Great post Gerold! Man, here it comes for what it's worth!
 I have always understood the need for museum specimens for the study of animals that would/could not otherwise be seen by the students. I understand the need for the locality data and for voucher specimens as well, to help with range maps, etc. I even agree that with prolific specimens, a large sampling could yield greater understandings in the variences of the species in question.
 But like you, I think herpetology, biology, and herpetoculture would have been better served allowing this and other rare or newly identified species to live its life in captivity to study what behaviors it may or may not have exhibited, possibly awaiting a mate to leading to further studies of its' life cycle, even if in captivity, before ultimately ending up in a pickle jar for the museum or college collection. I guess maybe the addage "it's just a rattlesnake" could be used by the scientists, "we already know enough about them" is really not the right attitude IMHO.  
 I am more than happy to donate any of my snakes, WC or CB, to a museum for their collections, AFTER it has lived its' life out, whether an old snke, a neonate that didn't make it, at any age that the snake dies. I guess the scientists could come up with the arguement that I actually brought about said snakes death, so what's the difference? The difference is I TRIED to the best of my abilities, with an amazing array of resources for additional help, to give the captive the best care I could, in order to better understand the animal and its' life cycle. I think there are enough herpetoculturists out there with enough enthusiasm to give the universities and museums the best info currently available on nearly all species. It would be the ultimate win-win scenario, the well rounded hobbyist gets to fulfill their dream of working with an animal they would not otherwise be able to, and the scientific community gets data to add to the knowledge of the species. I sincerely hope that the scientific community couls and would use all the resources available to them to acheive their desired goals. I can't think of a more cost efficient way to get your data recorded than have a dedicated "layman" working for them for nothing, lol!
 I think it rash and not good science to pickle anything without having more than one or three people look at and photograph a newly described species. What more could have been gleaned, venom type/toxicity, size, possible sexual dimorphism, feeding preferences, temp preferences, the list is too long, was it a male? hemipene structure, was it a female? gravid? litter size? too many questions, only a couple answers on this case, I fear.
 Todd Hughes

The way reptilian taxonomy is going nowadays, once they had a few good tissue samples from which to obtain their precious mtDNA, they probably lost any interest in the actual, you know, snake.  
 
If it were me in such a situation, there is no way that such a specimen would have entered a jar until it had met its natural demise.  There is absolutely nothing required for a formal species description that could not have been obtained without sacrificing the only known specimen.  
 
I agree with Riley that this snake looks just too much like Crotalus stejnegeri to not be very closely related - I'm not so sure about lannomi, but then I haven't seen as many pictures of that one.  Of course the geographic distance between known populations of stejnegeri and ericsmithi would, by itself, be enough for the Evolutionary Species Concept (ESC) crowd to insist that it has to be considered a distinct species - kind of like they have with the ridiculous "Heterodon gloydi".    

Chris,
 
Regardless of which way you got here   ....we are happy to have you onboard.
 
-Gerald

Chris good to see your posts, I need another lizard guy on the forum as well!!  Hey guys I am in total agreement with the posts.  Here is the issue from my perspective.  When Randy and I started studying the Reticulate Collared Lizard we have decided not to take any vouchered specimens however we did have one expire due to some illness yet unidentified, we put him in the freezer and are not exactly sure if there is a need for another specimen.  But here are some of the things that come to my mind.  First of all documenting an animal in situ is extremely important.  With a macro lens set-up you can get a super close-up of head scales and also do a field survey of your animals as far as femoral pores or post anal scales and the like.  I think because the DNA thing has become a prevelent way of identifying etc. some of the older tried and true methods are becoming less and less sought after, however like all of you have said, why kill an animal when you could study in captivity?  You take a new specie and you know nothing about its natural history, and the fact of the matter most of these guys don't know how to take care of a reptile.  Again the reason why many hobbyists do have a valuable offering to science.....  With the advent of the digital age and the excellent cameras that out there, I just don't get the need to do vouchers. I have to tell you that I was told that without vouchers my work would not be acceptable to many herpetologists.  Since TWP had enough faith in us to do this project, we are documenting our specimens and while our method may not be the accepted protocol, we could not in good conscience voucher these magnificent animals. So our publishing method is taking advantage of the digital age and the new tools at our discretion, so our offering may be different, if a herpetologist wants to discredit our work for a lack of vouchers we have already accepted the fact there are going to be some in fact one well known person already has told as much.  But we believe our methodology is good and accurate and is the best of both worlds.....With GPS and others one can easily hone in on an isolated unknown population or out of range location, any one intersted can go look....I suppose there is a need for vouchers for some animals, but the ability to give almost live pictures of an animal its scales and coloration which is often lost by voucher process, is in my opinion an acceptable way to document a specie.  Just look at some of the posts we have on this site, even with a close up of some of the rattler head shots I have seen, I can almost count scales etc with such pictures, someone using a close-up lens can totally capture the uniquenesses of the animal.  With digital media one can send this all over the world for examination.
With a live specimen there is nothing that can't be studied including DNA.  So why voucher.  Gerald its a good question to ponder.  I am  sure there may be a reason for a voucher specimen other than what has been discussed.  I think one of the things about this is proof that  they indeed found a specific specie between herpetologists.  With the advent of new tools documentation protocols could be set up and used by everyone?    
 
So why isn't this discussed in the higher end circles?  I don't know who sets up the "rules" but it seems totally acceptable to me to use the modern tools we have to document a specie?  If your in the jungle in Borneo you can do it digitally, GPS the site, take blood samples, or tissue samples.  Why not?  
 

Without belaboring this, with the advent of GPS, telephoto and macro lenses, blood samples, scale and tissue samples, and other digital and medical tools, I see no reason for there to be vouchered specimens.  Again, I hope when our stuff is published someone might look at this and see or hopefully see that reptiles can be documented without the aid of a voucher specimen.  The other thing is that this media is a available to anyone anywhere in the world. It doesn't take up space, and so all the way around I believe that some kind of protocol could or should be developed.  Interestingly, all our pictures and documentation automatically detail the time and date and the fact that each lizard is a unique picture in situ.  SO there is no problem telling one from another, and copious headlining of your media can further detail location information.  You have the best of all worlds in my opinion.....

Quote from Robert_Hansen on Jul 4^th, 2010, 12:07am:

 
Absolutely agree.
 
Quote:

 
Also agree.  This is the kind of scenario I was thinking about when typing my last post.
 
Quote:

 
THIS is what I was thinking about too--I've been on a survey where ONE individual of a species was found at a locale, and the species in general appears to be in decline.  The biologist we were with took possession for subsequent pickling.  Not sure why a photo wouldn't be sufficient in this case, leaving the lizard to reproduce...
 
 
Quote:

 
Excellent point, and well taken.  You might correctly deduce I'm not an amphibian-focused guy.  
 
 
Quote:

 
YES!

Quote:

 
Well, if the scientific journal won't accept a description without a pickled snake then screw 'em. As for workers needing access to a pickled holotype - Why? Let 'em come study the living specimen, just as the original describers did, they'll be fine and might even get some real appreciation for the animal.
 
At the risk of ringing heretical, maybe the question is: What's more important, the animal or the study of it? If you love something, how about letting it live...and just think, then others would be able to enjoy it too, not just the men in the white coats who's primary interest may have more to do with intellectual gratification and career development than the well being of their subjects.
 
I believe we are capable of evolving beyond archaic and obsolete mind sets and practices.

Professional Researchers, Commercial collectors and Hobbyists all take wildlife, including some things that should not be taken.
.
The Scientific-Educational community has been way more successful than others in promoting themselves as the positive players in the hunt and search for wildlife specimens.. and including rare and endangered specimens.. Yet it's obvious to any unbiased observer that the hobby and amateur community contributes at least as much to the understanding (and ultimate continuation) of these animals as does academia.
.
In truth much good and much damage has come from the activities of all involved parties.. Examples of the negative effects of over-taking wildlife are too numerous to mention.. But it's pertinent to mention that it's only the so-called Scientific community that clings to the cloak of goodness and progress to excuse whatever they do.. Yet they appear to be motivated by the same 'me first', 'me only' acquisitiveness that they publicly despise in the 'private' sector.
.
The main tragedy is that these interests.. the only groups who give a damn about many lower vertebrates and especially the Reptilia.. continue to be non-aligned.
.
Personally, I place the blame for this on Government espousing ridiculous, non-conservation policies on the taking of wildlife and willife resources.. which only institutionalize species loss and protect the status-quot..
.
That's what I think about that.

Well, I have also given some of this thought...
 
