A little more than a week ago, BirdLife Cyprus’s field trip officer Stavros Christodoulides was put into contact with a Larnaca-area taxidermist who reportedly had been given three Little Bustards Tetrax tetrax to stuff over the last two years. Why is that interesting, you ask? Because the presence of Little Bustards in Cyprus is news to just about anyone who studies or tracks birds. They were never common here, but none has been reported since 1998. Stavros visited the taxidermist to see the specimens for himself, and they’re the real thing. He took a few pictures and I’m sure will write-up a report for either the monthly newsletter or the quarterly magazine for BirdLife Cyprus. I will of course post that when it comes out.

Unfortunately it was the hunters who found the birds, as seems to be the case too frequently – hunters outnumber birders by at least 500:1 in Cyprus, and many hunters will specifically target rare and protected birds when they notice them.

Are there regularly Little Bustards here that go unseen though? Maybe. They prefer open grassland and fallow farmland for habitat, which is plentiful enough and remote enough to not get checked by those few individuals on the island interested in sighting and recording uncommon birds. Geographically, Cyprus is the right area however, smack-dab in the middle of its range from southern Europe and northwest Africa to central Asia.

More information to come when I see it in print or online.

• IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax. Downloaded on 13 November 2009.

This is an example of big science which could drive discoveries regarding evolution and more for years to come. A consortium of researchers are proposing in the Journal of Heredity to sequence the genomes of 10,000 vertebrate species! This would of course be a huge expansion from the already-sequenced 32 mammals and 24 nonmammalian vertebrate genomes.

While the Introduction and the Proposal itself are quite interesting, I thought that the Discussion really bears sharing and discussion with a wider audience. So I hope that no one objects to me re-printing it here where interested parties can comment on it…

Careful observations of the morphological and functional adaptations in vertebrates have formed the basis of biological studies for a millennium, but it is only recently that we have been able to observe the action of evolution directly at the genetic level. It is not known whether convergent adaptations in independent lineages are often governed by analogous changes in a small number of orthologous genome loci or if macroevolutionary events in separate lineages usually result from entirely idiosyncratic combinations of mutations. The evidence from several recent studies points toward the former hypothesis (Eizirik et al. 2003; Nachman et al. 2003). For example, adaptive hind-limb reduction occurred independently many times in different lineages and even within the same species, just as sticklebacks in different lakes adapted from an oceanic to a freshwater environment (Shapiro et al. 2006). These stickleback adaptations are all traced to independent deletions of the same distal enhancer of the PITX2 development gene, demonstrating remarkable convergent evolution at the genomic level (Kingsley D, HHMI, personal communication). By cataloging the footprints of adaptive evolution in every genomic locus on every vertebrate lineage, the G10K project will provide the power to thoroughly test the “same adaptation, same loci” hypothesis, along with other fundamental questions about molecular adaptive mechanisms.

In the course of this investigation, we will discover the genetic loci governing fundamental vertebrate processes. The study of the evolution of viviparity is an outstanding example. Birds, crocodiles, and turtles all lay eggs, whereas apart from monotremes, mammals are all live bearers. Thus, there was one fundamental transition from oviparity to viviparity in these amniotes, which caused a fundamental reorganization in the developmental program and large-scale change in gene interactions that we are only just beginning to understand. Remarkably, however, nonavian reptiles have over 100 independent evolutionary origins of viviparity (Blackburn 2000). Fish have an equally spectacular variety of such transitions, along with some amphibians, such as the frog genus Gastrotheca, which includes species with placental-like structures (Duellman and Trueb 1986). These many independent instances of the evolution of viviparity afford an extraordinary opportunity to explore the genomics behind this reproductive strategy.

The architecture of sex determination in vertebrates is similarly diverse, with examples of XY, ZW, and temperature-dependent mechanisms. The G10K project thus provides an equally exciting opportunity for dissection of this diversity. In fact, a few vertebrate species have abandoned sex altogether. What happens when an asexual genome descends from an ancestral sexual genome, as has occurred repeatedly in Aspidoscelis lizard lineages? Are the independent parthenogenetic genomes parallel in any way? In one group of lizards, genus Darevskia, the formation of unisexual species is phylogenetically constrained (Murphy et al. 2000), yet in others, for example, Aspidoscelis, it is not. Many species of lizards and snakes are also known to have facultative parthenogenesis: Unmated females produce viable eggs and offspring. Unisexuality also occurs in amphibians and fishes by gynogenesis, hybridogenesis, and in amphibians by kleptogenesis (Bogart et al. 2007). Sequential hermaphrodite fishes can change their sex. Do these parallel convergent changes involve the same genes? The evolution of longevity remains another question of great interest. What mechanisms are responsible for the 2 orders of magnitude differences among vertebrates and what sets the limits for long-lived species found in each of the vertebrate clades? By identifying genomic loci that support different evolutionary innovations such as these, the data from the G10K project will drive fundamental progress in molecular and developmental biology.

The symphony of vertebrate species that cohabit on our planet attests to underlying life processes with remarkable potential. Genomics reveals a unity behind these life processes that is unrivaled by any other avenue of investigation, exposing the undeniable relatedness and common origin of all species. By revealing genetic vulnerabilities in endangered species and tracking host–pathogen coevolution, genomics also plays an increasing role in sustaining biodiversity and combating emerging infectious diseases. Thus, the information in the genomes of threatened and endangered species revealed by the G10K project will be crucial to conservation efforts (Ryder et al. 2000; O’Brien 2003; Ryder 2005; Kohn et al. 2006; Schwartz et al. 2009). In studying the genomes of recently extinct species as well, molecular aspects of species’ vulnerability can be revealed and vital gaps in the vertebrate record restored. In all these ways, the G10K project will engage the public in the quest for the scientific basis of animal diversity and in the application of the knowledge we gain to halt extinctions and improve animal health.

As the printing of the first book by Johannes Gutenberg altered the course of human history, so did the human genome project forever change the course of the life sciences with the publication of the first full vertebrate genome sequence. When Gutenberg’s success was followed by the publication of other books, libraries naturally emerged to hold the fruits of this new technology for the benefit of all who sought to imbibe the vast knowledge made available by the new print medium. We must now follow the human genome project with a library of vertebrate genome sequences, a genomic ark for thriving and threatened species alike, and a permanent digital record of countless molecular triumphs and stumbles across some 600 million years of evolutionary episodes that forged the “endless forms most beautiful” that make up our living world.

This is from last month in The Onion, and I would have let it go as an amusing bit of satire, but I just can’t resist seeing as how I have a well-meaning but confused creationist trying to defend the idea that an organism could be created, designed, or whatever. Or maybe he’s a concern troll who accepts common descent. Hard to tell.

An early blueprint for the design of the heaven-sent creature.

God Introduces New Bird — “Our Heavenly Father has really outdone Himself this time,” ornithologist Dr. Avram Wasserbaum agreed. “Birds don’t tend to be His strong suit—take the buzzard or the dodo, for instance. This latest bird, though, has all of God’s patented design touches: splendor, grace, and an ineffable sense of timelessness. Trust me, once folks get a load of the brilliant plumage, this thing is really going to put God back on top.”

Try not to laugh: Some people really do think that this sort of thing has happened, more or less. This isn’t satire to them, it’s science.

“Rising sea levels, birds and forests on the other side of the world – all our actions are connected.” (Cathy Fitzgerald)

Go vote for Cathy at the 1 Minute to Save the World competition if you like this clip, which I found poetic and touching.

Perhaps in an effort to stir the pot so to speak, Corey at 10,000 Birds raised an interesting question a few days ago: Can Creationists Be Birders? The short answer is “Of course!” For most birders, the appreciation of birds does not extend much beyond the aesthetic beauty of the birds and the ability to match a bird with a name. That may be sufficient for some people just as knowing the names of their co-workers and acquaintances is sufficient, but when they’re finished, they know very little about the birds (or persons) themselves.

If you dig a layer deeper, a person can learn about the reproductive cycles and diets of the birds they watch. A person can also learn the geographical ranges of the birds that he or she knows. Or the quirky behaviors, flight styles, and habitat proclivities of those birds. Or all of the subtle hints that go into what birders call General Indicators of Size and Shape (GISS), which is often extended to include not just size and shape but any clue at all that can be used to distinguish what group or species of bird that may you glimpse.

An overlay of phylogeny and the biogeography for Monarch Flycatchers

First, the body of knowledge that has since formed the evidence for evolution was collected by creationists first and foremost. Creationism was still considered mainstream science during this golden age of studying taxonomy and morphology. Linnaeus, certainly no evolutionist, established the system of scientific classification that we use today, and his groupings were based upon shared physical characteristics. Only his groupings for animals remain to this day, and the groupings themselves have been significantly changed since Linnaeus’ conception, as have the principles behind them. Nevertheless, Linnaeus is credited with establishing the idea of a hierarchical structure of classification which is based upon observable characteristics — something that is entirely compatible with both the concepts of special creation and speciation.

Even Charles Lyell, who established a much older age for the Earth and paved the way for gradualism, had defended the thesis of “Centers of Creation.” These Centers offered a convenient argument for not only the periodic appearance of new species in the fossil record but also the observable differences between the floura and fauna of the continents, without really explaining how they got there. So, not only taxonomy but the observations of morphology and paleontology are compatible with either hierarchical organization of Earth’s flora and fauna.

In contrast, many of the greatest contributions to the growth of evolutionary thought sprang from observations of birds. It seems no coincidence that Darwin’s, Wallace’s and Mayr’s initial insights into the origins of species came from ornithology, and the biogeography of birds in particular. Evolution did not have a strong case until after Darwin’s Origin, which although it dealt little with the origin of species or birds, was instigated by a revelation gleaned from the puzzle of the Galapagos Mockingbirds, as Darwin’s meticulous notebooks revealed:

When I recollect the fact that [from] the form of the body, shape of scales and general size, the Spaniards can at once pronounce from which island any tortoise may have been brought; when I see these islands in sight of each other and possessed of but a scanty stock of animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure and filling the same place in nature; I must suspect they are only varieties. The only fact of a similar kind of which I am aware, is the constant asserted difference between the wolf-like fox of East and West Falkland Islands. If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks, the zoology of archipelagoes will be well worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of species.

So it was here, with this odd distribution of mockingbirds (as well as a few other details of island biogeography), that Darwin first thought that Lyell’s hypothesis of centers of creation and its principle conclusion – the fixity of species – had been undermined. He also later learned that many of the other birds that he thought to be wrens, warblers, etc., were in fact finches which provided the possibility of common ancestry between seemingly unrelated “kinds.” This is the case for a variety of phylogenies, such as the honeycreepers shown in the image below – an impressive display of diversity from a strange collection of birds that appear unrelated, but bear strong resemblances to one another upon closer inspection, that betray their common ancestry.

Similarly and quite independently, Alfred Russell Wallace made the same observations first across South American and then again in the Malaysian archipelago. And summarizing a career of collecting bird and insect specimens of tremendous variety – both between and within species – he proposed what became known as “Sarawak’s Law” in 1855: “Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.”

This simple enough explanation also defied arguments based on fixity of species or special creation. And, knowing this biological law, you can have some kind of inkling as to where the species of bird you may be looking at has come from. Even where the relationship of one taxon to others is unclear, it follows that it is simply unclear how that particular taxonomic group originated, not that it did not originate from a common ancestor with another group at all. In this way, denying speciation closes doors to understanding where a species of bird came from, or how it may be related to sister species or clades. Some well-studied examples may help illustrate this:

1. Single origin of a pan-Pacific bird group and upstream colonization of Australasia, by Christopher E. Filardi & Robert G. Moyle. (2005) Nature 438:216-219. (The paper on Monarch Flycatchers, shown in the image near the top of this post)
2. The Origin and Diversification of Galapagos Mockingbirds, by Brian S. Arbogast, Sergei V. Drovetski, Robert L. Curry, Peter T. Boag, Gilles Seutin, Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant, and David J. Anderson. (2006) Evolution 60(2):370-382. (Mentioned briefly above)
3. Clade-specific morphological diversification and adaptive radiation in Hawaiian songbirds, by Irby J Lovette, Eldredge Bermingham, and Robert E Ricklefs. (2001) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 269:37-42.

