The impact of taxonomic change on conservation: Does it kill, can it save, or is it just irrelevant?

Biological Conservation

Volumn 142, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 3201-3206

  Morrison III, W R ^a   Lohr, J L ^a   Duchen, P ^a   Wilches, R ^a   Trujillo, D ^a   Mair, M ^a   Renner, S S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conservation efforts; Impact of taxonomy; Lumping; Splitting; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; LITERATURE REVIEW; POPULATION DENSITY; SPECIES CONSERVATION; TAXONOMY; TRANSLOCATION;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 70350564774     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.019     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Agapow P.M., Bininda-Edmonds O.R.P., Crandall K.A., Gittleman J.L., Mace G.M., Marshall J.C., and Purvis A. The impact of the species concept on biodiversity studies. Quart. Rev. Biol. 79 (2004) 161-179
2. Alava, J.J., Salazar, S., 2006. Status and conservation of otarrids in Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands. In: Trites, A.W., DeMaster, D.P., Fritz, L.W., Gelatt, T.S., Rea, L.D., Wayne, K.M. (Eds.), Sea Lions of the World. Alaska Sea Grant Program, pp. 495-520.
3. Aldasoro J.J., Aedo C., Garmendia F.M., de la Hoz F.P., and Navarro C. Revision of Sorbus subgenera Aria and Torminaria (Rosaceae-Maloideae). Syst. Bot. Monogr. 69 (2004) 1-148
4. Allendorf F.W., and Waples R.S. Conservation genetics of salmonid fishes. In: Avise J.C., and Hamrick J.L. (Eds). Conservation Genetics: Case Histories from Nature (1996), Chapman and Hall, New York 238-280
5. AOU. Thirty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 90 (1973) 411-419
6. Atwood, J.L., Bontrager, D.R., 2001. California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In: Poole, A., Gill, F. (Eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 574. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
7. Banguera-Hinestroza E., Cardenas H., Ruiz-Garcia M., Marmontel M., Gaitan E., Vazquez R., and Garcia-Vallejo F. Molecular identification of evolutionarily significant units in the Amazon river dolphin Inia sp. (Cetacea: Iniidae). J. Hered. 93 (2002) 312-322
8. Bateman R.M. Evolution and classification of European orchids: insights from molecular and morphological characters. J. Europ. Orchid. 33 (2001) 33-119
9. Carstens B.C., Brunsfeld S.J., Demboski J.R., Good J.M., and Sullivan J. Investigating the evolutionary history of the Pacific Northwest mesic forest ecosystem: hypothesis testing within a comparative phylogenetic framework. Evolution 59 (2005) 1639-1652
10. CDF, 2006. Sea Lion Monitoring and Conservation: Featured Projects. Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Ecuador.
11. Cheffings, C.M., Farrell, L., 2005. The Vascular Plant Red List for Great Britain. Joint National Conservation Committee, Species Status, Peterborough, Great Britain, pp. 1-116.
12. Clark J.A., and May R.M. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Sci., New Ser. 297 (2002) 191-192
13. Clarkson R.W., and Rorabaugh J.C. Status of leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex: Ranidae) in Arizona and California. Southwestern Naturalist 34 (1989) 531-538
14. De Queiroz K., and Gauthier J. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Syst. Zool. 39 (1990) 307-322
15. Dubois A. Phylogeny, taxonomy, and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and nomenclatural ranks. Zootaxa 1519 (2007) 27-58
16. Duke, S.D., 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered or Threatened Status for Five Aquatic Snails in South-central Idaho. Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, Rules and Regulations, pp. 59244-59257.
17. Friesen V.L., Birt T.P., Piatt J.F., Golightly R.T., Newman S.H., Herbert P.N., Congdon B.C., and Gissing G. Population genetic structure and conservation of the marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Conserv. Genet. 6 (2005) 607-614
18. Funk V.A., Sakai A.K., and Richardson K. Biodiversity: the interface between systematics and conservation. Syst. Biol. 51 (2002) 235-237
19. Garnett S.T., Crowley G.M., and Stattersfield A.J. Changes in the conservation status of Australian birds resulting from differences in taxonomy, knowledge and the defintions of threat. Biol. Conserv. 113 (2003) 269-276
20. Gittleman J.L., and Pimm S.L. Conservation biology - crying wolf in North-America. Nature 351 (1991) 524-525
21. Glick, D., 2005. Back from the brink. Smithson. Mag., pp. 1-9. .
22. Goldberg C.S., Field K.J., and Sredl M.J. Mitochondrial DNA sequences do not support species status of the Ramsey canyon leopard frog (Rana subaquavocalis). J. Herp. 38 (2004) 313-319
23. Goldstein, P.Z., Hall, S., Hart, B., Roble, S., Shuey, J., 2004. Evaluation of Relationships and Conservation Status within the Neonympha mitchellii Complex (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Report to United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC, USA.
