Endangered Genera (or Families)?

Mike Crisp Mike.Crisp at ANU.EDU.AU
Fri Jan 8 21:56:37 CST 1999

For some recent discussion on methods for phylogenetic-based evaluation of
conservation priorities, see:

Roy, K., and Foote, M. (1997). Morphological approaches to measuring
biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, 277-281.
Williams, P., Humphries, C., Vanewright, D., and Gaston, K. (1997).
Descriptive and predictive approaches to biodiversity measurement. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution 12, 444-445. (critique)
Foote, M., and Roy, K. (1997). Descriptive and predictive approaches to
biodiversity measurement: reply. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, 445.

See also: Faith, D. P. (1994). Genetic diversity and taxonomic priorities
for conservation. Biological Conservation 68, 69-74, for a somewhat
different approach.

Mike Crisp

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 at 15:20:41,  John Grehan wrote:
>Some cladistic analyses have been applied to ranking taxa
>with different weghts according to their position on the
>cladogram (some British Museum people). There have
>been some papers published on this,
>but I don't have the most recent (perhaps someone on this
>list knows them).
>A couple of the older ones are:
>Vane-Wright et al. (1991) What to protect? - systematics and the
>agony of choice. Biological Conservation 55, 235-254.
>Williams, P. H. et al. (1991) Measuring biodiversity: taxonomic
>relatedness for conservation priorities. Australian Systematic Botany 4,
>I have no personal judgement on their validity, but no doubt views
>on this will be as complex as cladistic analysis gets in general.
>John Grehan

Dr Michael D. Crisp
Reader in Plant Systematics
Division of Botany and Zoology
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

Phone + 61(0)2 6249 2882
Fax   + 61(0)2 6249 5573
E-mail mike.crisp at anu.edu.au

More information about the Taxacom mailing list