Nonlethal Sampling To Help Avoid Re-Extinction
There is a tradition in which field biologists collect, kill, and preserve members of a rare, newly discovered, or rediscovered species (a species that was thought to have gone extinct) as a record of the species’ existence. The individual members that are collected from the species are called “voucher specimen,” and the purpose of voucher specimen includes future identification of the species, display in museums, and other scientific purposes. This article, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, discusses some of the downsides of this practice as well as nonlethal alternatives.
Rare, new, and rediscovered species are vulnerable, for they often live in small, isolated populations. Thus, taking away members from species like this oftentimes increases the species’ risk of extinction. For example, the last great auk birds were killed and stuffed rather than allowed to repopulate their species. Other examples include Mexico’s elf owl as well as rare plant taxa in New Zealand, which have suffered population declines resulting from voucher specimen collection. Not only does the collection of voucher specimen put the survival of the species at risk, but it oftentimes does not provide enough information to assuredly identify a taxa; information from other kinds of samples is often used alongside it.
In fact, multiple nonlethal forms of collecting data from species are available which can even replace voucher specimen collection altogether. The authors of this article claim that “Collecting specimens is no longer required to describe a species or to document its rediscovery.” They cite other forms of documentation such as high-resolution pictures, audio recordings (including of mating calls if applicable), and DNA samples. For example, the bird species Bugun liocichla was identified using such methods. The authors conclude by encouraging widespread sharing of genetic information from previously collected voucher specimen in order to reduce future collections. Perhaps more importantly, they also advise scientific societies, volunteer naturalist groups, and museums to re-evaluate traditional specimen collection and to think critically about the costs and alternatives presented.
[Contributed by Mona Zahir]