I should say that first it is important that authors say what concept of species they follow. Then, it is clearly more useful to be 'splitters' that 'lumpers' when dealing with conservation (Contra the belief of several genetists that highlight large population size). Personally I utilised PSC for Italian mammals just because my aim was mainly related to emphasize conservation issues.

Hi.

I agree in part with your view, because sometimes the use of BSC reject some populations of mammals, birds or other vertebrates which are true and different entities from the taxonomic point of view. Usually, checklists (local, national or European) follow the BSC and not always they recognize the subspecies, and this is a problem in relation to the conservation of the biodiversity.

Exactly the subspecies rank is clearly a big problem. Even if they are listed, the interest they receive is clearly biased, with Canis lupus italicus being the focus of much research while nobody care for Talpa romana aenigmatica....

Yes, you're right, and when a subspecies is changed to specific level there is a much bigger attention to it. In the Canary Islands we have some clear cases of this, e.g. with the Gran Canaria Blue Chaffinch (Fringilla polatzeki), in the past a subspecies of the Tenerife Blue Chaffinch (Fringilla teydea) ad now a full and recognized species. Generally, the degree of attention to endangered taxa is not the same if the animals in question are subspecies.

To add to the discussion, of course, in the case of C. l. italicus and T. r. aenigmatica raised by Spartaco, the "charisma" of species acts here as a confounding factor. Irrespective of the subspecies level, scientists will always be more interested in studying wolves than moles. Bibliometric studies can prove that easily, but I think that no stats are needed here :-) So the real question is rather to know whether some subspecies of moles or wolves should become conservation priorities, because they have e.g. a small population size and a unique set of genetic material, irrespective of whether this "qualifies" the focal taxon to be regarded as a species or subspecies (criteria may vary and, if defined by humans, are arbitrary). For example, there is some debate as to whether C. l. pallipes/Canis indica (Indian wolf) and C. l. himalayensis (Himalayan wolf) are species in their own right or not. Genetic (and some phenotypic variables) suggest that there is significant differentiation. Whether these are species in their own right is a matter of criteria and human-set thresholds; we just need to be consistent across groups. But what really matters here, is that if these possess unique genetic characteristics, then are they really threatened? If so, conservation actions should be implemented (funds permitting) irrespective of their taxonomic rank. I know that conservation organisations generally deal with the "species level", but it is our job as zoologists to convince them that we need to look further than that. As an example, Wilting et al. (2017) nicely report on the critical status of the Javan leopard (Panthera pardus javanensis). Now what we need are similar papers on moles and other small critters that are in dire need of protection! That's the real mission people working on the smaller species have to achieve. Not an easy one, I can tell you! I called Bill Gates but I think he blocked me :-)

Article Evolutionary history and conservation significance of the Ja...

Ciao Emmanuel,

regarding Javan leopard if I'm correct it is P. pardus melas.

Regarding small mammals (rodents), the interest is so low that many years ago I decided to work at the genus level so not to lost too much evolutionary history! In the meantime IUCN/SSC dismissed the Rodent Specialist Group! This was not a good signal!

But I agree that in rich countries we should have - or should promote - an unbiased attention to all taxa irrespective of public interest.

Ciao Spartaco

Oops, grazie mille for pointing this out. I was busy with issues related to the species status of Prionailurus javanensis and got confused. Hope you got my point anyway. My apologies to Andreas Wilting for misnaming his study subspecies. Entschuldigung! Ich bitte Dir um Verzeihung :-)

Wow, I did not know that IUCN dismissed the Rodent Specialist Group. That says it all! R.I.P. IUCN SSC RSG!

A presto, take care,

Manu

Dear Spartaco and Emmanuel, thanks for your interesting views about the question. There is a big problem with the endangered species which are not very popular (e.g. many insects). This produces a wide attention to the beautiful and nice animals (e.g. many mammals, like whales and dolphins, bears, monkeys, etc.) and very few interest in other species, even if they are close to extinction. And sometimes taxonomy is not of help in this sense, in the case of subspecies which are clearly different and must be object of a special attention with regards to its conservation...

Best regards.