On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Don Baccus wrote:
> On the other hand, strengthening basic skills is always useful for
> professionals of any technical field. And one can argue that any
> ornithologist or serious birder or bander (members of the ornithological
> infantry, in a sense) might well benefit from learning to sex this bird.
>
> The next one to show up might then be sexable without capture, even if
> its plummage is somewhat cryptic as this one seems to be. One never

The next one would *not* be sexable as a result of capture of this bird.
We (out here in Cascadia) simply don't know how much overlap in plumage
characters there is between males and females of this species. Sexing this
bird (which would require visual inspection of its reproductive organs or
perhaps collecting blood for karyotyping) would not answer that question.
The most it would do is provide data on one bird that could be combined
with that from many others for a serious study of the question. To provide
the most use for that hazy future study, the bird would be preserved as a
specimen in a museum collection.

While some people might the process of capturing and lapping the bird
educational and fascinating, others would find it an abuse of scientific
privilege. Correct me if I am wrong, but not just anyone can legally
capture and lap a longspur. I believe it is necessary to have special
permits. It could be argued that capture of a bird for "education" under
the aegis of a permit issued for research was an abuse of the permit.
Biologists get enough flack from animal rights groups as it is for doing
serious work (cf. full page ad PAWS ran in UW student Daily in 1994
attacking Burke Museum collecting trip to Kamchatka). In today's social
and political climate it is important to avoid "even the appearance of
impropriety." The potential benefit of capturing the celebrated
Montlake longspur doesn't outweigh the potential cost.

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu