[Taxacom] Conservation (Canadian coin controversy)

dipteryx at freeler.nl dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed Jan 12 03:14:58 CST 2011

Very likely the designers went by species that have a look
characteristic enough (typical enough) so as to be depicted 
on a coin and still be recognizable. Not as easy as it sounds!

Curiously, it proves that (in spite of all the publicized
opinions) there are at least five species on the coin (now at
http://www.coinsandcanada.com/). I am guessing that the trees in 
the left corner are Thuja plicata (of totem pole fame), which 
would be a very proper choice for this topic: The most typically 
Canadian national parks have many of these trees (each a monument 
of sorts onto itself, being centuries old). Not threatened as a 
species, but worth preserving!


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Kenneth Kinman
Verzonden: wo 12-1-2011 4:05
Aan: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Onderwerp: [Taxacom] Conservation (Canadian coin controversy)
Dear All,
         A controversy has arisen over a new Canadian coin which
supposedly should help promote the conservation of certain endangered
species which occur in the National Parks of Canada.  Two of the four
species pictured on the coin have stirred no controversy whatsoever
(especially the Whooping Crane).  However, two of the other species do
not occur in Canadian National Parks at all.          
        Of those two species, the southern maidenhair fern is
particularly controversial, since it not only does NOT occur in Canadian
National Parks, but occurs by chance in one tiny spot in Canada.  This
would not be so bad, except that this species grows like a weed in the
southeastern United States.  That it should be protected in Canada (at
all) is questionable, but that it should be place on such a coin along
with the Whooping Crane is (to use the term of other critics)
       The term "triage" seems appropriate here.  A species like the
whooping crane should clearly be protected, but something like this fern
(which is quite common in the United States, makes no sense.  Even the
Canadian researcher whose work lead to the listing of this fern as
endangered in Canada says that it "weird" to have included it on this
coin.  The only thing that one can wonder (about those who approved
including this fern on the coin) is "what were they thinking?"                    
      That a species is in danger of extirpation in a VERY tiny outlying
area (far from its natural range) has nothing to do with the danger of
its extinction as a species.  Were there any biologists involved in this
decision at all?  It's not even close to being a subspecies, and I
wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was introduced there by people (on
purpose or by accident).  In any case, it seems to be Much Ado About
Nothing.   But I guess it is now too late to take it off the coin, and
they should have consulted knowledgeable biologists before such a
questionable decision was made (presumably by some governmental
            ----------Ken Kinman                        


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list