Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:25 | Cite as

Let me tell you ‘bout the birds and the bee-mimicking flies and Bambiraptor

  • Joyce C. HavstadEmail author
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Paleobiology and Philosophy

Abstract

Scientists have been arguing for more than 25 years about whether it is a good idea to collect voucher specimens from particularly vulnerable biological populations. Some think that, obviously, scientists should not be harvesting (read: killing) organisms from, for instance, critically endangered species. Others think that, obviously, it is the special job of scientists to collect precisely such information before any chance of retrieving it is forever lost. The character, extent, longevity, and span of the ongoing disagreement indicates that this is likely to be a hard problem to solve. Nonetheless, the aim of this paper is to help field biologists figure out what do to when collecting a voucher specimen risks extinction. Here I present and assess varying practices of specimen collection for both extant (i.e., neontological) and extinct (i.e., paleontological) species in order to compare and contrast cases where extinction risk both is and is not a problem. When it comes to taking vouchers from extant species at some risk of extinction, I determine that those advocating for conservative approaches to collection as well as those advocating for liberal information-gathering practices have good reasons to assess things in the way they each do. This means that there is unlikely to be a decisive, one-size-fits-all response to this problem. Still, progress can be made. We can acknowledge the risks of proceeding in either manner, as well as the uncertainty about how best to proceed (which will be deep in some cases). We can proceed as thoughtfully as possible, and be ready to articulate a rationale for whichever procedure is used in any particular case.

Keywords

Collection Conservation Extinction Species Taxonomy Vouchers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the editors and reviewers as well as members of the Species Reading Group at the Field Museum of Natural History in 2014 and 2015, for extensive and delightful discussion of these issues.

References

  1. Aguiar JJM, Santos JC, Urso-Guimarães MV (2017) On the use of photography in science and taxonomy; how images can provide a basis for their own authentication. Bionomina 12:44–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks RC, Goodman SM, Lanyon SM, Schulenberg TS (1993) Type specimens and basic principles of Avian taxonomy. Auk 110(2):413–414Google Scholar
  3. Bates JM, Bowie RCK, Willard DE, Voelker G, Kahindo C (2004) A need for continued collecting of avian voucher specimens in Africa: why blood is not enough. Ostrich 75(4):187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrensmeyer AK, Kidwell SM, Gastaldo RA (2000) Taphonomy and Paleobiology. Paleobiology 26(4):103–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham DA, Derstler KL, Currie PJ, Bakker RT, Zhou Z, Ostrom JH (2000) Remarkable new birdlike dinosaur (Theropoda: Maniraptora) from the Upper Cretaceous of Montana. Univ Kansas Paleontol Contrib 13(1):1–14Google Scholar
  6. Cassin J (1851) Description of new species of birds of the family Laniadae, specimens of which are in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila 5:244–246Google Scholar
  7. Ceríaco LMP, Gutiérrez EE, Dubois A (2016) Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. Zootaxa 4196:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collar NJ (1998) Undiscovered county: the non-collection of the Somali shrike. Bull Afr Bird Club 5(2):136–137Google Scholar
  9. Collar NJ (1999) New species, high standards and the case of Laniarius liberatus. Ibis 141:358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collar NJ (2000) Collecting and conservation: cause and effect. Bird Conservation International 10:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalebout ML, Baker CS, Mead JG, Cockcroft VG, Yamada TK (2004) A comprehensive and validated molecular taxonomy of beaked whales, family Ziphiidae. J Hered 95:459–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donegan TM (2008) New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen. Zootaxa 1761:37–48Google Scholar
  13. Donegan TM (2009) Type specimens, samples of live individuals and the Galapagos Pink Land Iguana. Zootaxa 2201:12–20Google Scholar
  14. Dubois A (2017) The need for reference specimens in zoological taxonomy and nomenclature. Bionomina 12:4–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubois A, Nemésio A (2007) Does nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species or subspecies require the deposition of vouchers in collections? Zootaxa 1409:1–22Google Scholar
  16. Finch BW, Hunter ND, Winkelmann I, Manzano-Vargas K, Njoroge P, Fjeldså J, Gilbert MTP (2016) Redefining the taxonomy of the all-black and pied boubous (Laniarius spp.) in coastal Kenya and Somalia. Bull Br Ornithol Club 136(2):74–85Google Scholar
  17. Gentile G, Snell H (2009) Conolophus marthae sp.nov. (Squamata, Iguanidae), a new species of land iguana from the Galápagos archipelago. Zootaxa 2201:1–10Google Scholar
  18. Gmelin JF (1788) Caroli a Linné systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (13th Edition, Part I). Georg Emanuel Beer, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  19. Gmelin JF (1789) Caroli a Linné systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (13th Edition, Part II). Georg Emanuel Beer, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  20. Haber MH (2012) How to misidentify a type specimen. Biol Philos 27:767–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartlaub G (1848) Description de cinq nouvelles espèces d’oiseaux de l’Afrique occidentale. Revue Zoologique par la Société Cuvierienne 1848:108–110Google Scholar
  22. Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philos Sci 45:335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hustler K (1996) To collect or not to collect—that is the question. Bull Afr Bird Club 3(1):53–54Google Scholar
  24. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th edn. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2017) Declaration 45—addition of recommendations to article 73 and of the term “specimen, preserved” to the Glossary. Bull Zool Nomencl 73(2–4):96–97Google Scholar
  26. Johnson KW (2018) The ornithologist the internet called a murderer. New York Times June 15, 2018Google Scholar
  27. Jones T, Ehardt CL, Butynski TM, Davenport TRB, Mpunga NE, Machaga SJ, De Luca DW (2005) The highland mangabey Lophocebus kipunji: a new species of African monkey. Science 308:1161–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krell FT (2016) Preserve specimens for reproducibility. Nature 539:168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krell FT, Marshall SA (2017) New species described from photographs: yes? no? sometimes? a fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN. Insect Systematics and Diversity 1(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krell FT, Wheeler QD (2014) Specimen collection: plan for the future. Science 344:815–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LeCroy M, Vuilleumier F (1992) Guidelines for the description of new species in ornithology. Bull Br Ornithol Club Centenary Suppl 112A:191–198Google Scholar
  32. Loftin RW (1992) Scientific collecting. Environ Ethics 14:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall SA, Evenhuis NL (2015) New species without dead bodies: a case for photo-based descriptions, illustrated by a striking new species of Marleyimyia Hesse (Diptera, Bombyliiadae) from South Africa. ZooKeys 525:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mendes Pontes AR, Malta A, Asfora PH (2006) A new species of capuchin monkey, genus Cebus Erxleben (Cebidae, Primates): found at the very brink of extinction in the Pernambuco Endemism Centre. Zootaxa 1200:1–12Google Scholar
  35. Minelli A (2013) Zoological nomenclature in the digital era. Front Zool 10(4):1–7Google Scholar
  36. Minteer BA, Collins JP, Love KE, Puschendorf R (2014a) Avoiding re(extinction). Science 344:260–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Minteer BA, Collins JP, Puschendorf R (2014b) Response. Science 344:816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nemésio A (2009) Nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species should always require the deposition of preserved specimens in collections: a rebuttal to Donegan (2008). Zootaxa 2045:1–14Google Scholar
  39. Nguembock B, Fjeldså J, Coulous A, Pasquet E (2008) Phylogeny of Laniarius: Molecular data reveal L. liberatus synonymous with L. erlangeri and “plumage coloration” as unreliable morphological characters for defining species and species groups. Mol Phylogenet Evol 48:396–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Padian K (2000) A Home for Bambiraptor. Science 288(5469):1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pape T (2016) Species can be named from photos. Nature 537:307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson AT (2014) Type specimens in modern ornithology are necessary and irreplaceable. Auk 131:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson AT, Lanyon SM (1992) New bird species, DNA studies and type specimens. Trends Ecol Evol 7(5):167–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polaszek A, Grubb P, Groves C, Ehardt CL, Butynski TM (2005) What constitutes a proper description? response. Science 309:2164–2166Google Scholar
  45. Reichenow A (1879) Neue Vögel aus Ostafrika. Ornithologisches Centralblatt 4:114Google Scholar
  46. Reichenow A (1905) Die Vögel Afrikas, vol 3. Verlag von J Neumann, NeudammGoogle Scholar
  47. Rocha LA, Aleixo A, Allen G et al (2014) Specimen collection: an essential tool. Science 344:814–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith EFG, Arctander P, Fjeldså J, Amir OG (1991) A new species of shrike (Laniidae: Laniarius) from Somalia, verified by DNA sequences data from the only known individual. Ibis 133:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thalmann D, Geissman T (2005) New species of woolly lemur Avahi (Primates: Lemuriformes) in Bernaraha (central western Madagascar). Am J Primatol 67:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Unsigned (2016) Virtual taxonomy. Nature 535:323–324Google Scholar
  51. Voelker G, Outlaw RK, Reddy S, Tobler M, Bates JM, Hackett SJ, Kahindo C, Marks BD, Kerbis Peterhans JC, Gnoske TP (2010) A new species of boubou (Malaconotidae: Laniarius) from the Albertine rift. Auk 127(3):678–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wakeham-Dawson A, Morris S, Tubbs P (2002) Type specimens: dead or alive? Bull Zool Nomencl 59(4):282–284Google Scholar
  53. Warren MA (1983) The rights of the nonhuman world. In: Elliot R, Gare A (eds) Environmental philosophy. University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, pp 109–134Google Scholar
  54. Yoon CK (1992) Rare bird illuminates bitter dilemma. New York Times April 28, 1992Google Scholar
  55. Zanno LE, Makovicky PJ (2013) Neovenatorid theropods are apex predators in the Late Cretaceous of North America. Nature Communications 4(2827):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOakland UniversityRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations