[log in to unmask]" name=":0" id=":0_2-e" alt="" />


I'm unaware of any alleged extinction by activities of collectors.  It's always been about the habitat.  If the population could get so small and squeezed into a corner that a collector could wipe it out, it was dooomed by bad (or no) management.  Better to have the last specimen in a collection with good data than to never know what happened.

I feel we have a positive story to tell without having to be on the defensive. I suggest we have to blunt the appeal of sensationalism.  Some reporters on NPR, like many reporters, want to get the dirt.

BTW, I'm enjoying this conversation on ECN-L  I rarely participate, but this issue strikes close to a home I've been working on for many years.



Michael A. Ivie [log in to unmask] via msu.edu 

3:42 PM (6 minutes ago)
to metzlere, ECN-L
[log in to unmask]" role="button" id=":15k" class="ajz" data-tooltip="Show details" />
Hi Eric,

Do you have actual data showing that museum professionals collecting for scientific purposes contributed to the extinction of a species? Not that the last known specimen of the Xerces Blue was collected by Harry Lange, but that the collecting was the factor that drove the extinction?  I am betting not.  That is the issue before us.