ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The European Union has adopted the ambitious target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. Several indicators have been proposed to assess progress towards the 2010 target, two of them addressing directly the issue of species decline. In Europe, the Fauna Europaea database gives an insight into the patterns of distribution of a total dataset of 130,000 terrestrial and freshwater species without taxonomic bias, and provide a unique opportunity to assess the feasibility of the 2010 target. It shows that the vast majority of European species are rare, in the sense that they have a restricted range. Considering this, the paper discusses whether the 2010 target indicators really cover the species most at risk of extinction. The analysis of a list of 62 globally extinct European taxa shows that most contemporary extinctions have affected narrow-range taxa or taxa with strict ecological requirements. Indeed, most European species listed as threatened in the IUCN Red List are narrow-range species. Conversely, there are as many wide-range species as narrow-range endemics in the list of protected species in Europe (Bird and Habitat Directives). The subset of biodiversity captured by the 2010 target indicators should be representative of the whole biodiversity in terms of patterns of distribution and abundance. Indicators should not overlook a core characteristic of biodiversity, i.e. the large number of narrow-range species and their intrinsic vulnerability. With ill-selected indicator species, the extinction of narrow-range endemics would go unnoticed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The European union’s 2010 target: Putting rare
species in focus
Benoıˆt Fontaine
*
, Philippe Bouchet, Kees Van Achterberg, Miguel Angel Alonso-Zarazaga,
Rafael Araujo, Manfred Asche, Ulrike Aspo
¨ck, Paolo Audisio, Berend Aukema,
Nicolas Bailly, Maria Balsamo, Ruud A. Bank, Peter Barnard, Carlo Belfiore,
Wieslaw Bogdanowicz, Tom Bongers, Geoffrey Boxshall, Daniel Burckhardt,
Jean-Louis Camicas, Przemek Chylarecki, Pierangelo Crucitti, Louis Deharveng,
Alain Dubois, Henrik Enghoff, Anno Faubel, Romolo Fochetti, Olivier Gargominy,
David Gibson, Ray Gibson, Maria Soledad Go
´mez Lo
´pez, Daniel Goujet, Mark S. Harvey,
Klaus-Gerhard Heller, Peter Van Helsdingen, Hannelore Hoch, Herman De Jong,
Yde De Jong, Ole Karsholt, Wouter Los, Lars Lundqvist, Wojciech Magowski,
Renata Manconi, Jochen Martens, Jos A. Massard, Gaby Massard-Geimer,
Sandra J. Mcinnes, Luis F. Mendes, Eberhard Mey, Verner Michelsen, Alessandro Minelli,
Claus Nielsen, Juan M. Nieto Nafrı
´a, Erik J. Van Nieukerken, John Noyes, Thomas Pape,
Hans Pohl, Willy De Prins, Marian Ramos, Claudia Ricci, Cees Roselaar, Emilia Rota,
Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa, Hendrik Segers, Richard Zur Strassen, Andrzej Szeptycki,
Jean-Marc Thibaud, Alain Thomas, Tarmo Timm, Jan Van Tol, Wim Vervoort,
Rainer Willmann
Muse
´um national d’Histoire naturelle, De
´partement Syste
´matique et Evolution – Malacologie – USM 602, Case postale N 51,
57 Rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris, Cedex 05, France
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 1 June 2006
Received in revised form
19 April 2007
Accepted 17 June 2007
Available online 8 August 2007
Keywords:
Rarity
Endemism
Fauna Europaea
Invertebrate conservation
Extinct species
Europe
ABSTRACT
The European Union has adopted the ambitious target of halting the loss of biodiversity by
2010. Several indicators have been proposed to assess progress towards the 2010 target, two
of them addressing directly the issue of species decline. In Europe, the Fauna Europaea
database gives an insight into the patterns of distribution of a total dataset of 130,000 ter-
restrial and freshwater species without taxonomic bias, and provide a unique opportunity
to assess the feasibility of the 2010 target. It shows that the vast majority of European spe-
cies are rare, in the sense that they have a restricted range. Considering this, the paper dis-
cusses whether the 2010 target indicators really cover the species most at risk of extinction.
The analysis of a list of 62 globally extinct European taxa shows that most contemporary
extinctions have affected narrow-range taxa or taxa with strict ecological requirements.
Indeed, most European species listed as threatened in the IUCN Red List are narrow-range
species. Conversely, there are as many wide-range species as narrow-range endemics in
the list of protected species in Europe (Bird and Habitat Directives). The subset of
biodiversity captured by the 2010 target indicators should be representative of the whole
0006-3207/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.012
*Corresponding author: Tel.: +33 1 40 79 31 02; fax: +33 1 40 79 57 71.
E-mail address: fontaine@mnhn.fr (B. Fontaine).
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
biodiversity in terms of patterns of distribution and abundance. Indicators should not over-
look a core characteristic of biodiversity, i.e. the large number of narrow-range species and
their intrinsic vulnerability. With ill-selected indicator species, the extinction of narrow-
range endemics would go unnoticed.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The European Union has adopted the ambitious target of halt-
ing the loss of biodiversity by 2010 (European Union, 2001). It
exceeds the target chosen by the nations of the world at the
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which
was to ‘‘achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current
rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national le-
vel as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit
of all life on earth’’ (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001a).
In order to assess progress towards these targets, biodiversity
should be monitored to know whether the rate of loss is
increasing or decreasing, and eight indicators for immediate
testing in seven focal areas were proposed by the CBD’s sev-
enth Conference of the Parties (COP7). In the focal area on
‘‘status and trends of the components of biological diversity’’
three indicators were proposed to assess progress towards the
2010 target (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001b):
Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and
habitats.
Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species.
Coverage of protected areas.
In the same focal area, two other possible indicators are in
development
Change in status of threatened species.
Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, culti-
vated plants, and fish species of major socioeconomic
importance.
Theoretically, these indicators provide a powerful way to
assess progress. However, they could be difficult to imple-
ment, as data or standardized methodologies are lacking:
even the assessment of the coverage of protected areas is hin-
dered by the fact that protected areas do not have the same
definitions in every country, and are sometimes difficult to
attribute to IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
(IUCN, 1994). Only two of these indicators are directly linked
to species loss, being species-based, ‘‘Trends in abundance
and distribution of selected species’’ and ‘‘Change in status
of threatened species’’. Butchart et al. (2004) presented a
method for producing indices based on the IUCN Red List to
assess projected relative extinction risk of a species, and
tested it for the world’s birds and amphibians (Butchart
et al., 2005). That was a major contribution to the develop-
ment of the Red List indicator, which will measure changes
in overall extinction risks for all species in taxa for which
Red List data are available. However, at a global scale, only
0.1% of insect species, 3.1% of mollusc species and 1.3% of
crustacean species have been evaluated, vs. 100% of bird spe-
cies, 100% of amphibian species and 89.7% of mammal spe-
cies (IUCN, 2006). Obviously, data are lacking for the
assessment of whole invertebrate groups, as most inverte-
brate species have not been compared with the threat criteria:
the Red List indicator, though powerful, is useless for species
that have not been checked against the Red List criteria, i.e.
most invertebrates, but also 91.9% of reptile species and
90.1% of fish species (IUCN, 2006). A number of groups are cur-
rently being assessed against the Red List (reptiles, freshwater
fish, sharks, rays and chimeras and freshwater molluscs), and
will be used to build a more robust aggregated Red List indica-
tor (Butchart et al., 2005). However, this will still not cover
most invertebrates, which represent the bulk of biodiversity,
and one can ask whether this will even capture the main
characteristics of biodiversity. Similarly, the ‘‘selected spe-
cies’’ chosen for the indicator ‘‘Trends in abundance and dis-
tribution of selected species’’ should be representative of
overall biodiversity, and not only of the better known species.
Taking into account the neglected invertebrates in conserva-
tion policies is not only important for its own sake, but also
because these species affect ecosystem functioning, although
our knowledge of the linkages between biodiversity and eco-
system processes is very incomplete. Loss of biodiversity
makes ecosystems vulnerable, and this may be particularly
true for the neglected invertebrate taxa which, despite their
minute size, play an important role in ecosystem functioning
(Palmer et al., 1997; Tilman et al., 1997).
Although not directly correlated with vulnerability, rarity
is a major determinant of a species’ likelihood of extinction
(Gaston, 1994; Yu and Dobson, 2000) and species usually be-
come rare before going extinct (Dobson et al., 1995). There
have been many attempts to recognize various forms of rarity
(see Gaston (1994) for a compilation), but the most well-
known is Rabinowitz (1981). In this model, three factors can
be combined to assess a species’ rarity: range size (distribu-
tion), population size (demography) and habitat requirements
(ecology). Species demonstrating geographical rarity are nar-
row-range endemics; species demonstrating demographic
rarity are typically represented by large predators and species
in decline; ecologically rare species are specialist species, the
extreme case being single host parasitic species. The combi-
nation of these factors produces eight forms of rarity, the
ninth group (large range, large population size and broad hab-
itat requirements) being common species.
