An interesting story.

[Michael Honeyman <>]

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://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://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.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/Winker-Auk-05.pdf>
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MUv111n3_ED.htm 
<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>