Ethics Of Collecting A Voucher Specimen

[Guest wudewasa]

I've posted this sometime, somewhere in the past, but wanted to focus on the necessity and ethics of acquiring a type specimen(s) in biological research. 

 

The text below comes from http://www.animalethics.org.au/policies-and-guidelines/wildlife-research/voucher-specimens and does a nice job sorting things out.  I have pasted the "Justification" section, as this is the big issue between the pro and no kill camps in the realm of bigfoot research.  However, the rest of the document is definitely worth a read over.

 

What say the rest of you about this as it applies to possible acquisitions of bigfoot specimens?

"4.0 Justification

4.1 Functions of voucher specimens

 

4.1.1 Role of taxonomy

Correct identification of the animals that are being studied are crucial to the outcome of the work. Incorrect or unresolved identifications can lead to misleading or incomplete conclusions. This is true despite the emphasis of the research that is being conducted (physiological, anatomical, biochemical, behavioural or some other aspect of the animal's biology) and whether it occurs in the field or the laboratory.

 

Conservation needs are impossible to assess without the ability to recognise and differentiate species. Thus, identification, although often taken for granted, is fundamental to any animal-based study and particularly important when studying native animals.

 

4.1.2 Voucher specimens fulfil an archival role by permitting:

1. identification to be checked subsequent to the initial study, thus permitting verification or, if required, correction;
2. reassessment of studies based on those specimens and which otherwise cannot be repeated;
3. extension and elaboration of studies based on those specimens when new questions arise and/or new analytical techniques become available.

Such studies may involve, but are not limited to, geographic variation, higher level systematics, ontological stages, life histories, sexual dimorphism, morphological variability, physiological measurements, biochemical comparisons and behaviour.

 

4.1.3 Voucher specimens allow problems to be addressed that cannot be resolved in the field, including:

1. when there is no other means to verify identification;
2. group for which taxonomy is undergoing or expected to undergo change;
3. questions raised cannot be answered at the time the animal is in hand.

4.1.4 Voucher specimens permit confirmation of the distribution and occurrence of a species at a certain place at a certain time. This is important:

1. if an animal is near or outside the limit of its known distribution;
2. as part of a routine inventory and future documentation of local fauna.

4.1.5 Voucher specimens serve a special role when they serve as types of species-level taxa.

 

4.2 The Animal Ethics Committee must consider the conservation impact as part of the justification for collection of voucher specimens. A National Parks & Wildlife Service Authority is an essential prerequisite as an indication that the conservation aspect has been considered by experts. Additional advice may also need to be sought directly from the National Parks & Wildlife Service if the committee is still concerned about the conservation aspect.

 

4.3 Minimising impact

 

4.3.1 Kinds of vouchers - justification

 

The fundamental bases for identifications are whole animal specimens, usually maintained in a museum or similar institution. If necessary, identifications can be confirmed by reference to such collections. In some situations, e.g., distinctive species, a non-essential part of the animal such as a hair sample, or a photograph, sound recording or some other non-destructive record may be adequate for identification.

 

These, however, have limited value. They do not offer the range of information as do whole body specimens, initially or through re-examination, nor are they suitable for detailed study by alternative means, including new technology (e.g., biochemical).

 

There are many species for which these are not valid alternatives. Accurate identifications can only be made if there is one or more specimens already available for comparison and examination.

If an animal is thought to represent a new species, a specimen should be taken. Types (the basis for taxonomic descriptions of new taxa) should always be specimens; other kinds of samples are not suitable alternatives.

 

4.3.2 Numbers

 

The number of specimens which can be justified depends on:

 

4.3.2.1 The minimum number of specimens required to establish identification. This is affected by:

• sexual dimorphism. It may or may not be necessary to collect both male and female specimens;
• how distinct the species in question is from other species;
• whether differences between growth stages exist which could make identification difficult.

4.3.2.2 The minimum number of sites required to describe a population. This is affected by:

• the diversity of habitats within any site;
• geographical variability across the species range;
• the type and scale of study.

Collection of animals from more than one site must always be justified.

 

4.3.3 Methods

 

Capture and euthanasia methods require consideration but this should be no different from consideration of these methods as part of projects not involving voucher collection."

 

[norseman]

Good stuff!

[bipedalist]

Yah, typical "Give a Moose a Muffin" type stuff.

 

First it is male-female.  Then it is black-white. 

 

Red-toenailed vs. Green-toenailed.   Red laser eye-glow vs. Green laser eye-glow.  You get the rest of the story. 

