text:
For a long time now most ornithologists have frowned on the practice of collecting (=killing) species thought to be new to science. This is because generally these species are likely to be rare, because of the very fact they have only recently been discovered.
I was therefore appalled to read that American ornithologist Gary Stiles criticised ProAves (our Colombian Partner organisation) for describing a new species of Antpitta, based on feathers and photographs. Stiles apparently called the decision to do this 'scientifically irresponsible'. This is not the first time this has been done, and what he was really covering up is that other specimens (which he knew about) had apparently been collected (i.e. killed) illegally, and another description was about to be published based on these specimens. The journal about to publish, refused, thereby giving the feather and photo description priority.
"One bird - two names. Bitter feud in the Colombian Ornithology/bird conservation scene" gives the full story, and shows how irresponsible some scientists can be. This type of collecting cannot be condoned, but still persists particularly in the New World. In the 21st century, with DNA profiling and a whole host of other techniques any rare species should not be killed just to go in a museum draw.
More Information
John's previous blog on describing the Fenwick's Antpitta
Editor's Comment (17/03/11)
John Burton has repeatedly asked everyone to read what he has written and not create 'straw men'. He has also apologised to Dr Stiles, in case his comments could be interpreted as a slur on him. Most correspondents now seem to agree that the important issue is to clarify an agreed position over the killing of rare and/or endangered species for scientific study. We will not be publishing any further comments, but feel free to send them, if you feel they will be helpful in formulating a policy on scientific collecting on nature reserves.
To the best of my knowledge,
To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus among ornithologists that collecting is an antiquated activity. Let me be clear so there is no misunderstanding; collectors do not gather stamps for a collection. They document the biodiversity for which many of us are working to protect. Why pick a fight with the people that have dedicated their lives to describing, curating, and understanding the very biodiversity so many of us cherish?
I encourage you to expand your council to include members from natural history museums. If you do, you may find there are good reasons conservationists still collect specimens for museums.
The heated divide that exists between collectors and anti-collectors is not without consequence. It amounts to infighting and is a distraction from a shared conservation mission.
I have followed this feud for many years and it seems there are only a few on the anti-collecting side that keep this fire burning. What is also evident, is a lack of interest to seek understanding for why collecting remains relevant. Blanket statements, such as your opening sentence, are what keep this misunderstanding alive and it is now more than ever that understanding is needed to work together as the list of challenges increases and the resources to meet them shrinks.
Richard E. Gibbons
Thank you for furthering the
Thank you for furthering the misinformation surrounding this issue. Why must you paint reasonable ornithologists as having a blood-lust for anything that flies? I don't think anyone would dispute that collecting population-threatening numbers of any species must be avoided. But there's an assumption, inherent in your post, that any collecting would threaten the survival of these species and/or populations. That's a big assumption, and one that we should evaluate based on the evidence before labeling such (very limited) collecting as "irresponsible."
Furthermore, there's nothing in the article that suggests Stiles said anything like what you attribute to him. The direct quote from the Science article is "For F. Gary Stiles, curator of the bird collection at the National University of Colombia in Bogotá, the attempt to designate the feathers and photographs as the holotype is 'scientifically irresponsible.'"
Presumably that's because there's already a specimen, collected prior to these feathers and photographs. The fact that said specimen was collected without a permit is reprehensible, and that alone makes collecting that individual bird irresponsible. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists and should be the holotype.
por que no se ocupan de
por que no se ocupan de pelear contra los desmontes, la contaminacion y demas consecuencias del modelo productivo, en una hectarea de bosque desmontada se pierde miles de especimes, gente idiota que se pelea con la ciencia.
Two critical clarifications:
Two critical clarifications: (1) Gary Stiles is a great scientist and a great human being who deserves far better than this libelous and misleading treatment in any public forum. (2) There are no more than a handful of bird populations in the world that might actually be detrimentally impacted by the scientific collection of two specimens, and this is fortunate because specimens continue to be an essential component to a rigorous biodiversity science. Conservationists need to stop vilifying scientists and redirect that energy towards the real and measurable threats to biodiversity that abound — I think they'll find scientists, including those who collect specimens, to be great allies in this effort.
This blog entry starts with
This blog entry starts with an assertion that is demonstrably false – "For a long time now most ornithologists have frowned on the practice of collecting (=killing) species thought to be new to science" – and it goes downhill from there. We get a weak attempt to slander Gary Stiles, a man who has done more for bird conservation than John Burton ever will, and finally a bizarrely misinformed conclusion that reveals Mr Burton's fundamental failure to understand the techniques that he believes will somehow replace collecting.
As someone with absolutely no personal or professional stake in this particular spat, I think that WLT, and its patrons, ought to be ashamed at having any association with the kind of self-serving, vitriolic nonsense set forth by Mr Burton. It is an unfortunate sign of the times that the CEO of a conservation organization apparently prefers superficial, ad hominem attack to a reasoned consideration of the facts. This tactic, and it is most certainly a tactic, is made all the more unfortunate by being directed at the very people whose hard work makes the mission of WLT, and similar organizations, possible. My challenge to John Burton? Try conserving "the world's most biologically important and threatened lands" – your words – without standing on the shoulders of people like Gary Stiles. You will not succeed.
Como puede ser que alguien
Como puede ser que alguien con tan poco criterio, se haga llamar el defensor de la verdad, Que verdad esta defendiendo este señor? Acaso conoce de la gran carrera del profesor Stiles, me parece una completa falta de respeto hacia alguen que no ha hecho mas que dedicar su vida a la ornitología, como alumno de el puedo afirmar que no es ningún irresponsable, al contrario es una de las personas mas integras y ademas un gran científico.
Si esta es una web seria dedicada a la conservación seguramente sabrán que las colectas son necesarias y mas para la ornitología.
Me parece una pena que usen esta pagina como medio para desprestigiar a las personas que mas están haciendo por la conservación del mundo.
ATT: Estudiante Biologia Universidad Nacional de Colombia
The hypocrisy in this note is
The hypocrisy in this note is astounding. Perhaps WLT should ask its partner organization ProAves about the collection of an individual of the Santa Marta Screech Owl, another new species to science that is believed to be endangered or critically endangered.
Mr. Burton
Mr. Burton
Don't misrepresent the true story creating confusion around bird collecting because most conservacionists benefit from it year after year. For example, ProAves has exclusive use of the Biomap data base of colombian specimens housed around the World. Despite Biomap is on-line, no student, no scientist in the World has access. But Proaves periodically updates its check-list based on Biomap.
If you are affected by ilegal collecting why don't you ask to ProAves about the permit to collect feathers? It's possible that they collect these feathers ilegally using a different license.
And if you are so affected by bird collecting why don't you ask to Proaves, How many individuals died during the program of bird banding and training conducted in most of the reserves you support. I may tell you that the number easily exceeds thousend. However, just a handful of specimens are deposited at museums. Most of them were left rotting in the forest because bird banders were not qualified in taxidermy or at least in specimen freeze.
Finally, remember that collecting ilegally a bird or boasting describing a bird based on feathers, it isn't a justification to steal a new species.
Thousends of birds killed by Proaves banding.
I think some evidence that
I think some evidence that more than one thousand birds died during banding needs to be produced before this figure ccan be accepted; it suggests that tens of thousands have been banded. I was once a bird ringer in the UK (=bander), and yes there is a very small mortality, but it should not be anything like what is suggested. And if there is evidence for such figures, I would be truly horrified.
The basic fact remains, thast there is no longer justification for killing bird as simply as type specimens. Any new species these days is almost bound to be rare, by the very fact it has not been described so far. If after description it is found to be common, then there is an argument for collecting as specimen.
Forget the ins and outs of scientific priority (which iis actually quite clear, and indisputable), the important thing is to give a lous and clear message, that killing rare birds for 'scientific' purposes, is no longer acceptable. Americans carried on shooting state firsts long after most of the world was accepting sight records, and it is time the scientific community woke up to the fact that , regardles of any scientific 'justification', this sort of attitude giive a very wrong message to the rest of the world.
I will ask the webmaster to
I will ask the webmaster to remove any anonymous comments from this page. I think any one who wants to comment should be readily identified.
Richard Gibbons suggests that
Richard Gibbons suggests that the WLT ought to have on its council staff of natural history museums. In fact we do have lots of very close connection, and numerous supporters who have worked in museums (including the late David Snow). I spent all my teenage years as an active visitor and collector at the natural history museum in London, and the first six years of my working life on the staff of the British Museum (Natural History) as it was then. I went on several field trips collecting speciments for the museum collections, and have continued to donate the odd specimen over the years. I have no objection to collecting per se; it's simply how and when it is done, and what species are involved, and whether or not the appropriate licences have been obtained. All too often a few scientists believe that their work is so important they do not need to comply with the law — history is littered with unfortunate examples.
Final Comment
Final Comment
There appears to be a major misunderstanding — perhaps deliberate — on the part of some of those commenting.
I am not holding ProAves up as the Good Guys and Stiles as the baddy. I believe quite simply that Stiles was wrong to state that it was scientifically irresponsible to desceribe a bird from feathers etc.
Most of the other comments made are irrelevant, and are creating straw men. Please stick to what I wrote. And if some of the assertions about misdemeanours, or illegailty, in ProAves can be substantiated, the WLT would certainly discontinue its support.
Conservation needs good
Conservation needs good science and the work of biologists, yet biologists need to respect that many conservationists and conservation organisations have differing views on collecting.
In the case of the Fenwick's antpitta the original discoverer secretly collected WITHIN A NATURE RESERVE AND WITHOUT PERMISSION. So it's not really an issue about collecting per se.
It is sad that some in the ornithological community in Colombia have chosen, so far, to ignore those illegal actions, but rather see it as attack on collecting, and rant on about the need to collect any bird, no matter what circumstances, no matter where. It is a shame they do not see that this will only damage their own reputation.
Nevertheless, it would be a pity for people within the
wider ornithological and conservation community to fall out over differences of opinion on issues of collecting. The fantastic work of World Land Trust, Trust, and its partners such as ProAves, in saving some of the most
important habitats on earth is very important to conservation and John Burton and his team should be rightly proud of this. They have my continued support.
Remarkable that WLT now
Remarkable that WLT now choose to join the misinformation campaign, and simultaneously take this mess to an new low point by maliciously spending an entire post on attacking a SINGLE person, who (unlike certain other people) actually has spend significant amounts of time doing conservation-oriented work in the field instead of sitting behind a desk.
I might suggest John Burton re-reads the blog he wrote, and then his later comment ("I am not holding ProAves up as the Good Guys and Stiles as the baddy."). If this matter wasn't so serious, I would feel tempted laughing at the obvious contradiction.
However, I fully understand why John would want the webmaster to delete the "anonymous" comments (disregarding the fact that emails are required to post, so anonymous isn't possible). After all, anonymous or not, they brought out some good points. It is so much easier to deal with those points by just deleting the comments.
I had expected higher standards by WLT. That was evidently a mistake. I do hope this is a case of the blog author being unaware of the facts – rather than deliberately disregarding them.
@Gilbert White: I can only assume you have not spend much time reading up on this matter. No one has said illegal collecting is OK (even the collector himself apparently thought it was legal when it happened, and only became aware of the problems afterwards). No one has said that any bird should be collected regardless of the circumstances. How you came to those conclusions is truly puzzling, and makes your post yet another case of misinformation. What Stiles and others have said is that a specimen had been collected, and not using the information it contained is highly questionable. Not using it does not make it "un-dead". If you believe this is not about "collecting per se", please see the various articles/editorials that have been posted by/via ProAves and ABC.
Pues, yo creo en muchas
Pues, yo creo en muchas ocasiones las colectas no se utilizan de la mejor manera y en ocasiones son excesivas, incluso hoy en día no estoy muy interesado en hacerlas y me parece que es necesario desarrollar nuevas técnicas (ADN) que permitan tener una muy alta confianza en la determinación de especies. Adicionalmente, se y he tenido experiencia de que en el mundo de la taxonomía y sistemática hay muchas personas muy irresponsables con la colecta de especímenes, lo cual me parece un atentado contra la biodiversidad.
Por otro lado, tuve la oportunidad de ser alumno del profesor Gary Stiles de la materia de Ornitologìa y de sobre su pasión por la aves y teniendo la oportunidad de salir a campo con el, creo que no es una persona que abusa de la colección de especímenes.
Dear R. Nielsen, it is widely
Dear R. Nielsen, it is widely accepted that the collector of the antpitta kept the collecting secret, stating in Science: "I knew ProAves doesn't like collecting, but I did it." He knew he should have requested permission… for goodness sake, he was being paid to protect a nature reserve! There is no doubt that he knew he was doing wrong. It may be true that ProAves does not like collecting, but in a statement released by ProAves (see link) "ProAves has confirmed that it is not against collecting in appropriate circumstances, but that its employees and contractors are obligated to abide by the country's laws, and must receive approval from ProAves and the appropriate governmental entity before taking specimens from its protected areas." That seems completely reasonable. Nowhere in their two editorials or website can I find any reference against collecting, just ProAves considered the species critically endangered and preferred to use tissues samples.
Surely it was obvious that something was amiss when the antpitta collector proceeded to try and publish in the well-respected ornithological journal "Condor", and they rejected the paper over doubts regarding the collecting. When ProAves published the new species the following year, their editorial explained clearly that the collector had done so illegally, plus broken his contract and internal regulations of working in the reserve. On the same link I give, it states that a "lengthy and exhaustive review by the Colombian regional governmental environmental authority…. found [the collector] had acted illegally..". Doesn't get any clearer than that!
This antpitta situation appears to have been blown into a issue over collecting in general when it clearly has nothing to do with that (reviewing carefully the issues).
Considering that, I recommend that all readers/repliers should agree to no longer tolerate illegal collecting activities under any circumstances.
Bien lo dice el viejo y
Bien lo dice el viejo y conocido refrán, a palabras necias oidos sordos. Sin embargo si es preocupante la doble moral manejada por PROAVES.
Que estén bien, menos pelea y màs trabajo
Thank you Henry Tristram.
Thank you Henry Tristram. Yopu have got it very accurately.
If anyone took the trouble to look at what I actually said, and also what I have written in the past they would realise that I am not anti collecting. But I am anti a predominately US-led, gung-ho attitude to collecting. To many of us on the other side of the world it seems to reflect a more general attitude, reflected in the gun laws of the USA. A simlistic and no doubt entirely wrong view point. But nonetheless one that New World scientists should be aware of.
And don't shoot the messenger, and don't create straw men.
@ John: Thanks for continuing
@ John: Thanks for continuing this important discussion. Your comment regarding US institutions with active bird collecting programs provides insight to the misunderstanding.
I think it would help us all if we get to the specific point of disagreement and briefly ignore the details of the Colombia situation. It would be great if you indicate whether or not you agree with the following statements.
1. Collection of specimens for the documentation and study of biodiversity is a valid scientific endeavor, although not as important as it once was due to the many advances in technology.
2. Collection of wildlife material should be coordinated with the all appropriate agencies and should be sensitive to local stakeholders.
3. The collection of specimens from critically-low populations is irresponsible and morally reprehensible. If population size is unknown, collecting should not be an option for potentially new taxa.
4. Some have the opinion that many US-based ornithologists collect bird specimens with a cavalier attitude that is reactionary and befitting another century.
5. Your opinion is not the same, but this view must be considered when developing organizational position statements.
Is this an accurate and fair summary?
I'm aghast to see this ad
I'm aghast to see this ad hominem attack against a highly respected scientist and conservationist. It's utterly reprehensible. I hope a retraction and an apology will be issued.
John, most ornithologists
John, most ornithologists have not frowned on collecting birds that may be new to science. Most birds new to science have in fact been collected and carefully studied using other specimens collected and preserved across hundreds of years to determine just what they are. Most taxa that are new these days are described as subspecies. I find it troubling that you should denigrate a top-notch, world-class ornithologist like Gary Stiles to try to make your rather weak point. Ornithologists and conservation biologists are usually one and the same, on the same side of conserving biodiversity. Apparently accurately describing that biodiversity is not as important to you as it is to us – the vast majority of whom are extremely responsible.
Recently, American Ornithologists' Union President Erica Dunn asked the Committee on Bird Collections Committee and the Conservation Committee to work together to draft a paper on bird collecting and its ethical and conservation aspects. For those who are genuinely interested in what most ornithologists think, it is a good starting point:
Winker, K., J. M. Reed, P. Escalante, R. A. Askins, C. Cicero, G. E. Hough, and J. Bates. 2010. The importance, effects, and ethics of bird collecting. Auk 127:690-695.
I would be happy to send a pdf of this to anyone, or it can be obtained here: http://www.kevinwinker.org.
Some points regarding J
Some points regarding J Burton original post:
1. Unfortunately your view that collecting = killing falls far from the true in real science. Surveys and expeditions set to document diversity and its VARIATION need to have certain standards and vouchers that represent such diversity and variation. Even with the up-to-date photographic cameras and speeding up DNA techniques, having a voucher, a tangible demonstration of such diversity is still needed… not only in the New World but in GOOD science. If good science is been made, then each and every individual that is collected is not a trophy for some one to get money on! It constitutes an specimens from which multiple information can and is acquire, and not just by the collector, but by everyone that has access to it once it has been deposited at a collection or museum. Unfortunately it seems you have not been able to have such experience, where a specimen actually gives you so much more than just a "pretty picure".
2. From J . Burton posts, it seems that that you are suggesting that Dr. Gary Stiles was trying to "hide" the specimen that was deposited at the ICN collection, while calling the description of your partner organization Proaves " scientifically irresponsible"… Are you suggesting Dr. Gary Stiles is benefiting from preserving a particular specimen in a collection he is the curator? Are you suggesting Dr. Gary Stiles acting on his self-interest? What fives you that impression? After many years of knowing and working with several Colombian and Costa Rican ornithologists, I can only have words gratitude and respect for a man that has truly teach generation of the appreciation and CONSERVATION of diversity in all means possible. Yes, one of such means is keeping, cureating and maintaining and amazing ornithological scientific collection.
3. The fist specimen deposited in the ICN collection, to my understanding, corresponds to an individual that was found dead in the nets. As sad as this may be, I am glad the collector took the LEGAL and WISE decision of bringing it in to a PUBLIC COLLECTION, for the COLOMBIAN ornithologist to be able to study. According to the laws of the Republica de Colombia, any collecting of any part of biodiversity (individual, blood, saliva, feathers, parasites and so on), requires a research permit and a collection permit. However, act of taking an already dead bird in a collection does not requires such a permit. In some occasions, this has been a wonderful way to document and understand some of the death of migrant in the cities… where random people find dead birds and take them to a collection and a SCIENTIST for them to exanimate.
Closing thoughts:
- Sometime ago, the project Biomap was run by Proaves, with the leadership of Dr. Gary Stiles. He has not "played a side", or has been blaming one person or other, he has definitely called the attention to what, in his understanding and thoughts (and years of devoted conservation), should be a good scientific practice.
-Unfortunately this is not the first time Proaves is at the center of the public debate in Colombia. In past years the organization has had problems with local communities (since their policy of conservation is acquiring land and not working with the local communities), they have also unfortunately restrict some access to the public and open source database that Biomap was supposed to be.
Open to thoughts and discussion… GOOD scientific discussion.
A detailed response to Dr
A detailed response to Dr Gibbons last posting.
1. In principle agree. Important to recognise that not all collecting is lethal
2. Absolutely AGREE
3. Completely Agree, if collecting here is a synonym for killing.. You will know that I and others were critics of the killing of the Peruvian specimen of the Jocotoco Ant-pitta, as it was already known to be a critically low population, and a photo would have sufficed.
4. Agree; but not just US-based. It is an attitude that occurs in other parts of the world. But perhaps because of stereotypes, related to US attitudes to gun law etc., it becomes more readily identified with US ornithologists.
5. Not quite sure I understand this statement, but I think I agree. Many of the supporters of conservation organisations would be opposed to all forms of killing of wildlife. I do not go as far as that, but would generally look at issues on a case by case basis. However, I am now going to discuss with my Board a formal position for the WLT. It would be a good idea if AOU, BOU, BTO NTC, et al also had formal positions on this issue. As a long time member of the BOU I will be asking them in due course.
6 I would also add that the permission of the landowner for collecting/killing is also an absolute prerequisite, particularly if the land has any status as a protected area.
7. I would also re-emphasise that we need to be careful on the semantics of the term collecting. In general, I have no objections to non-lethal forms of collecting. I think when we mean killing, we should say just that, and not hide behind 'collecting'.
[Unfortunately there are complications to even this form of collecting – for instance I was told that to take mammalian blood samples of some species, under UK law, in some circumstances requires a vivisection licence]
Is this an accurate and fair summary?
Pretty well
I think this can lead to a constructive dialogue,
A response to Juanita
A response to Juanita
Again, I must ask those responding to
a] read what I have written,
b] not jump to conclusions, and
c] not create straw men
I will now deal with some Juanita's comments.
I have probably had far more experience than Juanita rather condescendingly suggests at the end of her first comment, and I have already pointed out that I do have experience in both museology, and ornithology; my CV is on the WLT Website. I don't know what Juanita's experience is, but her comments suggest that she is still living in the past and is not interested in conservation of the very organisms she wants to study.
I have not suggested that Gary Stiles was hiding a specimen; in fact Stiles remains one of the most important ornithologists in South America. The fact remains that an illegally collected specimen creates problems (which is why publication was refused), and until its status is decided it is unwise to base a scientific description on it; with the benefit of hindsight, Stiles may well agree.
A number of commentators seemed to be confused as to what constitutes a holotype (or any other type for that matter). It is not the first specimen collected, it is whatever the taxonomist designates. Nowhere I have I questioned Stiles abilities as an ornithologist, but do believe he is wrong to state it is 'scientifically irresponsible' to name new species based on feathers etc.This is view upheld by the ICZN. And there are numerous examples of scientific descriptions being based on a wide range of material. As any competent taxonomist will know, there are plenty of examples where there is no holotype (or even no type), and there are some where the type is a plaster cast, and others where drawings constitute the type. This all goes way back to Linnaeus. When commentators get wound up with the issue of types, and what constitutes a type, it suggests to me that they do not understand taxonomic processes, and are using this as a stalking horse for their real objective, and that is to uphold irresponsible collecting. In the 21st century, type specimens for birds have questionable value (and don't misinterpret that as me stating they are unimportant), but as anyone with a serious interest in field ornithology will know, types often have to fit the species concept now, not the other way round. It is field work that is 'creating' new species such as the genera Phylloscopus and Larus, as much as specimen collecting.
I do need to point out to
I do need to point out to Kevin Winker, that there is a world beyond the USA, and that what he is assuming as a general attitude to collecting is, unfortunately a largely North American attitude. It is certainly not the dominant viewpoint in Britain, India or many other places
I would also point out that I am only discussing what happens in the 21st century, when species are disappearing at an alarming rate, and habitat even faster
And I am not denigrating Gary Stiles, and never had. I have only ever said that it is apalling to read that he thinks it is 'scientifically irresponsible' to describe a specimen based on feathers etc. It is patently not irresponsible, since it is accepted by the ICZN who are the arbitrators in this field, and have the final say.
Conserving biodiversity is, to me, much more of a priority than collecting it and describing it; that can be done later if it is essential. I don't want the World littered with too many Great Auks, found only in museums.
I would certainly like to see the AOU draft on collecting policy — an I hope that the BOU (I have beena member for over 40 years) will draft one, if does not already exist.
But thanks to all the commentators. From what started as a fairly polarised outburst in response to my few lines, it has developed into a more reasoned discussion.
Gary Stiles, an apology
Gary Stiles, an apology
Just to make it abslutely clear, while I was appalled at Dr Stiles saying it was scientifically irresponsible to describe a bird from feathers etc, that was all it was. It was not an attack on Dr Stiles, as I have no information or knowledge of any other aspect of his involvement in the description. The reason I was appalled was because it apparently shows a lack of understanding of recent rulings by the ICZN. Dr Stiles has made enormous contributions to ornithology, and I have no intention of denigrating him. If he thinks otherwise, then I do apologise. And perhaps everyone else will take not of this.
Richard Porter, a well known
Richard Porter, a well known ornithologist (specialising in the Birds of the Middle East, formerly on the staff of the RSPB comments as follows:
Thanks for copying me in John. As you know I am opposed to any collecting (dead or alive!) and have never allowed it on any expeditions I have led, nor on any surveys I have organised. This applies to all animals – not just birds.
Why do I have this view? Because much (in fact all) of my research/survey/conservation work involves working with natives of the country concerned I believe that collecting/killing sends out totally the wrong message. Very often meeting me or one of my Western colleagues is their first experience of 'conservationists'. I want to convey a view that ALL wildlife should be respected, and that I, as a conservationist, care for and respect ALL wildlife. It's really as simple as that.
Once you have conveyed that message working with and influencing opinions and attitudes to wildlife conservation become much easier as there is no unnecessary junk in the way.
Best wishes
@Henry Tristram and John
@Henry Tristram and John
I never said the collector was right in keeping it secret from proaves. What I said is that he was not aware that the collection was ILLEGAL when he did it (with the recent ruling it has been firmly established that it was, of course). Legal or illegal collection is based on laws and rules under Colombian environmental agencies. From a legal perspective it is entirely irrelevant if proaves likes collecting or not because they (just like everybody else) are below the national environmental agencies.
A correction to my previous
A correction to my previous comment based on a direct report from proaves: The recent ruling did not result in a conviction because of illegal collection, but because of breach of reporting requirements to the environmental agency (CORPOURABA).
John says, "I do need to
John says, "I do need to point out to Kevin Winker, that there is a world beyond the USA, and that what he is assuming as a general attitude to collecting is, unfortunately a largely North American attitude. It is certainly not the dominant viewpoint in Britain, India or many other places"
I have participated in ornithological research outside the USA, as has Kevin. I've worked in Mainland China, Taiwan and Japan and in general there is a reasonable attitude towards responsible scientific collecting of avian species in these countries. I have colleagues who participate in research in Russia, New Guinea, Southeast Asia, the Philippines and all participate in scientific collecting of avian and other vertebrate species. To say that this is largely due to some attitudes towards collecting unique to Americans is simply not in line with the facts and to imply that an emphasis on collecting has anything to do with some perceived American "gun culture" is simply ridiculous.
John says, "In the 21st century, with DNA profiling and a whole host of other techniques any rare species should not be killed just to go in a museum draw."
I participate in collaborative research in avian population genetics and systematics using genetic tools. The best molecular systematic work is done with vouchered material. The birds in the drawers are just as important as the DNA in the freezer.
I suspect much of the debate stems from a birder's sentimentality towards anything with feathers. I don't see the same outrage for scientific collecting for entomologists, arachnologists, and other invertebrate specialists despite the fact that many invertebrate populations could be just as vulnerable as avian populations (but it should be noted that any pop so vulnerable that it crashes from the loss of a couple individuals likely has no viability to begin with). Even ichthyologists, herpetologists and many mammalogists seem to have a more enlightened views towards scientific collecting. Why should ornithology be any different?
To Gilbert White (great name,
To Gilbert White (great name, do you live in Selborne?) – you are missing the point on the antpitta. If it was in fact illegally collected – and now it is coming out that the transgression was not the lack of a permit, but rather the lack of reporting – quite different, yes? – then all agree that it was wrong.
However, what people are upset about is the condemnation of this supposedly illegal and unethical act by people who then rushed to publish.
In our country – this blood thirsty U.S. – we do not publish papers if we did not have the proper permits to do the work described. We do not publish papers if we did not have the approval of our animal care and use committees to do the work described.
So if ProAves genuinely believes that the collecting of the bird was illegal and unethical, it should not have published.
That, Mr. White, is what people are upset about. ]
Got it?
Mr. Burton – is there some
Mr. Burton – is there some reason you won't approve the posting of my first post? You had asked for the AOU statement and I provided it along with an explanation of the problem with photos, and I don't understand why you won't allow it to be posted.
Although I did miss one rather HUGE reason photos are not adequate. You can fake a photo. You can't fake a specimen.
Apart from that, you are the one who is misunderstanding the ICZN "rulings" which are actually not recent…they date back about 10 years. And the "ruling" was not actually a change in ICZN policy. It was simply a clarification of existing policy. What you aren't saying or acknowledging, though, is that ICZN doesn't set the standards of scientific evidence. It is merely stating what they will accept, which is quite a bit less than the "best evidence" or even "high quality evidence." The standards for best evidence or high quality evidence are set by scientists and set for good reasons. I've now given you the reasons for the photos and would be glad to do the same for the DNA if you like. Or you could read the document for which I posted the link, though you have not seen fit to allow that post to appear to others, I am sure you can see it.
