AND THE SYSTEMATICS Vane-Wright /?. /. CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1 AUSTRACT This paper concerns the role of systematies in efforts to conserve biological diversity. BioHivtTsity is seen both as and an interdisciplinary science (involving ecology and population bi(»logy as well as systematies). as a socio-political activity (because of the strongly anihropocentric focus of the Convention on Biological Diversit}). S)stetnalics has a runnbcr of key roles play, especially with respect to maximizing our limited and fragmentary knowledge of l)iology to through the predictive power of natural classification, and in helping lo set priorities for conservation when, as is inevitably the case, resources are limiled. After examining ways in which systematisls must support the growing needs of society know more about the Earth's biota, concluded that, because of their unique insights into the subjtvl, to is it many systematists have an e(jually strong responsibility to lake an active lead in of the issues relating to the stud), use, and conservation of biological diversity. Dan Janz(Mi (1993) has asked "What does trop- itarianisni" (Ponitt. 1994) is the best strategy is & open Allen Edwards, 1003: leal society want from the taxononiist?" In relation to (lel>ate (e.g., to the urgent need to know more about biological Oates, 1995), but tbis is where most of the force — question raises further issues no- l)ehind national and international eonser\ation ef- diversity, this tably, is biodiversity only really impotlant in tbe forts is now^ located. The Global Environnu^nt Fa- tropies, and does taxonomy only have a supporting eility (Glowka et al., 1994), the interim financial role in the study of biodiversity? Here will discuss nundianism of the Convention (currently adminis- I three questions, taking the view that taxono- tered by the \ôrld Bank), is the largest single all made work on and need be souree of funding ever a\ailable for mists, syst(^matists in giMieral, to — proactive as w(dl as supportive in their work. Iiiodiversity a funding souree which systematists May As seiun surprisingly slow to exploit. Robert SnoLLD Take a Lkad the (1990) has observed, "Without taxonomy lo givt^ Systi::matists in how Stidy oe Biodiversity? shape to the bricks, and systematies to tell us put them together, the house of biological science lo The subtitle of Global Biodiversity Strategy (Ren(^fit, rather cess, as for (^xample in the twin hiaselogical function] tentially available per typical species. Taxonomists Dcincs Po[)nlalions might seem like chemists with a knowledge of 10 Species Local ecosystems elements from th<^ Periodic Table, wliile g(m(4icists Monophylclic laxa Riolic regions * might compared All Entire biosphere l)e to physicists trying to under- life stand the Universe from the beliavior of just a sin- fundanu^ntal our ignorance gle* particle. Is of the VI.- 11 ^ I.I biosphere really so extreme? .• .• tion 1ixM, ween [)[iylogenetic and tokog(*n(*tic relation- ^ ^ In 1973 a mealybug was discovered attacking Hennig, and ships: 1966), in historical versus eco- & cassava in Africa. By the end of 1989 this pest was biogeography (Myers l(»gical Ciller, 1988). o- /imnn a causing massive crop losses through(»ut the African J- Ur\l\i- vi• er Kieppei1 (1988) ilias discussedi i• n diepth a IIP . . . , iT troj)ics. Initial attempts to find a natural biocontrol number r.i c .......1 .. ot tin* sci• eiUuic and pluiosopnI i•cal1 i• ssues of r u agent faiiledi, untili • was realized that mealybuir ,1 ,, He ^ it th<^ the j)alterTi versus process d1ebi at.e. ob1 servedI .1 . J t^ tliat was . . .1^ „, ir part of an undescribed species complex, and I ^; f the analysis pat,t. ern andI process represent*s of dit- „ , . , . that only occuired naturally in the southern Neo- it and "ways fereiit incompatil)le of seeing," as 'Hlu & An (Cox Williams, r. , tropics 1981). appronriat(* c\\- lirst. emphIasi•ses d1i- sconl.