User:JerryFriedman/antpitta

Controversy over the discovery
The first description was published in Conservación Colombiana, the journal of Fundación ProAves. It was accompanied by an editorial giving the reasons that Diego Carantón, who discovered the bird, was not among the authors of the paper. The editorial accused Carantón of taking specimens illegally as well as violating his contract by omitting mention of his discovery from his monthly reports to Fundación ProAves and by trying to deprive the foundation of its intellectual property in the discovery. Specifically, it said that the Fundación had learned of the discovery through third parties in October 2008. Attempts to agree on a publication authored by Carantón and members of Fundación ProAves failed, and then Carantón and others tried to publish a description of the species in the journal Condor without notifying the Fundación. Condor rejected the manuscript pending resolution of the dispute. Staff members of Fundación ProAves went to the Colibrí del Sol reserve and in January 2010 caught a bird whose feathers they collected and used as the basis of their publication without Carantón (May 2010).

In June 2010, a second description of the new species by Carantón and another biologist in Colombia, Katherine Certuche, appeared in Ornitología Colombiana, the journal of the Asociación Colombiana de la Ornitología, edited by the ornithologists Carlos Daniel Cadena and F. Gary Stiles (and also dated May 2010). It was accompanied by an editorial describing Stiles's and Cadena's involvement with Carantón and Certuche's paper starting shortly after Fundación ProAves found out about the work. In this account, Cadena attempted to mediate but withdrew because of conflicts with Fundación ProAves. The editorial adds a reason that Carantón's collection of specimens may have been lawful, and notes that in any case, none of the legal accusations against him have been decided by a court. Further, the attempt at joint publication by Carantón, Certuche, and Fundación ProAves scientists failed because Fundación ProAves insisted that Carantón could not be the corresponding author and that Fundación ProAves had to have full control over the final text. After Condor rejected Carantón and Certuche's manuscript, they submitted it to Ornitología Colombiana, which decided to publish it despite the previous description of the species.

One thing that seems certain is that as the Fundación ProAves article appeared first, the scientific name proposed there takes priority, and Carantón and Certuche's proposed name (Grallaria urraoensis) will be considered invalid. Time will tell whether Fundación ProAves' English name, Fenwick's Antpitta, or Carantón and Certuche's English name, Urrao Antpitta, will prove more popular. The two articles proposed the same Spanish name, tororoi de Urrao.

Followed by an English translation, "The Price of Priority".