Someone told me that posts
Someone told me that posts with links get held automatically so I am re-posting this without the link. I suspect that Mr. Burton isn't reading these comments anymore, but for the benefit of others:
Here, Mr. Burton:
[link omitted, google Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research and look at the chapter on scientific collecting]
The AOU statement is contained in this publication – twice. Along with a clear explanation of why a specimen is still the scientific standard – by far.
I wrote this further explanation this morning, asking Bob Ridgely to intervene and assure that you saw it (not realizing that your blog was open to comments):
I continue to wonder how anyone can think that a photograph could ever be an acceptable substitute. How hard is it to think this through?
1. I have a really great camera
2. I am extremely good at using it
3. It never fails
4. I always have plenty of battery
5. I never drop it while in the field
6. The lighting is always right because I always caught that bird at the best time of day and in the best light (well, if not, I guess I could keep it in captivity over night…and hope it is still alive in the morning….oh….wait….hey, is that even humane treatment of that animal?)
7. The bird doesn't escape while I am futzing with my camera (and exactly who is holding this bird if I am alone in the field?)
8. I remember to shoot in raw
9. I get phenomenal photos
10. My chip doesn't get corrupted
11. My chip doesn't get accidentally erased
12. My camera isn't stolen
I am sure I have forgotten a few….but living with someone who has a great camera and is extremely good at using it and he gets great photos…but guess what? The ratio of great photos to stuff that gets deleted is about 1:10. And he's dropped it. And he doesn't always remember to shoot in raw. And one of these days he will accidentally erase something, and yes, one of these days, the camera probably will get stolen.
Not great odds when you are documenting a species new to science.
Shall we talk about all the things that can go wrong with blood samples? Even assuming you don't have to try to take the samples across international borders (or assuming you do, but you forgot to call me to ask me for guidance…or, more likely…you didn't listen to me!), there must be a dozen or more things that can go wrong between the field and the successful extraction and analysis of the DNA.
Singling out the U.S. as some country of unethical scientists is not only offensive, but it is wrong. To the contrary, it is the U.K. that seems to be the outlier on this issue.
Let's make a distinction here
Let's make a distinction here from John's initial post: Scientific collecting results in a dead organism, but scientific collecting is not simply the process of killing an animal. Scientific collectors – you pick the taxon – spend hours painstakingly preparing the specimens they collect. There is a long-term commitment by the individual and the institution that they are working for to properly preserve and care for the specimen. They record the circumstances in which the animal was taken: Locality data including GPS coordinates, elevation, habitat data, associated species, behavior, and internal data on reproductive condition, overall body condition, and other data that might be useful for future generations of conservation biologists. Then, there is curation of the material back in the collections, which can take years. They invest a tremendous amount of time and diligence into each specimen that they collect and prepare so that they themselves or others may use their specimens and the associated data to better understand these populations. This understanding contributes to their conservation. These data from museums are almost always available for free, and increasingly available on the web, and used by a variety of conservation biologists. A Google search will take you to websites that are taxon-specific data portals, like ORNIS, MaNIS, or HERPNET, for instance.
Scientific collectors have the UTMOST RESPECT for the animals that they are collecting to study and the habitats that they haunt. They are there to gather data that will lead to a better understanding of the diversity that surrounds them. They hate to kill the animals that they study, but understand that these individuals comprise populations, which are a renewable resource. The only way any of them might undertake such a painstaking, often thankless endeavor is because they realize that by collecting individuals at a sustainable level from these populations to study them, they will ultimately help to better understand and hopefully conserve the species and the habitats that they depend upon.
Go back to any locality that a collector has visited in the past 150 years and, if the habitat is still intact as it was when the expedition visited there, and perhaps except for the species that are considered good to eat by the locals (for example, pheasants, guans, etc.), you will that find all of the species he or she collected are still there. Even the Jocotoco Antpittas in Peru. That's the beauty of population biology: Individuals die, and populations in healthy habitats endure that. When mortality is at the hands of a scientific collector, the species benefits because those data are recorded, cataloged, and archived in collections where they are available to taxonomists, systematists, and other conservationists, which includes the collectors of the specimens, and we have a chance to learn about that species from the specimens collected and help to make a case to conserve it.
We are all in this together – this conservation effort to document and ultimately save biodiversity on this planet. Please stop demonizing the scientific collectors: a group of people who in many cases have provided the only record of what we know about the flora and fauna of an area. An analysis of the specimens collected by Melvin Carriker or Walter Koelz from areas that they worked but are now entirely deforested readily demonstrate this. To this day, scientific collectors make a significant and lasting contribution to the conservation of our ever-eroding biodiversity.
"I don't want the World
"I don't want the World littered with too many Great Auks, found only in museums."
How did scientific collecting affect Great Auks?
Dear John,
Dear John,
Thanks for the message. I think we are making progress. To provide some backstory, I came to a natural history museum from the ringing culture and there is definitely an anti-collecting view there. It was only after spending some time with the presumed trophy collectors did I realize this was far from the truth. What is read in a museum newsletter by the outsider as gloating on the taking of a trophy is written as pride by the director that the difficult work would allow centuries of investigations with specimens unique to the world. I hope you are right that one day taking the lives of other animals will not be necessary, but for now, the sacrifice of a few for the sake of many is still very much relevant. From the perspective of the museum crowd, having the voucher to back up your findings is at the very foundation of science.
The issue of whether taking a life for one reason or the other is a personal philosophical one and opinions differ wildly depending on your flavor of cultural credence. Regardless of your stripes, consumption of resources beyond sustainability is the real driver of diversity loss.
I've attached two papers regarding the lethal collection of birds in response to your comment for official organizational policies.
See comments on comments below.
Best regards,
1. Collection of specimens for the documentation and study of biodiversity is a valid scientific endeavor, although not as important as it once was due to the many advances in technology.
In principle agree. Important to recognise that not all collecting is lethal
Not all collecting is lethal, but collecting in the parlance of museums is lethal. Please consider looking over the attached manuscripts, which outline why lethal collection is more important today than it was 100 years ago.
2. Collection of wildlife material should be coordinated with the all appropriate agencies and should be sensitive to local stakeholders.
Absolutely AGREE
Natural history museums are generally very good about this. I for one have been on several expeditions and we always work with the local communities before we do anything. This isn't to say there aren't people making bad decisions. I have personally worked in areas where previous collectors did not do the appropriate communication and it made my work much more difficult. This is common courtesy.
3. The collection of specimens from critically-low populations is irresponsible and morally reprehensible. If population size is unknown, collecting should not be an option for potentially new taxa.
Completely Agree, if collecting here is a synonym for killing.. You will know that I and others were critics of the killing of the Peruvian specimen of the Jocotoco Ant-pitta, as it was already known to be a critically low population, and a photo would have sufficed.
This is perhaps the biggest bone of contention.
The circumstances surrounding the collection of the Jocotoco Antpitta are delicate to say the least. As opposed to the chopped up habitat on the Ecuadorian side, the Peruvian forest is vast and unbroken. An associate of our museum risked life and limb to get to this remote location and discovered the presence of the Jocotoco Antpitta. He also communicated that he had detected many territories in the area he scouted. When the team arrived, they confirmed this report and found the species to be be quite common in the area they were located and that similar habitat continued for kilometers in all directions. Taking two specimens was judged by O'Neill to be a worthwhile sacrifice given the population estimate for the area. Even if the population was 200, similar to Ecuador, 2 would make no difference in effective population i.e. the trait diversity of the population that provides the variability to adapt to changing selection pressures over evolutionary time. This was also allowed within the framework of the permit. The expedition and its organizers played a significant role in establishing the area as a national park( 88,000 hectares).
4. Some have the opinion that many US-based ornithologists collect bird specimens with a cavalier attitude that is reactionary and befitting another century.
Agree; but not just US-based. It is an attitude that occurs in other parts of the world. But perhaps because of stereotypes, related to US attitudes to gun law etc., it becomes more readily identified with US ornithologists.
Is this a personal experience? Please elaborate.
5. Your opinion is not the same, but this view must be considered when developing organizational position statements.
Not quite sure I understand this statement, but I think I agree. Many of the supporters of conservation organisations would be opposed to all forms of killing of wildlife. I do not go as far as that, but would generally look at issues on a case by case basis. However, I am now going to discuss with my Board a formal position for the WLT. It would be a good idea if AOU, BOU, BTO NTC, et al also had formal positions on this issue. As a long time member of the BOU I will be asking them in due course.
The AOU has a policy statement and a new manual for the ethical treatment of birds.
6 I would also add that the permission of the landowner for collecting/killing is also an absolute prerequisite, particularly if the land has any status as a protected area.
Goes without saying.
7. I would also re-emphasise that we need to be careful on the semantics of the term collecting. In general, I have no objections to non-lethal forms of collecting. I think when we mean killing, we should say just that, and not hide behind 'collecting'.
Here is a chance for meaningful gains in understanding. Let me address some of the language used here. You may consider the term "collecting" to be a euphemism to hide behind, but in fact it is a term of respect given for the taking of life for the greater good. When you say "killing" to describe the taking of specimens, a scientific collector hears someone dishonoring the collector and the specimens and that is offensive. You may prefer the term killing and it may be the proper word for your worldview, but it is perceived as offensive and that is often counterproductive.
[Unfortunately there are complications to even this form of collecting – for instance I was told that to take mammalian blood samples of some species, under UK law, in some circumstances requires a vivisection licence]
Impacts to wildlife are vast and diverse. Everyday consumption and the massive human footprint is the prime driver for biodiversity loss. Singling out collecting (lethal) as contributing to the loss of our shared natural heritage comes across as displacement behavior.
Is this an accurate and fair summary?
Pretty well
A few comments on your original response
To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus among ornithologists that collecting is an antiquated activity. No consensus perhaps, but the overwhelming majority, world wide do not believe that the collecting of rare or endangered species should be condoned.
I'm not sure this is true, but if it is, it doesn't mean that collecting (lethal) is still the best way to answer many important questions regarding the maintenance of biodiversity. (see attached papers)
Let me be clear so there is no misunderstanding; collectors do not gather stamps for a collection. Most collectors may be do not, but some do; I would quote the collecting of a Jocotoco Antpitta in Peru, for which there was no other justification, than to add it to a collection.
How could we know this was not an allopatric sister species? How could the more subtle characters of population variation be studied in the future when Jocotocos may actually be extinct? There are many questions that can't be answered with a photo or a recording and the papers provided should give some background on why one, two, or three specimens from a distant region are not sufficient. I can understand that many would become passionate about this species, but that is another issue.
They document the biodiversity for which many of us are working to protect. Why pick a fight with the people that have dedicated their lives to describing, curating, and understanding the very biodiversity so many of us cherish? I am not doing so. It is not essential to kill rare birds in order to document. A semantic issue : Document, does not involve killing. Collecting does not have to either. I have spent over 50 years documenting and collecting and from time to time, in the past, that has involved killing specimens. In the 21st century killing specimens is no longer essential.
Agree to disagree without being disagreeable. See justification in attached papers.
I encourage you to expand your council to include members from natural history museums. If you do, you may find there are good reasons conservationists still collect specimens for museums. Having spent the first six years of my professional life on the staff of the British Museum (Natural History) as it was then, and spent many hours, and days, in the collections of the AM(NH), Bombay NHS, Zoological Institute of India, and many, many other museums, world wide, and having numerous friends and colleagues who are professional taxonomists I do not believe this is a priority. David Snow was a long time supporter of the WLT, and Sir Ghillean Prance works closely with us, to name but two involved with taxonomy in South America; there are many others.
Agree to disagree for the reasons stated in the provided manuscripts.
I would encourage you to contact and discuss the matter with Nathalie Seddon and Joe Tobias of Oxford. They might be able to provide some ideas about the modern museum and its contributions to our understanding of the biodiversity we are working to protect.
The heated divide that exists between collectors and anti-collectors is not without consequence. It amounts to infighting and is a distraction from a shared conservation mission. This is not a fight between collectors and anti-collectors. It is a conflict between antiquated, gung-ho bird collectors, and modern, 21st century conservation orientated ornithologists. Taxonomy and collecting are relevant to conservation, but not to the extent that those practising it should be above the law, or be irresponsible.
I'll agree with the last part and ask that you walk the second sentence back a couple of steps. Did you have a bad experience in the field with a collector? This is where the tension is highest and I believe passions are involved.
I have followed this feud for many years and it seems there are only a few on the anti-collecting side that keep this fire burning. I think that there is a very large number outside the US. I don't know about within the US, but the overwhelming majority of ornithologists would be against collecting rare birds, worldwide.
I think there is still some misunderstanding on what is rare and what is critically low i.e. effective population size (see paper). I was a guide in Texas for Whooping Cranes. They have an inspiring conservation story. With only 12 individuals, the species returned from the brink of extinction. It is estimated that more than 75% of the population variation made it through the bottleneck, which is quite remarkable. No one is wants to remove biodiversity as you are suggesting is being done by collecting "rare" species. Collecting 2 of 200 from a population that encounters 30 annual mortality by natural means has no impact on effective population. These concepts are important to the discussion.
What is also evident, is a lack of interest to seek understanding for why collecting remains relevant. Blanket statements, such as your opening sentence, are what keep this misunderstanding alive and it is now more than ever that understanding is needed to work together as the list of challenges increases and the resources to meet them shrinks. Unfortunately, until bird collectors take a more responsible line with their collecting, I will continue to keep the argument alive. Natural mortality, road-kills, kills against buildings wires etc provide vast numbers of specimens, for any quantitative studies, and I will continue to consistently oppose the selective killing of rare birds.
I would like to hear the case made that the majority of lethal collection is irresponsible i.e. impacting biodiversity. Show this scientist the numbers. No scientific collector would consider such an atrocious act and believe me, the population models are running through the heads of the molecular wonks behind the trigger. Please read the two papers I have provided and let me know if we have moved this discussion anywhere closer to middle ground.
If not and the will to progress toward that end is lacking, I will see you in the cultural trenches.
Over and out for a while
Over and out for a while
I am about to travel.
I am very sorry, but I wont be able to continue this rather interesting dialogue as I am about to travel and will be rather busy until the end of the month. I may even get a chance to search for Pearson's Cisticola (but wont shoot it).
I will try and answer a few random points from last couple of days. First Richard Gibbons: Thanks for moving things forward. When I get back from Zambia, I will try amnd collate all the contructive comments and formulate a position: perhaps one we can all agree on.
Ellen Paul. I am not sure what happened to her first post, we haven't actually deleted any as far as I am aware – I will check with our web team. I think she's right, links cause a hiccup. She also makes a point about faking photos, but not specimens. Unfortunately that is wrong; there are dozens of examples of fake specimens (actually hundreds)in Museums. I have been researching a popular book on Natural History fakes and forgeries for several years, and it is astounding how many there are. [Draft nearly ready for publication, but no publisher so far]
But Ellen Paul (and to a lesser extent even Richard Gibbons) is still missing the point. I have not claimed that specimens are not needed. I have said it is morally wrong, and scientifically unjustified to kill extremely rare species. That's all. If she or any one else disagree, please say so.
Andy Johnson over-eggs the scientific collectors. Some may be as he describes, but certainly not all. And he is still missing the point. Or is he? Are all these commentators saying that it is perfectly OK for scientists to kill very rare species. Read what Richard Porter has to say – and he is one of the most highly
respected field ornithologists in the Old World.[see comment no 27].
I have never had any particularly negative episodes with colectors, and i continue to collect for museums to this day. My days of killing specimens have long gone, but I still gather corpses, put themm in the freezer,skin,dry, pickle them etc. Check the Registers of the BM(NH) and you will see I am not anti collecting. I have made many of the points made in the comments here to those against collecting.
Au revoir
Mr. Burton,
Mr. Burton,
A statement has been released by RNOA, an organization that unites 21 governmental and non-governamental ornithology associations and birding groups.
For the entire statement of Colombian ornithologists, go here:
" 3. Regarding John Burton of the World Land Trust's comment in their publication, the Green Diary, defending Fundación Proaves by slandering the flawless work of Professor Gary Stiles as irresponsible. RNOA categorically refutes this accusation against of the character of Professor Stiles.
Professor Gary Stiles has played a very important role in Neotropical
ornithology, not only through his direct scientific contributions, but also by mentoring and inspiring several generations of ornithologists in Central and South America. His research has been fundamental to the success of several conservation initiatives, including the establishment of the conservation corridor connecting Braulio Carrillo National Park with La Selva Biological Reserve in Costa Rica. In Colombia his research supported the establishment of the Chiribiquete National Park (3162914.8 acres) and the
Yaigojé-Apaporis National Park (2619288.8 acres). His life is an example of professionalism, ethics, and commitment to science and biodiversity conservation.
To defame his professionalism and integrity is an affront to Colombian ornithology as well as Professor Stiles' colleagues around the world."
For Immediate Release, to the
For Immediate Release, to the general public: (spanish version below)
The National Network of Birdwatchers of Colombia (RNOA for its acronym in Spanish), is an organization that groups 21 non-governmental, regional and national organizations as well as university student groups working and studying wild birds and their habitats in Colombia. The philosophy that drives the RNOA is based on fair and equal participation of all its members. Therefore RNOA welcomes any institution that shares our goals and principles, and our passion for the study, appreciation and conservation of birds. Thanks to the commitment of its members with biodiversity and bird conservation in Colombia, in 2000 we formulated through a participatory exercise the National Strategy for the Conservation of Birds in Colombia. This document has guided actions as significant as the designation of almost 200 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the national territory. The Red Data Book of Birds of Colombia, published in 2002, was also the result of a participatory process in which many ornithologists and birdwatchers throughout the country contributed their records and knowledge. A second edition of this book also developed with the participation of the Colombian ornithological community is currently in preparation.
Over the last ten years, we have made important achievements in both the field of ornithology and science and conservation in general. These achievements are increasing the awareness of the public and building local capacities for the study and conservation of birds. RNOA, its member organizations and active sectors of Colombian civil society have been actively engaged in ornithology-centred activities over the last 20 years, using birds as tools for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity as a whole.
For all of these reasons, and given the unfortunate events related with the description in 2010 of a new species of the genus Grallaria, including the recent and biased sequence of messages and publications that have circulated in national and international media in relation to them, the board of directors of the RNOA informs that:
1. RNOA unconditionally supports the position of the Colombian
Association of Ornithology (Asociación Colombiana de Ornitología-ACO, a
member of RNOA), regarding the nomination of Grallaria urraoensis as a
new species, according to the editorial published in the peer reviewed
electronic journal Ornitologia Colombiana
2. RNOA does not support illegal activities, any actions that compromise the ethics of ornithological research, nor anything that threatens the dignity and honor of people and their rights. In consequence, RNOA does not support the unethical behavior of Fundación ProAves, an institution that has been questioned on previous occasions for their methods. In this case, they have distorted the situation by pointing fingers at the biologist, Diego Carantón, a young ornithologist that had every right to publish his discovery of a new species of Grallaria. We respectfully remind the community that moral rights are indispensable, inalienable, and indefeasible principles that have been flagrantly violated by ProAves in this situation.
