Here is a PDF file of the ESA.

http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/reports/105_c/esaidx.htm

This is the actual definition from ESA. I know it is both grammatically and
biologically incorrect, but it is the law.

"The term "species" includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature"

Jim Tantillo asks

"I understand the need to be able to list local populations under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.  But isn't it the case that
neither the Washington nor the Colorado "populations" of lynx constitute a
distinctly separate group (taxonomically speaking) worthy of protection
under the act?  In contrast, for example, the Florida panther is a distinct
variety or subspecies of _Felis concolor_, and as such is worthy of special
consideration under the ESA as a separate population.  Some of the
complaints about the lynx listing have to do with the fact that
taxonomically, there is no significant difference between Washington,
Colorado, Maine, or Canadian lynx.  I believe this was one important reason
why the USFWS decided to list the lynx nationally, because the agency
couldn't justify treating the Washington or Colorado groups separately
(correct me if I'm wrong).  And this lack of genetic separateness (or
whatever you want to call it) is one reason why the state of Colorado can
reintroduce individual animals translocated from Canada with no concern
about negative taxonomic consequences to a subspecies."

and Volker Bahn added:

"there is another reason for protecting populations at the fringes of a
species range: under the for the species extreme conditions that limit its
distribution different genes are selected for than in the main area of
occurrence. These rare genes are important to the fitness of the species, to
help it survive catastrophes, and environmental changes. Furthermore, the
fringes are the areas where speciation occurs. In a sense, protecting
populations at the fringe of a species distribution is conservation of a
process and not so much of the status of a species. I don't know whether the
lack of genetic differences between the different lynx populations was based
on thorough enough tests to find such subtle genetic processes."

The ESA *does not* recognize genetic information, and thank heavens for
that. Several years ago some smarty pants lawyers in Florida saw an article
that showed that Florida Panther was genetically "contaminated" with genes
from South American Puma. Seems some had either escaped or been released
from a private zoo. The lawyers were trying to use this as a reason for
delisting the Panther. The courts thankfully said otherwise. However, it
generated quite a discussion in Science about whether or not to use genetics
as the basis of taxonomy. Someone more industrious than myself should go in
search of that.

The intent of the ESA is to protect whole animals and populations of whole
animals, and (most importantly) their habitat. This was intentional at the
time ESA was written. If this were not the case, then it could (and it has
been tried) be argued that capturing all of the individuals of an endangered
species and putting them in a zoo would comply with ESA requirements. This
was not what congress intended in 1973 and that is why ESA is such a strong
piece of law.

So, what has this to do with EE? (I can hear David saying "'bout time").
What is the moral object in question? The species, subspecies (no matter
what your definition), the individual, the population, the genes? The ESA
implies that the species, subspecies, individuals, a population, and, in
certain circumstances, the habitat is the object. This is, IMO, as it should
be. Biologists can, and have, split hairs over the definition of species for
hundreds of years now. To allow the ethical or legal argument to get into
that was a pitfall that congress saw and avoided by casting a net wide
enough to accomplish political and biological ends and with big enough holes
to keep lawyers with someone to read biology books to them from messing the
whole thing up.

All respect to Volker, the field of Conservation Biology (I was a charter
member of the society by the way) has badly muddied the water with genetic
information. There may be some reason to protect genetic information, but
legally and morally it is an original child. We don't know enough to go
there yet, IMO. If the genetic definition of species were to prevail, the
outcome would be that most "species" listed under ESA would be delisted.
And, I can see Jensen from Utah and what's his name from Alaska making DNA
testing required on all individuals under the ESA. Some can of worms.

And I thought I was staying out of this.
Steven.
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
 What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
                             Paul Shepard



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