Phylogeny and Conservation

[James Francis Lyons-Weiler]

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, MAGarland wrote:

> May I add my two cents to this thread? For the last four years I've worked for
> the largest conservation land-buying program in the U.S. (Florida's
> Conservation and Recreation Lands program).  We don't much think about the
> phylogenetic relationships of organisms we're trying to protect.   We use
> information on the relative rarity and endangerment of species, and their
> habitat requirements, but that's all.  And we tend to focus on buying the
> largest, most intact chunks of land in the hope that this will protect the
> natural world of Florida most efficiently.  Phylogenetic considerations are
> rather a luxury when we don't even know, for most species, how many
> populations in which spatial arrangements will be most viable.
>

        I think that the point being made in much of the literature
        is that missed opportunities and mistakes are resulting for
        want of a more complete rendering of the phylogenetic
        relationships among species and the geneaological relationships
        among populations and individuals.  There is a continuum of
        applied uses of such information, from selecting areas for
        reserve on the basis of evolutionary uniqueness to captive
        breeding programs to avoid inbreeding.  Yes, the stark reality
        is that such information is not used in most cases, but
        there are bound to be instances where the information is
        available and it goes unconsidered.

        So, on the one hand, people have argued that we need to
        consider phylogenetic relationships, but can't, so
        let's fund more taxonomy; on the other hand, let's
        not ignore what information we might already have.  It is
        prudent to consider all lines of evidence before fating
        any species to extinction.

        James LW