3. Regarding John Burton of the World Land Trust's comment in their publication, the Green Diary, defending Fundación Proaves by slandering the flawless work
of Professor Gary Stiles as irresponsible. RNOA categorically refutes this accusation against of the character of Professor Stiles.
Professor Gary Stiles has played a very important role in Neotropical
ornithology, not only through his direct scientific contributions, but also
by mentoring and inspiring several generations of ornithologists in Central and South America. His research has been fundamental to the success of several
conservation initiatives, including the establishment of the conservation
corridor connecting Braulio Carrillo National Park with La Selva
Biological Reserve in Costa Rica. In Colombia his research supported the
establishment of the Chiribiquete National Park (3162914.8 acres) and the
Yaigojé-Apaporis National Park (2619288.8 acres). His life is an example
of professionalism, ethics, and commitment to science and biodiversity
conservation. To defame his professionalism and integrity is an affront to Colombian ornithology as well as Professor Stiles' colleagues around the
4. RNOA is a participatory, collegiate body that furthers
the development of Ornithology in Colombia. It reflects the
collective, serious and committed work and experience of its members throughout the country for over 20 years . Our work has enabled Colombian Ornithology to grow and gain the knowledge necessary to ensure the conservation of birds in our territory.
5. RNOA demands the respect deserved by the Colombian ornithological community and requests that, in the future, its opinion be taken into account before making accusations that put into question the integrity of any of its members. We sincerely hope that future conservation actions undertaken by Fundación ProAves, which we acknowledge and appreciate, will be developed according to ethical principles and through an open dialogue with Colombian Ornithologists.
RNOA Board of Directors
Mr. Burton,
Mr. Burton,
Do you want to talk about morality? Well, with all due respect I will tell you what most of us Colombians consider unmoral. I came across another blogpost in The Telegraph highlighting the conservation work of ProAves. In the note, Mr. Alonso Quevedo, President of ProAves says [WLT Editor's note - This quote has been removed as it was retracted by the Telegraph before this comment was posted]
You would not be surprised to find out that in Colombia negotiating with armed groups is ILLEGAL. Also, any penny that you give to those groups is directly translated into more deaths, more war, more drug production, more deforestation, and more loss of diversity. THAT Mr. Burton is what really is unethical and unmoral. What really upsets me about this Grallaria events is that ProAves by playing with their usual double standards basically destroyed the career of a young biologist that made a mistake. If you are condemning Caranton for having collected a specimen, you should also condemn ProAves for supporting the groups that have been bleeding Colombia and its biological resources for over 40 years.
Gustavo Bravo
this a common case when
this a common case when foreign researchers misjudge an excellent profesor and professional like GARY, just base in one side version of the story. As a biologist of colombia i consider to PROAVES as an organization that have their most important priorities in selling book and tourism to united states birdwhatchers.
Nature Kenya the East Africa
Nature Kenya the East Africa Natural History Soceity set up the Nairobi Museum in 1910. Today the Museum, is a leading government research institution whose curatorial strength is based on among many aspects the number of specimens in the various taxonomic collections. The collections are an invalauble contribution to science through training. Students and researchers do not always have to go to the wild to see wildlife if their studies just need observing specimens. So collecting in itself is not supposed to be a bad thing. So what is not good in collecting? I think collecting has to be scientific, should only be a small proportion of the wild population, should be managed through some kind of national policy/approvals, should help the species. So collecting should not be done if it is not helpful to conservation.
Collecting should be separated from ilegal trade of specimens/species.
As a life-long
As a life-long conservationist my core philosophy incorporates a loving respect for nature.
I recognize that Darwin and Audubon collected birds and did great work with those specimens given the limitations of science; however, in light of current DNA technology, I am deeply troubled and saddened by people who insist on "collecting" live specimens simply to be warehoused in some natural history museum. What makes this incident particularly tragic is that the species is on the verge of extinction. One would assume that a scientist would know better- apparently not.
Communities look to the scientific community for leadership so what message are we sending when biologists kill birds or
other wildlife while conservationists request that locals not hunt? This creates an obvious contradiction, which explains John Burton's sensible attention to this matter.
I greatly admire John Burton's herculean efforts to save the plant's ever dwindling biodiversity. As a consequence of this outrage I will double my financial support to World Land Trust.
Mr. Burton, your friends in the United States have the greatest respect and admiration for your tireless work in mitigating this present Sixth Mass Extinction Event. The world is a better place thanks to you, sir.
Respectfully yours,
Frank Friedrich Kling
Hi, Frank. Audubon shot
Hi, Frank. Audubon shot Passenger Pigeons, and he did not preserve all of the specimens he took. Still, he did some good work for his time. There is a gargantuan difference between hunting and the collection of specimens, and today's specimen-based science is making great strides in understanding and preserving biodiversity. "Current DNA technology" is the tip of the iceberg; give me a whole bird whenever possible. "Warehousing" is a cheap shot, given how important specimens are through time; there are an increasing number of really good retrospective studies that are aiding conservation efforts.
As I said in my earlier post, we are all on the same side as conservationists, and we need to refrain from shooting from the hip in a reactionary manner without carefully assembling the facts. You might enjoy reading more about these issues in these two papers, both available at my web site (www.kevinwinker.org):
Winker, K. 2004. Natural history museums in a post-biodiversity era. BioScience 54:455-459.
Winker, K. 2009. Reuniting phenotype and genotype in biodiversity research. BioScience 59:657-665.
See also the papers on subspecies. All relevant, and all reliant upon specimens. We do share your respect for nature, and we practice and advocate ethical treatment of animals (see citation in previous post).
Regards, Kevin Winker
Finally, I feel compelled to
Finally, I feel compelled to respond to "Paola Colombiana research biologist". Yes, ProAves does "sell books and tourism to American birdwatchers" in order to support reserve management and expansion, but no other organization in Colombia has done more to preserve Colombian habitat and species. To date, ProAves has established 19 reserves that encompass 57,000 acres in highly strategic and bio-diverse regions. Within the past two years ProAves created the 10,500 acre Roncesvalles reserve (education has provided an important anchor), which has prevented the extinction of the magnificent Yellow-Eared parrot and most recently a 5,500 acre reserve in the El Choco rainforest in which three new species of poison dart frogs was discovered.
Great blog. It's nice to see
Great blog. It's nice to see such an accurate articulation, I'm definitely bookmarking this. Keep up the good work!
A year after the above
A year after the above correspondence, I reviewed the whole lot. What comes through most clearly is how so many of the defenders of the right to kill rare birds seemed unable to actually read. They failed to read what I actually wrote, and despite clarifications, and apologies concerning interpretations of what I actually wrote about Stiles, continued to berate me about what they THOUGHT I wrote.
To me the correspondence was highly illuminating, but if I had to pick out one comment, and ask for all who claim to be conservationists to pin it over their desk, it would be the comment by Richard Porter.
John, you did the right thing
John, you did the right thing to clarify and send apologies to Dr. Stiles as he is an amazing ornithologist with vast knowledge of his field. The issue about killing or not birds won't be solved here.


text:
What does EG mean in Occupation & Positions?
This page is about the meanings of the acronym/abbreviation/shorthand EG in the Business field in general and in the Occupation & Positions terminology in particular.
Evil Genius
Find a translation for EG in other languages:
Select another language:
What does EG mean?
- eg
- .eg is the Latin alphabet country code top-level domain for Egypt. Any entity who wants to register a domain name ending with .eg must have a local representative or the domain name has to be hosted on Egyptian DNS servers. Egypt's Arabic alphabet ccTLD is .مصر. During the 2011 Egyptian protests, domain .eg was shut down by the government.
Discuss this EG abbreviation with the community:
Use the citation below to add this abbreviation to your bibliography:
"EG." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2018. Web. 26 Apr. 2018. <https://www.abbreviations.com/term/64487>.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The battle for the hearts and minds of smartphone buyers is getting bloody as the combatants -- Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, BlackBerry and others -- open their war chests and spend vast sums of money to take slivers of market share away from each other.
The guerrilla tactics to curry favor are already in play as seen in this video showing a "Microsoft employee" successfully talking the owner of a Samsung Galaxy S III out of her smartphone in exchange for a Windows Phone-based Lumia 920 (the fine print swears she's not an actor).
To the chagrin of Apple and its iOS mobile operating system, IDC reported last week that Android has gained market share at a faster rate than originally anticipated. "Android-based tablets expanded their share of the market notably in 2012, and IDC expects that trend to continue in 2013," the research firm said. "Android's share of the market is forecast to reach a peak of 48.8% in 2013 compared to 41.5% in IDC's previous forecast. Android's gains come at the expense of Apple's iOS, which is expected to slip from 51% of the market in 2012 to 46% in 2013."
The pressure is causing Apple, normally very crisp with its messaging, to make mistakes. My colleague Tom Claburn picked up on the meme in his coverage of Apple's recent "loss" in a war of words.
The battle is clearly intensifying.
The plethora of new hardware choices made available this spring alone promises to complicate an already somewhat challenging scenario for IT managers now wrestling with the bring your own device (BYOD) phenomenon. The situation was moderately manageable when it was just iPhone and iPad-toting employees begging for corporate email access. Although imperfect as an ActiveSync managed client (thank you Apple!), allowing iOS in addition to the then-corporate standard BlackBerrys was not a major sacrifice.
But once iOS got its foot in the door, it was only a matter of time before all sorts of devices running all sorts of operating systems demanded access. Thankfully, the challenge of managing heterogeneous pools of mobile devices resulted in the birth of a relatively new cottage industry (that of mobile device management, or MDM), which includes fast-maturing players like Soti, MobileIron and Airwatch (the actual list is much longer). Knowing that these MDM players need finer-grained access to the underlying device functionalities than what ActiveSync typically provides, the forward-thinking hardware players are building management APIs into their smartphones and tablets.