Hawaiian honeycreepers radiated from an ancestral founder that was a cardueline finch.

So while discussing how creationists may “appreciate” something pertaining to the origins and diversity of birds can be fickle, there are clearly some things that they cannot explain with a denial of speciation. Clearly I’m not speaking to “theistic evolutionists” here, and I’m not criticizing religion per se (here, anyway). I want to challenge one specific religious view with a few puzzles from the natural world. Puzzles which speciation appears to answer, but special creation cannot:

1. How do you comprehend the ongoing debates in ornithology over adaptive “niche-filling” and geographical separation for the origins of new species?

Since Mayr’s 1942 book Systematics and the Origin of Species, there has been an ongoing debate in biology over speciation. That is, is natural selection and an empty “niche” sufficient for a new species to emerge, or do you need geographical isolation to allow for genetic drift? Most biologists tend to think the latter, because natural selection does not select for reproductive isolation, which is required for the species to remain distinct. The study of the Geospiza group of Galapagos ground finches (aka Darwin’s finches) is perhaps the best study of adaptive speciation. Ongoing since 1973, Peter and Rosemary Grant have been trekking to the Galapagos island of Daphne to track the fluctuations of disruptive selection and hybridization, and the outcome of the studies leaves a reader with the ambiguous nature of adaptive speciation. See the book Evolution on Islands and chapter 9 in particular for more on this subject (Amazon US/UK).

2. How do you understand why we say that the best places for seeing a diverse group of new birds (for the observer) is on remote islands and archipelagos?

This follows from #1: If speciation occurs and island isolation speeds it along, then most islands will be a great place to observe newer endemic species seen nowhere else in the world. The conclusion to this “If, then” statement may seem unremarkable to most people, but it is one that has puzzled biologists since the Voyage of the Beagle, and the observation that paved the way for The Origin of Species

3. And, how do you comprehend the arguments underlying debates among ornithologists and taxonomists over “lumping” versus “splitting?”

And finally, if you deny that speciation occurs, how do you follow the debates over whether separate populations of birds are the same or separate species? The ornithologists will be speaking from completely different theoretical arguments than any creationist, effectively shutting out creationists from the discussion.

The creationist can certainly identify a bird from his or her field guide just as well as an evolutionist, and appreciate its appearance and behavior, but they’re missing details regarding the origins and diversity of those birds that inform the rest of us.

I was really excited to get the quarterly edition of BirdLife Cyprus (the magazine of BirdLife Cyprus, as it’s always packed with informational goodies. One article in particular was worth sharing, by Campaigns Officer Eleni Zissimou. I wanted to quote from it, as it details the situation in Cyprus for Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) representing the core efforts to protect the most vital habitat areas in Cyprus and in Europe.

A note of distinction: IBAs are descriptions on paper to signify value to ornithologists, designated by conservationist NGOs. SPAs however are designated by EU legislation, under the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC. Thus, SPAs are legislatively supposed to receive greater protection, although IBAs sometimes receive greater attention because they do not have the legal protections afforded to SPAs.

From the article:

According to the latest BirdLife Cyprus IBA inventory of 2004, there are 19 IBAs on the island, of which 16 are in the Republic. Of those, 15 have already been designated as SPAs, while the Akamas Peninsula is still outstanding. Additionally, there are a further 13 SPAs which today do not overlap with any IBAs. These were designated by the competent authority, the Game Fund in Cyprus, using ornithological data after 2004.

Protection on paper or in practices?

The 27 SPAs of the Cyprus Republic at first glance seem impressive, relative to the 15 IBAs. It is, however, ironic that these areas which are on the whole beautiful and which should be effectively protected, often seem to act as magnets for various developments that have the potential to degrade them or even destroy them, and as a consequence many today are seriously threatened. There are many reasons for this such as ownership of the land, the often not so strict implementation of the European law for environmental impact assessment, the sheer number of proposed developments and finally the apparent general lack of engagement by the Government.

Unfortunately, as with other countries, these areas are often treated as a problem and not a benefit for the future. Despite the fact that all advertisements of Cyprus abroad show beautiful areas, free of buildings and disturbance, i.e. areas like many of the IBAs or SPAs, and that it is likely that many foreign visitors expect to see on the island what they see in the pictures these areas are not effectively protected so as to remain such.

That is an excellent description of the conservation situation in Cyprus.

Guess the embryo

Any animal, be it a blue whale, botfly, or human, starts out as a single, fertilized cell. Then the cell divides, differentiates, and ultimately develops into a full-fledged animal according to a special set of genetic instructions–a “toolkit” that tells the embryo how and where to develop limbs and organs. All animals on Earth use essentially the same toolkit, so embryos of different species can appear startlingly similar to one another. Here, try to match a series of embryos to their adult forms, and then watch each creature develop during a portion of its early growth.

Some of the interactives and essays:

• The Zoo of You: In this interactive, see how closely parts of your body match those in other animals, from sharks to fruit flies.
• Guess the Embryo: See if you can tell what four similar-looking embryos will become, and watch each develop.
• What is Evo Devo?: Cliff Tabin defines the new field of “evo devo” and some of the groundbreaking discoveries he and others have made.
• Gene Switches: Some genes turn other genes on and off. In this slide show, see how powerful these gene switches can be.
• Darwin’s Predictions: Over 150 years later, science continues to confirm most of Darwin’s conjectures.

In recent weeks researchers at the University of Cyprus and elsewhere across Cyprus have heard what the proposed 2010 national budget entails, and we’re pretty scared for our jobs now. The finance minister has delivered the budget to parliament, with proposed cuts to science funding of 75-80% for the coming year. These cuts would mean I personally would lose my job on January 1st, and for other scientists here as well.

The purported reasons for the cuts: the economic crisis and a general low regard for science by the controlling party (AKEL – the far left Progressive Party of Working People).

I don’t have a link for you to read about the budget yourself, because there isn’t one. Cyprus is a bit behind in using the internet…

The good thing is that the parliament has not yet approved the cuts, giving researchers and institutions that would be very adversely effected a chance to protest. So, the head of my laboratory, Dr. Paris Skourides, has written a letter criticizing the government with the help of a number of other scientists here at the University of Cyprus as well as at the Cyprus Institute for Neurology and Genetics. It’s up on PetitionOnline.com now, and we’re looking for signatories from Cyprus and possessing a PhD or are PhD candidates.

Unfortunately for English-speaking readers of this blog, the petition is in Greek. I’ve copied it below the fold if you’d like to read it though, and Google Translate does a reasonable job of translating it if you’d like to get the gist.

Με τη Συνθήκη της Λισαβώνας το 2007, οι χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης συναποφάσισαν ότι η στρατηγική της ΕΕ να παραμείνει οικονομικά ανταγωνιστική έναντι των κύριων εταίρων της (ΗΠΑ, Ιαπωνία, Κίνα) στον 21ο αιώνα θα βασιστεί στην ενδυνάμωση της Έρευνας, Τεχνολογίας και Καινοτομίας. Η Έρευνα αποτελεί αναπόσπαστο μέρος της οικονομικής δραστηριότητας, καθώς συνεισφέρει στην Ανάπτυξη με θέσεις εργασίας και παραγωγή καινοτόμων προϊόντων και νέας γνώσης, στην επίλυση προβλημάτων υγείας, περιβάλλοντος, ενέργειας και κοινωνικής συνοχής, και στην εκπαίδευση του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού. Είναι ακόμη και κοινό πολιτισμικό αγαθό για την ανθρωπότητα. Προς εκπλήρωση αυτού του στόχου, οι χώρες που προσυπέγραψαν τη Συνθήκη δεσμεύτηκαν να επενδύσουν στην Έρευνα και Τεχνολογική Ανάπτυξη 2% του ακαθάριστου εθνικού προϊόντος, (ΑΕΠ), μέχρι το 2013.