[Guest]

I think the justifications in the case of Sasquatch are not fully presented in the above (and so the ethics are not either)...and wonder if we can create such....

 

What would justify killing a creature that is a large (!) primate indigenous to  the United States, possibly completely unknown to science, or maybe even in the genus homo, or potentially more than one species?  

 

Will a type specimen(s)achieve that within those specifically tailored justifications/ethics?

 

I also want to add this thought; most of these regulations and/or discussions and policies are directed to PhDs (or students), professionals in science working in appropriate field studies, or government agencies...(most require a permit for takings!) ...something we are scarce on.

 

There is no justification IMHO for any amateur enthusiast, or hunter, or self appointed numb-skull to shoot a Bigfoot to prove....silly consideration on so many levels....

 

We can though collect physical evidence ethically...hair...why only 35 samples to Sykes who offered for free..the first step to at least identifying genus?  If the genus is homo...what anthropology would you look at for these ethics of a specimen?

Can't we wait for DNA?

Edited June 1, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Where are the type specimens of Homo sapiens?

[bipedalist]

On the mantle of any self-respecting Sasquatch according to the 411 books.  Yes, j/k. 

Edited June 1, 2013 by bipedalist

[norseman]

I think the justifications in the case of Sasquatch are not fully presented in the above (and so the ethics are not either)...and wonder if we can create such....

 

What would justify killing a creature that is a large (!) primate indigenous to  the United States, possibly completely unknown to science, or maybe even in the genus homo, or potentially more than one species?  

 

Will a type specimen(s)achieve that within those specifically tailored justifications/ethics?

 

I also want to add this thought; most of these regulations and/or discussions and policies are directed to PhDs (or students), professionals in science working in appropriate field studies, or government agencies...(most require a permit for takings!) ...something we are scarce on.

 

There is no justification IMHO for any amateur enthusiast, or hunter, or self appointed numb-skull to shoot a Bigfoot to prove....silly consideration on so many levels....

 

We can though collect physical evidence ethically...hair...why only 35 samples to Sykes who offered for free..the first step to at least identifying genus?  If the genus is homo...what anthropology would you look at for these ethics of a specimen?

Can't we wait for DNA?

 

It is unknown to science.........there for that is the justification in killing one. You have the cart in front of the horse.

 

And I've been waiting my whole life for the experts to prove this species exists.........I guess it's gonna take a numb skull like me to get the job done...........with a rifle.

Where are the type specimens of Homo sapiens?

 

Your not serious?

 

Ever hear of the term cadaver?

[Guest]

 

Your not serious?

 

Ever hear of the term cadaver?

 

I don't think you understand what a type specimen is. What I am pointing out is there is a double standard between us and all other animals. There is no type specimens of Homo sapiens

[norseman]

 

 

Your not serious?

 

Ever hear of the term cadaver?

 

I don't think you understand what a type specimen is. What I am pointing out is there is a double standard between us and all other animals. There is no type specimens of Homo sapiens

 

 

I know exactly what a type specimen is.

 

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/who-is-the-type-specimen-of-homo-sapiens/

 

The point that makes this all silly is that we have so many dead bodies of Homo Sapiens, we fight over who should get the honorary title of "Type Specimen" for our own species.

 

But yes............we have a type specimen for Homo Sapien.

[Guest]

 

 

 

Your not serious?

 

Ever hear of the term cadaver?

 

I don't think you understand what a type specimen is. What I am pointing out is there is a double standard between us and all other animals. There is no type specimens of Homo sapiens

 

 

I know exactly what a type specimen is.

 

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/who-is-the-type-specimen-of-homo-sapiens/

 

The point that makes this all silly is that we have so many dead bodies of Homo Sapiens, we fight over who should get the honorary title of "Type Specimen" for our own species.

 

But yes............we have a type specimen for Homo Sapien.

 

Obviously the author of that article doesn't understand what a type specimen is either. Where can I examine the type specimen (Carl Linnaeus), what museum is it in?

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

 

So because the human race has like a gazillion dead bodies for you to poke and prod, and technically they cheated and made their type specimen the father of Taxonomy which is buried and rotted into the ground?

 

You feel that it's unfair for science to ask for a type specimen of Sasquatch to establish a species?

 

Am I reading your talking points correctly?

 

Do you think it's a little difficult for a species to discover itself? 