24. Grinnell J. A critical inspection of the gnatcatchers of the Californias. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 15 (1926) 493-500
25. Hershler R. A review of the North American freshwater snail genus Pyrgulopsis (Hydrobiidae). Smithson. Contr. Zool. 32 (1994) 1-41
26. Hershler R., and Liu H.P. Taxonomic reappraisal of species assigned to the North American freshwater gastropod subgenus Natricola (Rissooidea: Hydrobiidae). Veliger 47 (2004) 66-81
27. Heywood V.H., and Davis P.H. Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy (1963), Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London
28. Hillis D.M. Systematics of the Rana pipiens complex: puzzle and paradigm. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19 (1988) 39-63
29. Humphrey J., and Fox V. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lists Chiricahua Leopard Frog as a Threatened Species (2002), Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Phoenix, USA
30. Isaac N.J.B., Mallet J., and Mace G.M. Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 464-469
31. IUCN, 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. .
32. JNCC, 2008. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. British Government, Joint National Conservation Committee, United Kingdom.
33. Johnson J.A., Watson R.T., and Minde D.P. Prioritizing species conservation: does the Cape Verde kite exist? Proc. Roy. Soc. B 272 (2005) 1365-1371
34. Karl S., and Bowen B. Evolutionary significant units versus geopolitical taxonomy: molecular systematics of an endangered sea turtle (genus Chelonia). Conserv. Biol. 13 (1999) 990-999
35. Kennedy K. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Remove the Plant Echinocereus lloydii (Lloyd's hedgehog cactus) from the federal list of endangered and threatened plants (1999), Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Services, Federal Register, Rules and Regulations, Washington, DC pp. 33796-33800
36. Khuroo A.A., Dar G.H., Khan Z.S., and Malik A.H. Exploring an inherent interface between taxonomy and biodiversity: current problems and future challenges. J. Nat. Conserv. 15 (2007) 256-261
37. Knapp S., Lughadha E.N., and Paton A. Taxonomic inflation, species concepts and global species lists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (2005) 7-8
38. Leme E.M.C. Nominal extinction and the taxonomist's responsibility: the example of Bromeliaceae in Brazil. Taxon 52 (2003) 299-302
39. Lozano F.D., Saiz J.C.M., Ollero H.S., and Schwartz M.W. Effects of dynamic taxonomy on rare species and conservation listing: insights from the Iberian vascular flora. Biodiv. Conserv. 16 (2007) 4039-4050
40. Mace G.M. The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 359 (2004) 711-719
41. May R.M. Taxonomy as destiny. Nature 347 (1990) 129-130
42. McNeely J.A. The role of taxonomy in conserving biodiversity. J. Nat. Conserv. 10 (2002) 145-153
43. Meiri S., and Mace G.M. New taxonomy and the origin of species. PLoS Biology 5 (2007) 1385-1386
44. Meyer, N., Meierott, L., Schuwerk, H., Angerer, O., 2005. Beiträge zur Gattung Sorbus in Bayern. Sonderband der Berichte der Bayerischen Botanischen Gesellschaft, Munich, Germany, 216 pp.