To date, Samsung appears to be the most forward thinking of the mobile device companies. It has built its SAFE and Knox management and security platforms into its devices to better serve the needs of enterprises and the MDM solutions providers that serve them. Earlier this year at CES, Tim Wagner, Samsung Mobile's VP and GM for enterprise sales and marketing, told me that Samsung believed so strongly in the importance of its management platforms that the company's ads for its devices would emphasize the manageability of their devices. Wagner made good on that promise.
As seen in the photo below that was recently captured off the wall at Boston's Logan Airport, Samsung is appealing to BYODers and IT managers alike with a SAFE-compliant ad for its Galaxy Note II phablet and Galaxy S III smartphone. The SAFE logo stands for "Samsung For Enterprise" and in Samsung's wildest dream, IT managers will tell employees that the only devices they can BYOD are ones that are SAFE-compliant.
Of course, setting a corporate standard like that wouldn't be in the true spirit of BYOD. But as BYODers attempt to introduce more devices to the corporate network, it may only be a matter of time before some boundaries have to be set in order to fulfill reasonable expectations of both support and compliance.


text:
QCAD - 2D CAD System.
Click here for a documentation of the DokuWiki formatting syntax that can be used in reports
Please search for existing tasks (also closed ones) before opening a new task.
Please make sure that you are using the latest Version of QCAD before posting a bug (menu Help > Check for Updates)
FS#747 - DXF import: dimension label
Attached to Project: QCAD
Opened by Andrew (andrew) - Monday, 14 January 2013, 14:07 GMT+2
Opened by Andrew (andrew) - Monday, 14 January 2013, 14:07 GMT+2
Add support for custom dimension labels created in 3rd party applications. Such labels may contain text that is stripped by QCAD.
This task depends upon


text:
Don't have an account? Sign up
By joining, or logging in via Facebook, you accept Change.org's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
3K supporters
May 20, 2013 — que salven a Bozawas
This petition had 3,260 supporters
We were unable to post to Facebook. If you still want to share this petition, please try again.
Copy the embed code to add this petition to a website.


text: © 1999 – 2018 Christie's International Real Estate all rights reserved.Powered by Gabriels Technology Solutions All information provided herein has been obtained from sources believed reliable, but may be subject to errors, omissions, change of price, prior sale, or withdrawal without notice. Christie's International Real Estate and its affiliates make no representation, warranty or guaranty as to accuracy of any information contained herein. You should consult your advisors for an independent verification of any properties.


text:
Nationwide Children's Hospital understands that coming to a hospital can be stressful. We have everything you need to know whether you are coming to stay or you are visiting a patient. Because when it's your child, everything matters to you.
Send a Staff eCard
If you want to express your appreciation to an employee, you can (and are encouraged). Through our eCard program, you can recognize our staff for doing the right thing.
We love our staff. How about you?


text:
Ozeki NG SMS Gateway sends and receives SMS, MMS, email, and voice messages via GSM modem connections or directly over the Internet (SMPP, UCP, CIMD2) to/from mobile phones. It is useful for SMS services like SMS notifications, two-way SMS systems, automated SMS services, SMS paging, SMS games, billing systems, email-to-SMS forwarding, premium rated SMS services, etc. It supports various APIs.
Enrollix manages enrollment of people to associations, communities, groups, classes, teams, magazines, and events like meetings, parties, etc. It collects detailed personal data of members and of their enrollments (with a possible fee), selects them according to any kind of filter, and produces a balance of the revenues which can be saved in a CSV (comma separated value) file. This file can be opened with a spreadsheet like Calc or Excel. It is possible to prepare different models of certificates (like a receipt or a certificate of membership) within the software and print them with the data of any member, with a possible progressive number (like a protocol) within it. It can print labels of addresses or lists of payments of the selected (filtered) members, and it's possible to save their postal addresses or all their personal data in a CSV file, or to copy their email addresses to the clipboard, to paste them into the recipient field of a new message. The personal data of each member may contain a picture, which is saved in a directory with the same name and path of the file in use. It is possible to export selected members from the file in use to another Enrollix file, or to import all the members from it. Each member and his or her enrollments are internally identified by a unique mark (a UID number).
Aspose.Email for Java is a Java component for reading and writing Microsoft Outlook MSG files without using Outlook. It can create and update MSG files, and retrieve properties such as subject, body, recipients, attachments, sender information, MAPI properties. It can be used with Web or desktop applications.
Quabro is an arcade game in which the goal is to destroy colored blocks with a ball using four paddles on each side of the screen to steer the ball and keep it on the field. It is inspired by Breakout and Arkanoid, as well as several of clones created later. It is written in Python using the Pygame library.
Aspose.OCR for Java is a character recognition component that allows developers to add OCR functionality in their Java Web applications, Web services, and Windows applications. It provides a simple set of classes for controlling character recognition tasks. It helps developers to work with image files from within their Java applications. It allows developers to extract text from images and read font and style information quickly, saving time and effort involved in developing an OCR solution from scratch.
Aspose.Pdf for SharePoint is a flexible solution which allows developers to export lists, individual list items, and SharePoint Wiki pages to the PDF file format from a SharePoint document library. It helps developers convert files to PDF from within their applications, without having Adobe Acrobat installed. Users only need to have MS SharePoint Server 2010 configured and running over their system to perform its installation. Aspose.Pdf for SharePoint supports SharePoint Foundation and Server.
robonobo is social music sharing and downloading software. It allows you to share your friends' music libraries and playlists, stream the audio instantly, and download the file in the background so you can burn it, export it to your music player, or do whatever you want with it. You can import your friends list and share links to your playlists via Facebook and Twitter.
Aspose.Email for .NET is a set of components allowing developers to easily implement email functionality within their ASP.NET Web applications, Web services, and Windows applications. It supports the Outlook PST, EML, MSG, and MHT formats. It allows developers to work with SMTP, POP, FTP, and MS Exchange servers. It supports mail merge, iCalendar, customized header and body, header information, embedded files, Twitter, and much more. It makes it easy to work with HTML or plain text email messages and their attachments.
SourceAFIS is a fingerprint recognition/matching SDK (library), or more generally an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). It essentially compares two fingerprints and decides whether they belong to the same person. It can quickly search a large database of registered fingerprints. It comes with an easy-to-use API (pure .NET and Java) plus assorted applications and tools.


text:
Delivery and returns
Home delivery
- £3.99 Next day and nominated day home delivery* - order up until 7pm
- Free when you spend over £100.
- £3.50 Standard home delivery** - get your order within 3-5 working days.
- Free when you spend over £50. Discount applied at checkout page.
- We can't deliver wine internationally or to our stores for collection.
- Tell me more about UK delivery >
- Delivery exclusions:
- *Next day delivery exclusions >
- **Standard home delivery exclusions >
Returns and refunds
If you'd like to speak to us about your wine please contact us.
Refunds can only be given in accordance with your legal rights. For example, if the wine you've ordered isn't of satisfactory quality or as described.
Press reviews
"A Chardonnay from Marks & Spencer has been named the best in the world at the Decanter World Wine Awards.The British Chain's Mâcon-Villages 2014 received the award for best under £15, having been judged by a panel of 240 judges, including world champion sommelier Gerard Basset. Costing £10, it is one of just 35 wines from almost 16,000 of the world's best to receive an International Trophy in the awards."
Louis Doré, Independent Online , 11th June 2015
"A wine from Marks & Spencer has been named the world's best chardonnay under £15 at a prestigious wine competition. The British retailer's own-label Mâcon-Villages 2014 , which costs £10, was awarded the international trophy by a panel of 240 top wine experts at the Decanter World Wine Awards."
Leah Hyslop, Telegraph Online , 11th June 2015
Terms and Conditions
WEBSITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS - Standard
These website terms and conditions ("Website Terms") apply to your use of the Marks & Spencer website at www.marksandspencer.com (the "Website"). You must read these Website Terms carefully, and we recommend that you print and keep a copy for your future reference. By accessing, browsing, using or registering with the Website, you confirm that you have read, understood and agree to these Website Terms in their entirety. If you do not agree to these Website Terms in their entirety, you must not use this Website.
Privacy Policy
These Website Terms supplement (and are in addition to) the terms of our Privacy Policy. Our Privacy Policy explains what personal information we collect about you when you use the Website, and you can view our Privacy Policy online by clicking here. Please note that when you agree to these Website Terms you shall be deemed also to have read, understood and agreed to our Privacy Policy in its entirety.
Other applicable terms and conditions
If you order a Marks & Spencer product or service through the Website, our General Terms and Conditions of Sale will also apply. Depending on the product or service ordered, our Additional Terms and Conditions of Sale may also apply. You can view our General Terms and Conditions of Sale and our Additional Terms and Conditions of Sale below.
If you are a corporate customer, then our Terms and Conditions of Sale for Corporate Orders may also apply. By ordering a Marks & Spencer product or service through the Website, you shall be deemed also to have read, understood and agreed to our General Terms and Conditions of Sale and (where applicable) our Additional Terms and Conditions of Sale.
Your use of this Website
You must only use this Website for lawful purposes, and you must not use it in a way that infringes the rights of anyone else or that restricts or inhibits anyone else's enjoyment of the Website.
You may use, download and print content on the Website solely for your own personal use or internal business purposes. Other than for your own personal use or internal business purposes, you may not without our prior written consent:
copy, reproduce, use or otherwise deal with any content on the Website;
modify, distribute or re-post any content on the Website for any purpose;
reproduce, crawl, frame, link to or deep-link into this Website on or from any other website;
use the content of the Website for any commercial exploitation whatsoever.
