This is a very hot issue. The Red Lists are not at all complete. They regard just "popular" species that have an importance that can be appreciated almost by the general public. For the Hydrozoa, for instance, there is almost nothing. Most biodiversity is made of small and inconspicuous species, and very little is known about them. Many of the inconspicuous species are the main contributors to the functioning of ecosystems. So, very often, red lists are based on an emotional approach that has little to do with ecology. Of course they list species that are commercially exploited and tend to prevent the exploitation of endangered species. But the risk is to give the perception that once these are protected... the job is done. The Habitats directive of the EU has shifted the emphasis from the species to the habitat. I think it is a very wise move. Of course, in this framework, the role of Red Lists becomes limited to just some species, and it might be right to keep them. The risk is that, if a species is not in the Red List, then it is not so important from the point of view of conservation. Red Lists are just one of the many tools of conservation biology, and must be considered as such. If they are, then we cannot complain if they are not complete. Their incompleteness stems from the presumption that they are the main tool of species conservation, from a formal point of view. Evidently they are not. But they have a very important role, nonetheless.

There is every possibility that a common species which is not scaled in the IUCN Red List, has been finally eradicated. Particularly the species which are common in remote areas do not get due weightage. Often we get reports of new species from such areas. This problem may be reduced by the steps being taken in India. Here National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) was established in 2003 to implement its Biological Diversity Act (2002).The NBA delivers its mandate at the local level through Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). They are responsible for promoting conservation, documentation including preservation of habitats etc. So far NBA has facilitated establishment of 32,796 BMCs in India. I believe, IUCN, in consultation with these BMCs, can update the Red List with minimum shortcomings.

The IUCN Red List makes no claim to being complete.

see this document on taxonomic completeness:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/red-list-overview

It is reasonably complete, however, for a small subset of taxa (terrestrial vertebrates, hard corals and some plant groups). The species assessed are not chosen on popularity but on the availability of information and the willingness of knowledgeable people to do these assessments. The criteria for assessment are rigorous, based on established indicators of extinction risk. In recent years there have been programs to broaden taxonomic coverage aimed at getting general estimates of risk across all taxa. Stringent guidelines have also been produced to clarify and standardize the assessment process so that it really reflects extinction risk. As Ferdinando says however, it is just another tool and listing is a spur to action - without which it doesn't reduce the chance of extinction. Regular updates and plenty of tweaking is needed for individual species assessments but the process is reliable. If a species in the least concern category declines severely through habitat conversion then this it is likely to be detected and placed on the threatened list. It is important, however, that assessments are driven by risks to the existence of the species. The lowest threatened category (Vulnerable) reflects a 10% chance of extinction in 100 years, given current threats. Impacts that wipe out individual populations may not actually endanger a widespread species. This is an issue of habitat conservation and if it does not impact on threatened species the Red List is not the right tool.

The IUCN Red List is almost complete, being also omitted some species, but also includes species already disappeared.

Thank you so much everybody, the opinions open my mind and enrich my blank spots. Actually, the share come out concerning forest (any natural areas) destruction and conversion that cause species/genetic diversity erosion. Comparing any noticeable species (because of its beauty, uniqueness, sounds, rarity, or other), the unpopular ones still has contribution to the environment no matter how title it is (as Dr Boroe said). I just wondering, is there any indicators that we can used to scale any level of species (which is not scaled in IUCN Red List)?. I would like to develop indicator scales for conservation status of plant species (I hope it will applicable for other species too) based on their levels of existence, endemic/geographic distribution, endangered, and frequency in certain area. Together with their levels of diversities and usages or contributions to the people/ environment will be useful for plant species valuation.

Well. It is a major initiative taken by the species specialist group. Everybody aware that the taxonomic experts on individual groups are becoming rare. Proper identification of species in developing nation and underdeveloped nations are in question. Identification of terrestrial flora and fauna is relatively better than aquatic biodiversity. The Red list may give an idea about the species status in the world. I believe constant effort has to be initiated to catalogue the fauna. Governments initiatives has to be strengthened so that the list will be complete in near feature.

