In 2015, the story of how researchers killed an elusive moustached kingfisher (Actenoides bougainvillei) on a Papua New Guinea research expedition. This drew the collective ire of the world’s media outlets. The species is only known from three female specimens from the early and mid-20^th century so it came as a shock to the public and some fellow conservationists when it was discovered that Dr Chris Filardi and his team, on behalf of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) euthanized the only male of the species ever to be captured.

Dr Filardi defended the decision noting that it was in keeping with the gold standard of standard zoological practice and also claimed that the bird would be a valuable voucher specimen; also claiming that the population in the area is likely sustainable. Read his defence here.

Voucher specimens are collected for research purposes by various institutions; many of Darwin’s famous finches can be found at the Natural History Museum in London for example. Similarly, before a species can be formally described, it first requires a ‘type specimen’, a preserved individual which partly serves as hard evidence for that species existence. For the last 200 hundred years this manner of collecting species has been the most accurate way of collating and comparing them, even today scientists still utilize the large back catalogue of specimens for important research.

However in this age of photography, 3D printing and DNA sequencing is the collection of dead specimens really a priority when dealing with endangered species? The moustached kingfisher is classed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and puts its population estimate to just 250-999 individuals, owing to habitat loss and small home range. Also, notably, the IUCN estimates it’s population to be lower than Dr Filardi’s estimate of over 4000 individuals.

So will scientists always kill and collect an animal even if it’s endangered? No, in fact in Somalia 1988, biologist Edmund Smith and his team broke the mould when they discovered a rare never before seen bird. Smith captured the bird near the town Bulo Burti and strongly suspected that it was a new species of shrike, due to it’s unique colouring.

This is usually where the story ends for the captive bird; however Smith decided not to kill it, ducking a 200 year old trend in zoological nomenclature. Concerned that the bird may be critically endangered he studied it in captivity before releasing it back into the wild. Using DNA techniques, Smith later confirmed that the bird was a new species of shrike and aptly named it the Bulo Burti Boubou, its Latin name of Laniarius liberatus is a nod to the bird’s liberation. For the first time in zoological history a new species had been captured, described, named and released back into the wild without a type specimen. Instead, various ‘type materials’ such as moulted feathers, blood samples and DNA were used. Many high profile scientists including the former director of science at Bird Life International, Dr Nigel Collar, ridiculed the decision, donning a similar stance to Dr Filardi.

There was a final twist in the tale of the Bulo Burti Boubou bird, however. In 2008 far more advanced DNA sequencing techniques had been developed since Smith published his findings in 1991 and it was discovered that the Bulo Burti Boubou was not a new species at all, just a very rare colour morph of the Somali boubou (Laniarius erlangeri), a species of shrike. In this case, a dead specimen was not needed for detailed taxonomic analysis, surely going some way to support Smith’s decision to only collect type material and not a full bird.  

So in summary, yes there is an alternative to killing rare or new species for use in museum collections and no the zoology police will not track you down if you choose the alternative option, as Smith did – there will be some barbed emails though no doubt! No matter which option you choose you will certainly face ridicule from your peers, the public or both as DrFilardi and Smith found out.

Being standard practice, the moustached kingfisher probably won’t be the last collection casualty we hear of in the coming years, we may have to    wait a little while longer for another case like the Bulo Burti Boubou, however.

Who knows, maybe Dr Filardi’s decision to keep the kingfisher as a type specimen is a sad admission that the species is on a crash course with extinction either way.

Of course, it is easy to grandstand behind our screens whilst field workers, like Dr Filardi and team, are in the field making a difference but what do you think? Should zoology adopt a kinder method of type specimens, or continue to adhere to gold standard of species collection? Share your comments below.