[Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Thu Oct 16 02:06:46 CDT 2014


 I think I see fictional species and poor research now and then,
regardless of how funded. I disapprove of all science that my experience
qualifies me to assess as dubious and I'd rather those papers didn't
exist, whether it's inadequately researched new species or unverified
marine aliens.

Geoff


On Thu, October 16, 2014 6:17 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>It is pragmatic, even vital, to slant work to appear relevant to the
>> available honey pot of funding<
>
> So, you have no problem with fictional species erected for "pragmatic"
> [=economic] reasons, then Geoff?!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 16/10/14, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
>  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, gread at actrix.gen.nz
>  Received: Thursday, 16 October, 2014, 5:58 PM
>
>  It is pragmatic, even
>  vital, to slant work to appear relevant to the
>  available honey pot of funding. Same happens in
>  marine invasive species
>  work (well funded)
>  where there is some very dodgy data on obscure taxa
>  irrationally declared as aliens, an even more
>  unwise science process than
>  quickly
>  declaring tiny land critters extinct.
>
>  I just tried to alert IUCN redlist that R.
>  aldabrae was not as extinct as
>  they would
>  have us believe (yes they probably know that given the
>  publicity), but couldn't get a link that
>  worked.
>
>  Their definition of
>  qualifying for extinction seems reasonable if strictly
>  enforced, as it requires exhaustive surveys and
>  no reasonable doubt, but I
>  recall a fair
>  number of de-extinctions in recent years.
>
>  Geoff
>
>
>  On Thu, October 16, 2014 2:14 pm, Stephen
>  Thorpe wrote:
>  > Yes, I have a vaguely
>  similar case from N.Z., where a new species of
>  > beetle (medium sized and flightless) has
>  just been described on the
>  > flimsiest of
>  evidence (and I have some definite, but inconclusive,
>  > evidence against it being a new species),
>  claimed to be restricted to one
>  > tiny
>  location and sparse even there. My attempts to publish a
>  short note
>  > to flag the issue hit a
>  brick wall. My note was rejected as being "purely
>  > negative" and "contributing
>  nothing". Well, given that conservation
>  > resources are limited, and that there is a
>  pot of money for research in
>  > such
>  species of potential conservation concern, I would say that
>  it is
>  > very important to point out the
>  flaws in relevant published taxonomy.
>  >
>  Without such scrutiny, taxonomists could manufacture
>  "new species" just to
>  > get
>  hold of said conservation funding. My evidence against this
>  beetle
>  > means that there is no way to
>  recognise it (either morphologically or
>  >
>  geographically), which makes the assessment of
>  >  its conservation status a bit tricky!
>  >
>  > Stephen
>  >
>  >
>  --------------------------------------------
>  > On Thu, 16/10/14, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>  wrote:
>  >
>  >  Subject:
>  [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
>  >  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  >  Received: Thursday, 16 October, 2014,
>  1:34 PM
>  >
>  >  A
>  cautionary tale if your study
>>  critters are a little on the small side.
>  >
>http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/10/20140771
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41223/title/Snail-Revival-Raises-Peer-Review-Debate/





More information about the Taxacom mailing list