Subspecies and protection

[Woody Woods]

Listing the species only would allow protection for vertebrates, where
distinct populations may be protected, but not for invertebrates, where only a
described species or subspecies can be protected. (Maybe you haven't yet seen
the exchanges on leps-l over the past couple of hours.) If it lacks a
backbone, it must have a name!

Maybe this enhances the importance of metapopulation studies! If there are
multiple populations, I wonder whether in current practice it might sometimes
be necessary to "choose" which population to protect (I don't know how this
might have been done already-- anyone?)? If so, identifying source and sink
populations assumes critical importance; protecting a sink population only
could allow a species to go down the drain (ow!). 

Woody

Laurel Godley wrote:
> 
> I haven't really followed the subspecies topic closely but think I'll
> jump in here as it brings to mind a question of my own.  Here is
> California we have two named subspecies, Euphydryas editha quino  and
> E. e. bayensis, which are federally listed (there are others as well
> but this is the one I am most familiar with living in San Jose.)  My
> question is this: What advantage(s) is there to listing subspecies
> seperately rather than just listing the species as a whole?
> 
>
*********************************************************
William A. Woods Jr.
Department of Biology
University of Massachusetts Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd                      Lab: 617-287-6642
Boston, MA 02125                        Fax: 617-287-6650
*********************************************************

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl