[Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

[Richard Zander]

Are values subjective? Or are they inseparable with self-interest, namely apprehension that diversity helps self-survival? Proper, responsible and responsive values are thus a priority. Of course, this is philosophizing in the face of rapid change, and actions are called for, whether optimal or not. Actions, of course, are the province of leaders, and we either inform leaders about proper though suboptimal actions or be leaders ourselves, actionwise. 
 
Yes, quantification is good but may be empty if reduced or inflated by strict monophyly or molecular microspecies. Quantities of invisible molecular species will eventually not be impressive (what, we are going to make big efforts and divert money to preserve non-coding mutations that do not correlate with expressed traits?). 
 
Phylogenetic diversity is sister-group diversity. Sister-group diversity is nested parentheses diversity. This is only part of the theory and data we have about evolution, and though it is quite quantifyable, it is amenable to techniques of empty precision. This cripples biodiversity analysis, and someone in power will someday soon figure it out.
 
_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
 

________________________________

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Neil Bell
Sent: Mon 6/14/2010 5:51 AM
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value



Of course I accept the distinctions you are making between scientific
value judgments, other value judgments and the practical concerns of
conservation in the real world, particularly the need for local
involvement. Also the distinction between values (subjective) and
priorities. As a systematist working within a restricted subset of total
biodiversity and not directly involved with conservation, I'm just
grateful that this work is being done and keen to make any any findings
or perspectives available for use by conservationists where they might
be useful. Were is the dividing line between valuing and quantifying,
however? I think most people would accept that quantification, e.g. by
species or habitat diversity, has to be relevant to conservation at some
level, sometimes. Phylogenetic diversity can also be quantified, and is
qualitatively no more subjective or value-laden than species diversity
(which after all relies on abstract species circumscriptions). PD
captures a critical aspect of biological diversity (one that most people
respond to IME) that is completely omitted from the standard
ecologically-derived hierarchy of biodiversity.