Without inclusion of status of local flora & fauna, the IUCN List could not be completed.

Having just conducted a review on reptile threats worldwide (unpublished), I first looked to the IUCN Redlist for information but found it listed 99% of all birds and mammals are listed, and 96% of all known amphibians are listed. So, whilst the Redlist is not complete, it does have excellent representation for some taxa (mostly vertebrates). There are biogeographic biases as well e.g. only ~200 of the 923 described reptiles in Australia (2010) are listed, well under the global 40% listing rate - European and North American taxa seem to be well represented within reptiles, yet I am unsure if this is also the case for other taxa. These biases may be worth bearing in mind.

So in research terms, the Redlist can be used as a great source of info (threats as well as general distribution and habitat) for those taxonomic groups that are very well represented (90-100% listing), and it can also be used as a starting point for threat information for less well represented taxa. However it cannot be relied upon to be up to date and often the listing categories are not useful for taxa with low rates of detectability and those found in areas with few people. In these situations, population levels and changes are very difficult to estimate so categorisation become problematic and time consuming, if it can be completed at all.

IUCN has an excellent overview page for the Redlist that sets out the classification process, where the deficiencies are, and what is currently being worked on to reduce those deficiencies: http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/red-list-overview. I hope this helps!

Sulistiyowati Hari - I think your indicator idea is great!. Maybe look at adding in a size/detectability classification e.g. a small herb species could be considered far less detectable than a large tree species.

Interesting discussion. But let me say again that we do not have a solid knowledge of the species inhabiting the planet. We have described abou 2 million species and the estimates are that they are 8-10 millions. So, what are we talking about? We have a bias towards vertebrates and higher plants, or towards cute invertebrates. But we do not know enough about the roles of these species, and about their importance in terms of making the ecosystems work. So, these red lists do have a ethical bearing (we do not have the right of pushing a species towards extinction) and an aesthetic bearing (let's save that specie because it's so cute) but they do not have an ecological background. Simply because we do not know all the species, and so we cannot say if one is more important than another one. The precautionary approach tells us that it might be better to avoid any extinction. But species are individuals. They are born (with speciation) and they die (with extinction). Extinction is part of the game, and we cannot avoid it. Just as we cannot avoid death with medicine. Trying to save a species that is on the verge of extinction is just like trying to keep alive an individual 120-year-old. And say that it is a catastrophe if s/he dies. Forgetting about the newborns who might die like flies. In a way, there is some sort of racism also in the choices we make about who we want to save (the cute ones, or the vertebrates). I have nothing against red lists based on these emotional approaches, but I would like to see also some red list that is more scientifically based.

My favorite example of a red list species for the MediterraneanSea is Tricyclusa singularis. But who cares about that? Everybody want to save dolphins and turtles! Then, if I ask: tell me one extinct species from the Mediterranean Sea... nobody can name one. There was a little mollusc from Malta, but they found it back!

Hi Nando. Anyone can submit to the Red List Authority a species or population assessment for inclusion in the List (instructions on www.redlist.org). If any taxon is less represented than others, the main reason for this is that specialists of that particular taxon have not submitted assessments.

Giuseppe - you are partially correct. However here in Australia we have quite comprehensive threat assessments for almost all vertebrates, most plants, and fair range of invertebrates as well. However to go from the Australian Government listing to being listed on the IUCN Redlist involves a dedicated committee to concur that each species has been listed appropriately (even though the Aust. Gov. uses Redlist categories in their assessments and the most up to date scientific information!). So I would have to say that there is more to listing then just handing in an assessment, especially where it is necessary to have the experts agree on more dubious listings - this takes quite a lot of organising. The Redlist committees are very thorough (to the detriment of some taxa) but this is how they maintain their integrity and the scientific backing of their assessments.

