[Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jul 1 21:29:34 CDT 2012 

well, I don't think we really know if can reproduce on other plants, but the prevailing opinion is 'no'. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, it was once found (feeding? reproducing?) on an introduced Lotus plant (same family as Clianthus), but this was dismissed because Clianthus had been recently grown in the same spot where the Lotus was. But, I don't know if the mite was found on the Lotus later than a mite lifetime (indicating reproduction) or not. At any rate, it is *some* evidence that the mite can survive on other (related) plants if it has to, and if it does so in low numbers without making galls, then it could be very difficult to detect ...
 
BTW, two other very curious additions to the "NATIONALLY CRITICAL" list are a nematode and a moth:
 
the nematode is <1mm long, and was put on the list because it is supposedly plant parasitic, and repeated searches for it have turned up nothing. BUT, the original specimens were from SOIL, with no particular plant association! Finding a <1mm free living nematode in the soil seems pretty hit or miss to me, and mostly miss ...
 
the moth was put on the list because it was supposedly more abundant in the past, and none at all have turned up since 2001, giving the authors confidence that it is in serious decline. BUT, the 2001 specimen was only the 6th specimen ever! How can you demonstrate a population decline from a sample size of just 6 ????
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; jshuey at tnc.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?


Hi Stephen, 
       I still agree with you that endangered status seems unwarranted.  Whether to go one step down (as I suggested) or even two steps down (as you suggested) is debatable.  But it would be nice to know more about how well this mite is able to live on other genera related to Clianthus.  Specifically, is this mite able to REPRODUCE on other genera besides Clianthus (as opposed to just feeding on them).  It produces galls on Clianthus, but can it reproduce on other related plants without producing galls?  If so, that would no doubt make it even less "endangered".  
                    ---------------Ken Kinman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 13:38:23 -0700
> From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> To: jshuey at TNC.ORG; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> yes, but I'm not arguing that the mite is secure, just that it isn't as bad as "Nationally Critical" (the highest threat level). There is nothing to suggest that current Clianthus cultivation practices will change, and if they do, that amounts to a change in circumstances for the mite. The threat status of *any species* is always subject to changes in circumstances ...
>  
> Stephen
> 
> From: John Shuey <jshuey at TNC.ORG>
> To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
> Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 6:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> Perhaps a different way to think about this is the stability of cultivated populations of Clianthus.  For example, I have Tennessee Coneflower growing in my flowerbeds (as do lots of other people).  But, it is very dependent upon me to maintain it in this setting, and if I don't defend it from competition, it gets squeezed out pretty quickly.  So, just because this plant (once federally endangered in the US) is common in flowerbeds, doesn't really add to the stability of its populations or any monophagous species that relies on it as a host.  
> 
> I know nothing about Clianthus cultivation, but if it too is dependent upon regular human intervention for maintaining cultivated populations, how does that contribute to anything but a temporary habitat expansion for the mite?
> 
> shuey
> 
> 
>   Please consider the environment before printing this email 
> 
> John A Shuey
> Director of Conservation Science
> 
> jshuey at tnc.org
> 317.829.3898 - direct
> 317.951.8818 - front desk 
> 317.917.2478 - Fax 
> 
> nature.org 
>     
> The Nature Conservancy
> Indiana Field Office 
> 620 E. Ohio St.
> Indianapolis, IN 46202
>      
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:30 PM
> To: JF Mate; Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> I'm not sure how this relates to the question at issue? The question is: is Aceria clianthi "Nationally Critical", or something less? The problem is that people here think that a host specific animal should automatically get the same threat rating as its host, even when the host is a plant. I say that this is not, so to speak, comparing apples with apples, because of the cultivation issue built into plant threat classifications. To be clear, Clianthus is "Nationally Critical", but it is understood as "in the wild", whereas it is far less threatened (though still not too healthy) in cultivation. The mite is classified as "Nationally Critical" simpliciter, even though it occurs on cultivated Clianthus. The mites on cultivated Clianthus are not cultivated mites, nor are they domesticated mites, nor are they captive mites. They are mites "in the wild", so the mite is not "Nationally Critical", nor even  "Nationally Critical in the wild"! We simply lack a 
> conceptual framework to classify the mite appropriately, and just giving it the same threat level as the plant is IMHO inadequate ...
>  
> Stephen
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> I ignore the particulars of Clianthus´plight, but if it was on its way out because of "natural" reasons (not all extinctions are
> anthropogenic) its horticultural appeal may have allowed it to survive in the man-made world of gardens. In this way it effectively becomes an artificial habitat for the mite. It only continues existing because of human intervention preventing its extintion (Wollemia nobilis may be a better example but the point stands as a general principle even in Clianthus is endangered due to human action). Just splitting hairs.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> P.S. Humans are only invasive because of "natural range extension" ;)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list