[Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

[Geoffrey Read]

Stephen,

"the 6 specimens info comes from the Anon. (2002) reference, in DoC's
own"rare bits" newsletter (open access)"

No. What they say is: "For only the sixth time, the moth Asaphodes
imperfecta has been recorded."  So there would have been various numbers
of specimens each collection event, and possibly even it was numerous at
one or more sites, although that seems unlikely. It's the normal sort of
selective wording people use to bolster the importance of a find. If there
were only 6 specimens I think they would have said that. Noting this
newsletter has the disclaimer "The newsletter’s informal style may
occasionally lead to misunderstandings for some of those readers."

Nevertheless, I now agree with you that there's some explaining to do re
this item in the 2012 report. It's a brave effort overall but it's not
really clear from the information provided why authors made the decline
comment and the 'Nationally critical' decision for this hard to find
forest Asaphodes species, when others seem similarly rare and of similar
unknown habits.  Hard to find may just mean the exact favored habitat
occurs sporadically.

Geoff  (2c from a ignoramus on moths)


On Wed, July 4, 2012 9:14 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
>>


--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz