Letter to the Editor 
Sir, 
As a keen ornithologist resident in Egypt I was interested to find no 
less than three new species for Egypt reported in Sandgrouse 14 part 2. 
I was disappointed and concerned that two of these species, the 
Woodpigeon Columba palumbus (110) and Great Bustard Otis tarda 
(111) were 'described 7 from shot specimens collected and reported in a 
manner that might kindly be described as Victorian. 
My first concern is the fact that records based on specimens thus col- 
lected are treated as equally valid as records of live birds meticulously 
observed in the field and subsequently recorded in detail with critical 
analysis such as the Pin-tailed Snipe Gallinago stenura in the same 
issue. Neither of the Egyptian articles offered any critical evaluation of 
the circumstances in which the corpses were obtained or discussion of 
the possibility of escapes. The assumption seems to be the dangerous 
one that if there is a cadaver then the record must be valid, an impres- 
sion enforced by the articles ' titles. 
My second concern is for the way in which the notes were published. 
By printing, with no editorial comment or censure phrases such as 
'Discovering a large bird he [Dr Essam Hamdy] had never seen 
before, he decided to shoot it for his collection...' OSME gives the 
impression of endorsing such behaviour. Is OSME aware, for instance, 
that all Columba species, and thus the Woodpigeon, are protected 
under Egyptian Law 28 for 1963. This is especially galling when the 
bird in question is as rare, and declining, as the Great Bustard. Even 
more worrying is the fact that the only bird that the Great Bustard 
could realistically be confused with in Egypt is the Houbara, also pro- 
tected under Egyptian Law and under CITES Appendix 2. Egypt is a 
signatory of the Bonn Convention covering migratory species. If it is 
Dr Hamdy's normal practice to blast away at any bird larger than nor- 
mal I dread to think what his collection consists of. Surely this cannot 
be in line with OSME's objective to 'promote an interest in ornithology 
and bird conservation throughout the Middle East'. I am surprised 
that Giza Zoo provides a taxidermy service for such rare species, and 
even more surprised it should be stated so explicitly. 
Unfortunately the two articles provide a fairly accurate reflection of 
the state of natural history in Egypt, with certain notable exceptions. 
While I clearly recognise the importance of publishing first records I 
find it disappointing that this antiquated shoot first, identify later 
24 
