The time-honored practice of collecting plant and animal specimens from the field for scientific studies and conservation has been defended by a large group of researchers in the journal Science.

In the online publication's May 22 edition, more than 100 biologists and biodiversity researchers signed a letter in opposition to an April 18 article in Science that argued alternative methods of documentation, such as capturing audio recordings and high-resolution photography, as well as using nonlethal tissue sampling for DNA analysis, have made collecting animal and plant specimens unnecessary, according to a news release issued by the University of Michigan.

"None of the suggested alternatives to collecting specimens can be used to reliably identify or describe animals and plants," Cody Thompson, a mammal collections manager and assistant research scientist at the university's Museum of Zoology, said in the release. "Moreover, identification often is not the most important reason to collect specimens. Studies that look at the evolution of animal and plant forms through time are impossible without whole specimens. Preserved specimens also provide verifiable data points for monitoring long-term changes in species health and distribution."

The authors of the response letter, from more than 60 research institutions on six continents and including Thompson and five others from the University of Michigan's Museum of Zoology, boast a notable number who work in natural history museums that house the preserved remains of animals and plants.

That said, the authors contended specimens from museum collections and their associated data are fundamental to making knowledgeable decisions about species management and conservation today and in the future.

The alternate means of documenting species referenced in the piece that criticized field collecting fall short of scientific standards, the letter said.

"Photographs and audio recordings can't tell you anything about such things as a species' diet, how and where it breeds, how quickly it grows, or its lifespan-information that's critical to assessing extinction risk," said Luiz Rocha of the California Academy of Sciences, who organized the response to the Science article.

Also, contrary to a suggestion made in the April 18 article, which was titled "Avoiding (Re)extinction," collecting biological specimens does not play a significant role in species extinctions, the letter authors continued.

In the April article, Arizona State University's Ben Minteer and three co-authors cited several examples of species extinctions and suggested the events were linked to overzealous museum collectors.

The authors of the rebuttal letter asserted none of the cited extinctions, including the disappearance of flightless great auks in Iceland and Mexican elf owls on Socorro Island, Mexico, can be attributed to scientific collecting.

"Halting collection of animal and plant specimens by scientists would be detrimental not only to our understanding of Earth's diverse biota and its biological processes, but also for conservation and management efforts," said Diarmaid O'Foighil, director of the U-M Museum of Zoology and a co-author of the rebuttal letter.

"That detriment in understanding would only increase with time," he said, "because having museum specimens available for future generations of scientists will allow their study using research methodologies that have yet to be invented."