extinction vs local extinction vs extirpation etc.

Patrick Foley patfoley at csus.edu
Sun Jan 14 14:08:48 EST 2001


David and others who care about extinction,
 
It is regrettable that we have only one word for local and global extinction. The
island biogeography and metapopulation literature consistently uses 'extinction'
for local events, so there is no avoiding it. Numerous papers and titles
(including at least three of mine) attest to the persistence of the term.
 
I have had people suggest extirpation for local extinction, but on etymological
grounds I am doubtful. 'Extirpate' means to root out (stem and all), and it
suggests a thoroughgoing sort of extinction to me. 'Extermination', while all too
appropriate in many cases, suggests an active process by an exterminator.
'Extinction' comes of course from the same word as 'extinguish'. The flickering
out of a candle and a local population both seem good examples of extinction.
 
not flaming now,
Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu
 
David Webster wrote:
 
> Hello All:            Jan 13, 2001
>     Just several brief, I hope, comments.
>     It would seem to me preferable to reserve "extinction" for the total
> elimination of a species as opposed to the elimination of a local
> colony.
>    I received a breathless report, about a month ago, detailing the
> "extinction"
> of a mussel in New Brunswick. It contained the word "extinct" 11 times
> and
> passages such as 'A senior researcher from the Canadian Museum of
> Nature,  Andre
> Martel, made the news public this morning in a front page article which
> appeared
> in the Ottawa Citizen. « The dwarf wedge mussel, which lived only in the
> Petitcodiac River, is now dead and gone », said Martel.' . I was
> convinced.
>     But this mussel, so I am told, continues to be present at 24
> stations in NE
> North America. One might say that the ...news of its extinction was
> greatly
> exaggerated....
>     In theory at least, one can break a camel's back by adding one last
> straw.
> To avert this potential tragedy one could apply the knee-jerk reaction,
> and ban
> the production and transportation of grain or grain byproducts. But this
> breaking of a camel's back, if it ever did happen, would clearly be due
> not to
> the last straw but to the total load plus diet, parasites etc. For the
> sake of
> camels, and all other life forms, we should pay more attention to the
> actual
> total load and less attention to potential final straws.
>     I just received word from the WWF that the monarch has been saved,
> for the
> time being, but "...there are additional threats to the long-term
> survival of
> the monarch that must be addressed...". I can help. All it will take is
> money,
> my money.
>     Gosh, when the TV personality says "Thank you for watching", how do
> they
> know I am watching ?
>     Dave Webster, Kentville, Nova Scotia
>
> Mark Walker wrote:
>
> > Speaking of quality and non-quality posts (were we?), here is my nomination
> > for best post of Y2K.  This one was from John Shuey and represents
> > everything that is good in LEPS-L. It provides good evidence of the true
> > benefit from open dialogue between all participants - even in posts that are
> > longer than a paragraph.  IMO, posts like these should be required reading.
> >
> > Sorry for all the indentations.  Try to read around them, and enjoy.
> >
> > Mark Walker
> > enjoying the rain in Oceanside, CA
> >
> > "How many are your works, O Lord!
> >    In wisdom you made them all;
> > the earth is full of your creatures."
> >
> > Psalm 104:24
> >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Shuey [mailto:jshuey at tnc.org]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 7:22 AM
> > > > To: leps
> > > > Subject: Re: Extinction of Mitchell's Satyr by collectors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bob Kriegel asks a hard question below.  I'll provide as much
> > > > information as I
> > > > can, and then let you decide.  If you want the short answer,
> > > > my bottom line is
> > > > that I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > kriegelr at PILOT.MSU.EDU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I know that there are list participants out there who have
> > > > more information
> > > > > on the truth-or-urban-legend of the statement below.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is widely believed that Mitchell's Satyr was
> > > > eliminated from its last
> > > > > > known New Jersey location by collecting.
> > > >
> > > > The evidence that led people (and by people I mean Dale
> > > > Schwietzer, at the time
> > > > a TNC employee) to believe that collecting played a role is
> > > > as follows.
> > > >
> > > > 1.  Dale visited one of the three sites himself on perhaps
> > > > the last year it was
> > > > recorded from the fen.  He never saw a mitchell's satyr at
> > > > the site, but did
> > > > find a glassine envelope laying on the trail, indicating that
> > > > a butterfly
> > > > collector had proceeded him to the site.
> > > >
> > > > 2.  The collector (some New York City MD., now deceased) that
> > > > really knew about
> > > > two, possibly three sites really did collect the hell out of
> > > > the population.
> > > > One needs only visit the American Museum of Natural History
> > > > to see the several
> > > > drawers of specimens collected from these small populations
> > > > in just a few short
> > > > years.  Several hundred specimens in total.  The data on the
> > > > specimens are
> > > > purposefully cryptic, such that you can't really tell where
> > > > they were collected
> > > > from (hence the confusion of how many sites there really
> > > > were).  The other
> > > > thing you notice when you look at the data, is that this guy
> > > > collected the site
> > > > 3-4 times a week during the 2-week flight period.  And when
> > > > you look at the
> > > > quality of specimens, you get the impression that he bagged
> > > > every specimen he
> > > > encountered (there are lots of complete rags in the series).
> > > >  If ever there
> > > > was a collector who typified the stereotype bad stamp
> > > > collector mentality, this
> > > > guy was probably it.
> > > >
> > > > So that was the evidence at the time - circumstantial to say
> > > > the least.
> > > >
> > > > Confusing the issue is the condition of the two know sites (based on
> > > > conversations I've had with New Jersey Heritage staff).  Both
> > > > fens are highly
> > > > degraded, suffering from invasion of red maple (either fire
> > > > or beaver likely
> > > > played a role in maintaining the open nature of the habitat).
> > > >  This degradation
> > > > was well underway when Mitchell's satyr was declining.
> > > > Today, these fens don't
> > > > seem likely to be able to support the butterfly, based on
> > > > habitat size alone
> > > > (unless someone has been managing them since I had these
> > > > discussions a few
> > > > years back).  Hence, it seems likely that habitat dynamics
> > > > alone could have
> > > > been responsible for the ultimate decline of the butterfly.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Other than a presumed increase in collecting pressure, what
> > > > evidence is
> > > > > there that the last population was eliminated by collectors?
> > > >
> > > > Now I want to confuse the issue further, based on some
> > > recent work on
> > > > Mitchell's satyr in SW Michigan.
> > > >
> > > > A).  Based on two years of mark-release-recapture data at two
> > > > sites, here is
> > > > what we know about population structure relative to these issues.
> > > >
> > > > A)  Populations at these sites were fairly small, somewhere
> > > > between 200-300
> > > > total adults.
> > > >
> > > > B)  With daily effort, we were able to capture around 50% of
> > > > the population
> > > > each year.
> > > >
> > > > C)  Fecundity is apparently pretty low, with most females
> > > > laying 5-10 eggs per
> > > > day over about a five to seven day period.  There is no
> > > > initial large batch of
> > > > eggs produced from what we can tell.
> > > >
> > > > D) vagility is very low - most females move less than 50
> > > > meters during their
> > > > life span.
> > > >
> > > > So, if you factor in this information, it does seem likely
> > > > that you could, over
> > > > the coarse of a several year effort, cause a serious
> > > decline in small
> > > > populations of this species.  For example, if we had been
> > > > killing females
> > > > instead of writing numbers on their tushes, I bet we would
> > > > have knocked our
> > > > study populations down by about 50% over the two years.
> > > >
> > > > But now, I'll confuse the issue even further.  Two sites in
> > > > Michigan have take
> > > > the brunt of collecting over the decades, Wakelee Bog and
> > > > Liberty Fen (both now
> > > > partially owned and managed by the Conservancy).  Both
> > > > support very vigorous
> > > > populations.  In the case of Liberty, the population did
> > > > decline noticeably in
> > > > the mid 80's, but has now recovered.  At Wakelee, the
> > > > population has always
> > > > seemed very robust (likely much larger than the populations
> > > > were we did the MRR
> > > > work).  This despite a long and glorious history of
> > > > collectors driving from all
> > > > over the country to collect these two sites.
> > > >
> > > > Now and interesting aside:  the southern subspecies,
> > > > Neonympha mitchellii
> > > > francisci, was emergency listed because of the threat from
> > > > collectors.  This
> > > > species was described by Parshall and Krall, two collectors
> > > > who are of the
> > > > classic long series mind set (as in the longer the better).
> > > > Remember, Krall
> > > > was one of the three collectors later convicted for violating
> > > > several federal
> > > > laws regarding endangered species and collecting in protected
> > > > areas.  Hence,
> > > > when North Carolina heritage staff visited the only know
> > > > population site (type
> > > > locality) and could not find it, they naturally assumed that
> > > > it had been
> > > > collected out of existence. (keep in mind that heritage staff
> > > > have long been
> > > > under the influence of Dale Schwietzer's opinions, and hence
> > > > were already aware
> > > > that New Jersey populations had been "collected to
> > > > extinction").  So the story
> > > > started (as part of the emergency listing) and  persisted (I
> > > > still see it
> > > > kicked around, most disturbingly in the recovery plan for
> > > > this subspecies) that
> > > > North Carolina populations were collected to extinction.
> > > >
> > > > As it turns out, this was all a big screw-up.  The map to the
> > > > type locality
> > > > (provided by the authors) was bogus.  Of course the butterfly
> > > > population at the
> > > > site was "extinct".  Once folks finally figured out where the
> > > > type locality
> > > > really was, they found the butterfly.  But the story still
> > > > persists as urban
> > > > legend.  As it turns out, the exact spot where the butterfly
> > > > was originally
> > > > discovered has indeed gone temporarily extinct (the habitat
> > > > has shrubbed
> > > > over).  But the real population persists in the impact range
> > > > of Fort Bragg,
> > > > apparently healthy and thriving in the habitat maintained
> > > by a steady
> > > > procession of bomb-induced wild fires.
> > > >
> > > > The repercussions of all of this persist to this day.  A
> > > small set of
> > > > populations have recently been discovered in another
> > > > east-coast state.  The
> > > > perceived threat of collectors is so great that almost
> > > > nothing is known in the
> > > > general conservation community about the sites (for example,
> > > > just yesterday I
> > > > was talking to the guy working on Mitchell's satyr at Ft.
> > > > Bragg, he heard that
> > > > the new populations were in the mountains, I had heard that
> > > > they were in the
> > > > piedmont - and we are both heavily involved in conserving
> > > > this species!)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Folks, this one is worth airing out.  This extinction
> > > event has been
> > > > > referred to in Nature Conservancy literature and in
> > > > National Geographic
> > > > > magazine.  It is the most widely cited case in North
> > > America for the
> > > > > extinction of a butterfly population by collectors.  I have
> > > > heard strong
> > > > > opinions on both sides of the argument about this event.
> > > > What I have not
> > > > > heard is evidence!
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob Kriegel
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is this, as a TNC employee, it almost killed
> > > > me when I saw us
> > > > printing this "factoid" in our national publication (this
> > > > goes out to over a
> > > > million members).  National Geographic hits even more folks -
> > > > and both are
> > > > supposed to be pretty authoritative.  I think that the
> > > > evidence is way to shaky
> > > > to say with certainty that the story is fact.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, if ever there was a convergence of factors
> > > > ranging from a
> > > > susceptible species to a collector who could actually put the
> > > > hurt on a
> > > > population, New Jersey is it.
> > > >
> > > > So, years into pondering all the evidence I've come to the
> > > > conclusion that
> > > > there really isn't a clean answer to this issue.
> > > > --
> > > > John Shuey
> > > > Director of Conservation Science
> > > > Indiana Office of The Nature Conservancy
> > > >
> > > > phone:  317-923-7547
> > > > fax:  317-923-7582
> > > > email:  Jshuey at tnc.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list