Victorian-era naturalists including Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin killed tens of thousands of birds, fish, beetles, plants, and more for the pursuit of fame and to advance scientific knowledge. While these species seemed bountiful at the time, these actions would lead to untold horrors in the natural world, including species extinctions and habitat destruction. Do you believe that scientists’ ability to still probe these animals and plants to add “to our collective understanding of the world in tiny increments” outweighs the destruction of the natural world by these Victorian-era naturalists?

Museum curators, including Tring museum’s Dr. Prys-Jones, and researchers believe the specimens in museum collections hold great value for current and future humankind. In contrast, many of the fly-tiers do not believe that the feathers in museum collections are advancing scientific knowledge. Instead, they would like to buy some feathers for their practice of the Victorian art of salmon fly-tying. Which perspective do you agree with? Why? How would the author respond to your argument?

Of the 299 bird skins that Rist stole, the police recovered 174 from his apartment. Out of those, only 102 skins still had their labels. Why are labels on museum specimens so important, and why were researchers and museum curators in the story so distraught to hear about how many bird skins were missing them? In your opinion, does the lack of labels on the recovered specimens represent a blow to the scientific record? Why or why not?