Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation

Abstract

COMMENT © 2 0 1 7 M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h e r s L i m i t e d , p a r t o f S p r i n g e r N a t u r e . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . the International Council for Science, the highest-level organization for global scientific governance. MIX 'N' MATCH FREE-FOR-ALLThe lack of universal rules for taxonomy has many consequences. A major issue is differences in tradition between classes. Many mammalian taxonomists use the phylogenetic species concept (PSC): two populations are listed as distinct species if they have a common ancestor but differ physically or genetically 2 . Meanwhile, many bird taxonomists favour the more conservative biological species concept -the idea that true species should not normally produce fertile hybrids 2 . An estimate published last year suggests that the number of bird species would more than double were bird taxonomists to adopt the PSC 3 .Depending on which species concept is used, one class can seem more threatened than another, and so receive a bigger slice of conservation funding. In 2012, for instance, roughly the same amount of spending was dedicated to birds and mammals, per species, under the US Endangered Species Act 4 . But if mammals are more finely split than birds, that means more money is being funnelled towards the protection of mammalian genetic diversity overall. Paradoxically, finer splitting could also make certain species more vulnerable. Safari hunters currently achieve the 'spiral horned grand slam' by killing just nine types of antelope. Recent developments in taxonomy could see them wanting to kill 25, and targeting smaller populations to do so.A second issue is that conservation legislation often fails to keep pace with changes to how animals and plants are classified. For example, changes to taxonomy since Chinese wildlife legislative lists were last updated in 1989 have left 25 species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) exposed to illegal trade 5 . It can also affect countries' biodiversity tallies under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Splitting species into smaller units means that more are likely to meet the definitions of being threatened, and so may increase a country's overall count of threatened species. The application of the PSC to the 'near threatened' central Asian argali wild sheep (Ovis ammon), turned one species into nine, and overnight Kazakhstan had five mountain sheep species in need of protection, not just one 6 . Nationally, the splitting or lumping of species protected by law can affect investment and land use, and even foster doubts about science among the public and policymakers. In an ongoing battle, developers seeking access to valuable land are proposing that a bird, the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), does not warrant protection. They argue that DNA evidence indicates that it is not a valid taxon.More broadly, a single taxonomic paper can affect whole conservation programmes, tourist enterprises and emplo...

Evolución del riesgo de extinción y estado actual de conservación de las aves de Colombia

“…Estas dificultades han llevado a algunos autores a proponer una mejor gobernanza de la taxonomía de organismos complejos mediante un sistema de estándares para definir los límites de especies y otras unidades taxonómicas que pueda aplicarse confiablemente a diferentes formas de vida (Garnett & Christidis, 2017). Otros autores han hecho la recomendación de usar una lista estandarizada (por ejemplo, una lista de chequeo de sinonimias) como un punto de referencia que, además, facilitaría el manejo de la biodiversidad, pues las prioridades de conservación suelen basarse en listas de especies y es importante que estas sean relativamente estables (Isaac, et al, 2004).…”

What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017)

“…These views are aligned with modern concepts of science and freedom of expression. However, the opinion of Garnett & Christidis (2017) [GC hereafter] expressed in an article published in the same journal appears to blatantly contradict these principles, by arguing for "standardized global species lists", supposedly at the behest of conservationists, and proposing a structure to "restrict the freedom of taxonomic action" and promote taxonomic stability. Interestingly, Bremer et al (1990) had also stated: "to establish some international peer-review system to approve or reject proposed modifications overlooks the benefits of change in taxonomy".…”

Improving nomenclatural consistency: a decade of experience in the World Register of Marine Species

“…Consistency and stability are of particular concern in the case of species important to society, be they of commercial or medical use, harmful to humans or endangered species listed in legal texts (Garnett & Christidis 2017). Since the launch and development of WoRMS, the accuracy of names used in non-taxonomic works has significantly improved.…”