extinction vs local extinction vs extirpation etc.

[Chris J. Durden]

Patrick,
    How about using the word "vanish" for these local "extinctions" as in 
"now you see it, now you don't".  A lot of these local "vanishings" turn 
out to be only temporary, due to lack of thorough search, persistence of a 
very small population, or repopulation by individuals wandering in from 
afar. It is usually impossible to determine the reason for reappearance of 
a vanished population. The instances that we are really concerned with are 
the moral equivalent of the "dissapeard" among the human populations of 
some autocratic societies, thus I think it is quite appropriate to call 
these local extinctions, vanishings and to copile lists of the vanished 
species of counties, states, countries and continents.
............Chris Durden
 
 
At 11:08 AM 1/14/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>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
>
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl