[Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

[Ken Kinman]

Hi Stephen,      I would agree that calling this mite "critically endangered" is excessive.  I would think it would suffice to categorize it as "threatened".                             -------------Ken-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:29:30 -0700
> From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> To: fwelter at gwdg.de
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> Thanks Francisco ... here is the actual example, with references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aceria_clianthi
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Yes I agree with you. It is currently not necessary to take measures for
> saving this species. It is also inconsistent with the treatment of Homo
> sapiens on the IUCN Red List.
> Homo sapiens was placed on the Red List in 2008, in the Least Concern
> category. We could also say, almost extinct in the wild. There is one
> surviving undisturbed natural population of about 100 individuals on an
> island of the Andaman islands, India, which has, as far as know, no
> protection from a Red List status.
> 
> I have also a critical position to placing clearly not threatened species
> on Red Lists, such as quickly spreading and invasive species, and
> classifying them in the Least Concern category together with species which
> are in serious decline but do not yet qualify for Near Threatened. The Red
> List is broadly understood as a synonym for a list of threatened or near
> threatened species. It is not thought to represent a list of all species
> of the world.
> 
> Francisco
> 
> > For plants, this is easy to answer: when it is critically endangered in
> > the wild, but common in cultivation. More interesting is the case of an
> > insect or mite, host specific to such a plant. I am debating this issue at
> > the moment. A mite has been put on the "Nationally Critical" list just
> > because its only host plant is on the "Nationally Critical" list. But I
> > say this is wrong! The plant is common in cultivation, and the mite is
> > also on cultivated plants! For animals, including mites, you can't make an
> > "in the wild" vs. "in cultivation" distinction. Basically the mite is "in
> > the wild" regardless of whether it is on wild or cultivated plants, in my
> > view. What do others think?
> >
> > Stephen
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
> Phone +49 551 395536
> http://www.animalbase.org/
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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