In the light of these theoretical considerations on rarity,
we have assessed the reliability of the CBD 2010 target indica-
tors at the scale of the European fauna, on the basis of the
Fauna Europaea dataset. The Fauna Europaea program,
funded by the European Commission for a period of 4 years
(1 March 2000–1 March 2004) within the Fifth Framework
168 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
Program (FP5), was designed to assemble a database of the
scientific names and distribution of all living multi-cellular
European land and fresh-water animals (Fauna Europaea,
2004). We address here the issue of the representativeness
of the subsample of biodiversity captured by the 2010 target
indicators at the European scale, with the insight given by
Fauna Europaea: are the indicators currently used to assess
the state of biodiversity really covering the species most at
risk of extinction? In other words, the purpose of this paper
is to assess whether the focus of the 2010 target indicators
is on all biodiversity or on a part of it only: will these indica-
tors give an accurate image of biodiversity loss in Europe?
2. Methods
This work was based on the Fauna Europaea list of non-mar-
ine animal species and subspecies in Europe (Fauna Europaea,
2004). This list covers all the terrestrial and freshwater fauna
of Europe, i.e. ca. 130,000 species and ca. 14,000 subspecies. As
subspecies have been included in Fauna Europaea for some
groups only, our analyses were performed with species only.
The area covered is the European mainland, plus the Macaro-
nesian islands (excl. Cape Verde Is.), Cyprus, Franz Josef Land
and Novaya Zemlya. Western Kazakhstan, Caucasus and the
Asiatic part of Turkey are excluded. Three institutions have
taken responsibility for the main complementary clusters of
tasks: the University of Amsterdam (Zoological Museum
Amsterdam) was in charge of the overall coordination and
management, including the application of software and data-
base tools to support these tasks; the University of Copenha-
gen (Zoological Museum) took care of the collation of the data
and the creation of integrated datasets; and the Muse
´um na-
tional d’Histoire naturelle in Paris was responsible for the val-
idation of the data sets. The data were gathered by 59 Group
Coordinators, each of them being in charge of a taxonomic
group, helped by 417 taxonomic specialists and associate spe-
cialists. All the taxonomic specialists and coordinators were
selected as the key experts in their field. The Group Coordina-
tors checked the consistency of the partial data sets, and
independent validation was done in the Paris team. Moreover,
for the Eastern European countries especially, a comparison
was made with numerous local documents to inform the spe-
cialists about deviations. The final database of valid names,
most used synonyms and distribution data should be re-
garded as a quality controlled product, representing currently
available knowledge. For the purpose of the present analysis,
a database was built to conveniently handle this huge amount
of taxonomic and distribution data, the raw data being pro-
vided as Microsoft Excel sheets by the Fauna Europaea Bureau
in Amsterdam.
We considered legal protection status at the European le-
vel only, with texts giving a real protection status, i.e. allowing
a legal action to be taken if needed. In this framework, the
only legal documents really protecting species are the Council
Directive on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive)
and the Council Directive on the conservation of natural hab-
itats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitat Directive).
The species lists given in the Appendix of the directives
were integrated into the database. Queries were generated
in the Fauna Europaea database to obtain a list of all the pro-
tected species in Europe, as some species are protected at a
supra-specific level (all European birds are protected by the
Bird Directive for instance). This list was double-checked by
hand in order to track mistakes.
Distribution data were taken from the Fauna Europaea
database, i.e. presence/absence in each Fauna Europaea geo-
graphical unit. The geographical units employed in Fauna
Europaea were countries, large islands or archipelagos, thus
ranging from several hundreds thousands of square kilome-
ters (France, Germany) to a few square kilometers (Selvagen
Islands). Data on the distribution of Red Listed species were
taken from the Red List, as Fauna Europaea does not give pre-
cise distribution data outside Europe (many European Red
Listed species also range outside Europe).
The IUCN Red List is widely acknowledged as the most
objective and comprehensive compilation of threatened and
extinct species worldwide (Lamoreux et al., 2003), having no
legal status and being compiled by thousands of scientists.
As such, it is the best available basis for the indicator on
‘‘Change in status of threatened species’’. The list of European
threatened species was thus extracted from the IUCN Red List
website (IUCN, 2006), selecting the species classified as Criti-
cally Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable for each Euro-
pean country. Threatened species from Russia and Turkey
were checked individually to remove those occurring only in
the Asian part of these countries. The list of extinct species
was compiled from the 2006 IUCN Red List and from the liter-
ature, with the help of the Fauna Europaea Group
Coordinators.
Each of the 804 bird species present in Fauna Europaea had
to be listed as protected in our database, as the Bird Directive
states that populations and habitats of all species of naturally
occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory
should be maintained (Articles 1, 2 and 3). However, the Fauna
Europaea bird list does not comply with Fauna Europaea geo-
graphic range. In particular, it includes species from the Cau-
casus, Middle East and North Africa which extend beyond the
Fauna Europaea zone. In order to be consistent with the other
groups, these species have been excluded from our dataset.
Data on species range of birds were taken from Beaman and
Madge (1998).
The Fauna Europaea bird list also contains Asian or Nearc-
tic vagrants that are seen only exceptionally in Europe. These
species have been excluded from the dataset used in this
study, for three reasons:
Many of them are listed in Fauna Europaea as occurring in
one European country only, because they have been
recorded in Europe only once. Keeping them would pro-
duce a bias in the analysis of endemic species in Europe
(97 bird species occurring in one European country only,
as given by the Fauna Europaea database, definitely does
not reflect the fact that only 19 bird species are European
single country endemics).
Given the high number of birdwatchers in Europe, birds are
the only group with such coverage, and are much better
known than any other taxon in Europe. A vagrant Diptera
from America would hardly be noticed if it was blown up
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 169
by a storm to the Scilly Islands, unlike an American war-
bler. As it is impossible to include vagrant species in other
taxa, vagrant bird species should be removed from the
dataset to avoid biases.
These vagrant birds do not breed in Europe, nor are regular
migrants in Europe: strictly speaking, they do not belong to
the European fauna.
Vagrant bird species were identified from Beaman and
Madge (1998) and discarded.
3. Results
3.1. Endemism in the European fauna
The vast majority of European species have a restricted range
(Fig. 1): 37% of European species are present in [part of] one
Fauna Europaea geographical unit only, and half of the spe-
cies are present in [part of] one or two Fauna Europaea geo-
graphical units. Moreover, species restricted to mountain
ranges (e.g. Pyrenees, Alps, Carpathians, Rhodope mountains)
or lakes (e.g. Lake Ohrid, Lake Constance, Lake Neusiedler or
Lake Prespa) that are shared by two or three countries, which
are narrow-range endemics, appear in this figure as present
in two or even three Fauna Europaea geographical units. Fau-
na Europaea cannot provide better estimates of range size,
let alone areas of occupancy: the area of its large geographical
units overestimates the true areas of occupancy of species, as
most endemic species do not occur in the whole of the geo-
graphical unit.
More than 99% of the species present in one Fauna Euro-
paea geographical unit only are invertebrates, for which dis-
tributional data are sometimes inadequate: an extreme
situation is the case of species only known from the holotype
and the type locality (Stork, 1997). In these cases, endemism
is most probably an artefact due to a lack of knowledge. In or-
der to account for this bias, the same estimates of endemism
were calculated for the best known groups: vertebrates, Mol-
lusca, Coleoptera Carabidae, Lepidoptera, Odonata and
Orthoptera (Fig. 2): the pattern is still the same as for the
whole fauna: 35% of the ‘‘well-known’’ species are present
in [part of] one Fauna Europaea geographical unit only vs.
37% in Fig. 1. Even for well-known taxa, endemism is wide-
spread. When terrestrial vertebrates only are considered,
13% are endemic to a single Fauna Europaea geographical
unit, and 19% from one or two Fauna Europaea geographical
units, but 11% are present in more than 59 Fauna Europaea
geographical units (Fig. 3).
Fauna Europaea lists 7070 species endemic from European
islands covering less than 10,000 km
2
(Tab le 1 ). At most, the
range of these species cannot exceed the area of the islands.
These very rough distribution data are nevertheless enough
to characterize thousands of European species as narrow-
range endemics sensu Harvey (2002), i.e. naturally occurring
on less than 10,000 km
2
. It should be noted that there are
many more islands housing single-island endemics in Europe
than those listed in Tab le 1, e.g. Greek islands which are not
treated individually in Fauna Europaea. Most of these sin-
gle-island endemics are invertebrates; however, 11 European
bird taxa have a range of 4000 km
2
or less, and a further eight
have a range of 8000 km
2
or less, most of them in the Macaro-
nesian islands (C. Roselaar, unpub. data).
At a fine scale, data on the range size of narrow-range
invertebrates are scarce. An approximation of the maximum
size of the range of endemic species can be given by the
cumulative surface of the smallest territorial division known
Fig. 1 – Geographical rarity: number of species present in any given number of Fauna Europaea geographical units. Based on
Fauna Europaea distribution data.
170 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
to cover their total distribution range. This is a very conserva-
tive estimate, as these species occur at a few sites of occu-
pancy, and not over all of the territorial division area: these
figures must be considered as a maximum range size. For in-
stance, 46 Collembola taxa occurring in Arie
`ge province (Pyr-
e
´ne
´es mountains, France) are Pyrenean endemics. They are
known from 1 to 19 ‘‘communes’’, the smallest territorial divi-
sion in France, usually covering a few thousands hectares:
their maximum range size is far below 10,000 km
2
(Dehar-
veng, unpubl. data). For the 12 Collembola taxa endemic from
Arie
`ge province, this rough calculation on ‘‘commune’’ area
gives a maximum range size varying between 5.73 km
2
and
199.90 km
2
(Fig. 4). It should be noted that the Pyre
´ne
´es area
is one of the best-known region in Europe for Collembola,
Fig. 2 – Geographical rarity: number of species present in any given number of Fauna Europaea geographical units, for the
best known groups: vertebrates, Mollusca, Coleoptera Carabidae, Lepidoptera, Odonata, Orthoptera. Based on Fauna
Europaea distribution data.
Fig. 3 – Geographical rarity: number of species present in any given number of Fauna Europaea geographical units, for
vertebrates excluding fish. Based on Fauna Europaea distribution data.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 171
and that these taxa were specifically searched for in several
localities. Even if new field searches might extend their
known range, they can be considered as real local endemics,
unlike other collembolan taxa which have been found in the
whole region and further.
3.2. Extinct and threatened species
Tab le 2 shows the documented extinctions of European taxa
since 1500. Among the 62 extinct taxa, 11 were wide-range
taxa (including three insects, four fish, one bird and three
mammals), the others being endemic to one country, or nar-
row-range endemics shared by two or three countries. The re-
corded extinctions of narrow-range taxa occurred mainly in
mountain ranges (Alpine arc, Pyrenees, Balkans), and on is-
lands (Fig. 5).
Altogether, 560 European terrestrial or freshwater species
are listed as endangered (categories Critically endangered,
Endangered and Vulnerable) in the 2006 IUCN Red List (IUCN,
2006). Of these, 31.1% are molluscs, 30.9% are arthropods and
38.0% are vertebrates, and 65.0% are endemic to one country
(Fig. 6). Among these endemic species, 31.6% are arthropods
and 44.8% are molluscs. At the other end, among threatened
species with a large range (present in 21–138 countries),
79.5% are vertebrates. Geographically, threatened species are
spread all over Europe (Fig. 5), the three countries having
the largest number of threatened species being among the
most species-rich countries in Europe (Italy, France and Spain
– see http://www.faunaeur.org/statistics.php). Countries with
a lower number of threatened species either are countries
with a relatively low biodiversity (northern Europe) or are
probably under-studied (Balkans). Even in Europe, with 560
species listed as threatened, the Red List is far from complete,
as most invertebrate species have not been assessed. More-
over, it lists only 14 extinct species in Europe, when there
are at least 62 (Table 2). Despite this global under-coverage,
European invertebrates are ‘‘reasonably’’ represented in the
Red List, as they account for almost two thirds of the Euro-
pean species listed (at a worldwide scale, invertebrates repre-
sent only 27.2% of the animal listed in the Red List (IUCN,
2006)).
3.3. Protected species
The Bird and Habitat directives give a protection status to
1140 animal species, including 986 vertebrates and 154 inver-
tebrates (Table 3 ). This represents 64.8% of the vertebrates
0
50
100
150
200
250
Friesea troglophila
Micronychiurus cassagnaui
Tetracanthella ariegica
Superodontella sensillata
Monobella jau
Bourletiella coeruleovernalis
Anurida bonneti
Monobella cassagnaui
Monobella edaphica
Onychiurus ariegicus
Cassagnaudina coiffaiti
Schaefferia maxima
Maximum range area (km2)
Fig. 4 – Endemic Collembola from Ariege province (France): maximum range size (km
2
) given by the cumulated surface of the
smallest territorial division known to cover their total distribution range (Deharveng unpubl. data).
Table 1 – Number of endemic species in selected
European islands (data extracted from Fauna Europaea
database)
Island or archipelago Number of
endemic species
Area
(km
2
)
Madeira 956 797
Azores 278 2305
Canary Islands 3236 7272
Balearic Islands 308 5014
Corsica 552 8723
Malta 104 316
Crete 719 8313
Cyprus 917 9250
172 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
Table 2 – European globally extinct taxa
Taxon Group Red List Range Source
Belgrandia varica (J. Paget 1854) Gastropoda No France Falkner et al. (2002)
Belgrandiella boetersi (P. Reischu
¨tz & Falkner 1998)
a
Gastropoda Yes Austria IUCN (2006)
Bythiospeum pfeifferi (Clessin 1890)
b
Gastropoda No Austria R. Bank unpub. data
Caseolus calvus galeatus (R.T. Lowe 1862) Gastropoda No Madeira R. Bank unpub. data
Discula lyelliana (R.T. Lowe 1852) Gastropoda No Madeira (Deserta Grande) R. Bank unpub. data
Discula tetrica (R.T. Lowe 1862)
c
Gastropoda No Madeira (Bugio) R. Bank unpub. data
Discus engonatus (Shuttleworth 1852) Gastropoda No Canary Islands (Tenerife) R. Bank unpub. data
Discus retextus (Shuttleworth 1852) Gastropoda No Canary Islands (La Palma) R. Bank unpub. data
Discus textilis (Shuttleworth 1852) Gastropoda No Canary Islands (La Palma) R. Bank unpub. data
Geomitra delphinuloides (R.T. Lowe 1860)
c
Gastropoda No Madeira R. Bank unpub. data
Geomitra grabhami (Wollaston 1878) Gastropoda No Madeira (Deserta Grande) R. Bank unpub. data
Graecoanatolica macedonica Radoman & Stankovic 1979 Gastropoda Yes Greece, Macedonia IUCN (2006)
Gyralina hausdorfi Riedel 1990 Gastropoda No Greece R. Bank unpub. data
Janulus pompylius (Shuttleworth 1852) Gastropoda No Canary Islands (La Palma) R. Bank unpub. data
Keraea garachicoensis (Wollaston 1878) Gastropoda No Canary Islands (Tenerife) R. Bank unpub. data
Leiostyla abbreviata (R.T. Lowe 1852)
c
Gastropoda No Madeira R. Bank unpub. data
Leiostyla gibba (R.T. Lowe 1852)
c
Gastropoda No Madeira R. Bank unpub. data
Leiostyla lamellosa (R.T. Lowe 1852) Gastropoda Yes Madeira IUCN (2006)
Leptaxis simia hyaena (R.T. Lowe 1852) Gastropoda No Madeira (Bugio) R. Bank unpub. data
Ohridohauffenia drimica (Radoman 1964) Gastropoda Yes Lake Ohrid, Serbia and Montenegro IUCN (2006)
Parmacella gervaisii Moquin-Tandon 1850 Gastropoda No France Falkner et al. (2002)
Pseudocampylaea loweii (A. Fe
´russac 1835) Gastropoda Yes Madeira IUCN (2006)
Zonites embolium elevatus Riedel & Mylonas 1997 Gastropoda No Greece (Dodecanese Islands) R. Bank unpub. data
Zonites santoriniensis Riedel & Norris 1987 Gastropoda No Greece (Cyclades Islands) R. Bank unpub. data
Zonites siphnicus Fuchs & Ka
¨ufel 1936 Gastropoda No Greece (Cyclades Islands) R. Bank unpub. data
Pseudoyersinia brevipennis (Yersin 1860) Mantodea No France Voisin (2003)
Anonconotus apenninigenus (Targioni-Tozzetti 1881) Orthoptera No Italy Galvagni (2004), K.G. Heller unpub. data
Oemopteryx loewii (Albarda 1889) Plecoptera No Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany,
Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine
Zwick (2004)
Taeniopteryx araneoides Klapa
´lek 1902 Plecoptera No Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia Zwick (2004)
Hydraena sappho Janssens 1965 Coleoptera No Greece Audisio et al. (1996)
Meligethes salvan Audisio et al. (2003) Coleoptera No Italy Audisio et al. (2003), P. Audisio unpub. data
Siettitia balsetensis Abeille de Perrin 1904 Coleoptera Yes France IUCN (2006)
Hydropsyche tobiasi Malicky 1977 Trichoptera Yes Germany IUCN (2006)
Pieris brassicae wollastoni (Butler 1886) Lepidoptera No Madeira O. Karsholt unpub. data
Thyreophora cynophila (Panzer 1798) Diptera No France, Germany, Switzerland Se
´guy (1950), Menier (2002)
Squalius ukliva Heckel 1843
d
Pisces Yes Croatia IUCN (2006)
Coregonus bezola Fatio 1888 Pisces No Lake Bourget (France) Kottelat (1997)
Coregonus confusus Fatio 1885 Pisces No Lake Morat (Switzerland) Kottelat (1997)
Coregonus fera Jurine 1825 Pisces No Lake Geneva (France, Switzerland) Kottelat (1997)
Coregonus gutturosus (Gmelin 1818) Pisces No Lake Konstanz (Austria, Germany, Switzerland) Kottelat (1997)
Coregonus hiemalis Jurine 1825 Pisces No Lake Geneva (France, Switzerland) Kottelat (1997)
Coregonus hoferi Berg 1932 Pisces No Lake Chiemsee (Germany) M. Kottelat, unpub. data
Coregonus oxyrinchus (Linnaeus 1758) Pisces No North Sea Basin Freyhof and Scho
¨ter (2005)
Coregonus restrictus Fatio 1885 Pisces No Lake Morat (Switzerland) Kottelat (1997)
(continued on next page)
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 173
Table 2 – continued
Tax on Group Red List Range Source
Eudontomyzon (?)sp. Pisces No Ukraine, Russian Federation Kottelat et al. (2005)
Gasterosteus crenobiontus Bacescu & Mayer 1956 Pisces No Romania Kottelat (1997)
Knipowitschia cameliae Nalbant & Otel 1995 Pisces No Romania Nalbant and Otel (1995)
Romanogobio antipai (Banarescu, 1953) Pisces No Romania, mouth of River Danube Banarescu (1994)
Salmo schiefermuelleri Bloch 1784 Pisces No Baltic Sea, Austria, Hungary Kottelat (1997)
Salvelinus neocomensis Freyhof & Kottelat 2005 Pisces No Lake Neuchatel (Switzerland) Freyhof and Kottelat (2005)
Salvelinus profundus (Schillinger 1901) Pisces No Lake Konstanz (Austria, Germany, Switzerland) Kottelat (1997)
Stenodus leucichthys (Gu
¨ldensta
¨dt 1772)
e
Pisces No Caspian Sea Basin M. Kottelat, unpub. data
Gallotia auaritae Mateo, Garcı´a Ma
´rquez, Lo
´pez Jurado & Barahona, 2001
f
Reptilia Yes Canary Islands IUCN (2006)
Haematopus meadewaldoi Bannerman 1913 Aves Yes Canary Islands IUCN (2006)
Pinguinus impennis (Linnaeus 1758) Aves Yes Iceland, Ireland, United Kingdom, Denmark IUCN (2006)
Saxicola dacotiae murielae Bannerman, 1913 Aves No Canary Islands Fuller (1987)
Capra pyrenaica lusitanica Schlegel 1872 Mammalia No Portugal, Spain Fauna Europaea
Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica Schinz 1838 Mammalia Yes Spain IUCN (2006)
Bison bonasus hungarorum Kretzoi 1946 Mammalia No Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine Pucek et al. (2004)
Bos primigenius Bojanus 1827 Mammalia No Most of Europe Fauna Europaea
Equus ferus Boddaert 1785
g
Mammalia Yes Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Belarus, Russian
Federation, Ukraine
IUCN (2006)
Prolagus sardus (Wagner 1832) Mammalia Yes Corsica, Sardinia IUCN (2006)
The column ‘‘Red List’’ indicates whether the taxon is listed as extinct in the IUCN Red List.
Note: The 2006 IUCN Red List lists Bythinella intermedia Mahler 1950 (Gastropoda) as extinct. However, this is a synonym of Bythinella austriaca (Frauenfeld 1857), which is not extinct
(http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=269218). It also lists Telestes turskyi (Heckel 1843) as extinct, but M. Kottelat (pers. comm.) considers it as still extant, though critically endangered,
and did not list it as extinct in his 1997 checklist (Kottelat, 1997); this species is considered as an insufficiently documented to be classified as extinct by Harrison and Stiassny (1999).
Chondrostoma scodrense Elvira 1987, said to be extinct (Crivelli and Rosecci 1994 in Kottelat, 1997), is probably still extant (M. Kottelat pers. comm.). These taxa were not included in the
present table.
a Listed as Belgrandiella intermedia in the Red list. We follow here Fauna Europaea.
b Listed as Endangered in the Red List.
c Listed as Critically Endangered in the Red List.
d Listed as Telestes ukliva in the Red list. We follow here Fauna Europaea.
e Apparently extinct in the wild, the only breeding populations are captive.
f This taxon is not included in Fauna Europaea, as it was originally described as a subspecies of Gallotia simonyi, but was elevated at species level in 2003 (Afonso and Mateo, 2003).
g Extinct in the wild but still survives in captivity.
174 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
and 0.1% of the invertebrates present in Europe. Among pro-
tected invertebrates, 24% are Mollusca, 30% are Lepidoptera,
and 23% are Coleoptera.
Out of the 560 European Red Listed non-marine species,
397 are not included in the directives (306 invertebrates and
91 vertebrates). On the other hand, 977 taxa are protected
by the directives but are not Red Listed (864 vertebrates and
113 invertebrates) and 163 taxa are Red Listed and protected,
i.e. 122 vertebrates and 41 invertebrates (Fig. 7). Three extinct
invertebrates (the gastropods Leiostyla lamellosa,L. gibba and L.
abbreviata) are listed in Appendix II of the Habitat Directive.
Two subspecies of Lepidoptera (Gortyna borelii lunata and
Hesperia comma catena) and one mammal subspecies (Cervus
elaphus corsicanus) are listed in the directives but not in Fauna
Europaea. Even if their taxonomic validity is debatable, they
represent small populations, and the governmental advisors
have considered that they have a conservation value (Bou-
chet, 2006).
Fig. 8 presents the extent of occurrence of taxa listed in the
directives. It does not follow the same abundance-rank pat-
tern as in Figs. 1 and 2: a large proportion (11%) of protected
taxa are endemic to one Fauna Europaea geographical unit,
but a similar proportion (12%) of the protected taxa has a large
range, i.e. occurring in more than 58 Fauna Europaea geo-
graphical units. All these wide-range taxa are birds. Among
protected taxa endemic to one Fauna Europaea geographical
unit, 25% are invertebrates.
4. Discussion
The Fauna Europaea dataset shows that a high proportion of
the European species are single country endemics. Narrow-
range species are especially vulnerable and a significant pro-
portion of documented extinctions in Europe were of taxa
with a restricted range. Rarity, and particularly geographical
rarity, should then be considered when choosing indicator
species for the 2010 target.
4.1. Geographical rarity
Geographical rarity (extent of occurrence) cannot be defined
the same way for all species. In its assessment of the threat
status of the birds of the world (Birdlife International, 2000),
as well as in the prioritization of conservation areas (Statters-
field et al., 1998), Birdlife defines an endemic bird as a species
whose range is below 50,000 km
2
, i.e. an area larger than
Fig. 5 – Distribution of extinct and threatened (critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable) species in Europe (data
extracted from the 2006 IUCN Red List). Species present in more than one country are counted for each of these countries.
Stars indicate the approximate location of narrow-range globally extinct taxa.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 175
Slovakia. This threshold has proven useful for large species
such as birds and practical for conservation policies, but it is
at least one order of magnitude too large to mark endemism
in invertebrates, as shown by the data on Collembola. Patterns
of distribution with very small ranges are probably common
among invertebrates: at a worldwide scale, Solem (1984)
predicted a median range of less than 100 km
2
for all land
snail species, and probably less than 50 km
2
. With a threshold
of 10,000 km
2
,Harvey (2002) found that narrow-range ende-
mism was widespread among several groups of Australian
invertebrates, and was restricted to taxa with low vagility,
highly seasonal life cycles, and restricted habitat usage.
Beside Collembola, many examples of narrow-range ende-
mism are known from the European fauna. Narrow-range
endemic species occur in many lakes (Kottelat, 1997; WCMC,
1998) as well as within terrestrial species (e.g. Lumaret et al.,
1996). In particular, cave species are well-known to have a
very high level of endemism, often being restricted to few
caves in the same area (Mauries, 1986; Deharveng and Thi-
baud, 1989; Heurtault, 1994).
European globally extinct taxa give an insight into the vul-
nerability of narrow-range taxa. For instance, the gastropod
Belgrandia varica was endemic to the floodplains of the Var
estuary in southern France. This area has drastically changed
during the 20th century, due to urbanisation, and the species
has never been found since 1910, despite targeted searches,
and is considered extinct (Falkner et al., 2002). Based on a
specimen collected in 1912, the beetle Meligethes salvan was
described from a small basin in the Italian Alps. The area
was almost entirely destroyed by works associated with a
hydroelectric power plant in the 1970s, and despite several at-
tempts, no new specimen of this species has ever been found
(Audisio et al., 2003). Another example is Romanichthys valsan-
icola, a fish that was restricted to the upper reaches of Arges,
Vilsan and Doamnei rivers in Romania. In 1992, it was only
found on 1 km of the Vilsan river, due to habitat degradation
and water pollution; it might be extinct today (Perrin et al.,
1993).
There are far too few experts on many invertebrate groups
to obtain a comprehensive picture of extinctions. Most inver-
tebrate extinctions are likely to be overlooked (Centinelan
extinctions sensu Wilson (1992)) even in well-studied areas
such as Europe, mainly because of a lack of knowledge and
monitoring of these taxa (Dunn, 2005). The beetle Meligethes
salvan was believed to be extinct ca. 40 years after its possible
extinction (Audisio et al., 2003), and the beetle Hydraena sap-
pho was declared extinct some 25–30 years after its actual
extinction (Audisio et al., 1996). Moreover, the Mediterranean
region is a centre of endemism (Myers et al., 2000), but has
experienced serious degradations due to urbanisation, altered
fire regimes and agriculture: in Europe, it is probably an area
where Centinelan extinctions have occurred. For these rea-
sons, the 62 extinct taxa for Europe presented in Ta bl e 2 are
probably an underestimate. Even when the extinction is con-
firmed by the experts, the information is still often ignored to
the wider community: 48 extinct European taxa, including 28
Fig. 6 – European species listed as threatened (critically
endangered, endangered and vulnerable) in the 2005 IUCN
Red List and the number of countries where they occur
(distribution data as given in the IUCN Red List).
Table 3 – Species listed in the Bird Directive and Habitat
Directive
Group No. of species listed
in directives
% of the European
fauna
Mammals 95 37.4
Birds 533 100
Reptiles 82 53.2
Amphibians 51 66.2
Fish 225 44.8
Lepidoptera 46 0.5
Coleoptera 36 0.1
Other insecta 28 0.05
Mollusca 37 1.2
Other invertebrates 7 0.02
All vertebrates 986 64.8
All invertebrates 154 0.1
Protected taxa
Redlisted taxa
Vertebrates
Invertebrates
977 species
163 species
397 species
Fig. 7 – Protected species (Bird and Habitat Directives) and
Red Listed species in Europe.
176 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
invertebrates, are not included in the Red List (Tab le 2 ). De-
spite this incomplete image of extinctions, the list of Euro-
pean extinct taxa shows that geographically rare taxa are by
far the most at risk of extinction (51 extinct taxa out of 62
had a restricted range). There could be a bias there, as it is
easier to assess extinction of a narrow-range species than
of a demographically rare species with a large range. How-
ever, it does not undermine the fact that geographically rare
species must be prioritized for the assessment of the 2010
target.
In order to be representative of the European fauna, the
subset of European species captured by the 2010 target indica-
tors should include a statistically significant proportion of
narrow-range species. Popular groups such as butterflies,
dragonflies, bumblebees, hoverflies and ants should be inves-
tigated for use as potential indicators (Thomas, 2005). Cave
species should also be represented in the indicators, as most
of them are local endemics. We emphasize that as many tax-
onomic groups as possible should be represented, taking into
account geographical rarity.
4.2. Ecological rarity
Among the extinct taxa in Europe (Table 2), three insects ran-
ged over large areas, covering several countries, but had strict
ecological requirements. Two species of Plecoptera were asso-
ciated with large lowland rivers where suitable habitats have
been fragmented and eventually destroyed by human activi-
ties (Zwick, 1992). The third species, the Diptera Thyreophora
cynophila, was found exclusively on large mammal carcasses
until the mid 1800s (Se
´guy, 1950). It is suspected that the
extinction of this species could be due to changes in livestock
management and improved carrion disposal following the
Industrial Revolution in Europe. On a longer time scale, how-
ever, its extinction is likely to have been caused by the impov-
erishment of the megafauna – in Europe, there are now too
few large predators that leave large carcasses. Another well-
known example of a species threatened because of its ecolog-
ical requirements is the leather beetle Osmoderma eremita,
which resides in hollow deciduous trees and is classified as
Vulnerable by the IUCN Red List. With modern forestry prac-
tices, hollow trees are seldom left standing, and the leather
beetle is becoming rarer over most of its range (Ranius
et al., 2005).
The information collected by Fauna Europaea does not in-
clude species’ ecological requirements, so we cannot assess
the extent of ecological rarity in Europe. There are tight rela-
tionships between species and their habitats, and some spe-
cies can be highly restricted in their requirements, a
characteristic that increases their vulnerability because a sin-
gle change in the habitat can have devastating effects on such
species. The extreme case of habitat specialization is shown
by host-specific species, and in particular parasitic species.
No documented case of parasite extinction exists in Europe,
but some parasitic species are known to be threatened be-
cause of their host being itself threatened (Stork and Lyal,
1993), and there are examples outside Europe of host-specific
parasite species which became extinct after the extinction of
their host (Mey, 2005). In Europe, extinct mammals and birds
most probably had host-specific lice (Phthiraptera), which
went extinct with their host. In particular, the great auk Pin-
guinus impennis must have had lice of the genus Austromeno-
pon,Mjoberginirmus and Saemundssonia, as Alcidae regularly
host these genera, with host-specific species (Price et al.,
2003).
Accurate data on the proportion of host-specific species in
insect communities are scarce. It varies among taxonomic
groups and ecosystems, between 5% of the phytophagous
Fig. 8 – Number of protected species (Bird and Habitat Directives) present in any given number of Fauna Europaea
geographical units.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 177
beetle species being monophagous in a tropical rainforest
(Basset et al., 1996), and 90% of aphid species being highly
host-specific (Dixon et al., 1987). Even with these somewhat
imprecise figures on proportions of host specific species, their
number in Europe reaches the thousands: taking the lowest
figure given in the above references as a conservative esti-
mate of host-specific species, i.e. 5%, there would be at least
4600 host-specific species among the ca. 93,000 European in-
sects, and certainly much more when parasitoid species are
considered. Host-specific species representing the extreme
case of ecological specialization, many more species can be
considered as having strict ecological requirements. The
2010 target indicators should then include ecologically rare
species. Special attention should be given to freshwater spe-
cies which are known to be, on average, at higher risk of
extinction than terrestrial ones (Revenga et al., 2005), and to
cave species, which usually receive little attention in conser-
vation strategies.
4.3. Demographic rarity
Species demonstrating demographic rarity are typically repre-
sented by large vertebrate predators, which occur naturally at
low density (e.g. Slough and Mowat, 1996; Penteriani et al.,
2002). Because of their low densities, these species can easily
be eradicated from an area when they are hunted (Breitenmo-
ser, 1998). This is the main form of rarity already represented in
the indicators and in legal texts, with large vertebrates. How-
ever, invertebrates can experience demographic rarity as well,
as is shown in the Red List where two thirds of the European
species listed on demographic criteria are invertebrates (237
species). These invertebrate species Red Listed on demo-
graphic criteria could be a starting point for the selection of
demographically rare species for the 2010 target indicators.
5. Conclusion
Our aim while writing this paper was to highlight that current
indicators do not cover the species most at risk of extinction:
currently, most categories of rare species are not in focus for
the assessment of progress toward the 2010 target. Existing
indicators deliver important informations on biodiversity
trends (Julliard et al., 2004; Butchart et al., 2005; De Heer
et al., 2005), but there is a need to develop alternative indica-
tors dealing with rare species, which would complement infor-
mations already existing with a focus on the most threatened
species. Funding is scarce and we are running out of time if the
assessment of the progress towards the 2010 target is to be
made before 2010, but assessing the success (or the failure)
of the 2010 biodiversity target requires that the indicators cov-
er a representative subsample of biodiversity (Balmford et al.,
2005), with common and rare species. However, the main prac-
tical reason for choosing a species as indicator is the availabil-
ity and quality of data attached to this species: birds are
overrepresented in the various indices because they constitute
the best known taxonomic group, with updated data gathered
by thousands of people all over the world. Except for birds and
a few other groups (large mammals, butterflies) or a scattering
of individual species that are not necessarily representative of
the whole European fauna, data on abundance, distribution
and conservation status are difficult to find for most species.
Indeed, the main argument against using rare species in indi-
cators is their practical usefulness, i.e. data availability.
We did not address the issue of the composition of the
alternative indicator, which would need at least another pa-
per, but we give below some elements in this respect. The
choice of indicator species needs a rigorous evaluation based
on several parameters, including rarity. Ideally, a subsample
of the European biodiversity to be used as indicators would
be a set of species randomly picked from the European fauna.
It should be stratified according to realms, biomes, ecosys-
tems and taxonomic groups (Butchart et al., 2005). In any
case, the indicator should avoid taxonomic bias, i.e. not
over-represent vertebrates. Composite indices (e.g. Butchart
et al., 2004; De Heer et al., 2005; Loh et al., 2005; Maes and
Van Dyck, 2005) should be used, and the stratification should
take into account the different forms of rarity, which appear
to be a major characteristic of biodiversity.
When data are missing, targeted species should be chosen
for monitoring, and the data that do not exist yet have to be
gathered for this purpose. Choosing these target species must
be done by specialists, i.e. taxonomists, who have the best
available knowledge on ranges, vulnerability and ecological
preferences of rare species. Data on the extent of distribution
should be used when available; if not, a surrogate is given by
Fauna Europaea distribution data. A threshold on the extent
of range could be used to define geographically rare species
to be used as indicators. Although there is no comprehensive
database on species ecological needs, information about ecol-
ogy, e.g. host plant preference of phytophagous insects, are
documented for a large number of species, and these should
be used when selecting ecologically rare species. Ecologically
rare species could also be randomly picked in groups known
to include species with strict ecological requirements (e.g.
aquatic arthropods, old-growth forest dwellers, large carni-
vore parasites, cave species).
This data gathering will have a financial cost, since rare
species, usually narrow-range invertebrates, need to be sur-
veyed by specialists who know how to find and identify them.
Current indicators (mainly birds, mammals, butterflies) have
the advantage that they do not need highly specialized people
to be monitored. However, as they tend to be wide-range spe-
cies, they need to be surveyed by a large number of people for
the data to be reliable (a large number of days/person is nec-
essary). On the contrary, endemics, which need qualified peo-
ple, can be surveyed with a much smaller number of days/
person, as they have short ranges. They are then compara-
tively cheaper to survey than wide-range ones.
The most well-known species, terrestrial vertebrates and
butterflies (1523 species in Europe) constitute the bulk of cur-
rent indicator species (e.g. Butchart et al., 2004; De Heer et al.,
2005; Loh et al., 2005). The overlap between these and the 560
Red Listed European taxa is small, 98 species only being both
Red Listed and indicator: this represents 6.4% of the indicator
species being considered as threatened by the IUCN. Similar
results about the low overlapping between Red Listed and
indicator species have been found for cryptogams (Paltto
et al., 2006). On the other hand, ca. half of these 1523 indicator
species are protected by the European directives: indicator
species (i.e. terrestrial vertebrates and butterflies) are more
178 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
representative of protected species than of threatened spe-
cies. With the indicators currently chosen, we could loose a
significant number of species by 2010 and all these extinc-
tions could go unnoticed. It is therefore essential to add
new indicators or change the target.
6. Author contributions
B. Fontaine and P. Bouchet contributed to the ideas and meth-
odology developed in this paper. B. Fontaine analyzed the data
and wrote the paper. O. Gargominy designed the database used
to handle the data. W. Bogdanowicz, P. Bouchet, H. Enghoff, D.
Goujet, and W. Los, as members of the management team, lead
the Fauna Europaea project. G. Boxshall, A. Minelli, and M. Ra-
mos were members of the Fauna Europaea taxonomic advisory
group. Y. de Jong, V. Michelsen, N. Bailly, P. Chylarecki, from the
Fauna Europaea Project Bureau, collated the taxonomic and
geographical information from the Group Coordinators. K.
van Achterberg, M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga, R. Araujo, U. Aspo
¨ck,
P. Audisio, B. Aukema, N. Bailly, M. Balsamo, R.A. Bank, P. Bar-
nard, C. Belfiore, W. Bogdanowicz, T. Bongers, G. Boxshall, D.
Burckhardt, J.-L. Camicas, P. Crucitti, L. Deharveng, A. Dubois,
H. Enghoff, A. Faubel, R. Fochetti, D. Gibson, R. Gibson, M.S. Go
´-
mez Lo
´pez, M.S. Harvey, K.-G. Heller, P. van Helsdingen, H.
Hoch, H. de Jong, O. Karsholt, L. Lundqvist, W. Magowski, R.
Manconi, J. Martens, J.A. Massard, G. Massard-Geimer, S.J.
McInnes, V. Michelsen, L.F. Mendes, E. Mey, A. Minelli, C. Niel-
sen, J.M. Nieto Nafrı´a, E.J. van Nieukerken, J. Noyes, T. Pape, H.
Pohl, W. De Prins, C. Ricci, C. Roselaar, E. Rota, A. Schmidt-
Rhaesa, H. Segers, R. zur Strassen, A. Szeptycki, J.-M. Thibaud,
A. Thomas, T. Timm, J. van Tol, W. Vervoort, R. Willmann, as
Group Coordinators, collated the data on their respective
groups (see details on http://www.faunaeur.org/experts.php).
M. Asche collated the data on Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha and
Cicadomorpha.
Acknowledgements
We thank Melina Verbeek, Fedor Steeman and Claire Basire
(Fauna Europaea Project Bureau), and Anastasios Legakis, Tru-
dy Brannan and Alfonso Navas Sanchez (Fauna Europaea
Steering Committee) for their assistance in the implementa-
tion of the Fauna Europaea project. Grateful acknowledge-
ments to Gre
´goire Lois (MNHN) who helped with the listing
of protected species, and to Maurice Kottelat who provided
invaluable data on extinct and threatened fish.
Appendix. Authors contact information
Benoıˆt Fontaine
Muse
´um national d’Histoire naturelle
De
´partement Syste
´matique et Evolution – Malacologie –
USM 602
Case postale N 51
57 rue Cuvier
75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
fontaine@mnhn.fr
Philippe Bouchet
Muse
´um national d’Histoire naturelle
De
´partement Syste
´matique et Evolution - Malacologie -
USM 602
Case postale N 51
57 rue Cuvier
75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
pbouchet@mnhn.fr
Kees van Achterberg
Department of Entomology
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum
Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
achterberg@naturalis.nnm.nl
Miguel Angel Alonso-Zarazaga
Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologı´a Evolutiva
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales
Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2
E-28006 Madrid, Spain
zarazaga@mncn.csic.es
Rafael Araujo
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales
Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2
E-28006 Madrid, Spain
mcnra2f@mncn.csic.es
Manfred Asche
Museum fu
¨r Naturkunde
Institut fu
¨r Systematische Zoologie
Humboldt Universita
¨t zu Berlin
Invalidenstrasse 43
10115 Berlin, Germany
manfred.asche@museum.hu-berlin.de
Ulrike Aspo
¨ck
Naturhistorisches Museum Wien
Universita
¨t Wien
2. Zoologische Abteilung
Burgring 7
1014 Wien, Austria
ulrike.aspoeck@nhm-wien.ac.at
Paolo Audisio
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo
(sezione Zoologia)
Viale dell’Universita
`32
00185 Rome, Italy
paolo.audisio@uniroma1.it
Berend Aukema
Kortenburg 31
NL-6871 Renkum, Netherlands
baukema@hetnet.nl
Nicolas Bailly
Muse
´um National d’Histoire Naturelle
Laboratoire d’Ichtyologie
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 179
43 rue Cuvier
75231 Paris, France and
WorldFish Center, Natural Resource Management, Philip-
pine Office Khush Hall, IRRI College, Los Ban
˜os, Laguna
4031, Philippines WorldFish Center contribution no. 1830
n.bailly@cgiar.org
Maria Balsamo
Istituto di Scienze Morfologiche
Universita
`di Urbino ‘Carlo Bo’
Sezione di Zoologia
via Oddi, 21
61029 Urbino, Italy
balsamo@uniurb.it
Ruud A. Bank
Graan voor Visch 15318
2132 EL Hoofddorp, Netherlands
r.bank@wxs.nl
Peter Barnard
Entomology Department
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, UK
p.barnard@nhm.ac.uk
Carlo Belfiore
Instituto e Museo di Zoologia
Universita
`di Napoli
Via Mezzocannone 8
80134 Napoli, Italy
carbelfi@unina.it
Wieslaw Bogdanowicz
Museum & Institute of Zoology PAS
Wilcza 64
00-679 Warszawa, Poland
wieslawb@miiz.waw.pl
Tom Bongers
Wageningen Universiteit
Laboratory of Nematology
P.O. Box 8123
6700ES Wageningen, Netherlands
Tom.Bongers@wur.nl
Geoffrey Boxshall
Department of Zoology,
The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, UK
g.boxshall@nhm.ac.uk
Daniel Burckhardt
Naturhistorisches Museum
Augustinergasse 2
CH-4001 Basel, Switzerland
Daniel.Burckhardt@unibas.ch
Jean-Louis Camicas
IRD Centre de Montpellier
Dpt. Sante
´
B.P. 5045
34032 Montpellier, France
J-Louis.Camicas@mpl.ird.fr
Przemek Chylarecki
Museum and Institute of Zoology, PAS
Wilcza 64
PL-00-679 Warszawa, Poland
pch@miiz.waw.pl
Pierangelo Crucitti
Societa
`Romana di Scienze Naturali (SRSN)
Via Fratelli Maristi 43
00137 Roma, Italy
srsn@libero.it
Louis Deharveng
Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle Paris
Laboratoire d’Entomologie
45, rue Buffon
75005 Paris, France
deharven@mnhn.fr
Alain Dubois
Muse
´um National d’Histoire Naturelle
Laboratoire de Zoologie Reptiles & Amphibiens
25 rue Cuvier
75005 Paris, France
adubois@mnhn.fr
Henrik Enghoff
Natural History Museum of Denmark
University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15,
2100 Koebenhavn OE, Denmark
HEnghoff@snm.ku.dk
Anno Faubel
Institute of Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science
University of Hamburg
Zeiseweg 9
22765 Hamburg, Germany
faubel@uni-hamburg.de
Romolo Fochetti
Universita
`degli Studi della Tuscia
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali
Via S. Camillo de Lellis
01100 Viterbo, Italy
fochetti@unitus.it
180 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
Olivier Gargominy
Muse
´um national d’Histoire naturelle
De
´partement Syste
´matique et Evolution - Malacologie -
USM 602
Case postale N 51
57 rue Cuvier
75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
gargo@mnhn.fr
David Gibson
The Natural History Museum
Parasitic Worms Division
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, UK
dig@nhm.ac.uk
Ray Gibson
John Moores University
School of Biological and Earth Sciences
Byrom Street
Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
besrgibs@livjm.ac.uk
Maria Soledad Go
´mez Lo
´pez
Laboratori de Parasitologia
Universitat de Barcelona
Facultad Farmacia
Avd. Joan XXIII s/n
08028 Barcelona, Spain
msgomez@farmacia.far.ub.es
Daniel Goujet
Muse
´um National d’Histoire Naturelle
De
´pt. Histoire de la Terre
8, rue Buffon
75005 Paris, France
goujet@mnhn.fr
Mark S. Harvey
Dept. of Terrestrial Invertebrates
Western Australian Museum
Locked Bag 49
Welshpool DC, WA 6986, Australia
mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au
Klaus-Gerhard Heller
Institut fu
¨r Zoologie
University of Erlangen-Nu
¨rnberg
Department of Zoology II
Staudstrasse 5
91058 Erlangen, Germany
kheller@biologie.uni-erlangen.de
Peter van Helsdingen
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis
European Invertebrate Survey
Darwinweg 2
2333 CR Leiden, Netherlands
Helsdingen@naturalis.nnm.nl
Hannelore Hoch
Museum fu
¨r Naturkunde
Institut fu
¨r Systematische Zoologie
Humboldt-Universita
¨t
Invalidenstr. 43
D-10115 Berlin, Germany
hannelore.hoch@museum.hu-berlin.de
Herman de Jong
Zoological Museum
University of Amsterdam
Department of Entomology
Plantage Middenlaan 64
1018 DH Amsterdam, Netherlands
hjong@science.uva.nl
Yde de Jong
Zoological Museum
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Science
P.O. Box 94766
1090 GT Amsterdam, Netherlands
yjong@science.uva.nl
Ole Karsholt
Zoologisk Museum
University of Copenhagen
Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet
3. Afdeling (Entomologi)
Universitetsparken 15
2100 Koebenhavn OE, Denmark
OKarsholt@snm.ku.dk
Wouter Los
Zoological Museum
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Science
P.O. Box 94766
1090 GT Amsterdam, Netherlands
los@science.uva.nl
Lars Lundqvist
Division of Systematic Zoology
Lund University
Helgonava
¨gen 3
223 62 Lund, Sweden
lars.lundqvist@zool.lu.se
Wojciech Magowski
A. Mickiewicz University
Department of Animal Taxonomy & Ecology
Umultowska 89, PL- 61- 614 Poznan, Poland
magowski@amu.edu.pl
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 181