Ferdinando - I agree that no one species is more important than others but when it comes to government and policy, often the presence of a highly threatened IUCN Redlist assessed species is all that is able to hold back developments that are financially postive but environmentally destructive. It may have its flaws and biases but the Redlist is relied upon heavily by policy makers.

It means 'no report ,no information and no update' as written at the IUCN standards and scientific integrity that the list is regularly updated but not all species are reassessed with each update. Governments, NGOs, and scientific institution commonly report specifically on rare species or species at the risk (of course it is IUCN Red-list). As Dr. Boero said some species rated extinct are found (one example, http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Threatened-California-fox-species-found-in-Oregon-3646317.php). I’m not arguing IUCN (it’s well established), let say we give more attention to the rare species, that’s ok. Extinction is a natural event and routine (based on geological perspective). Our earth has experienced five mass extinctions and most species that have ever lived have gone extinct. My point, we care about the rare species, on the other hand there are millions non rare species (some aren’t identified) on the risk of genetic erosion. The facts that many anthropogenic actions or environmental changes attribute the loss of species and ecosystems to the accelerating transformation of the Earth. Identification, Report, catalog, or other actions related to information of all species (all areas) should be addressed. Global database of species is needed, so we could access and also fill the blank sheet of species existence (May be it is an impossible dream).

Thank you for all very good opinions and share

There is no doubt that taxonomists are becoming rare throughout the world. IUCN Red List is always prepared considering the global status of the species. However, from the experience it was realised that the status of a species differs locally by the effect of the mentioned parameters. With the effect of Aila, Tsunami and other natural hazards both the ecological and geographical scenario of so many countries may be changed, particularly in case of islands and must have an effect on the species diversity of those areas. Here is the need of a taxonomist, those who can work out both the diversity and status of the species. This is a very elaborative work. If there is a proper published research report, the IUCN will definitely consider the aspects at the time of evaluation. But unfortunately younger generations are less interested in alfa-taxonomy. But for primary status survey alfa-taxonomy is must rather than molecular taxonomy. It is the responsibility of the Government of the countries to provide much more research facility for the purpose not only for the charismatic species but for the common species also. It should be kept in mind today's Least Concerned species may be threatened tomorrow.

I agree that listing a taxon in the RL is not an easy process; nor should it be, because it must be rigorously made.

My point, however, was different, and I apologise if it did not come out clearly. I was remarking to my friend Nando Boero, who was complaining about the bias towards vertebrates, that one explanation of this might be that vertebrate zoologists have contributed more to the RL than many non-vertebrate colleagues. For instance, a few years ago there was a meeting in La Jolla of a large group of cetacean zoologists and ecologists, during which all cetacean species were listed. If Nando is concerned that Hydroids are not given similar attention, perhaps the best thing to do in that case would be for him to ask hydroid zoologist why that might be.

I remember many years ago, when I was president of ICRAM (the Italian governmental research body in charge of supporting national marine conservation policy) I provided minor funding to support a meeting of Echinoderm zoologists. When I suggested that in order to receive the funds part of the meeting be dedicated to Echinoderm conservation issues, my counterparts appeared to be very surprised, as if the thought of protecting Echinoderm species from decline and/or extinction were somewhat foreign to their concern. I am not saying that such mentality would apply to any invertebrate zoologist, of course. However that episode struck me as peculiar.

This is why I dislike the thought that vertebrates are more represented in the RL because they are "cuter". I think the main reason for this might be because vertebrate zoologist appear to be, on average, more conservation concerned, and therefore endeavour to list the taxa they work on in the RL.

Vertebrates have got much attention because it is comparatively easier to study than any invertebrate species. The effect and result of different calamities on vertebrate species could be inferred more readily and easily than any invertebrate. In case of micro and aquatic animals the same is more difficult. But if a monitoring team regularly monitor a particular ecozone atleast for 20 years they will definitely be experienced by the change in species diversity, population, climatic change, ecological adversity etc irrespective of vertebrate or invertebrate. Are we ready to spare so much time for our mother EARTH?

Conservation status of species - is the IUCN Red List complete?

The topic is very interesting for a discussion. But fact remains that, as the environment is dynamic, the survival and evolution of flora and fauna also remain dynamic. Hence, the IUCN Red list can never be complete. There are number of opportunities to add to the list and very rare opportunities to delete / remove a particular flora or fauna from the list

i.k.pai, Department of Zoology, Goa University, Goa

I fully agree with Dr.Pai's views. This is a continuous process and can not stop. As I commented in this discussion (11 days ago) that in India, National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) was established in 2003 to implement its Biological Diversity Act (2002).The NBA delivers its mandate at the local level through Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). In this continuous process, these BMCs should have great role for inclusion of new species in IUCN Red List.

FYI - I just read an article about IUCN listing criteria and 'completeness' that seems relevant to this discussion:

http://theconversation.edu.au/silent-declines-recognising-unlisted-endangered-species-8144

What about the hotly debated SAFE index vs IUCN criteria? see Front Ecol Environ 9:521-525 and response letters in the same issue

Thanks Melissa and José for the references. I think the "silent declines" article misses the point. Multiple criteria are used in IUCN assessments because different criteria are applicable to different species (or at least the data we have on them). Historical declines, such as those on Palau, are not necessarily relevant to current extinction risk - a species may have lost more than 90% of its former range and still be relatively secure. On the other hand, limited current distribution and threats are very relevant and many of the plants and invertebrates on Palau and similar situations would probably qualify on those grounds. There may be an issue here of incorrect scale - the coarse filter approaches of global prioritisation, habitat and site based conservation are much more important for most species than the expensive and fine filter of species conservation. See the excellent chapter by Brook here...

http://www.mongabay.com/conservation-biology-for-all.html

IUCN assessments and species conservation actions are most important for the (admittedly many) species that slip through the cracks of habitat protection, either because they are occur outside intact habitat areas or because they are still at risk even in secure habitat.

Even among countries using the IUCN criteria there are significant differences of interpretation (for example, the Australian EPBC act uses the 1994 IUCN criteria, not the similar but more rigorous 2001 criteria used currently - with 2010 specific recommendations on the notoriously vague interpretation of "severely fragmented"). Most countries have signed relevant global target under the Convention on Biological Diversity, here:

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-12/

Absolutely.......IUCN Red List can never be complete and exhaustive. New species are attaining risk of extinction with every passing day, newer ecological discoveries leading to discovery of newer species with altogether new genetic makeup. Evolutionary significance of species should be studied well in order to understand the risk of extinction, whatsoever. hence, Molecular level studies are increasingly needed beside creating a basic inventory of different species types in a particular area concerned. hence, it is very important that ecologists must concentrate upon a specific area on a specific time scale to understand species specific variations instead of eyeing a larger study area. Common species, as you say like Bengal Vulture Gyps bengalensis or common fox Vulpes vulpes are suffering the risk of extinction in urban environment. However, no specific studies have been carried out. We ecologists tend to forget about the surrounding environment, we live in and increasingly focuss on Hot Spots or any unknown landscape with the notion that we will be able to carry out quality research works........................Who cares about the common sparrow which is almost in the verge of extinction...........??????? that is the basic problem we must ponder upon.........

Everyday is bringing several species on the verge of extinction or near to extinction, in such conditions it is only the citizen's participation which could enable the IUCN to keep updating the Red Data List......

thank you very much everyone for the valuable share, opinions, suggestion,and articles/website. I get more valuable information related to conservation status in ecological context.

I am a member of one of the IUCN Specialist Groups but please understand that my comment is not solely to defend the Red List process. The IUCN it is the least political of the mainstream conservation status listing processes. The shortcomings in the listings relate to the relative lack of data on less-charismatic species. Wheresoever there is science to show a decline in species, the IUCN Red List Authority will list it—but it does not (nor did it ever) fund such population studies. Specialist Group members are volunteers who assess available information and make recommendations accordingly. If that information is lacking, it is because it has either gone unpublished or understudied and the species remains unlisted or “Data Deficient.” The system depends upon the scientific community to document species’ population status.

