Phylogeny and Conservation

[Thomas G. Lammers]

At 09:55 AM 01-30-98 EST, Mark Garland wrote:

>I appreciate the viewpoint of Luis Muniz that phylogeny is not a "luxury" in
>conservation biology, but the fact is we can't save even small chunks of the
>natural world (in Florida, anyway) if we wait for phylogenetic analyses (as
>John Shuey and Harvey Ballard said in different ways)

I hope this won't be the academic equivalent of pointing out that the
emperor has no clothes.

I don't think anyone will disagree that those in academia are often
encouraged by those in charge of much-needed resources to demonstrate how
their knowledge is applicable to needs in the world at large.   In fact,
receipt of such resources may sometimes be contingent upon the academic's
ability to articulate to non-academics (or at least to academics outside his
or her discipline) just exactly WHY the knowledge they seek to gain is so
darn important.  Knowledge for knowledge's sake is not  highly regarded in
some circles; the knowledge must fit in somewhere in The Greater Scheme of
Things.

Given this state of affairs, is it not surprising that phylogenetic
systematists would feel a need to demonstrate that the particular research
techniques in which they are skilled can make important contributions to
solving the various vexing problems of the environment?   Depending upon the
academic's knowledge and insight of other environmental considerations, such
efforts may come across has highly insightful contributions of fundamental
importance to the question at hand, or as a specious clutching at straws.
Though I have not kept up on the phylogeny-for-conservation literature, I
would be willing to bet that conclusions propunded there run the gamut from
the highly appropriate and scientifically sound to those that really push
the data beyond reasonable limits.

My own opinion is that until we are much more confident that the phylogenies
we infer closely approximate historical fact, it would not be wise to place
inordinate weight on phylogenetic considerations in prioritizing limited
conservation resources.  The reconstructed phylogenies of many groups can be
frustratingly labile and Extinction Is Forever.  We do not want to have to
say, "Oops!"
At the same time, knowledge of the phylogeny of the organisms at hand can be
very important as part of the overall body of information to be evaluated in
making such decisions.  The soundest decisions are those based on a
knowledgable synthesis of ALL available data.


Thomas G. Lammers

Classification, Nomenclature, Phylogeny and Biogeography
of the Campanulaceae, s. lat.

Department of Botany
Field Museum of Natural History
Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496 USA

e-mail:    tlammers at fmnh.org
voice mail: 312-922-9410 ext. 317
fax:                312-427-2530

*******************************************************************
"Knowledge is good."  -- Emil Faber