Hi everyone,

The following article is very interesting for a number of reasons . . .
the genetics arguments used by some environmentalists to reduce the moral
distance between, say, humans and chimpanzees can (sadly) also completely
*eliminate* the distance between other taxa.  Live by the genetics sword,
die by the genetics sword. . . .

>
>DNA EVIDENCE COULD WIPE OUT PROTECTION FOR CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER
>
>LAGUNA HILLS, California, September 28, 2000 (ENS) - A study challenging
>the uniqueness of a tiny southern California bird could delay indefinitely
>planned protections for the birdís habitat. The new report could also
>challenge the criteria by which species are listed as threatened or
>endangered in the United States.
>
>For full text and graphics visit:
>http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2000/2000L-09-28-06.html
>

In the "preserve all the parts" department, it now seems that the
gnatcatcher is like getting an extra screw in the parts bag . . . .

A couple of other excerpts:

"Patches of the coastal sage scrub the gnatcatchers prefer are selling for
up to $3 million an acre in southern California, providing high stakes for
developers to avoid critical habitat designation for the birds.

"But 'preservation of coastal sage scrub cannot be linked to maintaining
the genetic diversity of ... California gnatcatcher  populations, despite
previous recognition of subspecies,' say the authors of the 'Conservation
Biology' report.

"'The species as a whole is not threatened,' the authors report. 'Our study
... illustrates the danger of focusing conservation efforts for threatened
habitats on a single species.'"

Jim again:
I think we're going to see these kinds of genetics battles played out more
and more, as taxonomists employ increasingly sophisticated techniques to
classify plants and animals.  And where this will likely get very
interesting will be with insects and the like . . . . For example, with
rainforest locations in the tropics where 20 or thirty different "species"
of spider live on the same tree, yet all appear functionally  to be
ecological equivalents.  Genetic data may "prove" them to be all one
species, and a common one at that . . . then what?  Thinking further along
these lines, another interesting implication is the idea that conservation
biologists may eventually be putting themselves out of a job. . . .

But the gnatcatcher case is illuminating.  Environmentalists are left
arguing for the species designation on the basis of gross morphology, e.g.

"Environmentalists and some other scientists say the two populations of the
birds differ in  appearance, with California gnatcatchers having darker
feathers and more gray on their breasts and tails than the lighter colored
Mexican birds, which live largely in Baja California."

. . .  which is unlikely to win many converts in a $3 million/acre real
estate market.  Environmentalists in this case would be better off arguing
for habitat protection in more honest terms, rather than pinning their
preservation hopes on a single species.  (And probably they should be
putting some habitat protection money where their mouths are . . . .)

But it seems to me that in the future more and more critters are likely to
follow the gnatcatcher, the Baltimore oriole, etc. and go "extinct" by
taxonomic fiat . . . .

Jim T.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%