Hi, Colin:

I can appreciate the frustration of trying to wade through incomplete, inaccessible or vague data-- but this problem is not unique and I have to believe that there is some convention for dealing with it. Do you know whether this concern was raised when the WCPA/ SSC Task Force on Biodiversity & Protected Areas was established in 2009? Looking at their profile, http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wcpa__ssc_biodiversity__protected_areas_task_force_proofed.pdf, it would appear that some of their objectives have been born of issues such as these.

With IUCN's World Conservation Congress rapidly approaching, this is a good time to prod policy makers about the issue. Somewhat to the point, the Task Force mentioned above is running a workshop that would seem to address the matter (see http://portals.iucn.org/2012forum/?q=0749&utm_source=IUCN+SSC+Species+e-Bulletin&utm_campaign=b1e1ea8100-e_bulletin_July_20128_10_2012&utm_medium=email). I'm not saying that either of us could afford to attend, but its proceedings may shed some light on the subject. Good luck either way.

Well, about birds in Brazil, according to BirdLife's website, there are 152 threatened species (2012), against 160 species related by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment in 2003 (last census available). I believe that the tendency is to increase the list, considering the anthropogenic impacts. Besides, as we don't know the total number of species - birds or not - we are losing richness that we might never know about.

There is indeed much work that has to be done by each and everyone of us... The lack of data pointed out by many and the inaccessibility of valuable information need to be addressed urgently. And with the advances in information and web technology, the problems we are facing are not insurmountable.

Gathering and updating the list is a very huge task involving a lot of people and requiring a lot of coordination and cohesion among biodiversity networks. From the local to national up to the global scale. The IUCN Red List have already created a ripple and its significance is unquestionable. I believe that it will continue to develop and upgrade into an effective tool for biodiversity protection.

IUCN coordinated wiht commonly accepted rules / methods and permanently updating of national Lists will lead to replenishing of IUSN List

While the IUCN list is incomplete there are equivalent lists to national scale. For example, Mexico has an official legislation for the protection of wild flora and fauna, which includes a list of species and subspecies at risk that was prepared with the contributions of many specialists. Of course, this list is incomplete too because the lack of specialist for inconspicuous and very diverse groups. I believe that we can achieve much more if we start to work on a national scale first, especially in countries that host greater biodiversity.

May be species database at national scale is the easy way for starting point. the problem is each researcher collect and keep his/her own data. So, even at the Protected Area scale, there are not much information related to the species diversity and scale assessments (uncompleted reports). However, I'm happy that there are still many people concerning this issue (thank you very much for all contributions). As Sir Gomez and Maycock suggestion, I start to work on scale assessments indicators for conservation status (plant species) at my research project area. I wish a valuable discussion and communication among us will continue to get more information, experiences,shares and knowledge of related issue. Keep going for valuable species diversity conservation.

The IUCN Red List is still incomplete. It is because of many reasons including data deficiency on even common species. Red List is mainly driven by the popularity and utility of species and rarely by the ecological niches. The assessment of species and the category in which they are placed i.e., critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable etc. need proper scrutiny.

IUCN criteria for conservation status assessment of species seem objective and scientifically robust (http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/redlist_cats_crit_en.pdf). I don´t think the Red List is mainly driven by the popularity but rather by the information available on species. Although some charismatic species or groups of species may receive more research attention, by 2008 all species of birds, mammals, amphibians, corals, and gymnosperms were already assessed (http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SpeciesProg/RLI_Guidelines_Final_4march09.pdf), and the assessment of species is supposed to have increased by 2012. Nonetheless, the list could hardly be complete. National and global efforts for biodiversity inventorying constantly increase the knowledge of poorly known or Data Deficient species. Moreover, the frequent discovery of new (e.g., http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1214-hance_mekong_newspecies.html) or cryptic species and the upgrade of subspecies to the species level (e.g., http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0818-philippines-owl.html) greatly increase the number of species to be periodically assessed (every four years). Consequently, the IUCN Red List should be considered as a dynamic tool for biodiversity conservation assessment (e.g., Baillie et al. 2008. Conservation Letters 1:18-26) rather than as a complete list.

