[Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae

JF Mate aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 01:08:54 CDT 2014

This is a very different situation here. Ladybirds are the closest
thing to butterflies in regards to public appreciation: pretty, easily
distinguishable (the larger ones, not talking of Scymini and friends),
"safe"; and they are "good" bugs. Also, how many invertebrates can one
identify from a typical nature photo, no matter how good the macro? I
think this simply highlights how thin on the ground amateur
entomologists are in Australia. If a large, colourful ladybird can
hide in the most populous state in Australia, what hope is there for
the other 99% of inverts?


On 21 October 2014 07:14, Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au> wrote:
> Victoria has form in rediscovery of extinct invertebrates. See:
> Doeg, T.J. 1997. Gone today, here tomorrow - extinct aquatic macroinvertebrates in Victoria. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 56(2): 531-535.
> http://biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122980#page/279/mode/1up
> Doeg makes the point that formal conservation listing criteria aren't really appropriate for invertebrates "given the information available for the majority of species, so that any list produced will always be inadequate and sometimes incorrect" (p. 535)
> Or as my wife likes to put it, 'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, especially with your millipedes [and other small, cryptic animals]'.
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania
> Home contact:
> PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list