On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 10:24:56AM +1000, Peter Ewin wrote:
> The point that Andrew makes is not strictly true.
I'd have no problem if the Emus had been described as an "endangered
population" but that is a very different thing to a "threatened species"
and of much less concern. To expand on my point (and the rest of Peter's
e-mail suggests he agrees at least somewhat):
I personally don't know what the status of Emus in NE NSW is. But the
habitat islands left by the extensive vegetation modification that has
occurred in eastern NSW must contain many thousands, if not millions,
of populations of plants & animals which are technically endangered
populations. When there are elsewhere large secure populations of the
same taxa these endangered populations are of much less conservation
significance.
You'd hope the TSC listing for the north coast Emus population implied
conservation significance but such listing haven't always in the
past. There is a listing for Little Penguins at Manly. I can't see how
Manly Little Penguins can be considered a population in any important
biological sense. Nor can I can they have major conservation value
for them. I can see major cultural value and I'm all receiving local
protection and persisting in Sydney.
Interestingly the Atlas maps don't show a discontinuity in Emu
distribution in NE NSW but they may well be strongly isolated below the
Atlas resolution. Genetic data would be interesting.
Andrew
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