Sir Collin, my research projects mainly at the Protected Areas (Baluran National Park, Meru Betiri National Park, Sempu Island) in East Java-Indonesia. Right now I'm studying for my PhD at UPLB Philippines.

The IUCN RedList is most definitely a work in progress. My area of research is primatology; the Order Primates clearly falls into the "charismatic vertebrate" category of fauna. Even so, there are so many primate species that the IUCN currently classifies as "Data Deficient", which tells us nothing about the conservation statuses of those taxa. In those cases where the "Data Deficient" label has been applied to primate taxa, it would probably be prudent to consider many of them at least "Vulnerable", if not "Endangered". Just this past week, a new species of guenon monkey -- the "lesula" (Cercopithecus lomamiensis) -- was described from the Lomami River basin in the central Democratic Republic of Congo (see: Hart JA, Detwiler KM, Gilbert CC, Burrell AS, Fuller JL, et al. (2012) Lesula: A New Species of Cercopithecus Monkey Endemic to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Implications for Conservation of Congo’s Central Basin. PLoS ONE 7(9): e44271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044271); the authors suggest that a provisional IUCN RedList assessment of the species should provisionally place it as at least "Vulnerable", because it appears to have a relatively restricted geographic distribution, and because it is hunted (which could cause a precipitous decline in numbers in a short time (see also: IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee (2010) Guidelines for using the

IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 8.1. Available: http://intranet.

iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf). Indeed, in a number of recent cases where new primate species have been described, those newly recognized species have almost immediately gone to "Critically Endangered" status -- e.g., the kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji), Stryker's snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus strykeri).

Another aspect of the IUCN RedList data where information is certainly incomplete is in the geographic distribution maps that are presented for species. For species in the Order Primates at least, the maps are woefully inaccurate. What they present are only very broad "area of occurrence" data -- which may be historically accurate, but almost certainly do not reflect the current "area of occupation" of the various species.

To study the categories of threatened plants assigned as per IUCN Red List to the medicinal plants of the Himalayan region, I selected three species, viz. Dactylorhiza hatagirea (critically endangered), Picrorhiza kurrooa (endangered) and Rheum moorcroftianum (vulnerable). All three species have restricted distribution

range and thus they only grow in the alpine meadows of the Himalayas. This fact helps in extrapolating the estimated values for the selected species to the whole alpine meadows. The results were surprising. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/apr252004/1058a.pdf

The IUCN Red List cannot be a complete document. Because the conservation status of a number of species is changed every year, a number of species disappear and a number of new species are discovered. Thus, upgradation of the IUCN Red List is a continuous process.

The Red List of Ecosystems is the answer of IUCN to this demand: http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_work/tg_red_list/

More info at http://www.iucn.org/?uNewsID=10913

Great and complete answers. I wanted to return to a point in the original question, which seemed to query the status or vulnerability of species that might be abundant but are at risk because of projected impacts on their habitat, range, ecosystem, etc. The IUCN of course identifies species at risk, but common species are a problem. Projecting when such a species might become at risk, or have it's risk increased in response to projected future impacts is very difficult and requires intimate knowledge of the species' demographics. If the transition is a "gradual" one that permits time for recognition, then fine. But even common species can crash quite quickly, and it's possible that we will begin to recognize more of those as systems become more degraded.

In the case of the Canary Islands and other Macaronesian archipelagos we know that the IUCN Red List is incomplete, especially in wide groups like the terrestrial invertebrates. On the other hand, the treatment of endangered subspecies is not fully satisfactory. I consider that freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, vascular plants and perhaps butterflies are better covered than other groups.