If you are a corporate customer and would like to request permission to use photography or other content from our Business Solutions website for corporate use, please contact our Business Solutions team on 0870 6080505.
More details
Case includes
- Product information
- Macon Villages
- Vintage: 2016
- A fresh and fruity white made from 100% Chardonnay, with a really appealing, lively scent of apples and lemons and a hint of ripe, rounded peach on the finish. This is an excellent example of modern, unoaked white Burgundy.
- About this bottle: This youthful, bright Burgundian Chardonnay is made exclusively for Marks & Spencer by the winemaker Georges Brichon of Cave de Prissé in south Burgundy. This wine has be fermented and aged in stainless steel tanks instead of the oak barrels used so often for Chardonnay, so it has a fresh, dry and relatively light appeal.
- Grape Variety: 100% Chardonnay
- Country of origin: France
- Region: Burgundy
- More information
- Bottle size: 750 ml
- Alcohol content: 13 %
- Alcohol units per bottle: 9.8
- Alcohol units per serving: 1.6
- Serving Size: 125 ml
- Allergens: Sulphites
- Stopper type: Screw Cap
- Bottling address: Vignerons Des Grandes Vignes – 71 960 Prisse, France
Not available for international delivery.
We make every effort to deliver you the same vintage wine as the one advertised.
Sometimes we only have limited stock and may have to send you another vintage. If you're not happy with the wine you receive please contact us.
Licensing Act 2003: It is an offence to buy or attempt to buy alcoholic liquor if you are under the age of 18
Please drink responsibly
Free nominated day delivery on Wine orders over £100. Conditions apply.
- Offer applies to nominated day delivery within the UK for all wine products from marksandspencer.com when you spend £100 or more online in a single order delivered to a single address. Orders containing gift cards and lunchtogo are excluded.
- Marks & Spencer offers a wide selection of wines from around the world, suitable for a range of tastes and occasions.
- Our extensive range includes everything from full-bodied red wine to crisp and refreshing white wine, plus delicious Champagne and sparkling wine.
- If you enjoy the finer things in life, take a look at our Fine Wines. These are premium styles from the world's most prestigious wineries, from esteemed classics to iconic New World discoveries.
- For high quality wines delivered direct to your door, the M&S Wine Club offers great value, and it's completely hassle-free. Our experts handpick the very best M&S wines. There's no commitment or contract and you can order as many or as few cases as you wish.
- If you're looking for the perfect gift for the wine connoisseur in your life, our fantastic selection of presentable wine gifts make the perfect gift, whatever the occasion.
- At M&S, you'll also find a delicious selection of traditional real ales, beer and cider, plus a fantastic selection of spirits, including whisky, vodka and brandy.
- We aim to provide great tasting wine at affordable prices – make sure you don't miss our fantastic wine offers to find some great deals.


text:
This article was printed from mlb, originally published .
Read more news at: https://www.mlb.com/dodgers/news
Hanley enjoying time playing for Dominican Republic
HERMOSILLO, Mexico -- Hanley Ramirez was all smiles Saturday. His Dominican team, the reigning champion Leones del Escogido, had just moved to 2-0 in this Caribbean Series with a 6-2 win over Puerto Rico, and the heralded infielder was sharing laughs with coaches, engaging with fans and even yucking it up with the Spanish press here at Estadio Sonora.
About 750 miles northwest, though, a Dodgers front office grows uneasy as its prized asset continues to play games outside the U.S. and away from shortstop.
Ramirez, naturally oblivious, seemingly feels none of that.
Only national pride.
"It's all about representing the Dominican Republic," he said in Spanish. "I give everything for my country. You see a lot of players here in Mexico do the same. That's a beautiful thing, when you sport your flag and your country across your chest."
Coming off a season that began with a move to third base with the Marlins and ended with a return to shortstop in Los Angeles, Ramirez's national pride has been unquestioned, suiting up for his native Dominican Republic in winter ball, the Caribbean Series and, next month, the World Baseball Classic.
So, heading into the 2013 campaign -- when he looks to improve on last year's uncharacteristic .257/.322/.437 slash line -- Ramirez will have a lot of game action under his belt. Problem is, very little of it will come at shortstop -- a position he's struggled at the last few years and one the Dodgers expect him to play in 2013.
A minor shoulder injury relegated Ramirez to designated-hitter duties in winter ball, and in this seven-day tournament, with Miguel Tejada the starting shortstop and Julio Lugo a suitable backup, he'll mostly stay there. He probably won't get any time at shorstop during the Classic, either. Not with Jose Reyes and Erick Aybar on the team.
And that event could keep Ramirez out of Dodgers camp from late February to mid-March.
"It's really hard to say, 'Don't play for your country,'" Dodgers manager Don Mattingly said at a charity event this offseason. "I'm kind of torn. Selfishly, I'd like Hanley to be in camp playing short every day."
But Escogido manager Audo Vicente, who has a long-standing relationship with Ramirez, stresses the three-time All-Star will be fine at shortstop because of his athleticism and his familiarity with the position. In fact, Vicente plans to give him a rare start there on Sunday, when his squad takes on Mexico -- now 1-1 after a 4-3 walk-off loss to Venezuela on Saturday -- in a game that will air on ESPN2 at 5 p.m. MT.
While watching Ramirez in this setting, Vicente sees a player who's motivated to return to prominence.
"He knows the expectations he's going to face," Vicente said in Spanish. "He's a player who has established himself in the big leagues, but he wants to keep putting up good numbers. He wants to keep having success in the big leagues, and that's why he's preparing so hard in the offseason and playing in the Classic and here in the Caribbean Series.
"I feel like he's going to have a really good season this year, based on how I've seen him work."
Will playing so much in the winter and spring cause Ramirez to tire out or perhaps break down, as Major League Baseball's long regular season ensues? Or will it provide the kind of repetition that can lead to a bounce-back year?
That remains to be seen, but Lugo believes these games are about more than just national pride for Ramirez.
"I think he understands that he needs to play," Lugo said. "He's been hurt. And the only way you can stay in baseball shape is by playing. I give him credit, because it's not easy to play in winter ball, play all these games, and then think about playing all those games in the regular season."
The Dodgers will be stacked this regular season. They have Adrian Gonzalez, Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier and Carl Crawford in their lineup, Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke in their rotation, and more than $210 million tied to their payroll.
"The front office has put together an incredible team," Ramirez said. "They've put together the best team in the game. Now we have to get the job done on the field."
And to do that, they'll need a healthy, productive and defensively adept Ramirez.


text:
|Makbule Amachree finished with a stellar 17 points, 10 rebounds and four steals for TED Ankara (Ted Ankara)
In a busy and dramatic night of action in EuroCup Women, five more teams booked their spots in the last sixteen of the competition to join the seven teams who had already qualified for the next phase.
There was nowhere more nerve-shredding than in Belarus, where the pressure was on Olimpia Grodno who had to win their Group B match-up against group leaders and the already qualified Hainaut Basket.
That was because earlier in the day, TED Ankara had stormed past Lotto Young Cats, 81-64, thanks to a stellar 17 points, 10 rebounds and four steals from Makbule Amachree.
Olimpia knew that a win would punch their ticket, but with TED Ankara ready to pounce should they miss their opportunity, Aliaksandr Shimkovyak and his players had to stay focused and hold their nerve in what was an epic struggle to make the next phase.
They eventually did prevail, but it was only after a gripping and spine-tingling 70-65 overtime success. Barely able to shoot over 30% from the floor, Nadzeya Drozd was the saviour with 22 points in an extraordinary contest where it rained three-pointers at the end of regulation as Hainaut threatened to spoil the party. Amanda Houts had five triples in her 19-point haul for the visitors.
Spartak Noginsk knew they had no option but to win against Group C rivals Tarbes if they wanted to keep their qualification hopes alive, but the French visitors ended their hosts' dreams and booked their own berth in the Eighth Finals with a convincing 65-47 win.
Tarbes held their opponent to a meagre five points during the last five minutes to sail into the last sixteen of the tournament. Paoline Salagnac impressed the most with an excellent 16 points.
The result also sparked celebrations in a certain coastal city in Southern Turkey where Mersin rejoiced in also making it to the next phase of the competition - courtesy of Spartak Noginsk losing.
In fact, there was plenty of rejoicing in Turkey full-stop, since both Kayseri Kaski spor and Adana Botas also progressed.
Kayseri Kaski spor routed Telge Basket 80-61 in Sodertalje to finish top of Group E with 2012 EuroLeague Women Final Eight MVP Asjha Jones pouring in 20 points to go with seven rebounds.
|Courtney Paris once more performed impressively for Adana Botas
Another phenomenal performance by Courtney Paris helped Adana Botas to ease past Dunav8806 Ruse 84-70 in Group F. The center had a monumental 22 points and 18 rebounds but was also well supported by a couple of nice performances by Christi Thomas and Ayse Akinci.
However, one Turkish team who were not celebrating was Antakya. Playing at home against Vilnius Kibirkstis, they missed a golden opportunity to advance with a poor finish seeing them lose 70-66. Rima Valentiene tortured the hosts, going five-for-five from downtown on her way to 18 points.
However, Antakya can still make amends by going through next week if they can beat MBK Ruzomberok in the final game - if not, there would be a three-way tie in the Group. If Antakya win they advance to the next stage of the competition alongside the Lithuanians, but they can still afford to lose by a significant margin to assure they advance with MBK Ruzomberok.
Finally, in the other games to be played on Thursday night, Satu Mare beat SISU in Group A by 86-73 as Utaya Drye claimed 20 points, six rebounds and six assists, whilst in Group D, TSV Wasserburg had little trouble in seeing off BBC Sint-Katelijne-Waver 87-58, thanks mainly to 10 points and 15 rebounds from Melissa Dalembert.