[NHCOLL-L:4889] Re: open for comment

[malcolm McCallum]

The problem is that when it comes to legal issues which invariably pop up
when businesses and industries are involved, if you can't demonstrate what
was there...it doesn't exist.  Therefore, it is very important from a policy
and legal view that we do identify as many as possible.  Further, how can we
dependably and economically conserve species for which we know little more
than a name?  To accurately conserve a species, or the ecosystem in which it
resides we must know more than it simply exists....and definitely more than
it MIGHT exist.

I believe there is a process here that must be followed for both a
conservation and environmental policy perspective follows the most basic of
scientific inquiry in Tinbergen's 4 questions.

1) define the species present and their phylogeny-The first step in any
decision making process is defining with what you are dealing.

2) describe the life histories of these organisms especially how they
develop (ontogeny and life cycle)-understanding the life history of what we
have is critical to proper conservation management.  If we know nothing
about the species at hand, how in the world can we possibly propose that any
action is positive or negative???  Study of the organisms and description of
their life histories is vital before any other kinds of actions can be made
with confidence. Unfortunately, this is one of those lost arts among modern
biologists that is really important before we start asking bigger questions.
Why is it that so many ultimate function studies are done on birds?  Well,
its simple....the life histories of many to most species are well defined
making manipulation of them much more dependable.  IF we must begin
manipulating things for conservation or determining which current
manipulations are causing harm, we must first understand what is normal.
 How can we define what is abnormal if we do not know what is normal?  This
is a major reason why so many amphibian species on the decline did so for
unknown reasons, before we could even start discussing what was wrong, we
had to determine what was normal.  For most we still do not know what is
normal!  At this point we can make SOME decisions about conservation, but we
will still be walking on unstable ground.

3) Then we must ask how the species works in the ecosystem.  WHAT is its
place and how does it interact with other species found there.  Trying to
fix something before we have any clue of how it works is sort of like the
the famous, "if it doesn't work, bang on it" routine. If we can accomplish
this task, then we can make much better conservation decisions when combined
with steps 2 and 3 because now we have firm ground to base management
decisions and actions upon.

4) Finally, it is very important to understand WHY this species and its
ecosystem is where it is, WHY it does what it does, and WHY it is important.
 If we can accomplish all four stages, then we certainly can make firm
conservation decisions that use resources in the most efficient manner.

The problem is that humanity unknowingly started a lot of environmental
problems while it developed cultural habits, and evolved societal needs,
excuses, and beliefs that are not conducive to solving environmental
problems.  It is difficult if not next to impossible to change habits that
are deeply embedded into culture and society.  Anthropocentric ideology (as
if having a healthy environment was not in the best interest of humans)
transcends thousands of years of human existence.  Further, even without
this problem, making decisions that cut your own resources for the benefit
of others is altruistic and runs counter to the evolution of humans.
Consequently, if we know that truly altruistic behavior within a species
doesn't exist, then how can we possibly expect altruistic behavior between
or among species to take place. Although we as a species are able to
recognize our own impact on the environment as a whole, I question whether
altruistic behaviors that will benefit individuals from other species at the
cost of our own success can widely take place.  Such behaviors would be
extremely maladaptive in the primitive human society in which humans lived
for tens of thousands of years before the little bleep of modern society
exploded onto the scene.  How can we believe that any species will suddenly
circumvent the evolutionary drive for individual success to allow less
related individuals benefit.  I just don't see it happening!  Hence why a
few must implement policies and laws to protect the majority of folks from
themselves!!!

Now if that isn't a negative view, I can't imagine what is!
:)

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bryant, James <JBRYANT at riversideca.gov>wrote:

>  With respect to the biological species concept, Malcolm, I entirely
> concur. Systematic biology is, ultimately, a “tool kit” for use in examining
> the life histories and biogeography of the living world. It surprises me how
> often the importance of the biospecies principle gets lost in discussions of
> systematics, both classical and genetic. I agree with E. O. Wilson when he
> says that solutions to problems like climate change and energy conservation
> can all be viewed more clearly through issues related to biodiversity, but
> we have to be sure what diversity we’re talking about, a great deal of it
> needing to be protected and conserved before we even have the luxury of
> worrying how to classify it.
>
>
>
> James M. Bryant
>
> Curator of Natural History
>
> Museum Department, City of Riverside
>
> 3580 Mission Inn Avenue
>
> Riverside, CA 92501
>
> (951) 826-5273
>
> (951) 369-4970 FAX
>
> jbryant at riversideca.gov
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* malcolm.mccallum.tamut at gmail.com [mailto:
> malcolm.mccallum.tamut at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *malcolm McCallum
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:34 AM
> *To:* Bryant, James
> *Cc:* nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [NHCOLL-L:4875] open for comment
>
>
>
> This will certainly be a useful publication if they meet the ICZN
> guidelines.  I know the ICZN used to require hard copies be printed for the
> description of new species to be valid, but I think they recently changed
> this.  Zootaxa has been running an online journal for years and it is
> currently (or last I heard) the largest journal in systematics.
>
>
>
> The thing that bothers me is that just naming a species based on its
> phylogeny is only a first step.  You cannot conserve a species any more than
> you can digest a book's plot by simply knowing its name and position in the
> organizational scheme.  There is so much more to know.  If the life
> histories of these organisms goes unstudied, then having a name does little
> other than indicates about as much as that friend of yours who has collected
> tons of books and never read a one.  There is so much more to the biology of
> an organism than its position in the systematic scheme.
>
>
>
> malcolm McCallum
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Bryant, James <JBRYANT at riversideca.gov>
> wrote:
>
> So the NMNH in Washington is touting the launching of two new on-line
> journals, Zookeys (perhaps should be Zoökeys?) and Phytokeys (see
> http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-scientists-address-world-biodiversity-crisis-innovative-online-publications).
> Looks like the idea is to get taxonomic revisions and updates into “print”
> as rapidly as possible. The editors claim this will not only serve the
> profession but help preserve biodiversity by “providing the public with free
> access to this vital information”. Any thoughts on the merits of this
> approach?
>
>
>
> James M. Bryant
>
> Curator of Natural History
>
> Museum Department, City of Riverside
>
> 3580 Mission Inn Avenue
>
> Riverside, CA 92501
>
> (951) 826-5273
>
> (951) 369-4970 FAX
>
> jbryant at riversideca.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Malcolm L. McCallum
> Managing Editor,
> Herpetological Conservation and Biology
>
> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
> 1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
>             and pollution.
> 2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
>           MAY help restore populations.
> 2022: Soylent Green is People!
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
            and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
          MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/nhcoll-l/attachments/20100721/8e1d99e3/attachment.html