-nunty, wh1 il1 e ^t1he ot.1her . ti i is wasp " cyilidi wâs then found, tested, and introduced 1based1 on ,t1h,e 1pri• nci• pl1 e ofr cont.i•nuit•.y, lîlnie .two are / r ^ hito Africa. T,h, e wasp ,has now spread over more „. 1 .. 1 rr conn)lcnu*ntary liccause pattern analysi•s offers itihe r ^han 12 million iknr.> andi gives effecti• ve control of o^,nl1,y, g,,u„;ulI e t. o common ancest.ry, and1 so gi• ves direc- i . • 11 ^he mealybu':^ throu";hout African ranee, with an 4: ' r its "»"' ^^^ tion t, o t,1lie anal1ysi•s of process, while process anal1- ^"'ô'^^ 1 , . annual cost benefit estimated $200,000,000 at way ysis is (he only of giving pattern a causal c\- & n (Herren Neuenscliwander, 1991). n r plI anat,•um. He rinally concl1 ud1edi, given we I1 iave ^ , Thi.s exampl,e, .invol, vi. ng a new pest and an ways we lilfiMcnt of seeing biology, that should ac- ( 11 unknown equally biocontrol us sonu^- aiient. tells cept, t,1fial, eacli lias i•.ts meri•t.s and1 ffaul1t.s, and1 ,t1hat. fe ^ 1 • . n tihing special about the nature of our ignorance. Bi- J re.a.^c..nU ;is. i;,n, c..o..m..p.lete Iby i-ftselIff, titl• ing compl1ementa. iy, r X 1 h, as to dieal wi•th a staggeri• rm number of spe- «w,e^ make <^*h>f1^y 1 shou..l1 dI ,,, use ofr Ibotiih approach1 es »to get. as — f^n & 1 1 cific^s there are thousands of mealybugs, and tens ^r .c.o..m.p.wh.b^»t».e. o ..;,>»..,.. /r>- a picture ol Ibi: of1 ogy as possi-bi l1 e (Kieppel1, fo ' -^ i7n i7n n ^^ thousands of encyrtid wasps. To solve the prob- !()«« ivoo, e..sopr^. 1/U— 1/lj. IJecause r .1 in.t•imat. e • . ot tins in- i enlonu.logists l.ad cut precisely which fin.l ^^'"'', I,, l.'m-lati.niship, essential systenuuists is tl.al w..rk it '"^^^ly'>"S ^^^^7 ^7^ ^^^^''^g ^'''•>' 1"^^*^' '^'^- together with ecologists and population biologists ^P^" to cies in natural habitat, and discover precisely its develop a fuller uiulerstanding of biological d(iiiver- '*"•"•' ^^"P" ^^'" ""' ""'"'^'''^ including uses—aturmost'ur- f ^'" '''"' ^^- sity,.1,11 its potential ... ^J'^'''' m^ The only reason this could be done 4quuincklv be- gently, to develop more efcfc ect^'ive st. ra.tegi• es fror -. is its , cause the existing classi.fication of f>ugs and wasps, consci-vation however incomplete, form is sufficient to a valid ^^"'' 0"«' mealybug had been /'7'^^""'''"; ^^^ SYSTEMATICS AND USE OK BIODIVERSITY ^'", TllF. accurately locatroaches to measin-ing diversity international pharmac(Hitical companies. Cam(^z that take account of phylogenelic relationships. and Gauld (1993), in lanalion.) may appropriate. In other cases, be possible to it select from the beginning a set of areas to represent Spe- known vulnerable, biological attributes (or etc.) all n a cies: in f 1 y g I 1 in a region, in which ease a set-wise proc(Mlure will - + + + + Area I more usually ofler a efficient analysis. (In this par- + 2 -f- ticular example, is inttêsting to note that ap[>h- it + + + 3 -H eation of a taxic diversity index, such as character + + 4 -h and + + + richness, identifies both areas 2 3 as richer 5 than based (m the hierarchy given in Figure cirea 1, illustrating the point that species richness shouhl 1, regarded as the sole determinant of taxic series moss-G7n%r>). Alternatively, we could choose "<»* 1>^ niversity.j maximize character combination richness, to l»ut Both the step-wise and set-wise procedures re- then two possible combinations are selected: otilv degree the idea of c(miplementarity: the to flect angiosperm. (The liverwort, fern, plus conifer or which specified areas, singly or in combination, root-weight the cladogram rooted be- ind(^x, if is an r^pr^^^'H the species or taxic diversity of entire tweiMi liverwort and moss, would restrict the choice — roup or set of groups. Comphnnentarity, first ap- to livei'wort, moss, and horsetail but this index is and Acket7 and Vane- by Kirkpatrick (1983) some no longer regarded as appropriate.) Despite l>l'»^^tl and formalized by Vane-U'right et when ^^'igl'* (1984), significant differences in these results, large Rebelo Margules numbers of taxa are itivolved, simple species rich- al. (1991; see also et al., 1988; & 1992; Pressey 1993; Faith, Siegfried, et al., ness for an area usually turns out to be a good & 1994; Vt'illiams Humphries, 1994) lias mu(4i In and approximation both character richness for & Hum- ('onmion with and 5-diversily but, crucially, in- combination richness (Williams (3- chkra(>ler numerical stead of just reducing taxon turnover to phries, 1994). We values or indices, information on the identity of now seem close to a satisfacloiy theon-tical luMween areas retained. May la>â is what has basis for least part of (1990) calltMl at emergence Although simple, the of dece'i.tively Calculus and perhaps the of biodiversity.^Ânotlier, been the idea of complementarity has significant for even more aspect of the proeediue, significant is biodiversity evaluation. This b<'cause has shitt- is provided by the concept of complementarity. it ed attention from assessing areas on an absolute Most Imfokiant? scale richness or scoring index) to a relational BionivKKsiTY (e.g., Wi[i:itK Is scale (taking account of spatial turnover). In this AND COMtM.KMKNTAKITY IMinJCATIOiNS FTS way, areas can be seen as part of a whole. For all may and In Table 2 the eiglil land plants in Figure 1 have example, while tropical forests coral reefs been allocated to five areas. Suppose you wen* told be tlu^ ri<'hest biological systems on Earth, the veiy you could only choose one area for consena- (hstinc! biota of other ecosystems, such as those of that which would Guided by ocean bottoms or the relatively species-poor higluT select? sju^cies tion, y<»u make richness alone, area would seem an obvious latitudes, also have a unique contribution to 1 What you were then asked add a sec- (Table Comph^mentarity provides a basic crite- choice. to 3). if ond area? The greatest number of additional spe- rion for efficient and goal-directed procedures of cies to the five already represented by area 1 is two area selection, (liverwort and moss), both of which can be added by area 2 or area 4. Area 1 plus area 2 or 4 can CONTEXT f'KlorUTIKS IN thus account for seven of the eight species; the we eighth (horsetail) could then be added by a third If take into account quantitative effects of area or however, you w(^re asked to select biodiversity (Cousins, 1991), particularly in rela- (3 5). If, & exampl(\ ecosystem senices (Fhrlich just sufficient areas from the outset to represent all tion, for to eight species, obvious by inspection of Table Daily, 1993), or the value of local biodiversity to is it 2 that areas 2 and 3 together include all of them, humanity (GadglL 1991, 1992), It is evident that more solution than adding areas of the Earth should be seen as important, giving a efficient final all areas step by step, starting with the richest first. Recognl/Ing unicjue value for a particular area does 52 Annals of the Garden Missouri Botanical Heywood Tal>lt' ',\. Kssenlially cxtralropiral plant familes (from c{ al., 1978). Most contain only one or a fow spot'ies Hemisphere Hemisphere S. N. Bipolar Troehodendraeeae La<'lt>ri(laceae l-ardi/,al)alaeea< Coniortegii Cercidijiliyl]areae Empetraeeae Maleslierbiaeeae Fucommiaeeae Juncaginaeeae Achariareae Leitnpuridaeeae Geissolomalaeeae Cynomoriaeeae Calyceractâe Cneoraeeae Limnanthaeeae Phrymaeeae A(]oxaeeae Hutomaeeae Scheuehzeriaeeai not tnran (hat adjacent arras are unimportant, or make eedain and lists to things possible. First fore- lliat they