Endangered Genera (or Families)?
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
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.
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