快猫短视频

It is 44 years since CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, came into force. Writing in the latest issue of Science, Eyal Frank at the University of Chicago and David Wilcox at Princeton University draw attention to a major problem with the treaty: its tendency to fall behind the times. Frank and Wilcox call for scientific knowledge on conservation to be 鈥渁pplied with more urgency鈥� so that CITES can offer protection for wildlife the moment it comes under threat of extinction. Unfortunately, the problem runs far deeper than that. CITES protects species 鈥� and 鈥渟pecies鈥� is a slippery concept.

The judges who must decide on the guilt of illegal traders need precise legal boundaries. This rare cactus is protected so you go to jail, that common one is not so you and your cactus go free.

But who is to say the rare species and the common one aren鈥檛 variants of the same species? The answer, it turns out, is no one. There is no universal authority that CITES can turn to when faced with taxonomic uncertainty.

Of course, if , that also means anyone can claim to be. Certainly, any taxonomist can publish a paper defining a new species. You don鈥檛 have to say how or why you made the decision to do so. You don鈥檛 have to test whether your species exceeds some pre-determined threshold of 鈥渟peciesness鈥�. You simply state that it does. You may back your view with the most brilliant genetic, morphological, behavioural, ecological and biochemical research, teasing out subtle differences that have eluded all before you. But, in the end, you simply assert your opinion. At any time, another taxonomist might come along with a new set of taxonomic truths and undo your work.

For the vast majority of life forms, this 19th century system works just fine. Many taxonomists are buried beneath lonely mountains of undescribed diversity, longing for anyone to take notice of their research. But there are awkward consequences when this system interacts with the precise requirements of the law or the slow cycles of change in international agreements like CITES.

For example, taxonomists re-examining a recognised species may decide it should really be split into several 鈥渘ew鈥� ones, each with a distinct name. But in making that decision, they may render each new entity more vulnerable to extinction (splitting one species into three inevitably means the new species have smaller population sizes) while simultaneously placing those new species into an unprotected legal limbo because the new names won鈥檛 be recognised under threatened species legislation. Some conservationists fear that .

Lost in translation

Then there may be issues translating between taxonomies. Frank and Wilcox aspire to automatic translation of IUCN Red List assessments into CITES protection. However, that doesn鈥檛 guarantee protection: for instance, the scientific name given to a species protected by CITES may not be the same scientific name used to protect the species under local law, creating confusion that hinders international policing. This state of affairs emerges because different organisations separately spend hundreds of hours keeping abreast of taxonomy, accepting some suggested changes, rejecting others, but not necessarily the same ones.

There are attempts to bring species lists together to create a single source of taxonomic wisdom, such as under the . However, these are well short of universal acceptance and lack either global institutionalised funding or systems for dealing equitably and transparently with contentious taxonomic issues.

Until these problems are sorted out, the opportunity costs of taxonomic confusion will continue to hinder the effectiveness of international agreements like CITES. They also divert time and money away from conservation on the ground.