[Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes

Thu Oct 14 11:49:30 CDT 2021

Followup as requested the paper on Consequences came out today.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355208487_Towards_a_global_list_of_accepted_species_II_Consequences_of_inadequate_taxonomic_list_governance

Is on my Research Gate.

Cheers Scott

On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:13 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Scott - please make sure to announce your article on Taxacom when it is
> published (and a link if it is open access).
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> sorry I forgot to answer your specific question.
>>
>> In the paper I have in press we look at several case studies. For
>> different
>> points. On this issue the two we use are the tupunali orangutan and
>> giraffe
>> though from different perspectives.
>>
>> One we did not use is in the description of Chelodina mccordi rotiensis it
>> was stated that it was made a subspecies so it would inherit the CITES
>> status of Chelodina mccordi without the need for assessment. Work since
>> this time would indicate it is a species.
>>
>> There are numerous examples of this, some are less obvious than others.
>>
>> Cheers Scott
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I recently came across this publication:
>> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
>> >
>> > In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
>> > American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind this
>> > seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T. mearnsi
>> > doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead suggest
>> > "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
>> > proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear that
>> > this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as well
>> > as biogeographically".
>> >
>> > Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for pure
>> > conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining about
>> > how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North America
>> > (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
>> > squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels. They
>> > conclude:
>> > "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
>> > taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
>> > sustainable human-nature interaction."
>> >
>> > This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
>> > "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
>> > remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically dominated by
>> > just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves out
>> > the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
>> > certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a more
>> > holistic classification system, including all
>> > species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single ones
>> > (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
>> > increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially squirrels,
>> > can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
>> > enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly contribute
>> > to science-based management for these squirrels."
>> > and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
>> > disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
>> > examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which do
>> > not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent than
>> > the 1990s.
>> >
>> > The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
>> > including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
>> > particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to establish
>> > this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and average
>> > body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while disregarding
>> > all genetic and other moprhological data.
>> >
>> > This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
>> > tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
>> > conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way to
>> > do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is also
>> > available from this publication, as they do include measurements that
>> > purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in the
>> > genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
>> > paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > The same journal also published this:
>> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
>> >
>> > Abstract (in part):
>> > "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
>> > subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic recognition
>> > supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category whereas
>> > other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs) are
>> > not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned to a
>> > subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
>> > elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo- and a
>> > paratype specimen."
>> >
>> > They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but still
>> > base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this will
>> > make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
>> > conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
>> > Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
>> >
>> > Ask me about chewing lice!
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> >
>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> >
>> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
>> 1987-2021.
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott Thomson
>>
>> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
>> Petrópolis, Manaus
>> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
>> Brasil
>>
>> http://www.carettochelys.com
>> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
>> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
>> <
>> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
>> >
>> Skype: Faendalimas
>> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
>> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>>
>

-- 
Scott Thomson

Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
Petrópolis, Manaus
State of Amazonas, 69055-010
Brasil

http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270