killed birds so he could paint his pictures of them? That's about the only way to get them to pose, I guess. I was young when I heard that and it really disturbed me then. Some of those birds are now gone except for paintings. The bird world has many morphs of the same species. Even as they hop from island to island, subtle changes happen as they breed with whatever is available to them.
What a cute little bird! I guess he couldn't take the time to set up a camera near the nest, actually do some time intensive real investigative work, which left it living?
"Finders, Keepers, Losers, Weepers! I got it! I got it!"
I guess if instead it was a tiny human with wings flying along, he'd have "bagged" it so he could show it off to his buds over beers, just to prove he'd actually seen one.
Look out Big Foot! A scientist might be near you.
"Chris Filardi. He's the director of Pacific Programs at the American Museum of Natural History.
Last month, he was in the Solomon Islands with other researchers. They first heard, then espied the rare male moustached kingfisher.
Then, as the Dodo reports, the beautiful orange and blue bird was "collected as a specimen for additional study." This turns out to have been a slight euphemism for "killed for additional study."
Filardi wasn't universally popular for this decision. He took to Audubon to write: "Why I Killed A Rare Kingfisher So That I Could Study It And Become More Famous." Wait, no. His article was headlined: "Why I Collected a Moustached Kingfisher." (The comments section to this article is well worth a read.)"