The political meaning of species

[John Grehan]

At 01:26 PM 11/16/99 +1100, you wrote:
>I'd better explore this some more, not to disappoint John Grehan :-)

I would not have been all that dissapointed. Obviously the issue interests
me,
but I don't worry over whether its of that much interest to anyone else - and
I appreciate that it might be of less interest to systematists. However
Geoff Read raises some good questions.

>If true, that seems to be misguided. But John  objects also to  the action
>taken.

I question the rationale. I find the rationale given by the Department of
Conservation to be non-scientific. Instead appeals to certain ideological
values were asserted.

Having manufactured the event that led to hybrids what should they
>have done?

Certainly they had a choice of do nothing, or manipulate in some other way.
Do nothing is one practical possiblity and could have been scientifically
evaluated, but that was not done with the first or later hybrids (there
are a several transgressors now nicely preserved in some genetic
laboratory). The birds might have been removed to an aviary for pending
 further evaluation or research. Death seemed to be the first and only
option considered.

And was there some implication that the Chatham Island black
>robin's ability to hybridise means it is not a 'good' species?

This is one implication. Another is that they are indeed to be regarded as
species that happen to hbridize under particular conditions (the fact that
these conditions is irrelevant under the assumption that the birds themselves
do not make a judgement call based on whether an evironmental change is
human induced or not).

 Where
>commitment of public funds to 'save' it are involved this is obviously a
>sensitive issue.

this is the politics. But I understand that the Department of Conservation's
management programs for endangered species is supposed to be based on
scientific principles. At least I presume that is why the Department employs
scientists to develop run its management programs!

Geoff Read raises exactly the kind of questions that should have been
evaluated and discussed by the Department instead of treating the
problem with such contempt

John Grehan