A ghost appears - out of the blue - and creates a red-hot firestorm!

Scientists often find themselves maligned whenever they appear to be meddling with things better left alone (in the public's opinion) such as cloning, gene editing, stem cell manipulations and embryo biology. The controversy surrounding the mammoth steps being taken in molecular biology of the human genome is considered par for the course to many, but one expects to hear barely a chirp regarding the field of ornithology.

Not so today, with the discovery and first photographic evidence of the magnificent blue, white and orange "ghost" species known as the Guadalcanal moustached kingfisher (Actenoides bougainvillei excelsus); this rare and extremely elusive bird had only been seen twice in recent history, back in 1920 and then again in 1953, but this was the first male ever found and recorded. 

This bird, with it's deep blue feathers and streaks running from its beak to the back of its head (hence the "moustache"), is a species of unquestionable beauty; a beauty which Chris Filardi had been searching for over the past two decades. Filardi is the Director of Pacific programs for the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at their Center for Biodiversity and Conservation. Kudos to him for finally running into it - a testament to true scientific dedication and perseverance - which AMNH was quick to announce on social media. 

 

AMNHVerified account‏@AMNH

These are the 1st-ever photos of a male moustached kingfisher! More on this "ghost" species: http://trib.al/YBbdc1U 

His heart must have skipped a beat when he saw this specimen in the trees on Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, and while as a scientist I can understand how it must have felt to be seeing one's dream crystallise right in front of one's eyes, his subsequent move to turn that bird quite literally into a specimen has ruffled some serious feathers, even among the scientific community. The euphemism that Filardi chose was that he "collected" it - and we all know what that word really means - which seems to many to be as unusual a decision as the bird itself. 

You finally realise your dreams, and discover your very own (living) philosphoer's stone, and upon finding it, decide then and there to kill it? Filardi described his find as both a "symbol of hope" as well as a "purveyor of possibility", albeit now a dead symbol of hope with zero possibility. Of course, as scientists do, he claims it was "collected" for research purposes, which to many seems to be a convenient excuse. What exactly are we going to learn about the moustached kingfisher species by cutting it open?

There has been quite a bit of outrage expressed at what Filardi did, with one of the most pre-eminent and vocal being Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, who said - 

"When will the killing of other animals stop? We need to give this question serious consideration because far too much research and conservation biology is far too bloody and does not need to be".

Filardi's response to that came in an op-ed piece he authored for Audobon entitled "Why I collected a Moustahced Kingfisher" wherein he elaborated that the decision to take the bird was "neither an easy one nor one taken in the spur of the moment". In fact, he claimed that in somewhat of a surprise to him, the environment the birds inhabit in the remote forests of the Solomon Islands ia thriving, and this bird is not regarded as rare, there. 

Team members apparently assessed both the state of the population and the state of its habitat and concluded that taking the male bird would have no impact on survival of the species. How accurate that conclusion may be is at the root of the furore over the sacrifice, which to many comes across as extremely selfish and self-serving, and typical of the arrogance of scientists with their "we know best" attitude. 

I suppose only time will tell whether Filardi truly did something game-changing towards the long-term survival of this beautiful bird and "ghost" species, or whether his act was simply typical of the overzealousness of the stereotypical animal "collector" - a certain American dentist comes to mind as an example of that stereotype, and how reviled it is by animals lovers everywhere. 

What do you think?! These situations always create a very spirited debate among scientists and the public, and occasionally even between scientists and the public, and that can only be a good thing, most of the time. Personally, I find it hard to imagine killing an animal I had been searching for during two decades of my life, especially if upon tough questioning of myself, I had trouble justifying what that killing was going to do for science. But that's just me, and my opinion!