Hi Michael
I suppose what I was ineptly trying to say is that given the trend for new
species of invertebrates to be described and classified without retention
of voucher specimens and improving photographic techniques the often
spouted reason for retaining specimens that is to describe species is
becoming obsolete. To me this Kingfisher seems to have been retained for no
stronger reason almost than no one has a male! Given that as I understand
it the specimen was given to a local museum to display there seems little
scientific justification for its retention. But as a complete amateur I
could well be totally wrong - usually am!
Dom
On 10 Oct 2015 8:51 am, "Michael Honeyman" <>
wrote:
> Hi Dom
> I think there is a misconception that the only purpose of collecting is to
> have a voucher specimen.
> http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/pls/portal/docs/1/336035.PDF
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1998.tb04391.x/abstract
> http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/Winker-Auk-05.pdf
> http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MUv111n3_ED.htm
> mjh
>
> On 10 Oct 2015, at 09:06, Dominic Funnell <>
> wrote:
>
> I think the collection of a specimen of a bird that was always known to be
> there (males seen in 90s I believe) not completely necessary especially
> given the example of completely new invertebrate species to science having
> been described solely from HD photographs with no voucher specimens being
> retained. Surely blood and feather sample and HD photos more than adequate
> for a known species of vertebrate.
> Dom
>
>
>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