[Guest]

You don't destroy type specimens, they are stored in museums so future scientists can examine them. I have examined many type specimens. Type specimens usually contain one of each sex. The male is the Halotype, the female is the Allotype. If a non breeding male is structurally different from a breeding male then one of those is obtained and called the Morphotype. The locality from which the specimens were collected from is called the Type Locality. I have visited many many Type Localities to obtain Topotypes.

 

No I don't think it is unfair, that is the way science is when it comes to describing new species. With Sasquatch though, I think is a little different and I am not sure how it should be handled. A Sasquatch is not your ordinary animal.

 

I am just saying we have never designated type specimens for our own species.

[southernyahoo]

 Bottom line is we don't just go kill another member of genus homo because we "think" they are a new species. It's a terribly bad PR move when you consider that science says all members of homo are technically human. I don't think justifications for scientific wildlife studies quite covers murder, so you need to know before you take one, and DNA "would" tell you without having a specimen. 

 

Obtaining DNA samples is a necessary step here, and certainly an ethical step when you consider that some scientists have proposed that Chimps should be classified in the genus homo based on their DNA. 

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

Edited June 1, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Norsemen,  maybe this emphasis helps, "possibly unknown to science, "  What if genetically they prove to fit within an existing taxa, known to science?  

 

So, I do think the appropriate step, and ethical one, for BFers is to focus on collecting other forms of physical evidence, non injurious, and see where we are...via the DNA.  

 

If BFs prove to be  something outside the genus homo, it may be there is a push among some government scientists, or agencies, or institutions, to take a specimen.

 

 I think any such effort might meet with serious resistance even within government, but all that would be occurring at levels more appropriate than BF enthusiasts, I would hope anyway.  Perhaps we would even have opportunity to comment on such goals...as citizens...

 

Who shall prove if not scientists? How do we attract them? With amateurs bent on a body? (How easy to kill a BF...and deliver...and to who?)

 

Or, would multiple sources, of easily handled and analyzed physical evidence, from potentially many regions and subjects, be better  for enthusiasts to deliver?  I can't do much more than share my opinion, and that's it...two cents plus!

Edited June 1, 2013 by apehuman

[norseman]

 Bottom line is we don't just go kill another member of genus homo because we "think" they are a new species. It's a terribly bad PR move when you consider that science says all members of homo are technically human. I don't think justifications for scientific wildlife studies quite covers murder, so you need to know before you take one, and DNA "would" tell you without having a specimen. 

 

Obtaining DNA samples is a necessary step here, and certainly an ethical step when you consider that some scientists have proposed that Chimps should be classified in the genus homo based on their DNA. 

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

 

When has science thought they were dealing with another species of Homo in say the last 50 years, and thought about shooting one to prove it? 

 

As far as chimps? From your own article:

 

"The argument is whether genetic relatedness is the only thing you should take into account," said anthropologist Bernard Wood at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "A genus should also be a group of very similar species, that share attributes such as behavior and [mode of movement]," he said.

Fossil human-like species are currently divided into at least three genera. Grouping them all in the genus Homo could be very confusing, Wood said. Classification schemes "should be the signposts for differences between organisms," said Wood. "The problem is, if you call the chimp Homo troglodytes, you deny yourself that tool to help guide you through the tree of life."

Norsemen,  maybe this emphasis helps, "possibly unknown to science, "  What if genetically they prove to fit within an existing taxa, known to science?  

 

So, I do think the appropriate step, and ethical one, for BFers is to focus on collecting other forms of physical evidence, non injurious, and see where we are...via the DNA.  

 

If BFs prove to be  something outside the genus homo, it may be there is a push among some government scientists, or agencies, or institutions, to take a specimen.

 

 I think any such effort might meet with serious resistance even within government, but all that would be occurring at levels more appropriate than BF enthusiasts, I would hope anyway.  Perhaps we would even have opportunity to comment on such goals...as citizens...

 

Who shall prove if not scientists? How do we attract them? With amateurs bent on a body? (How easy to kill a BF...and deliver...and to who?)

 

Or, would multiple sources, of easily handled and analyzed physical evidence, from potentially many regions and subjects, be better  for enthusiasts to deliver?  I can't do much more than share my opinion, and that's it...two cents plus!

 

The crux of the issue is you have to prove the species as real FIRST...........before we can have this discussion. Where are they in the tree of life? How shall they be classified, etc.

 

Without that initial first step? It's all simply conjecture, with the skeptics beating us down at every turn.

 

We have had DNA studies on Sasquatch since when? The late 80's? Where has that taken us? How far has that gotten us? Let's invite dmaker in here and let him explain to you how far that has gotten us............. 

 

With a body the opinions and conjecture end........forever.