[Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes

Sat Sep 4 21:05:03 CDT 2021

Hi,

I didn't check whether they are registered and so on, but at least the 
deer paper does seem to include everything that should be needed for 
availability if there is no journal-level problems. They have a proper 
description, holotype designations, and everything else as far as I can 
see.If it hadn't been for the discussion that the erection of the new 
subspecies is (partially) done for conservation purposes, I wouldn't 
have looked twice on this paper.

The squirrel paper is more of a borderline, but they do designate a type 
species, and there are some data (measurements, possibly other stuff) 
that could be argued to provide a description. It's a very disorganized 
and sprawling paper, though.

Thanks for the examples, I'll have a look. And very much looking forward 
to your paper in press on this!

Cheers,

Daniel

> heya,
> 
> thankyou for sharing this. I wish I had seen this a month ago as the 
> current paper in press for the Global Species Lists Working Group I am 
> leading on Consequences of all this would have benefited from this 
> example. Well too late now for that I would have to add it at proof 
> stage and thats never a great idea.
> 
> The perception, or reality, of a conflict of interests between taxonomy 
> and the eventual conservation outcomes can potentially harm both 
> taxonomy and conservation, particularly in the light of this conflict 
> being identified by developers for example. Taxonomy and Conservation 
> are both crucial sciences but they cannot be in each other's pockets.
> 
> I wonder if these new names are properly published? I do not know if 
> the journal is registered with ZooBank and archived appropriately? I 
> will need to check this.
> 
> Definitely a case I will be hanging on to as examples for the future.
> 
> Cheers Scott
> 
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom 
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I recently came across this publication:
>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
>> 
>> In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
>> American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind 
>> this
>> seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T. 
>> mearnsi
>> doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead 
>> suggest
>> "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
>> proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear that
>> this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as 
>> well
>> as biogeographically".
>> 
>> Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for pure
>> conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining 
>> about
>> how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North 
>> America
>> (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
>> squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels. 
>> They
>> conclude:
>> "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
>> taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
>> sustainable human-nature interaction."
>> 
>> This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
>> "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
>> remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically dominated 
>> by
>> just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves out
>> the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
>> certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a more
>> holistic classification system, including all
>> species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single 
>> ones
>> (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
>> increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially squirrels,
>> can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
>> enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly 
>> contribute
>> to science-based management for these squirrels."
>> and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
>> disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
>> examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which do
>> not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent than
>> the 1990s.
>> 
>> The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
>> including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
>> particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to 
>> establish
>> this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and average
>> body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while 
>> disregarding
>> all genetic and other moprhological data.
>> 
>> This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
>> tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
>> conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way to
>> do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is also
>> available from this publication, as they do include measurements that
>> purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in 
>> the
>> genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
>> paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> The same journal also published this:
>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
>> 
>> Abstract (in part):
>> "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
>> subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic recognition
>> supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category whereas
>> other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs) 
>> are
>> not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned to 
>> a
>> subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
>> elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo- and a
>> paratype specimen."
>> 
>> They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but 
>> still
>> base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this will
>> make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
>> conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
>> Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
>> 
>> Ask me about chewing lice!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> 
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: 
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: 
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: 
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> 
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 
>> 1987-2021.
> 
> --
> 
> Scott Thomson
> 
> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> Petrópolis, Manaus
> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> Brasil
> 
> http://www.carettochelys.com
> 
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728 [1]
> Skype: Faendalimas
> 
> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270

-- 
Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.

Ask me about chewing lice!

Links:
------
[1] 
https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#