A follow-up on the Crowned Slaty-Flycatcher post
Two weeks ago I wrote a post on the actions surrounding the discovery of a Crowned Slaty-Flycatcher in Louisiana. This weekend Mr. Conover commented on the post on a couple misconceptions I had. In the interest of fairness to Mr. Conover, I needed to follow up and feel as though I should do so publicly rather than in an update to a post that’s already moved off into the internet ether.
In the original post, I implied from the North American Birds article that the bird was collected in part because the didn’t know what it was. This point is in need of some clarification. According to Mr. Conover, at the time of discovery the specific name was not known, but they had an idea as to the origin of the bird (Mr. Myers having previously seen it in South America) and that it had the longest scientific name of any bird species, a distinction indeed held by the Crowned Slaty-Flycatcher. Any statement by me that could have given the impression that the decision to collect was based solely in that lack of knowledge of it’s specific identity was wrong and based on my incorrect interpretation of the NAB article. I apologize to Mr. Conover for implying as much, it was unfair of me. They clearly knew that they had something special on their hands and roughly what it was*.
So I was wrong, and I’m sorry, though I contend that the article could certainly give the impression that the situation was murkier than Conover asserts. Your mileage may vary.
Beyond that, however, I still disagree with the collection of the bird for academic reasons. Mr. Conover states in his comment that many believe there is a genetic basis for vagrancy in austral migrants, but because genetic material for this group is rare (because the austral vagrants themselves are so rare) that theory can’t really be tested. I can respect the need for data as much as anyone, but the genetic theory for vagrancy has been floated for intra-continental vagrants as well. What’s to stop these birds from being collected where they show up, especially those with long histories of vagrancy like Rufous Hummingbirds, Western Tanagers and Ash-throated Flycatchers. And what, if any, useful research on the genetic theory for vagrancy has come from vagrant specimens already in museum collections all over the nation? I ask that honestly, I want to know. An admittedly cursory search of Google scholar doesn’t turn up anything obvious, but it’s certainly cutting edge science. Is there anyone more on the ball than me that knows?
I freely admit that my interests and instincts as a birder color my feelings on this matter. And while I’m not interested in unnecessarily carrying on about an issue that is long since past the point of making a difference and is ultimately probably irreconcilable anyway, I can’t get one question out of my mind. What if Conover and Myers hadn’t been the first to discover the bird. What if if had been someone else who subsequently reported it to the birding community as any of us would do. Would Mr. Conover then still have collected it?
If the answer is no, then the act was unnecessary.
Sorry for the detour, folks. Back to your regularly scheduled Drinking Bird weekend birding wrap-up tomorrow.
========
*Edited on 8/26 to add: Conover’s assertion about what they knew, though, is somewhat undermined by Van Remson of LSU in a message to the Louisiana bird listserve in which he states…
At the time of the observation, they did not know what the bird was except that it was a flycatcher clearly unknown from North or Middle America.
So even among the actors the details appear to be unclear.
Comments are closed.
A DNA research on vagrant birds. How convenient! Now you can justify to shoot about any vagrant (regardless of the species) showing up somewhere in the US and elsewhere!
And considering that the sample size (so far 1 for the US, right?) is that small, what are the chances to actually obtain a significant result?
But let's assume there is really such a thing as a "vagrant gene".
SO what? Is it going to help conservation? I don't think so.
@Laurent- I tend to agree with you.
With respect to Mr. Conover, the vagrant gene justification seems a bit retroactive. The impression given by the NAB article is one of a relatively short time passing between the discovery and collection of the bird. I wonder if the genetic theory for vagrancy was in the front of their minds or was it just a case of realizing the bird was "imporant" in a vague sort of way with justification to come later. And because they had the guns and the permits they could do it.
The only relatively regular austral migrant in NA is Fork-tailed Flycatcher. I wonder if there are currently any vagrant FTFLs in museums in the US. If not, then your "sample size of one" is correct.
Is the implication then that adding birds to museum collections must be done with a specific research agenda in mind? Because I see no reason why that must be the case, and I see no reason why the collection of a wayward flycatcher must be defended with specific research results. Museum collections, among their many functions, serve as a reservoir of data for future, unknowable research. Adding to collections for that purpose is legitimate and there is no reason to grasp at straws with some vague ideas about vagrants and DNA. Collection of this flycatcher was unfortunate for birders but that is all.
@slybird- I respect that, and I'm not denying my distaste for the collection stems mostly from my feelings as a birder rather than anything else, especially since I would absolutely defend collection generally.
But I think this incidence particularly walks a fine line between the interests of researchers and the interests of conservationists. Academics need birds to do research on, sometimes research that's not immediately evident and that it is and could in the future be necessary and important, and conservationists need people to care about species and ecosystems that are often abstractions, of which in some way this bird was a living example, and that's important too. It's not often that their needs dovetail so antagonistically.
I agree that the collection of the flycatcher was unfortunate more than anything, and even then only to those who wanted to see it, and ultimately the effect ends there. Anything else is speculation, but I still think it was a bad idea, if no more from a public relations point of view. Ornithology is still a field that gets a lot of information and support from amateurs, and shouldn't forget that actions like this can generally have a negative impact on the amateur/professional relationship. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just something to take into account.
Thanks for commenting.
LSU has had a shady reputation for years, with birders suspecting LSU ornithologists of shooting first and asking questions later when it comes to collecting rare birds. Now we have a verified case of vagrant collecting that is far worse than most of the rumors or suspicions that birders may have cooked up in the past. This incident has confirmed the worst suspicions of birders and set back LSU's reputation back by a couple light years among birders. Congratulations. They got their bird, and have confirmed birders suspicions that LSU is a 19th century institution of anything-but-higher learning. Lets take another look at that collection permit, shall we?
@birdchaser- I'd certainly heard tell of LSU's somewhat sketchy reputation when it comes to collections, but didn't know how pervasive it was. And as I've said before I don't disagree with collection, but certainly think this bird could have been as useful a tool alive as they seem to think it is dead. There's a line there, and while it's not always clear it's clear when it's been crossed.
What authority has jurisdiction over collection permits anyway? Is it the AOU or FWS or someone else? Seems as though that's something I could ask my contacts at my state museum.
I tend to disagree with slybird. Before to get obtain ressources for research(funding, natural ressources such as bird permits, other ressources), one has to justify them through a proposal. On this proposal, a precise description of goals, methods should be clearly detailed. Only after that, ressources can be allocated to the scientist.
Shooting birds without a precise, approved, research project is depriving the community (the public) of a natural ressource (the sight of a bird) without getting the approval of the provider (us).
Nate – I'd have to agree with your comments entirely. I just hate to see this turned into an anti-collecting rant.
AOU has nothing to do with collection permits, they're not a regulatory body. It's entirely federal and state government, depending on the species regulations and where you want to collect it.
@Laurent- I think the most frustrating thing about this collection was the seeming callousness with which Conover and Myers acted. I volunteer at the state museum in the bird lab and I know the head of the department collects, but he typically goes out with a specific species in mind and takes only that species. The fact that this incident occurred on a putative "bird survey" seemed really wrong to me. After all, who takes a gun on a bird survey?
I agree that the lack of planning and purpose behind the collection is part of what's really galling about this.
====
@slybird- Well, you won't get an anti-collecting rant from me. I think it's useful and even important in many ways and will defend it as such. Museum collections often need variety to accomplish meaningful research, and road-kills and window strikes won't cut it for most species.
Thanks for the info about the regulatory aspect.
This is my first post on this blog and this thread will not die unfortunately. I'm a little sad to learn that one of my old birding companions is the new anti-collecting LSU-bashing czar.
Rob, seriously, you need to check yourself. This is emotional vitriol. These weren't LSU students or staff. They have general collecting permits in Louisiana and that has value in the opinion of the state and federal permit granting agencies whether you agree or not. As an LSU graduate student, I take personal offense at your careless epithets and am surprised an employee of National Audubon's Science Division would be so reckless with accusations and trash talk.
As for the mentioned bird survey in the report, it was the Louisiana Bird Atlas. I'm the coordinator of the project and these observers are dedicated volunteers. A benefit of our atlas was five new species to the state list. I don't have a problem that they have a shotgun along on their surveys.
I've been at LSU for four years and I have not witnessed any "shady" or "sketchy" collecting. We follow the law to the letter and our permits are very much in order. I've seen posts from John O'Neill on TEXBIRDS flaming careless posts regarding LSU collecting. Please be responsible about your postings. If you have a story to tell about sketchy collecting, I'd like to hear it. I suspect it's all emotionally driven heresay from some upset birder, but maybe I'm wrong.
If interested, Remsen published a case for continued collecting in 95:
REMSEN, J. V., JR. 1995. The importance of continued collecting of specimens to ornithology and bird conservation. Bird Conservation International 5: 145-180.
A pdf can be found here:
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/RemsenPubsPDFs.html
@Richard- I don't think there's anyone here that wouldn't agree with collecting as a tool generally, at least, I certainly wouldn't. As I've said before, I spend time volunteering in a state bird lab where a big part of my job is preparing those collected birds. I definitely think it's useful.
It's the way in which this particular bird was collected that is the issue, that it was unnecessarily done and without any seeming consideration for its value beyond that as a specimen.
I'm not interested in having a collecting versus non-collecting argument here. Please don't make my comments into that.
Nate, I find your comments fair and thoughtful. I think we can agree to disagree on whether this is a collecting vs. non-collecting discussion. It is in my opinion. You and Rob support the idea that this particular bird should not have been collected because of potential value to the birding community. You also assume their is lesser limited value as a specimen and that there was no consideration for other birders. Both of these assumptions are false. Both observers are regular contributors to our birding community and they thought long and hard about it.
@Richard- And fair enough, it's ultimately kicking a dead flycatcher at this point. I don't doubt that Conover and Myers are both contributors to the birding community, though I do disagree with the implication that they fully considered the impact of their actions and thought long and hard about it.
