Outside of humans, females are generally drab because they remain in place to care for their young and need to be camouflaged.
Males are flashy to attract mates. It also makes them obvious targets.
Males, being brightly colored and with unique patters, on display makes sense.
The ‘bosses’ of these museums aren’t exactly experts on anything but they can note emphasis of color, and if bird X is more colorful than bird Y, then that’s the one on display.
None of this should really matter. It’s like asking yourself....do you prefer the burger-flipper to be male instead of female, or the fry-boss be female?
Maybe the males were just easier to catch. Did they ever think of that?
How in hell did these people get funding to study this?
perhaps there are more male specimens because scientists understood that limiting taking of the female of the species is important to preservation of the species overall. Same as prehistoric through modern age hunters go after male mooses instead of female mooses. Social engineers probably don’t like to think about that, tho, since it validates females as a distinct and essential part of life and not just a ‘construct’.
Perhaps males are easier to catch.
It is also the case that when the nest is threatened, it is the brightly plumaged male that calls attention to himself to distract the "predator" (natural science specimen collector) and draw them away from his mate and offspring.
The "bias" is totally "natural", and is one of good old Mom Nature's rules of conduct.
Hey, it’s sexist that only male specimens are walking into our animal traps.
Just another “research” project funded by the American taxpayer for skewed data to look like females are the victim. What a crock of schiff.
I seriously have to wonder what kinds of studies are impacted by this “gender bias.” Does it really matter how many females are included, as long as the sample size is statistically significant? In the medical research field, females are very often omitted from animal studies, for a number of reasons. Then there is the researcher who only studies females because everyone else wants the males, making females plentiful.
Scientists, at least, do not attribute gender as a social construct. There are real biological differences, which do affect study outcomes (in a way that oversampling of males in collections of dead animals does not).
Collections = large numbers of DEAD birds. More DEAD MALE birds than female.
The “researchers” are killing more MALE birds than female! This is absolutely unfair bias!
I swear, half the world is already insane and is begging the other half to join it.
Monty Python’s Norwegian blue (dead) parrot must have been a male. Beautiful plumage, you know.
Number 1 said it all. Mae birds are more colorful and the description of the male is the primary way of identifying each avian species.
On the other hand. I really do not see why mammals would necessarily favor the males over the females in a display. In some mammals the males are distinguished from the females by their size, antlers, manes, etc. In those instances, both the male and female should be displayed.
Just my 2 cents worth.