Feather sampling provides an unreliable source of DNA that may well have significant long-term impacts: a reply to Katzner et al.

We were pleased to see that our recent point-of-view article (McDonald and Griffith 2011) has lead to further discussion on this important issue (Katzner et al. 2012). One of our primary goals was to encourage researchers to consider both the potential impacts of their sampling methodologies upon subjects, and also the level of information that particular methods are likely to provide. Whilst we are therefore pleased that Katzner et al. (2012) have continued the discussion and helped to raise the profile of important issues surrounding the biological sampling of avian tissues, we are disappointed that they have misrepresented our original message. The primary critique raised by Katzner et al. (2012) centres on our reputed suggestion that blood sampling was a 'one-size-fits-all-approach' to ornithology. This main criticism of our article is somewhat weakened by the fact that nowhere in our article did we either state or imply this to be the case. In fact, the opposite is true, in several places in our article we explicitly suggested that feather sampling may well be the best practise in some situations. The clearest statement to this effect is on the very first page of our article: 'Note that we support the obtainment of feather material, after applying an appropriate degree of ethical rigour, when no other means exists for obtaining these data'.