PNG bird stamps must be recalled
Recently while searching the internet, I came across an article on the releases of new stamp in Papua New Guinea.
The stamps were released to mark protected birds in PNG, which I think is a really good tool for creating awareness and helping species protection.
However, as a field biologist who has worked extensively on the New Guinea Harpy Eagle, I was surprised and shocked to see the 85 toea stamps having the images of the Harpy Eagle (Harpypia harpyja) of Central and South America but labelled as New Guinea Harpy Eagle (Harpyopsis novaeguineae).
It is sad to see that on one hand, we are advocating the protection of birds in PNG and yet on the other, we show a total lack of knowledge on the basic biology of the birds, even for such a simple thing as not knowing how the bird looks like.
If one were to know the basic biology of the New Guinea Harpy Eagle, then they would know that the Harpia harpyja is different to the New Guinea Harpy Eagle.
Firstly, they both have different calls, plumage colourations and feed on different prey.
Secondly, both species form different monophyletic genera and occur in two different worlds separated by the Pacific Ocean, so they are not the same.
On the same note, one of the 2008 stamp releases contains the Osprey, a fish eating hawk that has a worldwide distribution.
There are two major issues with these stamps.
Firstly, the name, Pandion cristatus on the stamp, refers to a relegation of the subspecies Pandion haliaetus cristatus to species status.
As far I know, there are no studies to show that the Osprey population found in PNG is different to that of the Australian population or to other populations across its range (Bismarck Islands, Solomon Islands, etc).
Hence, to label the stamp as Pandion cristatus is misleading and a smack in the face of researchers who work hard to study species and ensure species are sustainably managed using information on their biology.
Secondly, given the lack of information on whether the Osprey is a real species, ie, DNA analysis showing that the population in PNG is different to the Australian population; the protection status awarded to this bird should be reviewed.
Given the above issues, I would ask that, whichever department(s) involved in the making of these new stamps to recall both these stamps and at least get the correct image of the New Guinea Harpy Eagle.
Secondly, I call on the respective department(s), organisation(s) or person(s) involved in this project to get your information correct and don’t mar the efforts that most of us (field biologists) have put into studying species like the New Guinea Harpy Eagle with cheap shots as the issues discussed above.

Leo Legra, University of Kansas, USA
Letters