In reply to Peter Menkhorst:
>Trevor Ford and Peter Milburn both implied that the likelihood of a threatened
>taxon receiving Government funding for conservation actions would be increased
>if the taxon was classified as a species rather than as a sub-species.
>They >even suggested that scientists and/or bureaucrats could justify
>scientific >dishonesty or deception in order to gain this supposed benefit.
I would be very grateful to Peter if he could explain to us all where my
writing skills have failed me such that I confered these meanings. At no
point have I discussed my opinions upon funding from government or other
sources. I take exception at the second sentence and would appreciate a
public apology for this misrepresentation.
My intention was to state that in my understanding at an International
Meeting of Albatross Biologists it was agreed that an interim PSC-based
taxonomy should be adopted on the basis of preliminary results which
yielded identical terminal taxa to those established using the BSC. This
was to form the basis for further studies including those pertaining to
conservation issues. I am able to see how people might not agree with this
taxonomic treatment and, as I have previously stated, I am able to respect
that. At the time a great deal of national and international legislation
was being prepared in response to a variety of acute endangering processes
and to those involved it must have seemed appropriate to use the PSC-based
treatment.
Perhaps the choice of the PSC over the BSC was based on the following type
of critique summarised by David James as follows:
>A major criticism of the BSC is that it does not serve conservation very
>well. Conservation needs to occur at the finest level of biodiversity and
>BSC species are not necessarily units of biodiversity. On the other hand
>PSC species are, or nearly are, units of biodiversity. Around the world,
>people and governments talk about "threatened SPECIES". Outside of
>Australia, most legislation protects only to the level of species. Thus,
>under the BSC, subspecies (which are units of biodiversity) are not
>protected adequately. The public and politicians do not understand this, so
>the PSC sidesteps the problem and redefines species as units of biodiversity.
Please note that I did not address this issue in my previous posting and do
not intend to now. I did make the point that overt criticism of the
presumed motives behind adopting this taxonomy appears to me to be a
distraction from the real issues. Compare the lack of attention given to
the drastic decline in the population of T. carteri to that given to what
we should call this species!!
So far in this discussion no-one has challanged the interim taxonomy with
any contradictory data. While the published primary data in its support is
meagre it still outweighs that which refutes it.
The Australian Federal Endangered Species Protection Act Schedules are a
mixture of the binomial and trinomial nomenclatures. This reflects the
fact that the principles of taxonomy are in a state of flux. For species
with dispersal over huge ranges and those with widely separated small
(vulnerable) breeding populations it seems that international consensus has
some merit. Outside the albatross species there are inconsistencies in the
taxanomic treatment between Australia and other countries. As Peter has
explained this has no consequence to this legislation.
Dr.P.J. Milburn
Biomolecular Resource Facility
The Australian National University
GPO Box 334 Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA
Phone No. <61> <2> 6249 4326
Fax No. <61> <2> 6249 4326
E-mail Address
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
in the message body (without the quotes)
|
