Even in an era of Molecular techniques specimen collections for conventional taxonomy are required. As molecular biologist consistently search for a taxonomist who could identify particular species. Based on specimen collection the species can be identified and reference can be established. As we know ~5.5 million species of plants and animals are still waiting to be discovered. Therefore the role of conventional taxonomy is important to discover species not known to Sciences. However it is important to understand population status of known species. And collection should be done very cautiously so that scientific collection may not affect any threatened and rare species.

I don't think that "traditional taxonomists" usually kill more animals or plants than molecular biologists...

I think it important to realize that an animal is more than it's DNA. Animal populations consist of individual phenotypes. Museums should collect these, as before - but should of course take care and consider pros and cons when dealing with endangered species or populations. We still need both "type specimens" (despite this being in principle a pre-Darwinian idea) and a reasonable range of phenotypes/individuals. And we need it from different geographical locations and times. We need skeletons for body size, bird skins for coloration etc, and eggs for various purposes. What should, however, be possible is a greater extent of collaboration between museums in such efforts. I'm not a museum guy, but think some such concerted efforts are currently underway. In sum, I don't think DNA and other molecular information makes specimen collection redundant. We need both.

To my mind this is a non-negotiable. Vouchers are essential for rigorous scientific practise, and I would reject any manuscript I review if there are no vouchers cited and detailed as to where they are housed. I refer you to the article by Pleijel et al. (2008) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48 (1): 369–371. Note that (as these authors also state) a voucher need not be an entire dead organism (but sometimes that is ideal, but wholesale population slaughter would never be defensible). In addition, with the increasing realisation that there is an aweful lot of cryptic diveristy with a species that molecular methods can reveal, careful and strategic sampling of a species (multiple representatives of a single "species") is also recommended, so as to ascertain / test for species monophyly. This would mean that a species (sometimes rare perhaps) would possibly have to have a number of individuals sacrificed, unless

one were to use non-lethal (eg blood samples) or non-invasive methods (eg faecal samples) to obtain DNA, and then perhaps photographic evidence as a voucher would suffice.

Collection of specimens is a needed practise for taxonomy, and in last analysis, for conservation. It is important to warrant that specimens are housed in natural history collections, since they are often the only way to tie molecular information to organisms and to communities. I feel that the simple use of photographs and tissue sample cannot provide a solid base for taxonomy. There are already many discussions on the argument, but it is also important to question that often (too often) the claim that collection for scientific purposes could be a threat leading to extinction local populations is also largely unsupported by solid data. The same is also valid for collection for the pet-trade. Remaining in the herpetological field, I did not find any published evidence (including data, and not only pinions) that the collection of a species for non-trophic purposes has led it to extinction. The few cases that are sometimes quoted are not backed by data evidence, and also often refer to species living in sites already compromised from an ecological point of view. In such cases the collection becomes only one (and possibly the last) cause of habitat alteration. But collection in healthy habitats usually seems quite ininfluent. There are observations supporting this for dendrobatid frogs and for poison frogs of the genus Mantella.

I agree with Ram. However, if it is for taxonomy purposes, I don't see why we would need to do 'REPEATED scientific collections' as stated in the first message. The description of specie is usually based on few specimens (even single specimens sometimes). So 'REPEATED scientific collections' that are so intensive that they could threatened a particular species are unlikely to be conducted by museums for taxonomic purposes. In ecology such collections can be conducted for the study of species inventory, population genetics, phylogeography, local adaptations etc. For most of these I would argue that non-invasive molecular techniques or environmental DNA sampling could be applied.

Paradoxically, it may be particularly important to collect some specimens from species on the verge of extinction. Simply because it may else become too late. Then, at least, we have specimens (and DNA) for historical analyses. Animals do die out, and will continue to do so, with or without our "help". We should keep records of those that were here.

Colleagues, I think that endangered species have to be discussed separately: they need special technologies to study in molecular, ecological and morphological sense, keeping safe & sustainable their populations in wild nature.

Concerning all other (mass) species: taxonomy is a developing knowledge. It means: what is today the same (one) widely distributed species, tomorrow may be considered as a group of independent (valid) species. Of course we need to collect them repeatedly and retrieve all data from the alive or museum materials in all standard aspects: morphology, DNA, proteins, ecology, development, pathogenicity , host-parasite relations, symbionts, taxonomically important images and videos, etc.

In this era of rapid environmental changes, continuing to (responsibly) collect animals to be safeguarded in museums as vouchers is fundamentally important for our current and future study of biodiversity and evolution, and the conservation of wildlife.

A voucher specimen, or series of specimens, is much more than a source of DNA. For example:

-A specimen is still the only valid way to prove species identity. Documenting the biodiversity of our world is not complete. We are still finding new species, and it is not always obvious at the moment when the researcher is in the field that the animal(s) being handled are new to science.

-A specimen or series can be compared to other populations (in space or time) to look at differences in morphology, which may represent adaptations. Right now the global environment is changing rapidly, and it is likely that at least some populations are adapting to that change. This can only be demonstrated by comparing individuals directly from different time points, and DNA alone is not enough.

-A geographically referenced specimen proves that a species was present at a particular place. The actual distribution of many species, even in just the last few hundred years, is not well known, and is constantly an issue with regard to conservation. (Does community X have a responsibility to protect their local population of species A, even though Grandpa never saw it when he was a kid?) Distributions of species are continuing to change, and the issue of where species are naturally distributed, and what environments they can and have inhabited, will continue to be important in constructing and implementing conservation plans.

-Although museum specimens have traditionally been valued for their morphology, as technology progresses we are finding more and new ways to use the specimens to study changes in populations, such as DNA and stable isotopes. New, finer scale morphological analyses are also being developed. I expect new ways to use this important resource to be developed by forthcoming generations of biologists.

In studying how the world has changed, through the study of how populations and species have changed, we have depended heavily of the specimens left in museums by our scientific predecessors. It is now our turn to document the state of our world, and this includes procuring and safeguarding vouchers for future scientific generations.

That said, I hope museums are not "still collecting animals as done centuries ago", but incorporating new advances and technology into these collections, including GPS coordinates and DNA/ RNA samples. The more information associated with each individual, the more valuable it is.

Well, several times, the size of a specimen collection is given too much weight. Size is important, however, one needs to focus on the 'quality' of collections- how far and wide, etc. If a species is rare/endangered its presence outside the collection is more important than in the collection. However, non-destructive and DNA technologies come in handy. Thus, I do not think there Is a categorical answer to the question, but one has to be make decisions on the go. Making such decisions while in the filed was what we were taught and then we taught others, I still consider the most important thing in PGR science training that started around later 1970s to early 1980s.

The compelling case for the need for vouchers, as Nigel Barker indicated above, has been made repeatedly in the literature. A good example is the paper by Hosking 1996 attached here. I think the need for and power of vouchers clear cut, but not obvious to those who publish in journals (common in ecological journals and not uncommon in evolutionary biology journals) that allow authors to publish without any reference whatsoever to vouchers. How can that be? I think the answer is pretty obvious and typically has more to so with habits/sociology/training/role models than science/arguments/evidence. Simply, those that think that vouchers are redundant have not been taught the value of them by their lecturers and supervisors and this is reinforced by the apparent lack of need in various journal to provide evidence of them. Faced with limited time and money, they would say "why bother; I can publish in A grade journals without vouchers".

OK, I am a botanist and I expect the vertebrate zoologists, in particular, to take a different line on vouchers. At least, that's what I thought. Last time I took a class of students of systematics on a tour behind the scenes at the oldest zoological museum in Australia (the oldest scientific institution in Australia is the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney), I asked the question of the curator who was showing us the bird and mammal collection a devil's advocate question: "are vouchers really needed for vertebrates". To my surprise the answer was "yes, there are only two animals in Australia which people don't get wrong". I think they were the platypus and the echidna! When it comes to plants, I think the answer is, there is no room for complacency and vouchers are always needed.

The real issue is how do we get the resources into the system so that there are sufficient systematists employed at museums and herbaria and that there are sufficient funds to the infrustructure to cope with the necessary collections? If both of those were not limiting, then we could develop good quality assurance in biological and biodiversity studies and surveys and this would also drive a massive improvement in our knowledge of and ability to manage and conserve biodiversity. It would also drive the demand for training and skills in systematics and ecology at universities.

Species do not become extinct because serious scientist collect vouchers! Commercial trade and habitat destruction are the main reasons. Science can help to identify such threats and rise the public awareness of the problem.

However, in cases of endangered vertebrates with low reproduction rates it is in fact not advisable to collect vouchers. But I doubt that responsible museums, universities and scientist attempt to collect them without very specific justification.

Over-regulation of scientific field work (what might include the responsible collection of voucher specimens) has rather hampered success in conservation biology in the last years. It is actually not acceptable and not justified that the non-commercial, but societally beneficial scientific work has to fulfill the same or higher authorization requirements than the commercial exploitation or destruction of habitats.

Without the direct contact with biological specimens and the direct observation of biodiversity people will loose interest in them. This would lead into disinterest in nature and its protection.

Specimen collections need to be in line with the scientific method - meaning that the collections are made in order to address specific questions regarding distributions and/or genetics, and then properly archived in institutions so that the material will be available to future researchers with new questions. In many cases these objectives can be made with tissue samples that do not necessarily require the sacrifice of the entire animal/plant - but again it needs to be question based research. All that aside, our museums and herbaria represent an invaluable resource for addressing scientific questions; contributing material to these collections has incalculable value.

That´s not true at all in Amazonia, where even new species of primates are being described every year. The real conservation issue here is forest destruction. The possible impact of scientific collecting in places such as the Amazon is laughable when compared to that posed by habitat destruction. And those news species are being described because of scientific collecting, which now includes tissue collecting, making it possible to get DNA of those news creatures. More on this, with a particular focus on birds, can be found in (unfortunately, I have no PDF of this book chapter just yet):

Aleixo, A. 2009. Knowledge gaps, research priorities, and future perspectives on bird conservation in

the Brazilian Amazon, p. 55-69. In: Important Bird Areas in Brazil, Part II - Amazonia, Cerrado, and Pantanal [A. C. de Lucca, P. E. Develey, G. A. Bencke, and J. M. Goerck, orgs.]. SAVE Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil.

Really, it depends on the kind of organism. Elephants? probably not. Insects? definitely.

I feel we should treat biodiversity and wildlife at par. Collecting specimens should be restricted to some 1-2 prime institutions only in each country. As I have seen a lot of specimens fauna & flora are lying uncared in a number of museum and herbarium, I feel there should be a mandate to move collections to a centralised and air conditioned buildings of some select institutions in each country. Otherwise a lot of specimens (fauna-flora including TYPE; voucher specimens) will be lost. There is a dire need to do chemical and DNA finger printing of the collected/stored specimens on a priority basis, to preserve biodiversity. Government of a country should authorise by issuing licences to some institutions (1-2)for collecting, preserving and storing specimens for museum and herbarium

It is obviously important, I would say "central", to remember that specimens were live individuals. So, it is crucial that collecting is considered with care. Not for the aspects regarding the species extinction (which is unlikely) but for respect to the individuals.

That paper is really controversial....

It would be a lot easier morally if we were permitted to collect recently deceased individuals (e.g. from roads) in an ad hoc fashion but that is not permitted here in Queensland, Australia. Changes to these regulations are not the solution but they would assist in enhancing collections of rarely seen species that inhabit areas with few scientists (with collection permits).

I agree that museum vouchers must be collected for verification on morphological and genetic species, which we have found in some species of mammals in Southeast Asia. These specimens must be collected with legal permits for the management authorities (federal government and local authorities). For foreign scientists working in foreign country, training of local counterparts or having local institution as an active team members are important for capacity building of local scientists.

There are more issues than just collecting samples for scientific purposes.

In 30 years of research work, I have seen many immoral acts of researchers and biologists dealing with biological materials. There are cases that foreign biologists are publishing papers based on materials collected illegally (e.g. being a tourist collecting plants and insects by roadsides); or engaging honorary authors to provide tissue samples but the real work being done elsewhere. The local management authorities and biologist did not benefit in that kind of the collecting and research.

There are also some foreign biologists acquiring legal samples but the local biologists who supplied the samples as well theoretical concepts are not fully acknowledged. I another case specimens were shipped to another foreign facilities under the term of "exchange program", while we send the samples, the foreign institutions later said that "our facility does not meet their minimum requirements" and that deprived us for further work.

Now I have entered into an agreement with foreign biologists on transfer of voucher/biological specimens, publications, authorship (with scientific contributions) and acknowledgements on the permits and persons assisting the work who are not qualified being on the author line. With this kind of active collaboration, we are able to train two PhD students and they benefitted by publishing in ISI and SCOPUS indexed journals.

Yes, I support on collecting of legal museum samples for further taxonomic studies and references purposes, and for foreign researchers to collaborate with local institutions for capacity building to train the younger local biologists at BSc, MSc and PhD levels.

I agree with Steven Newmaster

It depends on the conservation status, extent of research works, sample size, population structure of the species in the particular area. Collecting samples for researches, museum species, to my knowledge, is not threatening the species to a large extent. However, we should deal with much care about the critically endangered species with very small population..

As an ecologist and environmental scientist I feel that the identification and characterisation of species and their locations are essential; this will require the collection of specimen. There are a range of organisations (not just museums) that still collect and store specimen and materials, some such as us here in UK archive samples of predatory birds collected after their death (see https://wiki.ceh.ac.uk/display/pbms/Home) – luckily that is legal in UK! What we recognise is that if everyone collects samples it will increase pressure on species as well as costs and time. To improve efficiency we are trying to organise a web facility that will inform people about who holds what where, so reducing the need for over collecting. For data, similar schemes have been developing for the last decade or so with systems such as the UK Earth Observation Framework (http://www.ukeof.org.uk/index.aspx?cookieConsent=A). We have held a couple of meetings and are seeking buy in by collection holders, interest from potential specimen users and (of course) sponsorship. This won’t be set up tomorrow, but we are hopeful to make progress over the next couple of years. I’m afraid this is quite parochial (we tend to think of UK), but we are seeking collaboration with colleagues overseas who are both ahead of us and see the benefits of the approach.

MT Abdullah wrote:

"There are cases that foreign biologists are publishing papers based on materials collected illegally (e.g. being a tourist collecting plants and insects by roadsides)"

Collection on the roadside illegal? That certainly does not prevent any locals interested doing the same, does it?

I wouldn't mind any knowledgeable scientist from abroad collecting on roadsides in my country, when traveling. The results, if published, are available to everybody.

Indeed the impact of collection can only be evaluated within the context of a miriad of factors which many are already mentioned. I work with microscopic invertebrates(nematodes) and they are of little concern to conservation issues, although there are documents cases of extinction. Also, I agree that the benefits of collections is immense, if utilized appropriately. The question is how often are type collections used by scientists, and what should be the balance between effort spent of collecting, archiving, and maintaining the collection versus its use? I recently reviewed the taxonomic literature of a decade in my field to see if taxonomists actually made use of type speciments for comparative purposes, the result was shokng: only 2.5% of the publicatoins made use of type specimens. There are many reasons why collections are not used by taxonomists and my view is we should focus more on making types more accessible through digitization.Also, the life span of type collection, espeically soft-bodied invertebrates, could be long but is limited. With the current rate of deterioration, we may lose many of the specimens in nematode collections over a 50 yr period. The other question is how are these types supporting the molecule-based, fast rate of ecological and environmental research?

I think that the method of specimen collection should be innovatived.

For most insects, it is quite impossible to identify them just taking a photograph. You need to put them under the binocular microscope for identification. Of course, we are all dreaming of the day when we could just take a leg, put it in a portable molecular machine and get the name in a couple of seconds. But, when you check the number of misidentifications on Genebank, for example, this day is not tomorrow....

For the time being, collections of specimen are still necessary for systematics purposes, for studying the evolution of faunas in relation to global changes.... and these samplings are nothing in comparison with the number of insects smashed on the front-window of your car.

It is also true, that especially for entomology, over-collection of specimens is often done. This is because the collection of insects is addressed to refurbish private and public collections. Usually the collector collects more than needed and sells or exchange the insects. While I do not believe that such an activity has an impact on natural populations and species it is also evident that it is quite un-ethical. The collection of individuals must be maintained as low as possible, especially because it is not only a matter of conservation biology but also of ethics. Killing even a single specimen of a common species cannot be accepted if it is not backed by a real scientific need.

I completely agree with Franco remarks. I am always shocked when I see those exchanges of beautiful insects in "Entomology Fairs" just for money... this is not acceptable.

I am a colleague of Eyualem working with plant parasitic nematodes. I agree with him adding a note: CBD regulates of conservation of endangered species and territories, but for scientists (taxonomists) not only types (holotypes) of species are important but also the geographic isolates for biogeographic regions of the world. From the typology (Linnaeus) principle which is the basic one for systematics, holotypes are standards to compare newly collected specimens. In the most of cases available descriptions and illustrations (including the digital ones) are enough, but in 1 to 10 % because of the non-sufficient old descriptions and geographical variations the type specimens are necessary. We cannot avoid repeated collecting for insufficiently described species and geographic isolates, even with new technology tools.

Only effective solution is that all the specimen and herbaria should be digitised and should be available on smartphone, so that as soon as some body see the specimen he/she can identify then and there itself. No need to uproot the plant/kill the fauna. Like google maps/earth/books, google people can have a dialog withall the museums and herbaria to digitise them and make them available free to the participating organisations ans and may charge from individuals. It will be a wonderful thing.

I think the answers are opposite if you deal with the problem from the ethical point of view or from the point of view of conservation biology.

I believe that are to be respected both positions, provided that one of them does not prevail over the other.

From my point of view (I am both taxonomist and conservationist), the collection of specimens is vital, even if the collection must be limited to the actual needs. Whenever possible, I prefer to pick up dead animals on the road, rather than sacrificing living animals, but it is not always possible. I also believe that the collecting of specimens of severely threatened species should be strictly limited.

That said, I also believe that the current laws that protect flora and fauna, in many countries, contain a lot of hypocrisy, because they rarely prevent the destruction of habitat and extinction of entire populations, but make it very difficult to collect also single specimens for scientific purposes.

Again to reduce the hypocrisy, I also think that researchers who, quite legitimately, are opposed to the sacrifice of animals for scientific collections, must consistently avoid working on collections gathered by others.

Agree with R. Sindaco. There is a lot of hypocrisy concerning the collections by foreign scientists, especially in countries, which themselves do not care about funding their own conservationists and taxonomists and protecting the habitats. Sanctimonious, indeed.

Dear all,

I have read with attention your replies, and, as far as I have seen, all of you agree that, for taxonomical purposes, the collecting of voucher specimens is still vital. In other words, it is not (yet) possible to replace it with tissue samples (alone), photographs, calls, drawings, and any other kind of non-invasive and non-lethal methods.

That said, the real question if "when" the collecting activity is justified. And this aspect, the two faces, the conservation and the ethical one, must be taken into account. So, I believe that a collecting of live animals and their successive suppression, is justified when there are hard scientific reasons. So, you need are "justified" to collect vouchers because you are describing species. I see less justification (or not justification at all) to collect animals just for the sake of collecting them. In this, it is not justified to collect large series of animals for museum collections, without no idea of what will be done on these animals. On the other hand, there is also a "conservation need" to collect animals. This may happen when the scientist works in an area subject to heavy habitat alteration. For example, since I am working in Madagascar, I am often in the situation of visiting a small rainforest fragment that most likely within a few years will be logged and will disappear. Although I am often "sorry" and "sad" about the "terminal" situation of such a fragment, I collect vouchers, because it is almost sure that there will be no forest left in a few years and my zoological collections will be the only witness of the species presence there. This already happened. In the nineties I visited the Nahampoana Forest, next to Tolagnaro, SE Madagascar, and made amphibian and reptile collecting. Now, this forest does not exist anymore, and the vouchers I collected are really precious. Of course, the disappearence of the forest was not due to my collecting activity but to logging actions.