Quote:

 
I definitely understand this point. I have no Idea how a dead animal would benefit science more than one that is alive. The only extra thing they would be able to do with a dead animal is a dissection, and I dont know what one wold gain from this. And of course, with a live animal one can learn about it through captive observations. For example, a large terrarium with varying temperatures could reveal the animals preferred temps and as a result help the field biologists is their pursuit for the animal. Obviously results of captive animals preferences wouldn't be widely excepted in publication but, as I said, it could help us locate them in the wild so we can properly document the animal (wither it be collection, or just recording data). And if they cant afford a few cages, heat lights etc. for a few rare species then I have to wonder where all that money they want from me is going!  . As far as museums/universities letting private breeders study live herps collected by the museum I don't see it happening. At least not that often. Mainly because the museums would only need a few live animals do experiments with (such as above) and it would be difficult for them to have to correlate with a breeder. The local zoo on the other hand would be a lot more practical.  
 
As far as the sheer numbers of animals edu institutes collect, I must say they often get over zealous. I recall when reading slowinski's book that they talked about collecting 200 specimens of one species. I don't see how this would be necessary or even benefit the the institute, considering the 1000's of animals they brought back take up a lot of space. A little tissue sample along with gps location would be enough for phylogeny.  
 
I have got the impression that every university seems to want their own 50 pickled specimens of a species just so they can say they have em to. And this of course is in the interest of the universities bragging rights and does not really help the scientific aspect.  
 
Quote:

 
I understand what your saying here, in the grand scheme of things does it really matter? Its not like any one really needs to know that snake A originated from snake B. I'm all for figuring it out, just saying we're only doing it for our curiosity.

Very well put both Hans and Suboc. It is a complex issue with no simple answers as I wish it could be and every case involves different circumstances and is hopefully considered on that basis.
 
In the case of the only known specimen of a type I would opt for maintaining it live in a secure situation as long as possible. What scientific advantage might be gained from killing it that would outweigh the priviledge of others to enjoy it as a living thing? It's like - "Hey, we found a really cool new species, let's kill it" ...say what? - Heck, why do we even bother preserving habitat and species in the wild when we could have 'em all in pickle jars?

Wow.  I was going to stay out of this one, but I think that quote by Dr. Holycross pretty much nails it right there.  Kudos to you, Tom, for having the sense to save that!  I came into the hobby in the summer of 2005, so I just barely missed the fireworks in the AZPARC forums.  I am glad that I got to read that, though!
 
Also, Hans makes a good point: anytime you remove an animal from the wild, you essentially "kill" it, as far as that population is concerned.  Put it in  jar, put it in a tank - whatever your reasoning and justification, it is dead to nature and the gene pool.
 
While I do agree that there may be some scientific value to observing and reproducing captive animals, the truth of the matter is that no one is really capable of replicating their exact habitat, microhabitat, weather patterns, predation, moisture or lack thereof, or any of the 1000's of pressures that these animals must face on a daily basis.  THAT is what dictates their choices and, in essence, their natural history.  
 
Yes, we know we can power feed a Kingsnake on newsprint and make it double clutch at age 2 for a total 10-16 offspring, but does that really tell you what is going on in the wild populations?

My point here is not in trying to sway anybody's opinion, but as herp folks, I do believe it's important that all of us have some common knowledge about why natural history collections exist, the purpose(s) they serve, etc. Thus, I found this piece from the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology's web site (http://mvz.berkeley.edu/Why_Collections.html) appropriate to share here:
 
Quote:
Why collect specimens and not just take pictures? While photographs hold a great deal of information about animals, they provide only a glimpse of what is gained by preserving a whole specimen. Museums strive to safeguard as much information about each individual specimen as possible -- which includes taking photographs.
 
Historically, specimens were preserved primarily as dried skins, skulls and skeletons, or in formalin and stored in ethanol. However, many of the ways of describing diversity were not even imagined when the museum started in 1908. For this reason, we now try to preserve much more of the animal whenever we collect a specimen. This includes soft tissues for studies of DNA and proteins, as well as anatomical parts, parasites, and stomach contents.
 
Besides documenting presence, we use the collections to describe diversity at many different levels. Having specimens in hand allows researchers to compare the morphology, stomach contents, stable isotopes (a chemical view of diet and geographic origin), parasite levels and molecular differences, among many other disciplines of science. Few of these kinds of studies are possible with live animals.
 
Implicit in the documentation of diversity is the correct identification of species. Some species are quite obvious, but even in California we are still documenting species well outside their commonly recognized range. And certain groups, like shrews, are very difficult to identify without close examination of their skulls and molecular sequences. Likewise, some animals hybridize in nature and one tool might suggest an animal is one species, whereas another tool might suggest it belongs to another! Holding the specimens allows us to recheck identifications later. This is the concept of the voucher specimen. The voucher documents an animal at a specific place and time, thus allowing researchers to re-examine the specimen if results from a study lead to questions about its identification. This would not be possible if the animal were released.
 
A striking finding from the last few years is that there is much more diversity in some animals than expected. Much of this diversity is easily overlooked, and is ascertained only by sequencing of DNA or looking at small bones or phalli. The result is that new species are being discovered, not just in less-studied areas such as the tropics but also in places like California. Take, for example, the 20 species of slender salamander (genus Batrachoseps) illustrated in the 2003 Peterson field guide to western reptiles and amphibians, compared to one in the 1985 edition! These discoveries would have been overlooked if we only had photographs.
 
Another important reason for collections is that they allow researchers to assess how populations, species, or communities of animals have changed over time. Some of our collections have excellent historical series from certain areas, and thus are very good representatives of past communities. We can revisit those areas to see if the same species still exist in the same places, take photographs to document changes in habitat, and compare historical and current information on morphology, genetics, and diet, among other traits. By making new collections, we can compare modern with historical records and set a baseline for future studies, the kinds of which may be unknown to us today."
 
I might add that for many places in both the US and especially Mexico, entire herp communities are gone as habitats have disappeared. Examples in Mexico are too numerous to cite, and include outright extinctions of species occurring in small ranges. The only knowledge we have of some of these species derives from specimens in natural history collections, which will continue to be a source of information for as long as there are herpetologists with questions. Some of the most important collections for the area pertinent to readers of this forum are the Texas Natural History Collection (UT, Austin), UT Arlington, Texas A&M, U of Arizona, San Diego Natural History Museum, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (UC Berkeley).
 
Cheers,
 
Bob

"Collecting animals on behalf of educational institutions is no different than collecting them for private use."  
 
O.k. that’s absurd….
 
SAY WHAT?!?!?!?  
 
I can't let this patently flawed sentiment stand unchallenged. My hope is that it was offered out of ignorance of the many uses and values of museum collections.... which are legion.  
 
I understand the need to fully maintain a “system” that has been created for the purposes of identifying animals and categorizing and studying them, we all got that and most of us know that and have some idea about vouchers or we wouldn’t be discussing the topic..
 
Scientific specimens are the fundamental basis of our understanding of the relationships of organisms (systematics). They are the "realities" that systematics is based on... not the ephemeral names we attach to units (genera, species, etc.). The "names" evolve with our own understanding. The specimens stay the same. Specimens are also invaluable in understanding natural history, geographic distribution, ecology, anatomy, reproductive biology, diet, character distribution, etc. etc.  
 
Agreed--granted, but when you talk about “specimens” lets look at a live catch that is fresh, no museum piece can capture for instance the color variations in the lizards that I am studying, actually a digital voucher or picture captures this unique locals coloration just after being captured, noosed, what ever in situ… In our case northern and southern locations have a variation on pattern and coloration, we do not imply speciation, we just note that this exists. And yes specimens are invaluable so why not have it taken alive and have it studied alive???
After all it is the academic community who is given the credence most often to take a specimen for such evaluations, so I think respectfully the ball is in your court as well to help bridge this “noted gap”.  I pray as Gerald or others have said that the “gulf” between the two will come together, because as sited above many of the hobbyists and semi-un-papered experts have contributed greatly to science and academia….
 
 
When a biologist or natural historian takes a specimen, they usually do so with some understanding of how it may benefit our collective knowledge of biology. Regardless, specimens are stored in perpetuity for use in future studies, and they often are used in ways that the collector did not anticipate.  
 
 
I think you comment above may be short sighted, respectfully.  You could not know some of the possible uses yourselves as time goes on.. I think there are a lot of people even on this site that approach a new specie or a new discovery  there own first exposure to a new specie just as scientific and ask many of the same questions and have exactly the same curiosities that you have…..
 
 
For example, here at ASU, researchers recently took small patches of skin from the hindlimbs of a number of our frogs and managed to partially reconstruct the epidemiological history of chytrid introduction in Arizona. Information that might prove useful in confronting this grave threat to our native ranids. Do you think that any of the people who thoughtfully collected, preserved, attached data to, and deposited these specimens (in the 1960's and 70's) even knew what chytrid was? Do you think they collected these frogs with some self-serving motive in mind?  
 
Again your point is?  Only an academic has the mind or experience or “learning” to collect and that others have a self-serving motivation???  

