There's much to consider in Scott Connop's postings on this vexed question
of playback. (Thanks Martyn for your Moderator's patience and sensible
input in this protracted discussion.) May I offer some comments on Scott'=
s
message re new avian discoveries.
Scott has written:
"There is some variation in the standards, but it is generally considered
that 20 specimens of a species are needed to adequately describe a species
formally to science."
I guess that depends on what one regards as "adequate". I think that for
many (maybe most?) species of vertebrates, the specific epithet has been
established based on fewer than 20 specimens. As an extreme case, I'm
almost sure that somewhere in recent times I heard of a species, and I thin=
k
it was a bird, being described without any specimen at all. Maybe somewher=
e
in south-east Asia. (My elderly memory is not too good these days.)
Scott again:
And then there are tapaculos.....avian mice of the undergrowth. Twenty year=
s
ago, there was 11 recognized species of the genus Scytalopus. There are no=
w
over 40. How did this happen? Voice! Tour leaders were among the first to
recognize the incredibly subtle variation in this group and ornithologists
studying the genus have used voice primarily for identifying this diversity=
.
Here in Australia, a common and widespread population of ravens went
unrecognised as a distinct species until CSIRO scientists using playback of
the mobbing call in order to shoot specimens for study of gut contents,
found some ravens totally ignoring the playback. With great difficulty
(like most corvids these were extremely wary) they managed to shoot a coupl=
e
and closer examination showed certain not very apparent physical difference=
s
from the species they had been thought to be. Subsequent work showed that
they also had markedly different behaviours.
On the other hand, there are a number of species of Australian oscines wher=
e
there are very great regional differences in song yet there can be no doubt
that only a single species is involved. I recall a radio broadcast in
which the late Norman Robinson, then a CSIRO scientist studying lyrebirds,
pointed out that the territorial song of two populations of Superb Lyrebird=
s
only 40 miles apart were so different that a male of one population totall=
y
ignored playback of the song of the other.
I have no knowledge of the tapaculos situation, but I would make the genera=
l
observation that song differences don't necessarily imply different species=
.
I hold a somewhat different view to Scott when he writes:
We can argue that it would be nice to leave the little beauties alone all
together, but that is not going to happen. A soundscape artist may not need
to see his subject that completely, but a birder always wants to see a bird
so that it is identifiable to him/her. And it is the growth of the birding
community that has spawned so many international conservation efforts.
I understand that the National Park concept arose during the 1871 Washburn
expedition to what is now Yellowstone. On the return journey when campfire
discussion included talk of the potential for real estate profit associated
with the wonders of that area, Cornelius Hedges expressed the view that the
area should never be privately owned but should be set aside for all to
enjoy so that future generations might also see that magnificent area in it=
s
natural state. A couple of years later Yellowstone became the World's firs=
t
national park.=20
Many nations have followed that lead, and all continents (except Antartica?=
)
now have such parks - or their equivalent. I surmise that conservation
efforts spawned by the birding community, though valuable, have been minor
by comparison.
However my main reason for referring to National Parks is to question
Scott's assertion, "We can argue that it would be nice to leave the little
beauties alone altogether, but that is not going to happen." There are
circumstances where it should happen, and has, in the past.
If a national park is large enough (and many are), and it is managed to
maintain its natural condition to the greatest possible extent with minimum
human interference, most species of plants and non-migratory animals will
survive in it indefinitely into the future without species-specific local
conservation activities. Only through major external influences such as
global warning, or introduction of a disease, are they likely to be lost.
And in a large national park there is usually scope to allow reasonable
public visitation in certain areas, trails, etc., while leaving a
substantial proportion of the park in which the 'little beauties' are
totally undisturbed.
I see no overriding objection to a biological population remaining unknown
and undescribed as a species, indefinitely into the future if its survival
is as reasonably assured as it can be in an adequate and properly managed
national park. (And I sure hope that the world-renowned management
standards of the US Park Service can be maintained, despite current threats
to their integrity.)
I wonder if the Wollemi Pines story is widely known outside Australia? In
1994, a single small stand of these pines, sole survivors (as far as we
know) of a Jurassic-era species, was discovered in a remote part of a
national park in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney by a Parks Service
officer. The precise location has remained a well-guarded secret to avoid
pilfering or the accidental introduction on someone's boots of the spores o=
f
the root-rot fungus Phytophthora which could wipe out the whole population.
Meanwhile an officially-sanctioned nursery propagation program has been
carried out.=20
A couple of weeks ago, the first special batch of 292 nursery-raised Wollem=
i
Pines was auctioned and raised (Aus.) $1.59 million which is to be used to
help conserve the wild population and their habitat and other rare species.
By 2006 it is expected that there will be half a million nursery-raised
Wollemi Pines to be sold, which should ensure that poaching from the wild i=
s
not worth the trouble, while also providing for the survival of the
species, should any disaster destroy that small wild population.
Perhaps not of direct relevance to the playback question, and the present
state of science is not at a level where a rare species of bird could be
propagated by tissue-culture while leaving the wild population intact, but
it is an example of an unexpected benefit arising from an area of national
park left undisturbed by any significant human activity including playback.
Cheers
Syd Curtis (Brisbane, Australia)
----------
From: Scott Connop <>
Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:01:25 -0500
To: "" <>
Subject: [Nature Recordists] New Avian Discoveries
As an addendum to my earlier post on playback use, I would like to alert
some of the folks here on the procedure for documenting new and rare
species. This is something that has changed with time and is still an
evolving subject.
Traditionally, birds were documented and described via the barrel of a
gun. Good optics were nonexistent for a long time, but even with their
advent in the last 50 years, it is the documentation of specimens that
are used solely for the purpose of proving the existence of any bird.
Where this became critical was in the conservation of species. Like it
or not, it is at the species level that our governments move. The
splitting of the California Gnatcatcher from the Black-tailed
Gnatcatcher is as good an example as any. Many developers and business
interests have been mortified to learn that this species split, once
added to the endangered species act, now constitutes a major headache as
its primary habitat happens to be on some pretty pricey real estate.
Globally, this is also the case. If you want to move any government
towards conservation of a species, you have to prove it is a species in
the first place. There is some variation in the standards, but it is
generally considered that 20 specimens of a species are needed to
adequately describe a species formally to science. Hear me, that is 20
bodies.
John Moore brought up the point of Jocotoco Antpitta. A point of
contention here is, how do we justify collecting 20 bodies when we don't
have a clue as to the abundance of the bird? This is where the use of
playback comes in. In order to protect this bird, which is just as shy
as any other antpitta, it would be nice to have another way to inventory
them. Photographs and videos help immensely, but you would never have
the quality necessary to carry in a scientific journal unless you could
photograph it inside and out.
Playback could help achieve this where no
other form of approach would work (just look at the dearth of commercial
video for antpittas, in general). And whatever you think about playback,
it is not hard to argue that the bird's response to it would be better
for its health than being on a collecting table. For many on this list,
the practice of collectings birds probably hits a nerve quickly, but,
folks, this is how it is done. When a bird is discovered in a range
extension, proper documentation of its song would be preferable to
terminating it. Many birds sing so infrequently (Orange-cronwed Manikin,
Hazel-fronted Pygmy-Tyrant, just to throw around a couple of names) that
playback is the only way to induce them to sing or show themselves for
proper ID.
And then there are tapaculos.....avian mice of the undergrowth. Twenty
years ago, there was 11 recognized species of the genus Scytalopus.
There are now over 40. How did this happen? Voice! Tour leaders were
among the first to recognize the incredibly subtle variation in this
group and ornithologists studying the genus have used voice primarily
for identifying this diversity. Yes, they have taken specimens, but we
are a little less neanderthal now and we are starting to accept voice
records IF the user bothered to get a good visual to back up the
recording. With tapaculos, this demands playback. You won't get it any
other way, guaranteed by those who have struggled with these
bewilderingly similar little rats.
I know these examples might seem extreme to some, but there are many
in-between cases. I would like to advocate sound-oriented documentation
more, and see less bodies in a museum. With that said, all of the
wonderful field guides available today are courtesy of those bodies, and
all of us recognize the huge conservation edge of having these texts
available. I would simply like to keep it to a minimum.
Mist netting is
the other technique routinely used for documentation, and, from personal
experience, I would say it is far more traumatic to a bird than a
playback encounter. And with that said, I do not believe, from my
experience that playback encounters are very traumatic, unless someones
takes a bird out of its routine for a lengthy period of time. Playback
mimics nature, if done judiciously.
We can argure that it would be nice
to leave the little beauties alone all together, but that is not going
to happen. A soundscape artist may not need to see his subject that
completely, but a birder always wants to see a bird so that it is
identifiable to him/her. And it is the growth of the birding community
that has spawned so many international conservation efforts.
I will deal
with temperate zone species more in a separate post, but I want to give
everyone here a feel for what goes on out there and why playback needs
to be discussed comprehensively. It needs to be advocated properly.
There are too many places banning it as a kneejerk reaction instaed of
through considered discussion (as an example, it drives me nuts that
tape recorders are banned in Monteverde, but all of the tour guides
whistle in quetzals, etc). We are a resource, and we need to be
responsible about what we put online for others to quote.
Scott Connop
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Links
> From: Scott Connop <>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:01:25 -0500
> To: "" <>
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] New Avian Discoveries
>
> As an addendum to my earlier post on playback use, I would like to alert
> some of the folks here on the procedure for documenting new and rare
> species. This is something that has changed with time and is still an
> evolving subject.
>
> Traditionally, birds were documented and described via the barrel of a
> gun. Good optics were nonexistent for a long time, but even with their
> advent in the last 50 years, it is the documentation of specimens that
> are used solely for the purpose of proving the existence of any bird.
> Where this became critical was in the conservation of species. Like it
> or not, it is at the species level that our governments move. The
> splitting of the California Gnatcatcher from the Black-tailed
> Gnatcatcher is as good an example as any. Many developers and business
> interests have been mortified to learn that this species split, once
> added to the endangered species act, now constitutes a major headache as
> its primary habitat happens to be on some pretty pricey real estate.
> Globally, this is also the case. If you want to move any government
> towards conservation of a species, you have to prove it is a species in
> the first place. There is some variation in the standards, but it is
> generally considered that 20 specimens of a species are needed to
> adequately describe a species formally to science. Hear me, that is 20
> bodies. John Moore brought up the point of Jocotoco Antpitta. A point of
> contention here is, how do we justify collecting 20 bodies when we don't
> have a clue as to the abundance of the bird? This is where the use of
> playback comes in. In order to protect this bird, which is just as shy
> as any other antpitta, it would be nice to have another way to inventory
> them. Photographs and videos help immensely, but you would never have
> the quality necessary to carry in a scientific journal unless you could
> photograph it inside and out. Playback could help achieve this where no
> other form of approach would work (just look at the dearth of commercial
> video for antpittas, in general). And whatever you think about playback,
> it is not hard to argue that the bird's response to it would be better
> for its health than being on a collecting table. For many on this list,
> the practice of collectings birds probably hits a nerve quickly, but,
> folks, this is how it is done. When a bird is discovered in a range
> extension, proper documentation of its song would be preferable to
> terminating it. Many birds sing so infrequently (Orange-cronwed Manikin,
> Hazel-fronted Pygmy-Tyrant, just to throw around a couple of names) that
> playback is the only way to induce them to sing or show themselves for
> proper ID.
>
> And then there are tapaculos.....avian mice of the undergrowth. Twenty
> years ago, there was 11 recognized species of the genus Scytalopus.
> There are now over 40. How did this happen? Voice! Tour leaders were
> among the first to recognize the incredibly subtle variation in this
> group and ornithologists studying the genus have used voice primarily
> for identifying this diversity. Yes, they have taken specimens, but we
> are a little less neanderthal now and we are starting to accept voice
> records IF the user bothered to get a good visual to back up the
> recording. With tapaculos, this demands playback. You won't get it any
> other way, guaranteed by those who have struggled with these
> bewilderingly similar little rats.
>
> I know these examples might seem extreme to some, but there are many
> in-between cases. I would like to advocate sound-oriented documentation
> more, and see less bodies in a museum. With that said, all of the
> wonderful field guides available today are courtesy of those bodies, and
> all of us recognize the huge conservation edge of having these texts
> available. I would simply like to keep it to a minimum. Mist netting is
> the other technique routinely used for documentation, and, from personal
> experience, I would say it is far more traumatic to a bird than a
> playback encounter. And with that said, I do not believe, from my
> experience that playback encounters are very traumatic, unless someones
> takes a bird out of its routine for a lengthy period of time. Playback
> mimics nature, if done judiciously. We can argure that it would be nice
> to leave the little beauties alone all together, but that is not going
> to happen. A soundscape artist may not need to see his subject that
> completely, but a birder always wants to see a bird so that it is
> identifiable to him/her. And it is the growth of the birding community
> that has spawned so many international conservation efforts. I will deal
> with temperate zone species more in a separate post, but I want to give
> everyone here a feel for what goes on out there and why playback needs
> to be discussed comprehensively. It needs to be advocated properly.
> There are too many places banning it as a kneejerk reaction instaed of
> through considered discussion (as an example, it drives me nuts that
> tape recorders are banned in Monteverde, but all of the tour guides
> whistle in quetzals, etc). We are a resource, and we need to be
> responsible about what we put online for others to quote.
>
> Scott Connop
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|