can he abused with impunity. Priorities most, according to Janzen, a "clearuMl set of uf)" shouhl not be seen as merely choosing a few of the names and managealde a needt^d sysletti is for "fil- richest, or even most complementary but ing, comparing, searching, recording and working sitt^s, more in diff cati- on systems and ^^ •, among compl1ementa, rity areas supportnig ^ y vultiera- * ^ , catalogues) nu)re accessible (Miller, 1994). Mucl ij -1 • -n .,* / 1 l)le attribut. es (gene, s[)1 l1e; wi-t.1hin suchI a whole, network a of sptM'ial reserve or managenuMil Inipwied iaxon and recording, saniplinfj:, stor- sites for biodiversity then has special significance age. Better distributional data, including bionom- and can serve a useful function. ic information such as host associations, are etc., essential (\^1ieeler, 1995; McNeely, 1995). Existing What Should Do Foh Svstf:m atists Society? information often based on ad hoc sampling is procedures, resulting in a partial and disconnected ACTION hi: coverage. Systematists should become Involved Commenting on own "What his (lueslion, does with radical approaches and to rational cost-effec- tiopieal soci<^ty want from the taxonomist?'\ Dan tlve methods for data collection and mod- si)atial Janzen obsened 'The (1993) that wording of \\w. eling, as wtdl as application of techniques for im- chapler heading the message. do not ask 'What proving Is I eslimat<'s of distributional patterns based does the taxonomist have to offer tropical society?^ on existing data (Margules & Austin, 1991, 1994). Tropical socii^ty s needs recently have been, can be This need Includes dealing with \\w almost over- and should be a nuijor n'juv(^nating force sys- whelming numl)er in of (mainly species-level) taxa tematics." According to this view society and. In thai remain unrecognized and undifferentiated particular, tropical society, is l(K»king to systema- (Wilson, 1992). Once biological samples have been 1 Volume Number Vane-Wright 53 83, 1 1996 Systematics and Conservation — made, well-docu- taxonomic remain tlu'ir coiiliiiuing availability in traditional skills skills that will mented and properly curated collections funda- fundamental further development and appliea- to is problems mental to future work, including the extraction of tion of systematics to the of biodiversity. DNA information (such as data) not necessarily Training neiv systematists. Uruh^r this Invading considered the time of original acquisition (Van<*- at we must acknowledge the need not only to ])e in- & Wright Cranston, 1992). new v<»lved in training generations of systfMuatists, but also with institution building, such as the cre- Because knowledge Better systematic analysis. new museums ation of and refereruê eoUections. of the Earth biota will inevitably remain incom s Assistance with the development of national bio- have argued above plete, that is essential to I it & (Gamez place what knowledge we do have in as powerful a diversity institutes Gauld, 1993) is likely & to re^present a particular challe^g(^ predictive system as possible Nit^lsen \êsl, (cf. 1994). This applies not only to the primar}^ activity The Involvement biodiversity projects. icith of classification, where phylogenetic methodol(,gy & emergence of "biodiversity" as a topic (Harper should be pursued vigorously building a natural in manv Hawksworth, 1994) raises issues, not hvist of system, but also secondai7 disciplines such as to -^ ^ represent a tran- ^^j^j^.,^ ^,^^ f^.