Probable distribution of Metapocyrtus pulangi

[Main] [Weeils of PH] [Genus Metapocyrtus]

Metapocyrtus pulangi Bollino, Medina, Cabras, 2020

• The paper avoided subgeneric assignment of this species, as mentioned in the introduction (page 27, reference 1).

Distribution

Figure 1. Color plates (artistic renditions) of female and male M. pulangi (left), and map of the Philippine archipelago showing provinces where specimens were said to be collected (right) based on one article published in 2020 [1].

Mindanao

Region X: Northern Mindanao

• Province of Bukidnon
• Municipality of Cabanglasan
• Municipality of Impasugong, Barangay La Fortuna, Sitio Intavas
• Municipality of Talakag, Barangay Dominorog

Region XI: Davao Region

• Province of Davao del Sur
• City of Davao, Marilog District, Barangay Buda
• Mt. Apo (probably in the City of Digos, City of Davao, Municipality of Sta. Cruz, or Municipality of Bansalan [5])

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM)

• Province of Lanao del Sur
• Municipality of Tagoloan II
• "near Wao" (see comments for details)

Region XII: SOCCSKSARGEN

• Province of Cotabato, Municipality of Alamada, Barangay Dado

Figure 2. Summary of data on M. pulangi in video presentation format.

Comments on Locality Data

According to the paper [1], a total of 21 individuals of M. pulangi were acquired from four provinces, each belonging to four different regions in Mindanao. The Materials and Methods section of the paper indicated that the collection was done by "trusted insect collectors" (page 27, reference 1).

Collecting wildlife specimens for scientific purposes is conducted after the issuance of a Wildlife Gratuitous Permit (WGP) [2] from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) regional office that has jurisdiction of the sampling area. WGPs are important documents that prove the legality of wildlife acquisition. Aside from that, documents required to apply for WGPs such as (1) the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) [2] issued by either the Local Government Units (LGU) of cities and municipalities or the Indigenous People (IP) of tribal ancestral homelands, or (2) the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) Resolution for research in protected areas [2] also serve as binding proof that the locality data is accurate.

Section 4.1 of the WGP stipulates that the DENR "shall be acknowledged in all publications generated from the study". Interestingly, the paper expressed gratitude only to DENR Region XI when collection was also done in three other regions: Region X, Region XII, and BARMM. DENR Region XI was indicated as having granted "free permission" to the researchers (page 38, reference 1). The term "free permission", however, is not defined in Republic Act 9147 [2], its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the Bioprospecting Guidelines.

Samples of permits and certifications can be viewed here.

A paper published in 2017 [4] presented the possibility of wrong locality data due to the mislabeling of some Pachyrhynchus specimens by "local collectors and dealers" (page 193-194, reference 4). This seems to be the same case for M. pulangi as well, especially for the collection done in Bukidnon and Lanao del Sur. 

The 2020 paper [1] indicated that from June to September 2019, specimens were acquired in "Mindanao / Mt. Kitanglad – Dominorog Vill. / (Bukidnon)" (page 31, reference 1). "Dominorog Vill." probably refers to Barangay Dominorog, which is actually located in the Municipality of Talakag right beside Mt. Kalatungan, not Mt. Kitanglad [6]. As shown in figure 3, Dominorog is at least 10 kilometers away from Mt. Kitanglad. Furthermore, it should also be kept in mind that there are ridges and ravines around these mountains, with some of them nearly impassable. It takes hours of serious effort to walk and climb the twists and turns to reach some sites of interest.

Figure 3. Image from Google Maps [6] showing the distance of Brgy. Dominorog and Mt. Kitanglad.

This just goes to show that "trusted insect collectors" may not really be trustworthy at all in terms of verifying and providing information. A similar situation for M. latifasciatus can be found on this very same paper [1], where the locality data also seems inaccurate. This further points to the necessity of evaluating the permits issued for this research to ascertain the locations and then revisit these sampling areas. Such evaluation will also verify if the names listed on the permits actually match those names mentioned in the paper as suppliers of the biological materials sent to Europe.

It is embarrassing to see rookie mistakes get published in scientific journals by supposedly "well-published" scientific "experts" despite the strict peer reviews. Such mistakes should have been caught during the review process even before the final draft sees the light of day. Granted that these "trusted insect collectors" seem to have ZERO scientific understanding when it comes to field note-taking and specimen-tagging, foreign scientific collaborators with all their so-called "First World" technology should have known better and could have easily double-checked on the Internet in order to investigate the places of origin, for the sake of scientific accuracy. And if foreign collaborators are perhaps either too inept or just plain lazy to do such simple keyboard-and-mouse tasks, then perhaps local scientific collaborators should have done due diligence to ensure scientific accuracy, because the supposed sampling sites are almost literally in their very own backyards, one bus-ride away.

The 2020 paper [1] also indicated that from September to December 2017, collection of M. pulangi was done near Wao, Lanao del Sur (page 31, reference 1). This is the same area where thirteen individuals of M. tagabawa were collected earlier on July 2017 (page 27-28, reference 1). These collection dates are somewhat curious, because on that year, a war broke out between the Philippine government and terrorist groups in Lanao del Sur. The terrorists were already positioned to invade neighboring provinces and did their usual practice of USING HOSTAGES AS HUMAN SHIELDS. This resulted in the declaration of martial law in the whole of Mindanao on May 2017 through Proclamation 216 [3], which was granted extension by Congress all the way to December 2017.

During that time, entry to Lanao del Sur was very limited and checkpoints were all over the place, heavily guarded by military and police units. With the war going on, it is highly unlikely that collection activities were allowed in the province. Field work was allowed in adjacent provinces such as Lanao del Norte and Bukidnon, but scientists were escorted by either the military or the police for protection.

But if such was also the case in the outskirts of Lanao del Sur, then the expeditions of those "trusted insect collectors" would have been strictly documented by the DENR BARMM regional office, the municipal offices, the local police stations, and the military command centers.

It is really interesting that those "trusted insect collectors" boldly entered the province during a time when people were evacuating due to a life-and-death situation. Collection activities for "scientific purposes" during such a critical time seems too daring (and possibly stupid). Risking one's life for science is something that should not be taken lightly. As such, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge the people, the organizations, and the departments who ensured the safety of the collectors in Lanao del Sur. However, no mention of escorts or assistance for safety reasons were indicated in the acknowledgment section of the paper (page 37, reference 1).

The paper [1] indicated that only one female individual of M. pulangi was collected in the area between September to December 2017. Surely, one would remember the exact date or at least the specific month when one went through several heavily-armed checkpoints. Placing the collection of one individual specimen as between "September to December 2017" seems to indicate an estimation (probably a wild guess). Also, by saying that the locality is "near Wao, Lanao del Sur" seems to present doubtful data as explained here.

The seemingly vague collection dates and locality data in both Bukidnon and Lanao del Sur potentially confirm the doubts expressed in the paper published in 2017 (page 193, reference 4). A few reasons that come to mind on why such doubtful data even exist to begin with are as follows:

1. The "trusted insect collectors" may have acquired the specimens at the specified location, but from an earlier date (probably months or even years ago); or,
2. The "trusted insect collectors" may have acquired the specimens on the actual date, but from a different place (possibly on other islands not in Mindanao); or, 
3. The "trusted insect collectors" may have acquired the specimens at the specified location on the actual date, but lacked the necessary legal paperwork to prove such.

All these reasons point to one possibility: that foreign scientists may have been duped by their "trusted insect collectors", and the foreigners may have completely fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker. In other words, they may have been scammed. So if deceitful practices were employed by "trusted insect collectors" on the biological materials sent to Europe, then the published articles of these foreign scientists over the last decade may need to be revisited and reviewed to sort out any questionable data. Scientific journals are positioned as bastions and bearers of facts, hence, they should never publish works with methods that are not thoroughly discussed and materials that may have been acquired through means other than what is prescribed by the law.

It is unfortunate, however, that the suspicious data are now part of the body of scientific literature that can no longer be removed. The suspicious data may then be propagated over and over again in the years to come through citations by other scientists who never really bother to double-check the actual legitimacy of the data in the first place. Scientific authors need to be more circumspect of what they submit for publication. They should do more literature reviews to avoid misleading content. The reviews should, at the very least, include geographical maps, legal papers, historical and current events, and most of all, their very own past published articles.

All M. pulangi specimens are presently in Italy and the holotype will be deposited in Dresden, Germany according to the paper (page 31, reference 1). This is contrary to the specification in the Wildlife Export Certification (WEC) [2] that "...holotypes shall be returned to the Philippines and deposited at the National Museum of the Philippines or [the museum of a designated local university]". This can only mean one of two things: either a WEC was issued but the foreign scientists may not have heeded it, or a WEC may never have been issued for such specimens at all.

If upon investigation it shall be found out that Wildlife Export Certifications were never issued and the seemingly deceitful practices of "trusted insect collectors" persist, then the Philippine government can notify the Italian government to have their Customs officers monitor packages arriving from the Philippines (or any other country for that matter) that possibly contain potential wildlife contraband in transit to certain individuals. This will help establish a complete trace of the entire wildlife supply chain.

It is important to remember that wildlife collection without such permits and exported without such certification constitute violations of the Philippine wildlife laws and stiff penalties may be imposed, possibly serving time in Philippine jails [2].

References: 

[1] Bollino, M. Medina, M.N., and Cabras, A. 2020. Three new Metapocyrtus Heller, 1912 (Curculionidae, Entiminae, Pachyrhynchini) from Mindanao island, Philippines. Journal of Tropical Coleopterology. 1(1); 26-38.

[2] Republic Act 9147 "Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act".

[3] Proclamation 216: Declaring a State of Martial Law and Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Whole of Mindanao. Retrieved from: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2017/05may/20170523-PROC-216-RRD.pdf

[4] Bollino, M., Sandel, F., and Rukmane, A. 2017. A new species of the genus Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) from Mindanao, Philippines. Baltic Journal of Coleopterology. Vol. 17(2); 189-204.

[5] Biodiversity Management Bureau. 2015. Guidebook to Protected Areas of the Philippines. Biodiversity Management Bureau - Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Philippines. page 95.

[6] Google Maps. Dominorog, Talakag, Bukidnon. https://goo.gl/maps/3dzD6HXmRLByEg9w6

[Main] [Weeils of PH] [Genus Metapocyrtus]