 
 My own research on diet and reproduction in snakes has relied extensively on museum specimens from around the country. I like to think that those specimens have contributed to our understanding of the natural history of montane rattlesnakes.  
 
 
ASU alone sends out a dozen or more herpetological specimen loans a year, and hosts about as many visitors to the collection. Recently, folks have used our specimens to study diet of G. quadrangulare, P. decurtatus, P. browni, C. lepidus, C. willardi, H torquata, P. catenifer, S. catenatus, etc. , to name just a few of the snakes. We have shipped out just as many loans for histological/reproductive investigations... again in snakes alone. Our specimens have also supported taxonomic studies of Aspidoscelis, Xantusia, etc. etc. etc.  
 
 
Again here the study consists of a study that already is set up under the “systematics” you discussed earlier.  There is so much information on various reptiles on the internet taken by hobbyists and others that are significant and unused, your insistence on the voucher specimen and its applicability I am not trying to argue with, it is already there and set up, but indeed if we had a system of digital vouchers set up, you might find of some or many of your study purposes would indeed relish such pictures…..  
 
Authoritative books, like Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico, provide dot distribution maps for species that are based almost entirely on voucher specimens.  
 
Correct because this is the systematic and the way it is currently done, the suggestion is that in this digital age, a GPS, Digital picture of the animal in situ, and various shots of the lizard are indeed as valuable and only because this is unaccepted is not recognized as a “tool”.  This again goes back to the Professionals who are laughing at me right at this moment because I am not willing to voucher any of my animals (unless they expire), and will provide a digital picture with GPS an other such tools.  Certainly anyone with a brain can check my work if they think I am a lier, because that is what this seems to got to, is that even in our own academic communities, they don’t trust one another, and so this is the quintessential way of “being sure” that the wool hasn’t been pulled over someone’s eyes….
 
 
A dot (distributional record) means nothing unless any person questioning it can go to a public institution and verify its identity. The only way one can do this is through publicly vouchered specimens. Voucher photographs are a nice supplement... but specimens are preferred.  
 
 
Sir I respect your professionalism but I think I could produce a map of horned lizard distribution that is better than mist maps out there but because this is not Blessed, it would be “suspect” as to whether it is trustworthy?  All of my distribution information is backed by GPS, in situ photo’s, and terrain shots as well as locations.  If you put a lizard in a jar and say its from Arizona by accident or falsely on purpose, who’s going to know?  Well the professional who actually questions that location and researches it,  guess what I can read hundreds of mistakes in the accepted specimen accounts that the wrong locations have been given?  It happens to any one including and indeed academic institutions…..
Wasn’t Gerald’s idea s to get some ideas of what we all think, and well maybe this could be the beginning of a dialogue between us all in setting up some standards that will indeed utilize new advances and technology….
 
In twenty years, when our understanding of geographic variation in a group results in new nomenclature, will you be able to identify an individual from the photograph? What if it requires examination of ventral scutellation? What if it requires tissue? Or measurements that are not available in a photograph?  
 
 
 
Wait a minute--that was a mouth full.  Could you see that a digital photograph has a digital signature, it tells the date it was taken on what camera and other info, the GPS of the site, certainly several people are advocating taking a tissue sample when required?  And your totally wrong about ventral scutellation, I take pics of all the lizards and can tell males and females count the femoral pores, post anal scales female color wrap and all other such things including a compressed tail, or inguinal patches, dark mouth patches, type of eye color variations between populations, and on and on all captured digitally, so you make it sound of the people here that have an idea of researching digital vouchers are like some guy down the street that takes a picture and turns it in.   We are talking about professionally taken high end megipixel cameras that can catch intricate detail that you’d have to look under a magnifying glass to get with close-up digital pics.  
 

Modern collections also include tissue vouchering as a de rigueur part of accessioning of specimens. Those tissues are available to the scientific community for molecular investigations of relationships. Many of which have contributed significantly to our understanding of the evolutionary history of these species. Ultimately, such studies are imperative in identifying units for conservation of biological diversity.  
 
 
Recently, NSF-funded initiatives (like HerpNET), have essentially merged collection databases on the web. Ultimately, users will be able to search all major collections simultaneously and generate dot distribution maps from those data. And the dots will actually mean something, since they have specimens behind them.  
 
