Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:31:50.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species concepts and conservation: a response to Hazevoet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

N. J. Collar
N. J. Collar
Affiliation:
BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3, oNA, U.K.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Whether they are “mere subspecies” or “phylogenetic species”, the omission of such forms from the ICBP (now BirdLife International) Red Data Book (RDB) was my personal decision, and I have long been sensitive to the type of charge contained in Hazevoet's paper (preceding pages). This decision, taken back in 1982, was based on the time, space and cost that would have been involved in the systematic review and inclusion of subspecies (RDBs being much fuller treatments than those in Birds to watch 2, the work criticized for the omission by Hazevoet), and on the fact that the future of the many “full” species needing urgent documentation and action consequently stood to be compromised.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bird Conservation International , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 197 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Birdlife International 1996

References

Collar, N. J. (1987) Red data books and national conservation strategies. World Birdwatch 9 (2): 6–7.Google Scholar
Collar, N. J. (1996) The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx 30: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collar, N. J. (in press) Taxonomy and conservation: chicken and egg. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club.Google Scholar
Collar, N. J. and Stuart, S. N. (1985) Threatened birds of Africa and related islands: the 1CBP/IUCN Red Data Book. Third edition, part 1. Cambridge, U.K.: International Council for Bird Preservation, and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Collar, N. J. and Stuart, S. N. (1986) Review of South African red data book – birds. Ibis 128: 144–145.Google Scholar
Fanshawe, J. H. and Bennun, L. A. (1991) Bird conservation in Kenya: creating a national strategy. Bird Conserv. Internatn. 1: 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICBP (1992) Putting biodiversity on the map. Cambridge, U.K.: International Council for Bird Preservation.Google Scholar
Savage, J. M. (1995) Systematics and the biodiversity crisis. BioScience 45: 673–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schodde, R. (1978) The status of endangered Papuasian birds, and Appendix. Pp. 133–145 and 185–206 respectively in Tyler, M. J., ed. The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. [Adelaide:] Royal Zoological Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J. and Wege, D. C. (in prep.) Global directory of endemic bird areas. Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series).Google Scholar
Zink, R. M. and McKitrick, M. C. (1995) The debate over species concepts and its implications for ornithology. Auk 112: 701–719.Google Scholar