term when the individual is to be preserved in a collection for scientific purposes and study. I didn’t mention that anyone took any pleasure in this – edification certainly, now and for as long as the specimens are preserved. The comparisons with a Victorian cabinet collector and a big game hunter are not worth riposte, as I’m sure most would agree. Although, of course, many a Victorian collection has found it’s way into museum cabinet to the great benefit of ornithology. Your argument for not killing some now, but maybe later, just doesn’t hold up, I’m afraid. As I said, a population unable to withstand the loss of seven individuals (whose territories were immediately re-occupied, you’ll note) is doomed anyway, so waiting to see if it’s “robust enough” is illogical. These instances will always provoke polarising views and all are entitled to theirs. I just hope good logical science wins through.
Thanks Andy. Without wanting to prolong this discussion unduly, I remain baffled at your assertion that one might as well kill 7 individuals without knowing the current population status. because if that tips it over the edge, it wasn’t viable anyway. You will know that the world population of the nene once stood at 30 birds. Do you think that killing 7 of them would have been a matter of indiiference to the species viability at that time? Or the southern white rhino (from perhaps as few as 50 to 20,000 now) Or the amur tiger (down to 40 individuals)? In the latter cases, a “scientific” case for killing could be made on the same grounds as these hummingbirds, since their status as species/sub-species was unclear. Are you really promoting a “shoot first, check the population status later” approach? Because you haven’t offered a single justification for these killings, beyond asserting that it’s “still the benchmark for the description of new species”. Is meeting the criteria of the Code on Zoological Nomenclature really to take precedence here? Or is it time to recognise that a cabinet filled with skins may not be as valuable as a forest filled with living birds?
Sorry Michael, I don’t see the relevance of your arguments re other species. No-one was going kill individuals of a species we already knew about. In each of the cases you cite we know perfectly well what the drivers of decline are/were. I don’t really need to offer any justification for these killings (other than that given) because they will not have any effect on the population. They are (from the paper) confined to a certain area by human activity and the filling of niches as soon as (or nearly so) the specimens were removed means that habitat is the limiting factor – not food, not predation, not breeding success.
I think what is “inflammatory” is the wilful collection not of one but seven specimens of a ‘critically endangered’ species. Science moves on and what was the ‘benchmark’ in the 19th century is no longer so in the 21st. Nobody is questioning, I think, that they “collected the birds in order to examine and then describe a new species” only that alternative ways of doing this exist and should be followed where extremely rare birds are concerned. The suggestion that the “preservation of individuals of a species is not conservation of a species” seems a little thin when talking about a very small population as seems to be the case here. None of us know for sure what the long term viability of this species may be but we all know of tiny populations of birds that have managed to persist with active conservation. The removal of seven individuals will not help this process. To dismiss concerns about the ethics of collecting a species with a very small endangered population as “anthropomorphic claptrap” OTT.
Sorry John but I don’t think your arguments stand up. There is no clear evidence that the species is critically endangered or a “very small endangered population” or “extremely rare birds”. You already fall foul of anthropomorphic claptrap by describing the collection of these birds as “wilful”. We clearly won’t agree on this but I firmly believe that this is an excellent piece of science to the benefit of our knowledge and future conservation of this new species.
No, I don’t think we will agree, Andy. I think that since the authors themselves evaluate the species as “critically endangered” it is not unreasonable to describe the population as ‘very small’ or “extremely rare”. Given past controversy about collecting a single specimen of a (less?) rare bird, let alone seven, and the strongly argued view by many that such collection is no longer vital and is ethically dubious then ‘wilful’ is a perfectly reasonable word to use and is in no way “anthropomorphic”.
As John Cantelo wrote, the claim that the species is Critically Endangered came from the authors of the paper concerned, so if there is no evidence of this, this should have been picked up when the paper was reviewed. Wilful is of course the correct way of describing the killing of a bird which was alive and could have been released (after DNA sampling and photography). Collecting is a euphimism for killing! And lest anyone misinterperest my motives, I have been a museum collector myself. But that was half a century ago. Some of us have evolved since then. I wonder how Andy would feel if someone killed half a dozen Zapata Rails as soon as he rediscovered them. I would also question Andy Mitchell’s claim that ‘real conservationists’ will applaud the killing and publishing of the paper. I and my co-signatories all have a bit of a track record as conservationists, and we wonder who these others are? Perhaps he is thinking of Audubon?
I will enlarge upon this issue in a future blog, but the key point has been made by others. It is the mindset that is the problem; the belief that killing birds because they are rare, is right. The old Witherby? adage, ‘What hit is history, what missed is mystery’ . What example is it setting to those not interested in conservation? It is simply not necessary: that paper could just as easily written without killing any birds. It would have been just as interesting.
As John says this is utterly appalling and completely unnecessary given there were in hand photographs and DNA taken. Unfortunately there are some authorities that will not accept a new bird for an area, which of course may include an entirely new bird, without a specimen. I believe some states in the USA had this rule until recently and indeed may still, archaic nonsense given current levels of photographic equipment and/or DNA analysis.
The same furore happened when that idiot Chris Filari did the same to the mustached kingfisher on Guadalcanal. The sooner these archaic practices and their followers / apologists die out the better.
Just like the moustached kingfisher on Guadalcanal and Chris Filardi, this is anachronistic and unnecessary. Astonished that anyone can seek to defend it.
Simon, I’m not astonished at your belligerent attitude (as evidenced in other forums) nor your lack of any arguments whatsoever.