O.K. your entitled to your opinion, but the only reason why these maps are any better than including digital photo’s is that this is the “system” of accepted protocols…
A digital map with GPS, and information pertinent tot hat capture of location or in situ photo can and is already incorporated on to maps and believe me my friend they are very accurate and dependable….so I believe that it is totally responsible and scientific to consider proper standards for digital vouchers especially because of what I am aware of maps that can capture the information and is or may be more valuable than a voucher specimen.  Right now this discussion is pie in the sky--you won’t except my digital vouchers and I am telling you that I can demonstrate to you that there is a way of providing most all the information you need digitally.  Everyone of those vouchers had someone collect them, well the same thing happens for digital vouchers except the animal is released…. Measurement standards and other such things should be set up, I take my vouchers seriously so they have most of the information one regard or need with respect to such a voucher.
 
 
Coalesced databases of museum records also allow us to evaluate changes over time in the distribution (and sometimes abundance) of animals. Other changes through time can be studied only when specimens are regularly deposited over the years.... for example, biologists have used specimens to document increases in heavy metals (pollutants) over time in some species.  
 
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  
 
The notion that scientific collecting and personal collecting are "no different" is so ridiculous it leaves me flabbergasted that anyone could be so brazen as to suggest it!! Again... I hope this is simply out of ignorance of how specimens have contributed to your (yes, YOUR) understanding of the critters you love. Where do you think we learn MOST of the stuff we read about in field guides and distribution maps? Scientific specimens yield value to society as a whole, often long after they are collected. They impart knowledge invaluable to conservation. They are usually collected with little or no personal benefit in mind.  
 
Listen I respect your admiration for the system and I totally understand the value that exists in the vouchers, but please don’t insist that only you should or do have the right motives for collecting a specie and all of us are just dimwit, untrained, personages…?
 
I often offer the following quip in defense of collections.... "museum specimens hold the answers to questions we have yet to conceive." How someone can suggest that the 100's of 1,000's of specimens in collections worldwide are of no more value than all the critter's that have died in terraria (only to be discarded) is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps they are simply more prescient than I.  
 
[color=#ff0000]I would like to tell you that many of those terrarium kill-offs you stated above came form the academic community as well????  But this is not a peeing contest, the purpose is to somehow come together and set up some standards and “explore” the possibilities?  I think you make some good points, but I also think you a accept some ideas that are not true and also that you may not be educated as well as some of the people here about what is possible digitally and with mapping as well????  So I think you need explore that a bit more…. [/color]
 
Folks interested in defending their privilege to collect animals for personal use would do well to recognize that it is, at its heart, self-serving. Sometimes animals collected for personal use are used (opportunistically) for education/outreach... but most are collected for primarily self-serving reasons. I don't have a philosophical problem with collecting for personal use (within certain boundaries), and I've done so myself. But it really chaps my hide to see someone compare it to something it just ain't. Let's call a spade a spade here. There is nothing altruistic about personal collecting. Personal collecting offers but few broad values to society or conservation, at least when compared to scientific collecting.  
 
 
You need to know that in many states the conservation of the species is because these people are the ones who buy licenses and actually do care about conservation, and you have a very short sighted idea about who collects and their motivations, but it is very clear at what you motivation is, and as we said in the beginning that there seems to be some academic notion that only they have the real reason for study???
 
I'm not saying it is valueless... but attempting to put it on even footing with an activity that is essentially motivated by a desire to aid scientific discovery and conservation is ludicrous.  
 
 
I think that science takes many legs, you only see what is written and accepted, but the fact of the matter some of those self serving people are the people you academics come to when you want to collect an animal for study, if you want to know about that animal and its history, you go to the locals???  
 
And for the record, the perception that "scientists" or "academics" are the folks doing most of the "scientific collecting" is erroneous. A huge proportion of many collections is composed of specimens collected by informed and thoughtful people who don't make a living in biology and don't personally use specimens.  
 
Again this is the crux of some of your argument, you rightfully have defined the value of the system and made some very good points, I am just kindly pointing out that this “rebuff” is dripping with a particular perspective that really isn’t true or informed.  I think if you knew some of these people a little better you’d have a higher opinion of some of those that do keep animals …..  You have for me very aptly set out the issues with respect to academic and non-academic, lets face it some people are going to say things that are ill informed at best, but the facts are that there is middle ground and I applaud Gerald for putting this out there.  I am sure many of you think I am a dim witt but after working for twenty-five years in the academic community at one of the fine collages in California I am all to well acquainted with these perceptions that have ensued over the years.  Again I open my hand out and offer to be an instrument to help create a worthy endeavor should we be able to work with the academic community and set up some standards I think this would be great, and also and lastly I know for a fact that some of the maps of lizard populations are not only voucher specimens but digital specimens as well…..:0)