Renata Manconi
Universita di Sassari
Dipartimento di zoologia e genetica evoluzionistica
Via Muroni, 25
07100 Sassari, Italy
rmanconi@ssmain.uniss.it
Jochen Martens
Institut fu
¨r Zoologie
Johannes Gutenberg-Universita
¨t
Abteilung 1
Saarstrasse 21
D-55099 Mainz, Germany
martens@mail.uni-mainz.de
Jos A. Massard
1A Rue des Romains
L-6478 Echternach, Luxembourg
jmassard@pt.lu
Gaby Massard-Geimer
1A Rue des Romains
L-6478 Echternach, Luxembourg
jmassard@pt.lu
Sandra J. McInnes
British Antarctic Survey
Madingley Road
Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
SJMC@bas.ac.uk
Luis F. Mendes
Instituto de Investigaca
`o Cientifica Tropical
Centro de Zoologia
R.da Junquiera, 14
1300 Lisboa, Portugal
czool@iict.pt
Eberhard Mey
Naturhistorisches Museum im Thu
¨ringer Landesmuseum
Heidecksburg
Schlossbezirk 1
07407 Rudolstadt, Germany
mey-rudolstadt@t-online.de
Verner Michelsen
Zoologisk Museum
University of Copenhagen
Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet
Universitetsparken 15
2100 Koebenhavn OE, Denmark
vmichelsen@snm.ku.dk
Alessandro Minelli
Dept. of Biology
University of Padova
Via Ugo Bassi 58 B
35131 Padova ITALY
alessandro.minelli@unipd.it
Claus Nielsen
Zoologisk Museum
University of Copenhagen
Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet
Universitetsparken 15
2100 Koebenhavn OE, Denmark
cnielsen@zmuc.ku.dk
Juan M. Nieto Nafrı´a
Universidad de Leo
´n
Departamento de Biologı´a Animal
Campus de Vegazana
24071 Leo
´n, Spain
dbajnn@unileon.es
Erik J. van Nieukerken
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis
P.O. Box 9517
2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
Nieukerken@naturalis.nnm.nl
John Noyes
The Natural History Museum
Department of Entomology
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, UK
j.noyes@nhm.ac.uk
Thomas Pape
Zoologisk Museum
University of Copenhagen
Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet
Universitetsparken 15
2100 Koebenhavn OE, Denmark
TPape@snm.ku.dk
Hans Pohl
Institut fu
¨r Biodiversita
¨tsforschung
Universita
¨t Rostock
Universita
¨tsplatz 2-5
18051 Rostock, Germany
hans.pohl@uni-jena.de
Willy De Prins
Flemish Entomological Society
Diksmuidelaan 176
2600 Antwerpen, Belgium
willy.de.prins@telenet.be
Marian Ramos
Dept. biodiversidad y biologia evolutiva
182 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales
Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2
28006 Madrid, Spain
m.ramos@mncn.csic.es
Claudia Ricci
Universita
`degli Studi di Milano
Dipartimento di Biologia
Via Celoria 26
20133 Milano, Italy
claudia.ricci@unimi.it
Cees Roselaar
Zoological Museum Amsterdam
University of Amsterdam
P.O. Box 94766
Mauritskade 61
1090 GT Amsterdam, Netherlands
roselaar@mail.science.uva.nl
Emilia Rota
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali
Sezione di Sistematica ed Ecologia animale
e vegetale
Universita
`di Siena
Via P. A. Mattioli 4
IT-53100 Siena, Italy
rota@unisi.it
Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa
Zoological Museum
University of Hamburg
Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3
20146 Hamburg, Germany
a.schmidt-rhaesa@uni-bielefeld.de
Hendrik Segers
Freshwater Laboratory
Royal Belgian Institute for natural Sciences
Vautierstraat 29
B - 1000 Brussels, Belgium
hendrik.segers@naturalsciences.be
Richard zur Strassen
Entomologie I
Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg
Senckenberg-Anlage 25
60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
rizustra@sng.uni-frankfurt.de
Andrzej Szeptycki
Institute of Animal Systematics and Evolution
Polish Academy of Sciences
ul. Sławkowska 17
31-016 Krako
´w, Poland
SZEPTYCKI@isez.pan.krakow.pl
Jean-Marc Thibaud
Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle Paris-CNRS
ESA 8043
Laboratoire d’Entomologie
45, rue Buffon
75005 Paris, France
thibaud@mnhn.fr
Alain Thomas
Laboratoire d’Hydrobiologie
Universite
´Paul Sabatier UPS
118 rue de Narbonne
31062 Toulouse, France
alain3d@cict.fr
Tarmo Timm,
Estonian Agricultural University, Institute of Zoology
and Botany
Vo
˜rtsja
¨rv Limnological Station
61101 Rannu, Tartumaa, Estonia
ttimm@zbi.ee
Jan van Tol
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis
P.O. Box 9517
2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
Tol@naturalis.nnm.nl
Wim Vervoort
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis
P.O. Box 9517
2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
vervoort@naturalis.nnm.nl
Rainer Willmann.
Institut fu
¨r Zoologie und Anthropologie
Abteilung fu
¨r Morphologie und Systematik und Museum
Berliner Str.28
37073 Go
¨ttingen, Germany
rwillma1@gwdg.de
REFERENCES
Afonso, O.M., Mateo, J.A., 2003. Conservacio
´n creativa de
poblaciones mı´nimas El caso de los lagartos gigantes canarios.
In: Jime
´nez, I., Delibes, M. (Eds.), Al Borde de la Extincio
´n:
Integrando Ciencia Polı´tica y Sociedad en la Recuperacio
´nde
Especies Amenazadas. EVREN, Valencia, pp. 135–158.
Audisio, P., De Biase, A., Antonini, G., 2003. A new exceptional
Meligethes of the M. aeneus species-group from Western Alps
and an updated key to identification of M. aeneus and allied
species (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae: Meligethinae). Insect
Systematics et Evolution (Group 2) 34, 121–130.
Audisio, P., De Biase, A., Ja
¨ch, M., 1996. The Greek species of the
genus Hydraena (subgenus Haenydra Rey) (Coleoptera,
Hydraenidae). Aquatic Insects 18, 65–90.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 183
Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R.E., Mace, G.M., 2005.
The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and
extraterrestrial insights. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society – Biological Sciences 360, 221–228.
Banarescu, P., 1994. The present-day conservation status of the
fresh water fish fauna of Romania. Ocrotirea Naturii si a
Mediului Inconjurator 38, 5–20.
Basset, Y., Samuelson, G.A., Allison, A., Miller, S.E., 1996. How
many species of host-specific insects feed on a species of
tropical tree? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 59,
201–216.
Beaman, M., Madge, S., 1998. The Handbook of Bird Identification
for Europe and the Western Palearctic. Christopher Helm,
London.
Birdlife International, 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Lynx
Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and
Cambridge, UK.
Bouchet, P., 2006. Valid until synonymized, or invalid until proven
valid? A response to Davis (2004) on species check-lists.
Malacologia 48, 311–319.
Breitenmoser, U., 1998. Large predators in the Alps: the fall and
rise of man’s competitors. Biological Conservation 83, 279–289.
Butchart, S.H.M., Stattersfield, A.J., Baillie, J., Bennun, L.A., Stuart,
S.N., Akcakaya, H.R., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G.M., 2005. Using
Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target
and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society –
Biological Sciences 360, 255–268.
Butchart, S.H.M., Stattersfield, A.J., Bennun, L.A., Shutes, S.M.,
Akc¸akaya, H.R., Baillie, J.E.M., Stuart, S.N., Hilton-Taylor, C.,
Mace, G.M., 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of
biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLOS Biology 2, 1–11.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001a. 2010 Biodiversity
Target. <http://www.biodiv.org/2010-target/default.asp>
(accessed 20.10.05).
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001b. The 2010 Biodiversity
Target-Indicators. <http://www.biodiv.org/2010-target/
indicators.aspx> (accessed 20.10.05).
De Heer, M., Kapos, V., Ten Brink, B.J.E., 2005. Biodiversity trends
in Europe: development and testing of a species trend
indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2010 target.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – Biological
Sciences 360, 297–308.
Deharveng, L., Thibaud, J.M., 1989. Bessoniella procera n. g., n. sp.
nouvel Orchesellidae cavernicole relictuel des Pyrenees
(Insecta, Collembola). Bulletin Du Museum National D’histoire
Naturelle Section A 11, 397–405.
Dixon, A.F.G., Kindlmann, P., Leps, J., Holman, J., 1987. Why there
are so few species of aphids, especially in the tropics. The
American Naturalist 129, 580–592.
Dobson, F.S., Yu, J., Smith, A.T., 1995. The importance of
evaluating rarity. Conservation Biology 9, 1648–1651.
Dunn, R.R., 2005. Modern insect extinctions, the neglected
majority. Conservation Biology 19, 1030–1036.
European Union, 2001. Presidency conclusions, Go
¨teborg
European Summit, 15–16 June 2001. <http://www.eu2001.se/
static/pdf/eusummit/conclusions_eng.pdf> (accessed
20.10.05).