At this point, and taken apart the ethical aspects, I am wondering whether the collecting activity (for science or even for other non-aliaeutic reasons, such as pet-trade), have an impact on natural populations. The paper that generated this discussion ("High antipredator efficiency of insular lizards: a warning signal of excessive specimen collection", by Delibes M. et al., published on PLoS ONE 6 (12) e29312) suggested, even in the TITLE, that there is an effect on Aspidoscelis populations of the scientific collection (=collection for phylogenetic purposes). I have serious doubts on what reported by the authors. Indeed, I devoted myself in searching for evidence of deleterious effects of scientific and pet-trade collections on amphibian and reptile populations. Well, I must say that within several hundreds of papers dealing with the subject of "collection" I found only a few (very few) that reported evidence on the effect of collecting at the population or species level. And in some of these cases it was evident that the effect was due to the alteration of the environment consequent to the collecting activity, and not on the collecting activity "per se" on the populations. Also, I found no evidence of species extinct for collection (I repeat, for NON-alimentar purposes).

Stated this, I am also here to ask if you are aware of published or non-published papers on this subject. I would be really curious to see what the authors would report.

Best

Very interesting discussion and very timely for my purpose in bird conservation. There are many threads in this discussion to add as I have been collecting insect myself for a while, never collected brds and never will.

The issue is indeed that bird collecting severely contributed to the local extinction of the breeding Spoon-billed Sandpiper at at least seven sites of its former breeding rnage in Chukotka, Russia. Collecting took place half legally by american collectors up to 1993. Later the species was listed EN on the Red List and collecting stopped besides illegal collecting possible still taking place as the species becomes rarer and rarer. The price for private collectors higher and higher, the risk for Russian middlemen higher but more attractive as the price is incraesing. We have several differnt evidence of recent colecting in the remote breeding area, as recent as 2005 and 2006 and we establshed a guarding system in the most importnat core breeding areas and don't publish detailed breeding site locations any more. This migth help further decline.

I appreciate that the main reason of delcine lies in the non- breeding areas, but clearly any further collection of specimen will seriously add to further declien of a species on the roas to extinction.

The Russian museums have collected SBS until late 1980s and are still collecting almost every bird species in the Russian Arctic and elsewhaere if it is not Red Listed. They argue to catch up with other museums. I think it is not justified and it is indeed time to establish new ways of documenting specimens and make them available to everybody as suggested in this discussions in various ways.

I am afriad that most museums are just colecting for the sake of collecting and or to justify their existence and position at the museum. Its time to change this not only in those countries with established taxonomists but also and specially in countries in transition, as they ahve a specific role to emosntarte new ways forward.

Thank you

Christoph

Very interesting discussion and very timely for my purpose in bird conservation. There are many threads in this discussion to add as I have been collecting insect myself for a while, never collected birds and never will.

The issue is indeed that bird collecting severely contributed to the local extinction of the breeding Spoon-billed Sandpiper at at least seven sites of its former breeding range in Chukotka, Russia. Collecting took place half legally by American collectors up to 1993. Later the species was listed EN on the Red List and collecting stopped besides illegal collecting possible still taking place as the species becomes rarer and rarer. The price for private collectors higher and higher, the risk for Russian middlemen higher but more attractive as the price is increasing. We have several different evidence of recent collecting in the remote breeding area, as recent as 2005 and 2006 and we established a guarding system in the most important core breeding areas and don't publish detailed breeding site locations any more. This might help further decline.

I appreciate that the main reason of decline lies in the non- breeding areas, but clearly any further collection of specimen will seriously add to further decline of a species on the road to extinction.

The Russian museums have collected SBS until late 1980s and are still collecting almost every bird species in the Russian Arctic and elsewhere if it is not Red Listed. They argue to catch up with other museums. I think it is not justified and it is indeed time to establish new ways of documenting specimens and make them available to everybody as suggested in this discussions in various ways.

I am afraid that most museums are continue to collecting for the sake of collecting out of habit and or to justify their existence and position at the museum. Its time to change this not only in those countries with established taxonomists but also and specially in countries in transition, as they have a specific role to emosntarte new ways forward.

Thank you

Christoph

I suspect that the answer will depend on whether you come from systematics/phylogenetics or conservation, the taxa that you are working with, and what part of the world you are coming from. Personally, I think that collection is essential, especially since we know so extremely little about that vast majority of species. However, it goes without saying that it should be done carefully, with a scientific purpose and in moderation. Extremely threatened species should be spared. For the absolute majority of species the collecting that is going on is only removing a minuscule proportion of the population (i.e. has no effect), but is of great scientific value. It would be unfortunate if the collection of rare and charismatic species is the baseline when this topic is discussed, since they constitute a very small part of the biota.

Photography can sometimes work as a substitute to collecting, but just as a low quality alternative for recording presence. And even then, there are very limited possibilities to recheck species determinations at a later point in time, e.g. after a species split of two relatively cryptic species.

Dear Franco,

In response to your question “whether the collecting activity (for science or pet trade) has an impact on natural populations”, there are many more examples from birds in addition to the Spoon-billed sandpiper cited by Christoph. Collecting live birds for the pet trade is one of the main causes of population decline and even extinction for hundreds of bird species worldwide (it’s well documented by IUCN). And there is a number of bird species where museum collections contributed to their extinction; there are even several cases in which the last surviving individuals were collected for museums (see the recent book Extinct Birds, 2012, by J.P. Hume & M. Walters). Nowadays, there are many bird species with much larger numbers of individuals in museums, private scientific collections, zoos and private avian breeders than in the wild (even some such as the Spix’s macaw is yet extinct in the wild).

I am not familiar with herpetology literature, but it seems that collections are also affecting some species (see http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1221-neme_stuart_herp_trade.html, and comments there by Robin Abraham and Divya Mudappa).

Scientific papers published by Frank Courchamp show Alle effects on extinction risk related to the increased value for collectors of species when they are or become rarer.

I think this discussion is becoming a bit philosophical (nothing wrong with that, but...). Most of the World's animals and plants are yet undescribed by science. Many of those described are insufficiently described or only the characteristics of certain individuals/populations are known. If it is the aim of biological science to get to know the living World - and I think it must be - there's no way round collecting both molecular and organismal samples, from (almost) all species, major populations, and major habitats inhabited by each species. In only rare cases will such collection have any population viability impacts. In such cases one of course has to consider the pros and cons, and I personally do not know if there are currently any agreed guidelines for how to act in such cases (I'm not a systematicist - only concerned that science should try to map and understand global biodiversity). But these cases are rare.

If anyone on a personal level finds the killing/collection of animals unethical one of course has to respect that. People with such views should then engage in other biological fields that better match with their ethical views. For biodiversity mapping, I'd say it would be unethical NOT to collect/kill for the purpose of describing and archiving. We still have something like 10 million species undescribed. Maybe some less, maybe many more. That's what we should be concerned about.

For someone like me that works with a megadiverse group, this question is preposterous. It is obvious that we need to contiunue collecting specimens for taxonomy and systematics, due to the plain fact that the majority of the species in this planet weren't described yet and most of the known species were poorly described or have incomplete known distributions. Even if you want to work with the molecular evidence you need to go to the field to bring fresh material. Remenber that the great majority of insects in collections are dryed, useless for molecular assessment. Finally, we are also in a kind of race against the habitat degradation and the consequent biodiversity loss. We need to collect specimens before the species goes extinct. The damage of a collecting field trip is derisive compared with the rates of habitat loss caused by other human activities.

Non-invasive molecular approaches have had very little impact on the diverse group of flies I work on.. basically you can either kill them and dissect their genitalia or you can pull a leg (or some other part) off and PCR its DNA. Non-invasive techniques are certainly desirable, often work well with big plants and animals and ought really to be mandatory with endangered taxa. I look forward to the day I can apply them on minute flies

I do not see such a big dilemma. Previous to conserve species, they have to be properly described, which involves sampling and preservation of type specimens in a collection. Then, we should minimize the impact of our sampling for the population/s of our focus. Moreover, as it has been pointed above, in many cases we do not know the species composition of many places and sampling becomes a key starting point for future studies and conservation biology, e.g. tropical forests.

Sample collections for research purposes do not harm species. Rather it is their uncontrolled illegal hunting for wildlife products in most of the cases. In most of the EIA studies species are not collected rather identified in the field without collecting them. Species are usually collected for research purposes and it does not mean to remove all the populations from the study areas. Therefore, sample collections for research purposes are justified and necessary.

Many times I find myself wondering about what really science is achieving in regards to our Planet and our kind...I would say that, from my point of view, which is the point of view of a very modest ecologist not so involved in biodiversity but more into trophic ecology, that I could only consider specimens collection ethical if the related species-environment protection would be strong enough to ensure long term survival of the species whose specimens were collected.Rare species or endangered species would be directly deleted from the list of the "collectable" species then.... I think that human kind has to start thinking in an holistic way, no action is disconnected from all the effects we see in Nature nowadays...and I would love to show my kids alive specimens in their own environment, not only in museums.I may be too philosophical, but I do love Nature more than its knowledge.

In my view collecting specimens may not have a great impact on the existing biodiversity, given that most of the times this is done in moderation. If we do not collect, e.g. in the case of plants, how shall we ever know the range of variation in a given species for instance. It will be hard to discriminate between species if we are clueless of how they vary from each other.

In my opinion, molecular systematic studies are not sufficient for reconstructing phylogeny. It will always be necessary to collect organisms to examine functional morphology because that is the only true way to infer evolutionary processes. If one or two individuals of a "protected" species are needed for study, and it's not going to drive the particular species closer to extinction, then why not?

Due to anthropogenic activities during the last few decades, rapid environmental changes and a shift in climatic condition is prominent. These changing factors are also influencing the species and forcing them to adapt according to the changing environment.

So, in case of any particular species, if the type specimens are available with some museum, even then it will be necessary to collect new specimens to investigate the impacts of changing environment on that particular species. This is the changing environment that leads to the adaptations and ultimately to the emergence of varieties, sub-species and species.

Therefore, if the evolutionary process is continuous then the relevant studies and investigations should also continue. The collection of a few specimens does not harm even the critically endangered species. Rather it helps investigating the declining factors and finding their remedies.

It all depends on the taxon. Those taxa that are abundantly represented across a good geographic and chronological spectrum should probably not be collected. But many taxa are not so well represented, and by all means should be added to established collections. Furthermore, some taxa that may be well represented as traditional museum specimens may not be well represented, or available at all as frozen tissue samples for molecular studies.

I think John Caruso makes a good point - don't collect what we've already got! The difficulty is who knows what we have got? is it fit for my purpose? and can I get access to it?

John Caruso's point is valid that "taxa that may be well represented as traditional museum specimens may not be well represented or available at all as frozen tissue samples for molecular studies". There is also an issue, that most of the speciemens available at museums are not available to every one and this situation forces the young researchers to collect new specimens for their studies.

In order to avoid further sampling of different species, the available samples should be made available to all interested researchers.

There is a number of key issue that must be taken into account when ONLY silicagel samples are colleted (I mean that they are not supported by or connected to herbarium/museum vouchers). First, misidentifications are quite common when one makes revisions of collections at herbaria/museums (e.g. when I check groups that I know well I usually find mistakes... so, what would it happen in groups that I do not know so well...? Should I be confident on those materials?). And secondly, after taxonomic revisions some stablished 'names' can change dramatically (e.g. after description of new seggregates or new circumscriptions or pre-existing names). In this latter case, usually the only way to be sure about the identity of those samples is to study herbarium/museum specimens. Therefore, those 'silica samples' can become simply unuseful (in the case they are not able to be re-identified, as usually it occurs). Collection of samples is always a safeguard. However, I fully agree with Caruso's argument about well-knonw/stablished taxa that are already sampled in herbaria/museums are not in need of new massive collections. We always have the oportunity to ask curators for sampling on herbarium/museum materials (but always according to institutional rules, and of course under permission).

Protectionism and natural history research

http://eprints.atree.org/174/1/CS_priyan_vol.97_no.10_2009.pdf

Our conservation policies are still pivoted around the protocols developed for

conserving a few charismatic taxa, originally meant for the colonial purpose of

protecting game animals. This prompts

the application of the same yardsticks for

the protection of tigers as well as tiger

beetles. In the case of large mammals

like tiger, every individual is precious

and individual protection matters a lot,

whereas the same becomes ludicrous and

absurd in the case of insects and other

lesser known invertebrates. Because of

their small size, extreme abundance, and

enormous fecundity, population density

of most insects will be very high. They

have different life stages as egg, larva,

pupa and adults, of which the first three

are generally cryptic and adults alone are

noticed. So, even the most experienced

and seasoned collector will be able to

catch not more than a negligible number

of individuals whose sacrifice is inevitable, but unlikely to materially affect their

population levels. As the number of systematic entomologists is far less compared to other biologists,....

Two thoughts: 1) to divide organisms into groups of protection value, otherwise all the discussion seems as a unresolved mixture of problems; ii) for the endangered species not only molecular tech is safe tool but also collection images done on living specimens (virtual colledctions on the web as well as translucent X-ray technologies

For ecological baseline studies, EIA, IEE and other studies involving the identification of the specimens, digital still and video cameras can also assist and minimize the specimen collection. Secondly, for genetics and moecular studies, animals can captured, sampled and released without harming them. We use these two approaches in most of our studies and very rarely we need to collect the animal and preserve it. These two approaches can reduce much of the pressure from species. But still I disagree with the idea that animal collection is not justified. Collecting a few animals for research purposes does not harm even the threatened species.

I agree with Deepu Sivadas regarding limited collections of plant specimens. It is true that most of the plants are identified based on floral parts and for this purpose it is a valid argument to collect specimens. Yes a good photograph can help in identifying specimens, but in the case of confusion in field identification the collected specimens would be brought in the herbarium for proper identification.

The special case of the taking of whale 'specimens' (not a few animals but several hundred whales/ year in the world ocean) by a few countries is worth mentioning here: a license to kill the largest living mammals under the guise of studying the impact of submarine noise, contaminants' levels, or even dietary regimes ...

And a practice denounced year after year, to no avail, by the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) as:

• scientifically ludicrous, giving a bad name to 'research' since such questions can be resolved by non-lethal means (biopsy samples; study of stranded animals), as detailed in dozens of authoritative reports;

• legally borderline in view of the current moratorium imposed by the IWC commercial whaling operations since 1986;

• unethical- not to say more- since the whale meat ends up on the plates of rich diners in expensive Japanese or Icelandic restaurants. [I do not include Norwegian restaurants here since Norway's whaling takes place under legal objection to the moratorium, and not under the pretense of conducting research.]

Nota: the same two or three whaling countries have managed to block all attempts by the United Nations to strictly enforce the IWC moratorium [a sad legacy of a tacit rule that a consensus is required on all ocean policy issues].

For those interested, here is a good and comprehensive article/letter describing the value of collecting insects:

Pohl - In Defense of Collecting

http://leplog.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/in-defense-of-collecting/

We need to know our biodiversity and it requires inventories that are supported by specimens deposited in scientific collections. There are still regions whose biological richness is unknown and for them we need to done their inventories. How we can have certainty of what there is in them if we don't have the specimens that support our inventories?

On the other hand, the specimens collected and deposited in a scientific collection not only are a record of the biodiversity of the region where they come from; are material to other studies (taxonomy, morphometry, biogeography, populations genetics, ethnobotany, modeling potential distribution and ecological niche, etc.). In this sense, having the specimen or part of it constitutes an invaluable source of information. Although they are now scanned images available for the specimens from a complete collection, these do not come from all regions of the planet, nor much less show the complete variation that occurs within a species or between very similar species.

The goal of Systematic should be document the biodiversity around the world, it requires inventories supported by collected exemplars. But we must be careful with those species or populations whose permanence in their habitat faces risks.

There are, in fact, multiple ways that documentation of taxa new to science could be made (i.e., "samples" taken or recorded), without collection of a type specimen. This argument was made very persuasively by Thomas Donegan in an article entitled, "New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen" -- Zootaxa 1761: 37-48 (2008 -- a pdf of the paper is available at: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01761p048.pdf ). Most importantly, the numerous alternative approaches to the collection of a dead voucher specimen that Donegan presents are all consistent with the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (i.e., the "Code"). In the abstract to his paper, Donegan states: "Possible reasons why the collection of a dead type specimen might not be necessary or recommended include the setting of a good example to communities in whose hands conservation action lies, government permit issues and the description of new taxa on the brink of extinction where collecting may impact populations."

I agree that the current specimen collection is justtified. There are still many new species to be discovered and to be discribed. And so there are species disappeared before we know they ever exist.

Specimen collections are not only useful, yet necessary to the progress of natural sciences, and represent an invaluable source of information to understand the tempo and mode of biodiversity change.

Clearly, it is important to distinguish between insects, predatory birds and whales, as to the impact of specimen collection on biodiversity conservation.

The value of insect collections is thoroughly discussed in the already mentioned letter by Greg Pohl: http://leplog.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/in-defense-of-collecting/.

It is importanto to remark that it is very difficult to affect insect populations by collecting, because their population size, their ability to reproduce, and their short generation time. Only in a restricted number of instances (taxa) reliable biodiversity dataset, inventories, monitoring programmes, etc. can be based on photography and other digital devices.

Stopping insect collections would give the coup de grâce to the progress of systematic entomology, i.e.: the scientific context where most of the biodiversity is studied. Insect taxonomists are an endangered species! Professional entomologists already suffer poor research funding, poor or no impact factor given to systematic studies or revisional work that sometimes requires years to be done. Stopping collections would strongly restrain the initial motivation of young people to deepen their interest for entomology!

Valerio Sbordoni: "Stopping insect collections would give the coup de grâce to the progress of systematic entomology"

By the way, nowadays there are used millions of tons of substances to eradicate billions of insects each year (in agricultural fields, in forests etc.), so it is very difficult to consider that collecting few specimens (for a museum-collection) is the activity that really affects the species.

As a museum curator and specialist on cryptic small animals I know that biodiversity research requires the collection of voucher specimens. However, one should do this in a responsible way and make vouchers accessible to other researchers, at best by adding them to a public museum collection. In my view, describing new species without type specimens will in most cases be a burden to forthcoming generations of the scientific community.

"describing new species without type specimens"

well, in the last few decades the specimens seem to be lost during the DNA-sampling procedure...

p.s. by the way, last autumn there were here some of your colleagues to collect some fish, but I forgot to check out how many specimens of the endemit Scardinius erythrophthalmus rakovitzai they took from the thermal lake nearby Oradea...

Hi, i think that depent of type of species and the relative abundance in specific site, but actually is dificult accept this theme

Describing a new taxon without type specimens will cause endless difficulties. I agree with the principle of digitising collections to limit the need for extensive collecting, As a botanist, I admit that the problems for makeing zoological collections are mush greater than we have for making herbarium collections.

Barry Thomas: "I admit that the problems for makeing zoological collections are mush greater than we have for making herbarium collections."

Because only few animals are flat?

It is completely valid for some groups. There are still many unknown tropical trees, last year I published 20 species of Neotropical Magnolia, some known from a single specimen, several others with unknown flowers, fruits or both. I still have many other species with incomplete material that need to be described.

"Molecular systematics" is meaningless if the sequences are not attached to an actual specimen, vouchered in a formal collection. It is important to attach and make public a photo, but the specimen is usually needed to settle any controversy about the id. I have seen absurd results in molecular phylogenies, but one cannot check them without specimens; in a couple of cases when there are voucher specimens available for the sequences, I have found utter mistakes in species identifications.

This debate has been ongoing for decades. The bottom line is, it is not science if it cannot be independently verified. Collecting voucher specimens is necessary for that. If no vouchers are collected, verification has to repeat the collections, a very wasteful endeavor. Moreover, if a population cannot sustain the loss of a few individuals for vouchers, then it is doomed anyway. There are sustainable harvest levels for any population, and conservation is always about habitat, not individuals.

