Survey priority

[mesibov]

James Adams has posted an 'I agree, but...' response to my 'ATBI
where?!' remarks. I applaud his personal attempts to sample as widely as
possible, not just in reserves, but he seems to be missing the point.

There's a biodiversity crisis. Taxa are disappearing, for a lot of
different reasons: habitat loss, rapid climate change, competition with
invasive species, etc. No amount of protesting or political lobbying is
going to stop this loss. What to do?

The taxonomist's response (expressed in numerous policy documents from
NGO's and governments at all levels) is to push for increased sampling,
study and curation. We will document as much as possible of the world's
vanishing biota while we still can.

Unfortunately, the job is enormous, there aren't enough good collectors
and taxonomists and there isn't enough money. We have to prioritise.
Where do we sample first?

Notice I say 'where', not 'what'. There could be lots of taxonomical
infighting about what groups to document first. There is no argument,
however, about where the biota is vanishing quickest. On a global scale
you can see it on satellite images. On a regional scale it's obvious on
maps and aerial photographs. And it ain't in national parks.

Ever heard the story of the woman who was seen looking for something
under a streetlamp one night? A passerby asks what she's looking for.

'I dropped an earring,' she replies. 'I was crossing the street over
there and it fell off.'

'But if you lost it over there,' asks the passerby, 'why are you looking
over here?'

'Because,' says the woman, 'the light is better here.'

I agree the light (the funding, the political will) is better in
national parks, but that isn't where we're losing biodiversity fastest.

Bob Mesibov
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 6437 1195; international 61 3 6437 1195