Survey priority

[mesibov]

Both Adams and Parker have mounted strong personal defences against my criticism of
taxonomic inventory work in national parks. I said what I did in conversational
language in order to make my points more forcefully, not to personally attack those
involved in the Great Smokies survey.

Nor do I want to give the impression that I personally dash around the world
rescuing specimens before they're obliterated by the Forces of Darkness. Like Adams
and Parker, I do what's appropriate given my abilities and circumstances. In
Tasmania that amounts to doing most of my collecting in remnants of native
vegetation in agricultural areas.

Unfortunately, in Tasmania just as in the world at large, there is always money and
in-kind support available for biological inventory in national parks, and no money
whatsoever for biodiversity salvage. The policy-level priorities (as opposed to the
personal priorities of taxonomists) are wrong. They need changing, quickly.

At a political level, the priorities problem is complex and difficult, and as Adams
points out, it's not very safe to work where the problems are worst. That shouldn't
stop taxonomists as a community from trying however we can to push for more sampling
where it's most needed.

Parker's point about some taxa not being at risk in the broader sense is true, of
course. Unfortunately, for a very large number of groups we simply have no idea what
the global picture looks like, and we can't plan sampling on this basis.

I also wonder whether the sampling, identification and curation protocols being
developed for ATBI would be applicable to biodiversity salvage. They would almost
certainly transfer to national parks elsewhere. How would they work where the time
for sampling is very limited and the field conditions less comfortable?
--
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