[Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

[Neil Bell]

Richard Zander wrote:
> 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?).

If species are *only* recognisable by a few non-coding molecular 
characters, they will have a very low phylogenetic diversity relative to 
the things that matter on any scale that uses appropriately chosen data 
(inappropriately chosen data would be saturated or unalignable at higher 
levels). PD factors in branch lengths, so it recognises magnitude of 
difference, but (because it is phylogenetic) corrected for the extent to 
which this difference is unique. PD by its nature becomes increasingly 
significant at higher levels, where the data used is more likely to 
include protein or functional RNA coding DNA and to correlate more or 
less with morphology. In the situations where there is diversity in 
functional molecular characters but not so much in external morphology, 
isn't this worth preserving too? Isn't it just a question of scale? 
Enzymes have morphology too. The really different things with really 
high PD values usually have highly unique morphology in any case, 
especially once you start to look for it.

> inform leaders about proper though suboptimal actions

> amenable to techniques of empty precision. This cripples biodiversity 
> analysis

Clearly, suboptimal but valuable quantification/valuation grades 
seamlessly into crippling empty precision. I agree that it is important 
to get the balance right.


>  
> _______________________
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
> richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto: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.
>
>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neil E. Bell
Postdoctoral Researcher
(Bryophyte Systematics)
 
Botanical Museum
PO Box 7
00014 University of Helsinki
FINLAND
 
email: neil.bell at helsinki.fi
Skype: cryptopodium
SkypeIn : +44 131 2081898
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~