I appreciate the need to maintain and update records for individual species.However, I consider it to be wholly unacceptable to kill any animal for the purpose of furthering knowledge. I remember attending a conference of the British Mammal Society many years ago where a presentation caused grave concerns amongst the body of scientists gathered there. The person who gave the talk had accessed an area of Africa to determine the numbers and identity of the species inhabiting the area. It became apparent, as the talk progressed, that they had used break-back traps and brought countless carcasses back with them to assess. When questioned as to why he had not used live traps, instead of killing every animal he caught, he replied that he did not have enough room in his vehicle to carry live traps. His crass disregard for the well being of the animals that he caught had the additional effect of impacting directly on the populations of the very species he was planning to assess. This is not good science and neither is it humane. I would hope that any efforts to further our knowledge, in the area posed by the question, would take on board new technological advances and leave outdated methods in the past where they belong.

Ravi I really like the idea of having access to species on a smart phone. I just started collecting insect species, nothing much, but over the past few months I have learned so much more about the species that I ever would have with out collecting them. I have field guides which help a ton but to actually have the species in front of you is much better. Toni I agree with your statement on live traps. When all possible it would be better to use live traps. I used to trap bobcats, raccoons and foxes to study animal behavior. I never harmed them and after the testing I would set them free.

Yes, it is good for the common species in the garden, or common agricultural pest species .......

Collection of large number of individual is not a good idea there are many ways to collect important information without disturbing/killing animal plant or any organism.

Only thing is to follow the idea.

I cannot speak for the other groups, but in our field (insect systematics) it is essential that we collect specimens. This is actually a prerequisite for valid publication of scientific names (Principle of Typification).

For example, the status of Epilachna philippinensis could not be verified because its holotype is missing.

Another example, a colleague of mine dissected specimens of myriapods collected half a century ago, and she was able to find characters that were not used in the original description because back then SEM had not been developed yet.

Also, some species were said to have been found in a particular locality but without physical proof (a type) we suspend judgment pending further surveys. This can have implications in biodiversity conservation; studying evolutionary and ecological processes such as speciation, dispersal, etc.; taxonomic studies, the whole enchilada.

Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that this prerequisite has been abused, and probably still is. That is why I understand why (some) zoologists rally against collecting species, especially rare and beautiful ones.

And this issue is also personal for me: back in the 80s, I think, a scientist collected and transported a ridiculous 20,000 individuals of Odonata from my country! That's wholesale smuggling of precious species! Now that we are beginning to get an idea of the level of endemism of this group (~70% for some groups), we can now only despair at this unfortunate event and vow that this would not happen again.

Does bigfoot really exist? We still don't know because there's no definitive proof. No, video footage does not suffice.

Yes, we need to collect specimens. But we need to ensure that we don't abuse it.

Being plant taxonomist, I feel that voucher specimen is key to its identification. In various floras, complete descriptions are missing may be due to missing of complete specimens. Furthermore, for the establishment of regional herbarium, this will be used reference library for further detailed study. Sometimes closely allied specimens may be found as subspecies and species after proper study. So in my opinion, it is necessary to collect specimens along with necessary field data for proper identification of species.

Voucher specimens are necessary in some groups... in other not. Could photography cover identification needs in the group? In most of invertebrate groups not (but when is possible, this is a good thing). Not invasive identification methods (not only molecular, but also exuviae sampling, or other rest sampling) can be an alternative when works with certain groups, but not in others.

And later reviews of species usually need museum specimens and biological collections... in almost all groups.

Botanical sampling is a continuous need in tropical latitudes to document changes (in time, geographical area, shifting altitudinal limits, change in morphology, etc) and to be sure of the name of the species involved, vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens.

Even after more than 40 years I come back to identify (as far as posible) my sterile collections of the past, now with an increased species knowledge.

Wealthy collections provide also pollen, seed and leaf samples. Good herbaceous collections contribute to root morphology....and the voucher isthe proof that the species was at a given time at a given place

As a herpetologist working in the Neotropics in a place that probably is the most species rich for amphibians in the world (southern Bahia, Brazil) I obviously can't do science without collecting specimen. But I do not need to collect them for everything. If I want to study diet of a frog I can use stomach flushing and release the individuals, palcing, for example one individual in a collection as a voucher. But if I want to describe a new species (and there are lots of them around here) I will need to collect a type series. There is an interesting paper by some argentineaen colleagues that imho may enrich this discussion: Bortulos, A. 2008. Error cascades in the biological sciences: The unwanted consequences of using bad taxonomy in ecology. Ambio 37(2): 114-118

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18488554

As a research fishery biologist specializing in ichthyoplankton taxonomy and assemblages, my work requires collection of hundreds of plankton samples almost every year in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Arctic. When the goal of a particular study is to document the species composition, distribution, abundance, and in some cases biomass of small marine organisms, it is absolutely necessary to collect and preserve samples. Even in hydroacoustic assessments, samples must be collected periodically to "ground truth” what is being detected by the hydroacoustic system. Concerning my Ichthyological interests, I believe that museum collections are essential because there are undescdibed species just sitting in jars that were misidentified as other more common species. Here's an example. Busby, M. S. and R. L. Cartwright. 2009. Paraliparis adustus and Paraliparis bullacephalus (Teleostei: Liparidae): Two new snailfishes from Alaska. Ichthyological Research 56:245-252. Issues such as these will likely never be resolved using molecular techniques and I greatly lack confidence in them in their present state for several reasons unless they are used in conjunction with mophological interpretations..

A very profound question, Jose, with major ramifications on many levels including ethical ones as many have answers have eluded to. As a doctoral candidate i used live trapping of ground squirrels to study adaptive variation and continued studying them in the lab behaviorally, genetically and immunologically. For the latter two I took blood samples. After about a couple of weeks on captivity the blood became literally white like milk, probably due to the high fat content in the artificial diet and sedentary cage life. This is of course not mentioned in any publication, but one wonders how/if it has affected any of the parameters studied? In addition, the trapped animals were usually housed in the animal quarters for life as the rationale was that the animal may have difficulty acclimating to the wild after a period of captivity. i once decided to return a female who was trapped gravid and gave birth to pups in the lab, to the colony borrow area where she was trapped. One of the most thrilling events ensued: All the burrow inhabitants emitted squeals of joy to see her (if I may be antropomorphic) as I have studied fear and anti-predatory sounds) and each in his/her turn nuzzled her and mounted her briefly (perhaps scent marking?) which seemed like a welcoming ritual. When the excitement calmed down, she swiftly slid down the borrow. When I told about it to the "experts" in the department it was brushed off as a coincidence etc. But let's assume I was right, then this means individual recognition at a higher level, and to anthropomorphise a little further: who knows, perhaps she was even missed? Findings and approaches like that, which are starting to infiltrate science more and more, may shed a different light on animal collection and animal "sacrifice" for the sake of science. To continue this thread, as a postdoc, I literally had to argue with the dept. statistician that I can conduct a particular study with only 6 animals instead of the accepted 30. Indeed, the results came out highly significant. What I am trying to say: let's think for ourselves and dare to shake up the dusty museum collection techniques as well as some of the "dusty" notions of how to conduct science. Perhaps science can still represent the truth if done for the highest good with utmost consideration of the precious species we study.