I can only imply about the situation on the ground from the NAB article, but there are things that don't make sense to me. For instance, they freely admit that they didn't get in touch with their contacts at LSUMNS to verify identity before they collected the bird.
They note that photos alone would not have confirmed the ID, but write that they agreed to drop the bird off "later that afternoon" which means if they really wanted to they almost certainly could have spent more time (the better part of a day?) trying to get a better photo if they truly realized the novelty of the species. And the opportunity would have come, since 1) flycatchers typically have strong site fidelity and 2) they themselves note the bird "flew towards them" at one point.
These clues in the manuscript definitely give the impression that not a lot of time passed between the initial discovery and the collection.
And more, when birders find a rare bird we're told that the most important thing to do is to take field notes, sketches, photos if possible. We're supposed to observe the bird closely and in great detail for as long as it takes, get other people on it if we can, so that the record is robust enough to pass a Rare Bird Committee.
Conover and Myers clearly didn't do that because they didn't need to, they had permits and guns. Frankly, the implication that they didn't need to, so arrogantly displayed by Van Remson on LA bird listserve, is incredibly galling, at least to me. I think it's the sort of thing that sours the birder / ornithologist relationship, and I think that's ultimately bad for both groups.
Thanks for commenting.
I should start out by saying that I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for LSU's work, and that I fully agree that continued collection of bird specimens is vital to both ornithology and conservation. I've read Remsen's paper in Bird Conservation International and followed the collection/anti-collection debate and I fall squarely in the camp of those who think collecting should continue.
I can also see some scientific value in collecting vagrants such as the Crowned Slaty-Flycatcher, though I think this has perhaps been overstated (can anyone point me to papers based on specimens of vagrants that go beyond just recording their occurrence?).
What I have a harder time understanding is why insist on collecting vagrants, given the predictable reactions from parts of the birding community? This is a very emotional issue, and it just seems to me collecting high-profile vagrants,such as a first for the US, is a way to ensure that many in the birding community will continue to be opposed to the broader collecting efforts that are so important to conservation and research. It's just awful PR, and what can be gained by collecting the specimen is far outweighed by the uproar it causes. Birders and scientists really need to be allies in conservation, and episodes like this one create an unecessary rift between the two. I think this is a case where one less specimen collected really goes a long way in bolstering the arguments of those who believe in the importance of continued collection!
@Anon- Excellent points, and I couldn't agree more.
Nate, others,
There are 6 specimens for F-t Flycatcher from the U.S. These have been key in determining which subspecies have strayed here, including one mysterious bird that’s of a supposedly sedentary subspecies. That information was derived solely from skins, as was the fact that the Louisiana CSFL was surprisingly an adult, and less surprisingly of a migratory subspecies. I believe a deeper examination of the Louisiana specimen will reveal much more, even if it takes years. This specimen will not lose significance.
LSU has a long-term project investigating defects as a cause of vagrancy. So far they’ve noted a a strong correlation. My rationale for taking this specimen was neither rushed nor retroactive; I put aside my rabid anti-collecting bias about 10 years ago in order to contribute to this study, and I’m often prepared to collect as I survey. There’s nothing odd or sinister about it. It would be odd if I wasn’t prepared or if I didn’t have a focus for collecting. I collect what I find or what others find and ask me to collect, and strictly that. That’s always been a strict order from LSU, but I would follow that route even if it wasn’t. Had another birder found this bird and called me to collect it, yes, I would have. Otherwise, of course not.
LSU has a great curating program, especially their tissue collection. Clearly tissue samples from Audubon’s day–or even Oberholser’s–don’t exist. This is a relatively new and immensely valuable area in which LSU is a world leader and a source for many researchers. Without tissue samples, the research tools of the future will be worthless. The tissue samples from this astounding vagrant are now freely available to researchers. It’s an incredible resource that will be around for a long time, even as new technologies emerge that will reveal things we can’t imagine today. I don’t think any of us believe that science has hit the end of its leash, and specimens like this will prove their value over time.
As for the identification process, it’s exactly as I said. Myers is a cautious birder with over a half century spent in the field. He doesn’t say he’s certain unless he’s 100%. I would say that knowing that the bird before us had the longest scientific name of any species demonstrates in hindsight that Mac was simply being prudent by claiming uncertainty when he was clearly 99.9%. I consider it caution or even modesty on his part, certainly not ignorance.
Opinions may vary, but the facts themselves are straightforward. I’m as firm in my opinion as others are in theirs, and I understand and appreciate both viewpoints. This discussion is about opinions, and no one needs to reinterpret the facts to maintain their opinions.
I hope that nothing I have said comes across the wrong way. I can well understand if some have negative opinions of me or my action, but at the same time I have nothing but respect for everyone in the bird community. If we ever chance to meet, you will understand how true that is.
Paul Conover
@Paul- While I may still disagree with all of the reasoning behind the collection of the particular bird, I do really appreciate you coming here to make your case.
It’s likely an incident where we’ll just never see eye-to-eye on, which is fine, and stems mostly from my fidelity to birding interests in incidents where they may appear to be a conflict of interest, especially since I don’t have an issue with collection generally.
Thanks again for your thoughts.