Η Κύπρος, που σημειώνει ένα από τα χαμηλότερα ποσοστά επένδυσης για την Έρευνα (0.45% του ΑΕΠ), έκανε την τελευταία δεκαετία αξιοπρόσεκτες προσπάθειες για να εναρμονιστεί με την ευρωπαϊκή τάση, παρόλο που εξακολουθεί να υπολείπεται σημαντικά του ευρωπαϊκού μέσου όρου (1.85% του ΑΕΠ). Η σταθερή χρηματοδότηση ερευνητικών προγραμμάτων τη τελευταία δεκαετία έχει επιτρέψει σε Κυπριακά ακαδημαϊκά ιδρύματα και ερευνητικούς φορείς να προσελκύσουν αξιόλογους νέους αλλά και πιο έμπειρους επιστήμονες (Κύπριους και ξένους) από το εξωτερικό. Τα άτομα αυτά προσελκύθηκαν στην Κύπρο, παρόλη την έλλειψη ερευνητικής παράδοσης και μεγάλης υποδομής, λόγω του ότι η Κύπρος έδειχνε να έχει μια συνεπή και με συνέχεια πολιτική για την Έρευνα με μια σχετικά μικρή αλλά σταθερά ανοδική πορεία για τη χρηματοδότηση της.

Θέλουμε όμως να εκφράσουμε την μεγάλη μας ανησυχία και αντίθεση για τη φημολογούμενη και διαφαινόμενη διακοπή της χρηματοδότησης της Έρευνας στον τόπο μας για διάστημα μέχρι το 2011, ως απόρροια της οικονομικής κρίσης. Προσφέρεται η άποψη ότι η ζημιά που θα προκαλέσει η δραστική μείωση των κονδυλίων θα είναι παροδική και έτσι δεν θα επηρεάσει τους φορείς της Έρευνας μακροπρόθεσμα. Πιστεύουμε ότι η άποψη αυτή είναι εντελώς λανθασμένη: η δραστική μείωση της χρηματοδότησης της Έρευνας θα έχει και σοβαρές και μακροχρόνιες αρνητικές επιπτώσεις για την Έρευνα στην Κύπρο, καθώς και για το επίπεδο της τριτοβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης στο νησί μας. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, με τη μείωση των κονδυλίων για την έρευνα και το πάγωμα των ερευνητικών προγραμμάτων, η Κυπριακή πολιτεία:

(α) Ουσιαστικά υποβαθμίζει την αξία των πτυχίων που δίδονται από τα Πανεπιστήμια της Κύπρου, αφού ένα από τα κυριότερα στοιχεία για την αξιολόγηση και κατάταξη ακαδημαϊκών ιδρυμάτων διεθνώς είναι η ποιότητα της Έρευνας που παράγεται σε αυτά.
(β) Προκαλεί την απώλεια ικανών φοιτητών, αλλά και αυτοί που παραμένουν καταδικάζονται στη διεξαγωγή σπουδών δεύτερης κατηγορίας. Με λίγα λόγια οδηγούμαστε σε υποβάθμιση της αξίας των πτυχίων των αποφοίτων μας και ταυτόχρονα καταδικάζεται το μέλλον και η καριέρα μεγάλου αριθμού φοιτητών.
(γ) Οδηγεί πολύ σύντομα στην ανεργία σημαντικό αριθμό ερευνητών οι οποίοι επέλεξαν την Κύπρο για την ενασχόλησή τους με την έρευνα (ενδεικτικά, μόνο στο Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου εργοδοτούνται περίπου 500 νέοι ως ερευνητές σε ερευνητικά προγράμματα του Iδρύματος). Ταυτόχρονα, υποσκάπτει τις προσπάθειες για προσέλκυση αξιόλογων Κύπριων και ξένων επιστημόνων, εξωθώντας τους να γυρίσουν την πλάτη στην Κύπρο, προτιμώντας ανταγωνιστικές χώρες στο εξωτερικό.
(δ) Αποδυναμώνει μακροπρόθεσμα τα ακαδημαϊκά και ερευνητικά ιδρύματα του τόπου, αφαιρώντας τους ουσιαστικά τη δυνατότητα που απέκτησαν μετά από πολλά (και σκληρά) χρόνια για την προσέλκυση ερευνητών και ακαδημαϊκών υψηλού επιπέδου.