I am very pleased to read that you are now taking the welfare of the species you are studying into consideration. I am also somewhat suprised that the 'experts' you refer to considered that recognition by family members of the returned squirrel should happen. It is well known that small mammals not only recognise others within their group but that they can also recognise the habitat they were removed from, following their return to the same area. I have witnessed this on more than one occasion with the Eurpoean hedgehog. Sick or injured hedgehogs that are brought to me for treatment are invariably returned to the area they were found, unless the situation dictates otherwise. They are capable of finding their nest with no trouble at all and of continuing with their lives as before. Long term monitoring of released rehabilitated hedgehogs, by myself, and others has shown this to be irrefutably the case.

The level of concern with this matter is highly dependent of the size of the organism or even to its resemblance to humans. These are very poor criteria! In order to be ethically acceptable, the decision to kill an organism (any organism!) must be justified by its importance as a scientific voucher. For example, nobody cares if one takes an exsiccate from a tree or even kill thousands of planktonic organisms from a pool. But if you found a new species of monkey in the middle of the Amazon Forest, what you do? You have to shut it down to produce a holotype! The scientific importance of this particular specimen justifies the killing because it will allow the recognition of a new species, which may ultimately lead to a change in the conservation polices of the area in which this species occurs, perhaps saving entire communities from habitat loss.

But why kill the specimen in the first place? If it is, as you suggest, a new species of monkey, why not relocate it to a zoo or wildlife sanctuary where its behaviour can be studied? Animal welfare considerations aside, if you kill the monkey, you have no way of knowing whether or not you have just eliminated a crucial member of a family group or whether, having reduced the number of the species by one you no longer have a viable population in the locality. More thought needs to be given to this approach whereby it is thought satisfactory, and indeed, advisable, to kill a member of a mammalian species without due consideration, purely with the aim of obtaining a scientific voucher.

Alexandre's hypothetical scenario of encountering a previously undescribed species of monkey in the Amazonian Basin is not so far-fetched -- many species of Neotropical monkeys new to science have been described over the past decade or so, with many of them being discovered in the Amazon Basin. But, the taxonomic description of those "new" species has not always hinged on the "collecting" (i.e., shooting) of a type specimen. In at least some cases, holotype and/or paratype specimens have been captured live and kept in captivity, where they can observed and studied. When these specimens have eventually died of natural causes, their skins and entire skeletons have been accessioned to the collections of university or natural history museums. While the end result of having a reference specimen, or several, in a museum collection is the same, it is worth noting that the published descriptions of the new species included photographs of the living animals while they were in captivity (see the open-access journal Neotropical Primates for examples of descriptions of new species of titi monkeys (genus Callicebus) that include reference to specimens held in captivity:

http://www.primate-sg.org/neotropical_primates_10_s/ ).

Ian's comment is true, a few species of monkeys were described based in living holotypes that were included in collections after they died of "natural causes". That's just fine, but apart the advantage to have other sources of data to increment the original description, this action is purely humanistic. Well, arguable, since one can consider captivity as a condition of torture. My point is that scientific collecting is justifiable when vouchers are mandatory, such in the case of a new species description, as stablished, for example, by the International code of Zoological Nomenclature:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/

Toni, in order to made avaliable a new specific name it is necessary to designate a holotype or the sintypes (see below). Allow me to stress again the importance of recognizing new species, especially of mammals or birds, for conservation. Sometimes the recognition of a flag-species can motivate the creation of parks and reserves that can save entire communities from the real villan: habitat loss. In that sence, the loss of one individual is a low price to pay.

International code of zoological nomenclature:

72.3. Name-bearing types must be fixed originally for nominal species-group taxa established after 1999. A proposal of a new nominal species-group taxon after 1999 (unless denoted by a new replacement name (nomen novum) [Arts. 16.4, 72.7]), must include the fixation of a holotype [Art. 16.4] (see Article 73.1) or syntypes [Art. 73.2]. In the case of syntypes, only those specimens expressly indicated by the author to be those upon which the new taxon was based are fixed as syntypes.

I quite agree with the points you make Alexandre, in particular your comments that 'recognition of a flag-species can motivate the creation of parks and reserves that can save entire communities from the real villan: habitat loss'. I also take your point about captivity of animals being essentially a form of torture, in particular those taken from the wild. I just wanted to say that the often seen casual approach to taking specimen animals from the wild, either for use as scientific vouchers or for other reasons, needs to be addressed. It would be good to see a more responsible attitude being taken by scientists towards the removal of animals from the wild, with any such actions being made with the welfare of the animals, and the local population, at heart.

Forget about the vertebrate. There are many invertebrates need to be described before they disappear. Surely we need to continue collecting specimens.

I understand your point, Toni. Ethics is necessary in any human activity. I work in a Museum based in one of the less known places of this planet, the Amazon basin. Here, there are far more undescribed species than named ones. Our collections are old but unfortunately the procedures to preserve molecular information are not. So, we have to bring it all over again, this time from an already depleted nature. This is not trivial and cannot be taken casually. To proceed with ethic in face of these harsh necessities, we have to maximize all kinds of information associated to that specimens (taxonomic, biogeographic, molecular and ecologic), making sure that that information will last indefinitely in the collections and will be available to experts.

Governing bodies of all the musiums and herbarium in each country should make a network/consortia to regulate collection, specimen preparation, identification, collation and database development in each country. Thos will help in conserving biota in a very big way. Musiums and herbarium are the gold mines of the future.

Interesting discussion and I agree with David. The plant or animal group, as well as the area in question, should determine the collecting strategy .In my experience most scientists are very responsible in this regard. We should rather focus on illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade, which is a much greater threat to the future of many of the world's most threatened species (http://worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade)

Voucher specimens that are collected today can be used for lines of research in 2030 that nobody could think of right now. We are seeing now that specimens collected in 1800 are not only analysed for 'general' DNA, but can also be used to assess shifts in population genetics, chemical compounds, etc. If you only took a photo today, that photo might be worthless for future projects, while well-collected specimens might be very useful. Zoological and herbarium collections are indeed goldmines, and the more new technology becomes available, the higher the 'gold price' will be. So, please DO collect specimens, and when you do: preserve it according to the current best practice (so separate some tissue for DNA extraction, in case of trees you might take a wood sample as well or pickle some flowers and leaves for anatomical study), add as many notes as you can (GPS coordinates, proper habitat description, other relevant field notes) and sure, if you have a chance add images of the species in its natural habitat. In case of new monkey species as mentioned above: let us (taxonomists) first describe the species, so ethologists will have a name and an IUCN status to get money to study the behaviour.