I think implying that people such as Gerald Bertrand, John Burton, Richard Porter and Martin Woodcock aren’t “real conservationists” is pretty belligerent, Andy! But then, as you say, we’re not going to agree about this.
Thanks for all the feedback. I think the consensus among conservationists is that it was wrong to kill these birds. And I have yet to hear of a ‘real conservationist’ who would support the killing other than the authors some of who claim to be conservationists.
This opinion piece has stirred up the usual hornet’s nest over collecting (killing, if you prefer).
I don’t know what it takes to be a real conservationist in John Burton’s eyes? I certainly don’t doubt the credentials of the four authors of the piece to be so termed, but I do question the notion that none of the authors of the paper in Auk are (and I know three of them personally). One of the two I don’t, Sornoza, is, as admitted in the piece, a former director of Fundación Jocotoco. Given the massive amount of good that this organisation has done for conservation of Ecuadorian birds, I don’t see his credentials as a conservationist to be merely “claimed” or “so-called”.
I recall many keyboard commentators raising eyebrows (euphemism for spitting blood and feathers) over the number of specimens in the type series of the Jocotoco Antpitta (Grallaria ridgelyi), with at least one suggesting to me that the species could go extinct as a result (heaven forbird, before he had seen it). Quite the reverse was true, of course; some of the people involved created Fundación Jocotoco, the area was protected for the benefit of birds and birdwatchers, and the organisation went on to protect many other sites across Ecuador. This is not the only recent example of new species descriptions directly supporting site conservation (e.g. Scarlet-banded Barbet Capito wallacii) with the close involvement of the collecting community.
It seems that Burton et al. are aware that new taxa can be ICZN Code complaint without a ‘whole’ specimen (although this fact has escaped one of the subsequent commentators). However, the simple fact is that most taxonomists (not just avian) find the idea of working without specimens very difficult and potentially error-inducing (indeed a significant number would like to see the ICZN close the ‘loophole’ that makes descriptions without complete specimens nomenclaturally possible, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310670794_Photography-based_taxonomy_is_inadequate_unnecessary_and_potentially_harmful_for_biological_sciences; note the number of signatories, almost 500, listed at the end). Despite the capacity for some fairly basic errors to be made by taxonomists who fail to work with specimens (need one mention Strix omanensis!?), some (myself included) still support the Code in its existing wording on this issue (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315619381_What_lies_beneath_the_controversy_as_to_the_necessity_of_physical_types_for_describing_new_species).
Before the inevitable riposte of “they would say that, wouldn’t they”, consider two points. I imagine few people reading this would deny that human-induced climate change is real, and that non-scientists (e.g. Nigel Lawson, as one particularly dreadful example) shouldn’t be invited onto national media to comment about the rights and wrongs of the science underlying the hypothesis. Well, the same is true here. Non-taxonomists do not know how to practice taxonomy properly. It too is a science. Secondly, taxonomists do not earn money per se from collecting (again, killing if you prefer) organisms. It may or may not form part of their paid employment (there are plenty for whom it WON’T, myself included), so they have no financial stake in whether scientific collecting continues.
It is difficult to understand whether Burton et al. disagree with (a) scientific collecting per se (i.e. all of it), (b) only of rare species, or (c) only of previously undescribed rare species. I would share their concerns, up to a point, with (b) and even (c), but my threshold would be obviously higher than theirs in the latter. The projected population of up to 750 individuals of Oreotrochilus cyanolaemus suggests to me that it could withstand the taking of seven birds, and that territories were filled pretty much proves it. Burton et al. charge that they could not have known that the latter would happen in advance, but if they had actually read the paper in detail they would have noted that the entire type series was not collected during the same field expedition, rather the specimens were collected over two trips separated by two months. So, a degree of caution was exercised! And, I very much doubt that BirdLife will list scientific collecting as a threat to the species, with quite as much justification as Burton et al. have to believe the opposite.
With respect to category (a), which it is unclear whether Burton et al. fall into, anyone reading this who does believe that all collecting should cease immediately should both consider their own actions and understand that modern specimen collection is very strongly controlled by licenses (including both numbers of specimens and species), i.e. even with a license in hand, a collector cannot just take as many specimens or of whatever species he or she likes. In other words, scientists must justify their actions in advance to the relevant (usually governmental) organisations that issue permits. Consequently, the only issue in these cases to consider is ethical, which is an issue of personal morality. If you disagree with collecting so strongly, you would be far better advised to petition relevant governmental organisations than resort to yet more keyboard ‘warriorism’.
Remsen (1995, Bird Conservation International 5: 145–180) listed the many actions or behaviours that normal citizens indulge in that produce MILLIONS MORE avian deaths p.a. than collecting by or for museums. Of course, it is hard (if not impossible) these days not to live in a house without windows, or even to ride in motor vehicles. However, if you do have an ‘ethical’ problem with, presumably, any collecting, then it would seem beholden upon you to go as far as you can to minimise your personal contribution to the many other (far worse) impacts on birds and their habitats that can be laid at the door of Homo sapiens. Consequently, until I see more birders giving up pointless twitching, becoming vegetarian or vegan, campaigning to end the widespread use of palm oil in just about every product imaginable and the many other reductions to currently boundless consumerism anyone who is really honest knows are necessary, I will take any ethical claims against collecting made by the same people as little more than hypocrisy.
Guy – thank you for your comment