Συμπερασματικά, η απουσία μακρόπνοης και αδιάλειπτης χρηματοδότησης της Έρευνας στην Κύπρο συνιστά ένα τραγικό λάθος στρατηγικής, που θα μας ξαναγυρίσει πολλά χρόνια πίσω μετά από μια επώδυνη, αλλά πολλά υποσχόμενη, περίοδο ανάπτυξης στον τομέα αυτό.
Sincerely,

The Undersigned

This is part of the series of posts Poaching in Cyprus FAQ

What Birds Are Caught And Killed By Poachers?

According to the first report on bird trapping levels by BirdLife Cyprus in 2002, more than 150 species of birds (39.5% of the total Cyprus check-list) have been recorded as caught with limesticks or mist-nets. (Hubbard 1967; Horner & Hubbard 1982; Flint & Stewart 1983; Magnin 1986). The 2002 study added seven new species to this list.

The most commonly trapped birds are passerines, forming 71.1% of the species trapped and 98.6% of the total birds trapped. Among these, the commonest are species of the family Sylvia. Although only 11% of the species trapped, they formed 87.2% of the total number of individual birds trapped. These figures, however, are likely a gross overestimate, as these figures are derived from seizures of birds from trappers. As trappers selectively favor Sylvia warblers, it is likely that prior to being intercepted by enforcement agencies, trappers also caught other species that had been killed and discarded.

For a more accurate look at what bird species are caught and killed, one must look back further, to records of trappers cooperating with researchers and reporting their results honestly. According to a 1968 study of bird liming in Cyprus, published by John P. Hubbard in 1982 and conducted with the cooperation of “bird limers” (limestick trappers), 99 species of birds were found to be trapped by limesticks. Here, the most frequently caught was the Lesser Whitethroat (5415/25201), followed by Chiffchaff (4646) and Blackcap (3946). Together these three species accounted for 55.6% of the “catch.” Also taken in large numbers were Redstarts (1325), Orphean Warblers (1062), Whitethroats (676), Willow Warblers (673), Pied/Collared Flycatchers (568), and Subalpine Warblers (654). Other numerous species were the Robin, Hoopoe, House Sparrow, and Cyprus Wheatear (all 300-400); Nightingale and Song Thrush (200-300); and Isabelline Wheatear, Spotted Flycatcher, Bonelli’s Warbler, Cuckoo, Scop’s Owl, Masked Shrike, Wryneck, Thrush-Nightingale, Reed Warbler, and Tree Pipit (all 100-200). Together, these 29 species totaled 94.4% of the “catch.” Large birds were also caught, albeit in small numbers, including Pallid Harrier, Merlin, Barn Owl, Short-eared Owl, and Long-eared Owl. Another 65 species were caught that were not included in this brief summary.

Similarly, a 1986 study by Gernant Magnin, revealed similar numbers of caught birds. They also noted 28 species then-considered to be “vulnerable species in Europe,” and 9 species with “limited global range (breeding or wintering) with important populations in Europe.

So the answer to the question posed in this post: Any bird species can be caught on limesticks and mist-nets, and close to half of the ~380 bird species recorded in Cyprus have been caught at one time or another. And limesticks are not any more selective than mist-nets on the whole.

In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science–that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Discover, May 1981

Just a little quibble with this quote though… In it, Gould says that Darwin proposed a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. That’s untrue – Darwin proposed several, complementary theories to explain evolution, the most notable being Sexual Selection.