G'day birders
Peter Milburn asked for clarification of how I concluded that he suggested that
it is justified to prematurely claim a higher taxonomic status for a population
in the hope of increasing the chances of it receiving conservation attention.
I admit that my words 'scientific dishonesty or deception' are strong, but note
that I did not accuse any person of being dishonest or deceptive, only of
suggesting that it might be justified in the case of albatross taxa, many of
which are clearly in rapid decline.
My point has nothing to do with albatross taxonomy as such - I know almost
nothing about it. Rather, I am concerned that all taxa are treated equitably
when our precious conservation dollars are being divided up amongst the 1000s of
competing taxa which all require urgent attention.
The sentences in Peter's posting which led me to conclude that he was supporting
a policy of 'taxonomy for conservation convenience' are:
'However, with due respect for his [David James'] sound arguments which pertain
to due taxonomic process it has to be stated that many albatross populations are
in a state of crisis .... Is it appropriate to wait 15 plus years in the
pursuit of complete published data sets prior to the implementation of
legislation, conservation strategies etc? I suggest that this is a matter of
opinion. Personally I am happy that the interim proposal was adopted ...'
I took these statements to mean that, if switching to a PSC approach would
confer a conservation advantage, then Peter would support that strategy, even if
the scientific merit and ethics of doing so were open to question. Otherwise,
what has conservation status (populations in a state of crisis) got to do with a
discussion about taxonomic and nomenclatural arrangements? If I have
misinterpreted what was meant then I apologise fully for doing so.
However, I think that the issue is important and needs to be considered. I ask
the following question. Is it helpful for one group of specialists to decide
that one particular taxonomic arrangement, in this case the PSC, better suits
their conservation aims, and push for universal adoption of that arrangement for
one family, in this case Diomedeidae, when all other Australian birds are
classified under a different system, including in legislation, in the Federal
Government's Zoological Catalogue and in Birds Australia's checklist? Why didn't
they simply argue that most small isolated breeding populations of albatross,
whatever their taxonomic status, are threatened and are the basic units of
conservation, and therefore clearly a high priority for conservation action, as
the Australian legislation allows?
Oh well, there goes my lunch hour.
Peter Menkhorst
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
in the message body (without the quotes)
|
