From rss5@ukc.ac.uk Mon Jun 1 02:35:29 1998 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP id CAA10226 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:35:28 -0700 Received: from mercury.ukc.ac.uk (mercury.ukc.ac.uk [129.12.21.10]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with SMTP id CAA03224 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:35:27 -0700 Received: from snipe.ukc.ac.uk by mercury.ukc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:35:02 +0100 Received: from [194.80.128.48] by snipe.ukc.ac.uk (SMI-8.6/UKC-2.14) id KAA19230; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:34:54 +0100 X-Sender: rss5@snipe.ukc.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:37:03 +0000 To: TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, consbio@u.washington.edu From: rss5@ukc.ac.uk (Russell Seymour) Subject: Pattern versus process in conservation Dear All, Following a seminar in which I was flamed (or distinctly singed at least!) for suggesting that pattern (geographic distribution) is more important than process (gene flow, drift, speciation events, ?, etc) for conservation purposes I would like to gauge a broader set of opinions. My own interest is directed towards subspecific distribution of mammals. I argued that if subspecies (I use this term loosely to mean any uniquely diagnosable group within a species) are to be used as 'conservation units' it is the pattern of distribution which must be elucidated so that the ranges may be delimited and management directed accordingly. My understanding of the argument against me is essentially that it must be some kind of process (natural selection? hybridisation zones?) that causes the observed differences so it is this process that needs to be protected. The patterns we see now are simply transitory. Distributions seen in 1998 are different to those of a century ago, a millenium ago or further back. Indeed, in many cases they may be different to a decade ago. Hence it is the process and not the patterns derived from the process that must be identified and measures implemented to protect it (the process) into the future. I understand this argument but isn't it detached from reality? Legislation is one of the few tools available to large scale conservation but it requires specifics. It needs names and defined ranges. To acquire special protection for a 'conservation unit' it needs some particulars attached to it - specifically a name (implying a diagnosable unit) and range. To me pattern implies process. If a unique morphology or widely diverging DNA sequence (or whatever) is found then a process is occurring. At this point in time it is pretty much irrelevant what that is. The thing to do is to take action to protect the whole system. This way by identifying and protecting the pattern you effectively protect the process too. Ultimately perhaps this is a matter of semantics as both approaches reach the same goal but it seems that the pragmatic approach, which will best suit the pathways of legislation and politics which need to be traversed, is the pattern approach. I am interested in your opinion. RUSS P.S. I have sent this message to TAXACOM and CONSBIO. Sorry if you get it twice. _________________________________________________________________ Russell Seymour PhD Research Student Institute of Zoology and Durrell Institute of Zoological Society of London Conservation and Ecology Regents Park University of Kent London UK NW1 4RY UK Tel: + 44 (0)171 449 6621 Fax: + 44 (0)171 586 2870 .