[Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

[Stephen Thorpe]

Even excellenter work, Geoff!!
 
let's look at this: http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Asaphodes_imperfecta
 
[Geoff says]>On the moth the relevant new article says nothing about 6 specimens but claims it was once easily encountered but not since 2001 and that its population trends "are not fully understood". Indeed. One would probably think on that basis that it merits flagging with a high threat category. Even if abundance of 'easily encountered' was never the case, one would have concern about it now if one was a moth man ... wouldn't one? :)<

the 6 specimens info comes from the Anon. (2002) reference, in DoC's own "rare bits" newsletter (open access). This is also consistent with the very clear comments by Patrick (2000: 17) (open access), who states that A. imperfecta has always been rare, and he is far more worried about A. stinaria, which (according to him) really has gone through a decline.
 
Yet, in the 2012 paper, the authors put A. imperfecta in the highest possible threat category (and A. stinaria in a lower one) supposedly because it used to be more easily encountered, but no specimens since 2001 gives the authors confidence that it is in serious decline! At the very least, they should have discussed and explained away the earlier published contradictory statements, but it seems that we are just to take their word for it, despite the earlier published contradictory statements! This is not science! 
 
I am not saying that A. imperfecta status is secure, just that it does not seem justifiable to give it the highest possible threat status for the reasons stated ...
 
Stephen

From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

Excellent work Stephen,

Okay, there is a newly created Wikispecies page of Stephen's apparently
cataloguing a series of worthy articles in a just published NZ
Entomologist (not a journal in my orbit of interest) regarding the
conservation status of various terrestrial inverts. The introductory
article is this one:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00779962.2012.686309.

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Zealand_Threat_Classification_System:_NATIONALLY_CRITICAL

On the moth the relevant new article says nothing about 6 specimens but
claims it was once easily encountered but not since 2001 and that its
population trends "are not fully understood".  Indeed. One would probably
think on that basis that it merits flagging with a high threat category.
Even if abundance of 'easily encountered' was never the case, one would
have concern about it now if one was a moth man ... wouldn't one?  :)

Geoff

On Tue, July 3, 2012 3:15 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> not quite true, Geoff, as I have put all the relevant documentation on the
> relevant Wikispecies pages, e.g.
> http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Asaphodes_imperfecta for the moth
>  
>>If there are some odd assessments in amongst the appropriate ones in what
>> he's seen well that's unfortunate and should be corrected<
> yes, but why am I the only one who seems to have noticed??
>  
>> it's been quite rigorous with wide consultation with the experts<
> "experts" is a rhetorical concept, which rarely applies today in NZ, at
> least with terrestrial inverts. In part, it is because these assessments
> are very wide ranging, but there are only a handful of "experts", each
> with an *actual area of expertise* which is much narrower in scope in
> reality than in theory ...
>  
> Stephen
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> To: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
>
>
> Let us bear in mind that no one, other than Stephen, knows what document
> he is talking about, or the exact treatment given to his examples.
>
> If there are some odd assessments in amongst the appropriate ones in what
> he's seen well that's unfortunate and should be corrected.  From what I
> know of the process as done in the past (for NZ marine organisms) it's
> been quite rigorous with wide consultation with the experts, and by no
> means mindless pasting.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> On Tue, July 3, 2012 1:09 am, JF Mate wrote:
>> Dear Stephen,
>>
>> You can´t demonstrate anything from 6 specimens really, so I have to
>> agree, it seems overzealousness bordering on ignorance on whoever is
>> compiling the list. They make the mite look like a Panda bear! The
>> roblem, and this is the crux of the matter, is that these lists are
>> supposed to be a gold standard, but they seem to be assembled by
>> copy-paste aggregators. The nematode and the moth have no standing in
>> the list other than data deficient, like the vast majority of
>> invertebrates and the mite vulnerable (to human whim). How many
>> amateur entomologists are there in NZ? Is it a dying hobby like in the
>> Northern Hemisphere? That may explain the lack of information for the
>> moth.
>