more (maybe last) on the Grallaria 
Science magazine published this week news story in connection with the scandal over the new kind of Grallaria discovered by Diego Caranton and first described by Proaves Foundation in an article in which Diego did not appear as a contributor. The note of Science is quite brief, more a news article that opinion, but has a very revealing statement of the outgoing executive director Proaves, who said they needed to name the species for money ... Today I learned that Proaves just published an editorial in his magazine in which he defends his actions in history. In addition, they respond to several points that Gary Stiles and I boarded our editorial in Colombian Ornithology, and make several additional charges against me.
wear I think I've had enough and it's time to turn the page with all this, so I will not respond specifically to sections in which Proaves question my professionalism and my honor. Therefore, I will not answer the letter insulting George Fenwick (President of American Bird Conservancy, ABC, and honored with the name of Grallaria fenwickorum ) sent to the editor of Birding Magazine in response to a letter I had sent earlier in clamoring for a public clarification from Proaves and their supporters, including ABC. We have the answers and let the people decide what position to take.
One detail that I do want to clarify, which appears in the letter from Fenwick of Birding as in the latest editorial Proaves has to do with the relationship that existed between the breakdown of negotiations for the publication of the new species and the name that is baptized. The reason why I just went out of the process, as I explained in an editorial last year, was that I learned that people Proaves was distorting my participation in the discussion with at least one international council member. I did not want to appropriate any discovery, or ignore the work of Proaves; wanted those who deserved credit and who received what they deserved authorship could participate in everything that involves writing and publishing a scientific article. But with the dishonesty that prevails in the discussion, I turned away and I figured that would leave the way clear to enter and Diego Caranton Proaves reach an agreement. Only after refusing to participate was that I told Diego that, in the end, I did not want to participate in a tribute to Fenwick, for reasons already explained. With all this, what I am is the breaking of my participation in the process was not by name, as has been alleged. And Diego's much less. Mine was because I got tired of dealing with deaf and dishonesty. Diego's, as also explained, was because Proaves made him an unacceptable proposal, which implied that he would have no control over the manuscript produced based on his discovery. I thought if I should start to release the emails I exchanged with Proaves in all that time, start a sort of Wikileaks to let people know best the chronological order, the tone and direction of all discussions in which I participated. That would clarify many of the things that seem confusing from the outside, but it would add fuel to the fire and today I think it is better to turn the page.
however, commented on another topic: I have not Proaves accused of doing things without proper permits. Rhetorically asked whether they would permit, but did not claim anything. And now wonder where is the specimen of the new species of owl that they collected? Part of the process responsible for scientific collection includes depositing the specimens in a natural history museum where they can be cared for properly so that they can be studied over the years. Not for me to demand answers, so just throw the question into the air. And I do because I think very curious how Proaves along the process seems to change positions on key issues, policy regarding the collection of specimens. At one point, they had no problem with posting the description with Diego as a contributor. That meant that the collection of specimens would have happened (ie collecting vs. Do not collect) and was not sheltered by a permit (ie vs collect with permission. Collecting without a permit) were not substantive problems that prevented agreement, but later the public against Diego undertaken with strong accusations based on those two issues. Proaves now says in his new editorial that opposes the scientific library and the library owl in question was made legally, fantastic, but to complete the process of collecting specimens is legally required to deliver properly preserved a scientific collection registered with the environmental authorities. I am not implying that they have done, hopefully yes. I am implying that if one is to wield an anti-or pro-gathering, either for ethical reasons, conservation or law, must be consistent with that position.
Finally, I want to comment on why I have been an "activist" in this soap opera in which I now tildan even instigated a boycott ... Frankly, I did not need intefere as Proaves describes it, by any personal interest, but simply reflected my performance that I think young biologists excluded from the publication of the new species (for whatever reason, has violated his contract Diego law or otherwise) made them great harm and this injustice was not necessary. People inside and outside the country knew the other side of the story was important, especially for the way Proaves Diego presented the history of its original publisher Colombian Conservation. That was my interest.
Contrary to what you say out there, I do not I'm lobbying for the name Grallaria urraoensis established. Well, Diego and has lectured Certuche Katherine (one of which I was co-author) in which, naturally, the way the story unfolded, they used the name that they put the new species and not of those who were left forward with the publication. To compensate the damage done to Diego and Katherine, to me I'd be urraoensis be imposed on fenwickorum (one thing is the code naming, other ethical and scientific rigor of the descriptions). But if you are premium priority and these rules dictate that the name of Proaves will either be accepted over time (eg, the SACC spent months waiting for someone to present a proposal to consider recognition of the new species and no one has done, contrary to what has been said).
the end, I still think Diego is run over their moral rights in relation to its discovery in a way that I find ethically deplorable. To Proaves, this is not true because I never failed to mention that he was the discoverer, but did so poorly written text in which undermined his good name so obvious. For some, ethics is the law. For others, like me, is more than that. And it includes the duty to report.
Tweet 
Atlapetes pallidiceps is one of the most endangered birds of South America, who even was thought extinct until recently. In a recent study, Niels Krabbe and colleagues documented an encouraging increase in the population of these birds for over 10 years Yunguilla reserve, Ecuador. 