^^ ^j^^j ^^^^y ^^^jy biogeography where, for example, die possibility of "banh*s, or rapid cance. Appropriate reactions by syst(unatists to tlie and sequence needs undoubtedly form our increases in the quantity quality of of society part (»f re- data, must also be expected. The community of sys- sponsibilities (especially as society at large lias al- much tematists should embrace these positive and excit- ready {)aid for so of the collectitms, libraries, ing developments because, so long as they are and other paraphernalia essential for our opera- properly set up, such information systems will give tions). However, as I will argue in the last section, — systematists more time to develop lluMr basic and is also our respimsibility to be proactive to [)ut it 54 Annals the of Garden Missouri Botanical forward ru'w ideas and cicale heller atlilupropriale information and or the prest^nation of wilderness areas. The diffcr- metliods for priority anâs analysis. Only by mobi- ence the anlhropocenlric focus: human rtdatt^s to lizing systematic data, and creating the means to needs constitute both the threat and the solution, interpret in a logical and systematic way, will we That is not to say that consenation will be com- it be able to develop efTicient {ilans and monitoring promisrebensive approach to vationists, ecologists, systematists, and so on, this conservation evaluation. good However, Jiews. the arrival of biodiversity is new as a poHtical issue does not just signal sonnies need we of funds. to appreciate fully (unless orn \'^c KFspoNsiniLiTit:^ as sysi'iimatists allow ourselves to be prey to the worst sort of cyn- human Tlie burgtMniIng population, driven by icism), that biodiversity couched within a first is consumerism and povne hand, anur c(»lleclions and entire ecosystems, extirpation of myriad popula- libraries. tions, and widespread loss of complementarity. Di- In my icw, veiy much part of our respon- is \ it versity is being diminished and homogenized. sibilltit^s lo lake control and help shape policy As human demand own We for resources in both the de- through our initiatives. h(»ld the best in- veloped! and developing world continues to grow, so sight into the strengths and weaknesses of taxono- the rate of human-induced biodiversity loss accel- my and systematics. We, veiy largelv, are paid out The unknown, erates. end-jjoinl is as are the con- of public funds, and thus hold the responsibility we sequences. All can say is that the biosphere, t>n not only to react supportivcly to tlu* needs of society which our life is totally dependt^nt, will be called at large, but also lo mobilize, make us(* of, com- upon lo pn»vide more and mon* food, timber, and nuinicate, and even lobby for the uni(]ue insights Volume Number Vane-Wright 55 83, 1 1996 and Systematics Conservation we eluding Deatli and the Compass, translated by A. tliat only are in a position to formulate or bring I). âtes from an original Spanish version of Pen- 1*>.'>2]. Our go beyond simply to bear. responsibilities giv- guin Books, Lxjndon. when we ing support asked: nmst also ensure that Caugliley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. J. our krtowledge and understanding are brouglit to 215-244. Aniin. Ecol. 63: — the fore, to be judged useful—or not as otiiers Cousins, S. H. 1994. Taxonomy and functional biolic 397-419 measurement, Ark work? decide or, will the Pj). in P. & Humphries Vane-Wright L. Forey, C. R. (editors), J. I. Death and Compass the the of a short stoiy is title Systematics and Conservation Evaluation. Oxford Univ. A by Jorge Luis Borges (1970). criminal investi- Press, Oxford. & gator has been set the task of trying to discover the Cox, D. Williams. 1981. An account of cassava J. J. murderer Jewish At scene mealybug (Hemijitera: Pseudocoecudae) witfi a descrip- of a acad(Miiic. the the of new 247—258. tion of a species. Bull. Entouiol. lies. 71: crime, and in response to a suggestion that the Cracraft, 1995. The urgency of Iniilding global capacity J. scholar was accidentally nmrdered by somebody re- for biodiversity science. Biodiversity and Conservation man ally int(Miding to rob the living next door, the 463-475. 4: Why investigator replies, "Possible but not interesting. Ehrenfcld, D. 1988. j)ut value on biodiversity? Pp. & 212-216 in E. 0, Wilson M, Peter (editors), Bio- F. YouTl reply that reality hasn't the least obligation diversity. National Acaflemy Press, Washington, D.C. And to be interesting. answer you that reality C I'll & Ehrlich, R. C. Daily. 1993. Popuhition extinction P. may may avoid that obbgation but that hypotheses Amhio 64— and saving biodiversity. 22: r>8. & not. In the hypothesis that you propose, chance in- Eldreilge, N. N. Salthe. 1984. Hierarchy and evo- S, & Here have dead lution. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. (R. Dawkins M. Kid- terv'enes copiously. w<^ a rabbi; 1 184-208. editors) Icy, 1: would prefer a purely rabbinical (Explanation, not CD-ROM ETi/ P;92. Birds of Europe (Macintosh Version the imaginaiT mischances of an imaginary robber." Amsterdam. University of 1,0). I'.TI, A multitude of taxa are under threat of death. In Faitb. 1992. Conservation evaluation and pli>!oge- I). P. sympathy with Borgess investigator, wc should not netic diversity. Biol. Conservation 61: 1-10. 1994. Phylogenetic pattern and the (juantifica- avoid burden of providing an intellectually . tlu* B lion of organismal biodiversity. Pliilos, Trans.. Ser. We sound and need satisfying solution. a systematic 345: 4,5-58. as well as an ecological chart of the biosphere (Eld- The Harris, S. 1979. information content of the ph\- J. & redge Salthe, 1984; Rieppel, 1988), and should logcnetic system. Syst. Zool. 28: 483^519. develop a systiMuatic plan to outwit as many im- ~ 1983. riie logical basis of [ilivh)genctic analysis. & 7—36 unk Ad- P[). in N. Platnick V. A. (editors). we I. minent laxic deaths as possible. In sliort, must I New vances Columbia Press, in Clatlistics 2. niv. I wt endeavor what believe be an appro- find to to York. priate scientific solution, which takes full account Forey, C. Humphries & R. Vatie-WViglil (Edi- P. L., J. I. of the principles and insights of systematics, in the tors). 1994. Systematics and Cons<'rvalion Evahialion. Oxford Lni\. Press, Oxford, same way Borgess sought an that inv(*stigator in- (iadgib M. 1991. Conserving India's The so- l)i(>(livcrsily: teresting explanation for the rabbi's fate. 3— Trends cietal context. Evol. PI. 5: J5. message But Borgess carries not only this slory^ 1992. ('onserving bio()iversity as pco[)le riiat- . if A Ambio for us. but also a dire warning. Th<; investigator, case study from bidia. 21: 26r)—270. ter: An game Gamez, R. Gauld. 1993. Costa Rica: inno- besott<'d with pursuit of an intellectiuil of vX 1. F). vative approa<'h to the study of trojiieal biodiversity. Pp. up Whih* deatli, (^nds as the final, ultimate victim. & 329-336 EaSalle D. Gauld l[\me- in (txlitors), J. I. our work must be interesting, systematic, ai'adem- CAB noptera and hiternational, Walling- Biotllversity. ically sound, must also be timely, realistic, prac- it ford, L .K. K A E must be ensure System- Cdowka. Burhenne-(iuilniin Synge. 1994. tical. W(^ vigilant to that F... 11. Guide Convention on lUCN, the liiological Diversity. Ag(Mida 2000, whatever we our lo atics or like to call Gland, Swit/erland. game merely current plan, not self-seeking, not is (Gregory, R. E. PJ80. Perceptions as hypotheses. Philos. merely more sam(\ time-worn, mutton o f le ti Ser U 290: 181-P;7. Trans,, dressed as land), old wine in new bottles, but really Hammond, P. 1992. S[)ecies inventory Pj). 17-39 in B. oriented outward, toward society large, to fidfdl Groottrbridge (editor), (/htbal Biodiversity. Status of the is at Chapman EartbV hiving liesources. Hall. Eorrdon. iS our responsibilities as true guardians biological ol & Hawksworth. Harper, P>94. Biodiversity: E. L. J. I). diversity. Measurement and estimation. Philos. IVans., Ser. B 345: 12. Literature (ated Heiuiig. W. 1966. Ph\ logcnetic Systematics (translated & Ackery. P R. R. Vane- Wright. 1984. Milkweed But- hv 1). D. I)a\is (X R. Zaugcrl). lJni\. Illinois Press, Ur- I. and bana. terflies: rireir (Madistics Biology. Cornell L'niv. Press, INew York. Herrerr. H. R. cK P. Neu(Misclnvander. 1991. Biological & Allen, C. M. R. Edwards. 1995, The sustainal)h*- control of cassava pests in Africa. Arm. Rev. Errtomol. S. use debate: Observations lUCN. Oryx 29: 92-98. 36: 257-283. fr(»rrr & Borges, E. 1970. Eabyrinths |42 pieces by Borges, irr- H(?ywood, V. H., i). M. Moore, I. B. K. Richardsorr W. J. 56 Annals the of Garden Missouri Botanical — A T. Slcarri (Fdilors). 1978. Flowering l*larits of llie developint*nl ease-study from the forests of Nigeria. World. Oxford Press, Oxford. Oryx 29: 115-122. llni\. & On Humphries, C. F. H. Parenti. 19U6. Cladislic Bio- Platniek, N. 1991. areas of endemisni. Pp. [vii-viii] J. & geography. Oxfonl Uttiv. Press, Oxford. in P. Y. I-adiges, C. Humphries L. W. Marlinejji J. CSIRO Williams. 1994. Clatlogranis and trees (editors). Austral Biogeography. Puhlieations, »i P. II. in biodiversily. Pp. 3^55-352 R. W. Scotland, D. Melhounu;. /// j. & Siehert D. M. Williams (editors). Models in Phylog- Porrilt, 19<)1. 'IVanslaling eeologieal seienee into |)rae- J. May eny Reconstruction. Oxfonl Press, Oxford. tical policy. P|». 345-3,53 in Edwards, R. M. I'niv. P. J. & & Webb R. Van(^-Wright. 1995. Measuring N. IF (editors), Farge-scah' Fcologv and Con- , I. Amuud hifMJiversitv value for conservation. Rev. Keol. servation Biology. Blackwell Scientific. Oxford. Sysl. 26: 93-111. Prendergast, IF, R. M. (ûinn, IF Fawton, B. C. Ev- J. J. WWK UNKP& & lUCN, 19n(). World Conservation Strat- ersham D. Vt. (iibbons. 1W.3. Rare species, the co- egy, laving Resource Conservation for Sustainable De- ineidi-nce of diversity hotspots and conservation strat- Nature 365: 335-337. velopment. IIJCN, (Mand, SwitziTland. egies. & 1991. Caring for the Farlh. Pressey, R. F. 1994. Ad hoc reser\ations: Forward or . . backward A lUCN, steps developing representative reserve Strategy for Suslainahle Living. Gland. Swit- in systems? Conservation Biol. 8: (>()2-(>68. zt-rland. Humphries, What C. C. R. Margules, R. Vane- Jan/.<*n, H. 1993. does tropical society want from , J. 1. I). & Wright IF Williams. 1993. Beyond o[)p<)rtunism: the laxonomist? Pp. 29r>-3()7 LaSalh* *X P. in J. 1. 1). Cauld and CAB Key princi})les for systematic reserve selection. Trends (*Mlil(»rs), Hvmeiu»i>l as destiny. Nature 347: 129- Mound & Solow. A. R., F. A. K. Caston. 1995. Esti- J. 30. 1 mating synonymy. 93-96. the rate of Syst. Biol. 44: MeNeely, A. l9Wi. Fconomies and Biological Diver- J. More Stork, N. E. 1994. Inventories of biodiversity: than Using Kconomic sity: l)ev<'loping an( P. Conserve Biological Resources. KJCN, (dand, Switzer- & Humpfuics R. Vanc-WVight Systematics (editors), J. 1. land. and Conservation Evaluation. Oxford Univ. Pn^ss, Ox- Keep 2000 1995. the Systematics and all |)ieees: . ford. — world conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: Taylor F. R. 1978. Bal«*s, Wîlliams, Hutchinson A va- 510-519. riety of |>roaeh the Study of lo teria within a soeio-|)(»litical framework. 309-338, P[). & Animal and Plant Distributions. (Ihapman Hall, lA)n- 382-387 K. Caston (editor). Biodiversity: A Biology /// don. Numbers and of Difference. Blackwell. Oxford. & Ni(*!sen, F. S. J. G. West. 1994. Biodiversity research & S. Cranston. 1992. Collections and system- P. and biological collections: transfer of information. I^p. atics. Austral. Biol. 5: Fl— 18. C & 101-121 in P F. Forey, Humphries R. Vane- Humphries & P What J. 1. C. IF Williams. 1991. , J. Wright (e

Systematics and the Conservation of Biological Diversity

Similar Systematics and the Conservation of Biological Diversity