45. Miller J.M., and Chambers K.L. Systematics of Claytonia (Portulacaceae). Syst. Bot. Monogr. 78 (2006) 1-236
46. Missouri Natural Heritage Program, 2009. Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA, p. 54.
47. Murray D.L., and Waits L.P. Taxonomic status and conservation strategy of the endangered red wolf: a response to Kyle et al. (2006). Conserv. Genet. 8 (2007) 1483-1485
48. National Research Council, 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
49. Nielson M., Lohman K., and Sullivan J. Phylogeography of the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei): implications for the biogeography of the Pacific Northwest. Evolution 55 (2001) 147-160
50. NMFS, USFWS, 2007. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas): 5-Year Review. National Marine Fisheries Service and The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
51. Nowak R.M. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeast. Natural. 1 (2002) 95-130
52. Nowak R.M. Wolf evolution and taxonomy. In: Mech L.D., and Boitani L. (Eds). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation (2003), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois 239-258
53. Padial J.M., and De La Riva I. Taxonomic inflation and the stability of species lists: the perils of Ostrich's behavior. Syst. Biol. 55 (2006) 859-867
54. Patten M.A., and Pruett C.L. The song sparrow, Melospiza melodia, as a ring species: patterns of geographic variation, a revision of subspecies, and implications for speciation. Syst. Biodiv. 7 (2009) 33-62
55. Platz J.E., and Mecham J.S. Rana chiricahuensis, a new species of leopard frog (Rana pipiens complex) from Arizona. Copeia 383 (1979) 390
56. Poole J.M., and Riskind D.H. Endangered, Threatened, or Protected Native Plants of Texas (1987), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas
57. Powell A.M., Zimmerman A.D., and Hilsenbeck R.A. Experimental documentation of natural hybridization in Cactaceae - origin of Lloyds Hedgehog cactus, Echinocereus x lloydii. Plant Syst. Evol. 178 (1991) 107-122
58. Rising J.D. Ecological and genetic diversity in the seaside sparrow. Birding 37 (2005) 490-496
59. Rorabaugh J. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) (1987), United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, Washington, DC pp. 40789-40811
60. Russello M.A., Glaberman S., Gibbs J.P., Marquez C., Powell J.R., and Caccone A. A cryptic taxon of Galapagos tortoise in conservation peril. Biol. Lett. 1 (2005) 287-290
61. Scheuerer M., and Ahlmer W. Rote Liste gefährdeter Gefäβpflanzen Bayerns mit regionalisierter Florenliste (2003), Bayerische Landesamt für Umweltschutz, Munich, Germany p. 372
62. Schliebe S., and Johnson K. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) throughout its Range (2008), United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, Washington, DC pp. 28212-28303
63. Talbot S.L., and Shields G.F. Phylogeography of brown bears (Ursus arctos) of Alaska and paraphyly within the Ursidae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 5 (1996) 477-494
64. Talbot S.L., and Shields G.F. A phylogeny of the bears (Ursidae) inferred from complete sequences of three mitochondrial genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 5 (1996) 567-575
65. USFWS, 1995. Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan. Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho, USA, pp. 1-92.
66. USFWS, 2007a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Remove the Idaho Spring Snail (Pyrgulopsis (=Fontelicella) idahoensis) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Registry, Rules and Regulations, Washington, DC, pp. 43560-43563.
67. USFWS, 2007b. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Department of the Interior, United State Fish and Wildlife Service, Manteo, North Carolina, USA, pp. 1-58.
68. USFWS, 2007c. News Release: Service Removes Idaho Spring Snail from the Endangered Species List. Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho, USA.
69. USFWS, 2008. Press Release: Polar Bear. Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virgina, USA.
70. Utevsky S.Y., and Trontelj P. A new species of the medicinal leech (Oligochaeta, Hirudinida, Hirudo) from Transcaucasia and an identification key for the genus Hirudo. Parasitol. Res. 98 (2005) 61-66
71. Waits L.P., Sullivan J., O'Brien S.J., and Ward R.H. Rapid radiation events in the family Ursidae indicated by likelihood phylogenetic estimation from multiple fragments of mtDNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13 (1999) 82-92
72. Walters M.J. A Shadow and A Song (1992), Chelsea Green Publishing Co., Post Mills, VT, USA
73. Wayne R.K., and Jenks S.M. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered Red Wolf Canis rufus. Nature 351 (1991) 565-568
74. Williams, J., 2009. Interior Secretary Salazar finally restores ESA law, but polar bear loses out. The Examiner, April 29, 2009, Politics Section. (accessed 28.06.09).
75. Wilson D.E., and Reeder D.M. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. (2005), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
76. Wolf J., Tautz D., and Trillmich F. Galapagos and Californian sea lions are separate species: genetic analyses of the genus Zalophus and its implications for conservation management. BMC: Front. Zool. 4 (2007) 20
77. Zink R.M., Barrowclough G.F., Atwood J.L., and Blackwell-Rago R.C. Genetics, taxonomy, and conservation of the threatened California Gnatcatcher. Conserv. Biol. 14 (2000) 1394-1405