Falkner, G., Ripken, T.E.J., Falkner, M., 2002. Mollusques
Continentaux de la France: Liste de Re
´fe
´rence Annote
´eet
Bibliographie. Muse
´um national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.
Fauna Europaea, 2004. Fauna Europaea database. http://
www.faunaeur.org/ (accessed 10.01.05).
Freyhof, J., Kottelat, M., 2005. Salvelinus evasus sp. n., a charr
from deep waters of Lake Ammersee, southern Germany
(Teleostei: Salmonidae), with comments on two extinct
species. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 112, 253–269.
Freyhof, J., Scho
¨ter, S., 2005. The houting Coregonus oyrinchus
(L.) (Salmoniformes: Coregonidae), a globally extinct
species from the North Sea basin. Journal of Fish Biology
67, 713–729.
Fuller, E., 1987. Extinct Birds. Viking/Rainbird, London.
Galvagni, A., 2004. On the types of Anonconotus apenninigenus and
on the locus typicus of this species (Orthoptera Tettigoniidae).
Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana 82, 493–502.
Gaston, K.J., 1994. Rarity. Chapman et Hall, London.
Harrison, I.J., Stiassny, M.L.J., 1999. The quiet crisis: a
preliminary listing of the freshwater fishes of the world
that are extinct or missing in action. In: Macphee, R.D.E.
(Ed.), Extinctions in Near Time: Causes, Contexts and
Consequences. Kluwer Academic et Plenum Publishers,
New York, Boston, pp. 271–331.
Harvey, M.S., 2002. Short-range endemism among the Australian
fauna: some examples from non-marine environments.
Invertebrate Systematics 16, 555–570.
Heurtault, J., 1994. Pseudoscorpions. In: Juberthie, C., Decu, V.
(Eds.), Encyclopaedia biospeologica. Socie
´te
´de Biospe
´ologie,
Moulis and Bucarest, pp. 185–196.
IUCN, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management
Categories. CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC, IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN, 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://
www.redlist.org (accessed 15.05.06).
Julliard, R., Jiguet, F., Couvet, D., 2004. Common birds facing global
changes: what makes a species at risk? Global Change Biology
10, 148–154.
Kottelat, M., 1997. An heuristic checklist of the freshwater fishes
of Europe (exclusive of former USSR), with an introduction for
non-systematists and comments on nomenclature and
conservation. Biologia, Bratislava 52, 1–271.
Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N.G., Freyhof, J., 2005. On the migratory
Black Sea lamprey and the nomenclature of the ludoga, Peipsi
and ripus whitefishes (Agnatha: Petromyzontidae; Teleostei:
Coregonidae). Zoosystema Rossica 14, 181–186.
Lamoreux, J., Akcakaya, H.R., Bennun, L., Collar, N.J., Boitani, L.,
Brackett, D., Brautigam, A., Brooks, T.M., Da Fonseca, G.A.B.,
Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B., Gardenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor,
C., Mace, G., Stein, B.A., Stuart, S., 2003. Value of the IUCN Red
List. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 214–215.
Loh, J., Green, R.E., Ricketts, T., Lamoreux, J., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V.,
Randers, J., 2005. The Living Planet Index: using species
population time series to track trends in biodiversity.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – Biological
Sciences 360, 289–295.
Lumaret, J.P., Lobo, J.M., Jay-Robert, P., 1996. Catalogue et Atlas des
Scarabeides Laparosticti Ende
´miques de France. IEGB-SPN/
MNHN, OPIE, Paris.
Maes, M., Van Dyck, H., 2005. Habitat quality and biodiversity
indicator performances of a threatened butterfly versus a
multispecies group for wet heathlands in Belgium. Biological
Conservation 123, 177–187.
Mauries, J.-P., 1986. Un diplopode cavernicole relictuel des Alpes
calcaires suisses: niphatrogleuma wildbergeri, n. g., n. sp.
(Craspedosomida, Cleidogonoidea). Revue Suisse de Zoologie
93, 249–256.
Menier, J.J., 2002. Thyreophora cynophila (Diptera,
Thyreophoridae) has disappeared from France! What’s the
police doing? In: Proceedings of the First European Forensic
Entomology Seminar. OISIN, p. 114.
Mey, E., 2005. Psittacobrosus bechsteini: a new extinct chewing
louse (Insecta, Phthiraptera, Amblycera) off the Cuban macaw
Ara tricolor (Psittaciiformes), with an annotated review of
fossil and recently extinct animal lice. Anzeiger des Vereins
Thueringer Ornithologen 5, 201–217.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, A.B.,
Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403, 853–858.
184 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185
Nalbant, T.T., Otel, V., 1995. Knipowitschia cameliae (Pisces:
Gobiidae) a new species of dwarf gobies from the panizzae
group. Some problems of its protection. Ocrotirea Naturiisi a
Mediului I
ˆnconjurator 39, 51–57.
Palmer, M.A., Covich, A.P., Finlay, B.J., Gibert, J., Hyde, K.D.,
Johnson, R.K., Kairesalo, T., Lake, S., Lovell, C.R., Naiman, R.J.,
Ricci, C., Sabater, F., Strayer, D., 1997. Biodiversity and
ecosystem processes in freshwater sediments. AMBIO 26,
571–577.
Paltto, H., Norde
´n, B., Go
¨tmark, F., Niklas, F., 2006. At which spatial
and temporal scales does landscape context affect local
density of Red Data Book and Indicator species? Biological
Conservation 133, 442–454.
Penteriani, V., Gallardo, M., Roche, P., 2002. Landscape structure
and food supply affect eagle owl (Bubo bubo) density and
breeding performance: a case of intra-population
heterogeneity. Journal of Zoology 257, 365–372.
Perrin, J.F., Bless, R., Nalbant, T.T., 1993. Romanichthys
valsanicola, l’expe
´dition de la dernie
`re chance (octobre 1992,
rivie
`re Vilsan, Roumanie). Revue Franc¸aise D’aquariologie 20,
37–40.
Price, R.D., Hellenthal, R.A., Palma, R.L., 2003. World checklist of
chewing lice with host associations and keys to families and
genera. In: Price, R.D., Hellenthal, R.A., Palma, R.L., Johnson,
K.P., Clayton, D.H. (Eds), The Chewing Lice: World Checklist
and Biological Overview, pp. 1–448.
Pucek, Z., Krasinska, M., Krashinski, Z.A., Olech, W. (Eds.), 2004.
European Bison. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.
IUCN/SSC Bison Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.
Rabinowitz, D., 1981. Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge, H. (Ed.), The
Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation. Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 205–217.
Ranius, T., Aguado, L.O., Antonsson, K., Audisio, P., Ballerio, A.,
Carpaneto, G.M., Chobot, K., Gjurasin, B., Hanssen, O.,
Huijbregts, H., Lakatos, F., Martin, O., Neculiseanu, Z., Nikitsky,
N.B., Paill, W., Pirnat, A., Rizun, V., Ruicanescu, A., Stegner, J.,
Suda, I., Szwalko, P., Tamutis, V., Telnov, D., Tsinkevich, V.,
Versteirt, V., Vignon, V., Vogeli, M., Zach, P., 2005. Osmoderma
eremita (Scopoli, 1763) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae)
in Europe: a short summary of a pan-European project.
Latvijas Entomologs Supplementum 6, 79–82.
Revenga, C., Campbell, I., Abell, R., De Villiers, P., Bryer, M., 2005.
Prospects for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the
2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society –
Biological Sciences 360, 397–413.
Se
´guy, E., 1950. La biologie des dipte
`res. Encyclope
´die
Entomologique Se
´rie A 26, 1–609.
Slough, B.G., Mowat, G., 1996. Lynx population dynamics in an
untrapped refugium. Journal of Wildlife Management 60, 946–
961.
Solem, A., 1984. A world model of land snail diversity. In: Solem,
A., Bruggen, A.C.V. (Eds.), World-wide Snails. Biogeographical
Studies on Non-marine Mollusca. Backhuys Publisher, Leiden,
pp. 6–22.
Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J., Wege, D.C. (Eds.), 1998.
Endemic Bird Areas of the World – Priorities for Biodiversity
Conservation. Birdlife International, Cambridge.
Stork, N., Lyal, C.H.C., 1993. Extinction or ‘co-extinction’ rates?
Nature 366, 307.
Stork, N.E., 1997. Measuring global biodiversity and its
decline. In: Reaka-Kudla, M.L., Wilson, D.E., Wilson, E.O.
(Eds.), Biodiversity II. Understanding and Protecting our
Biological Resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 41–68.
Thomas, J.A., 2005. Monitoring change in the abundance and
distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator
groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society –
Biological Sciences 360, 339–357.
Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., Siemann, E.,
1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition on
ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1300–1302.
Voisin, J.F. (Ed.), 2003. Atlas des Orthopte
`res (Insecta: Orthoptera)
et des Mantides (Insecta: Mantodae) de France. Muse
´um
national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.
WCMC, 1998. Freshwater biodiversity: a preliminary global
assessment. By Groombridge, B and Jenkins M. World
Conservation Monitoring Centre – World Conservation Press,
Cambridge.
Wilson, E.O., 1992. The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Yu, J., Dobson, F.S., 2000. Seven forms of rarity in mammals.
Journal of Biogeography 27, 131–139.
Zwick, P., 1992. Stream habitat fragmentation – a threat to
biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 1, 80–97.
Zwick, P., 2004. Key to the West Paleartic genera of stoneflies
(Plecoptera) in the larval stage. Limnologica 34,
315–348.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 139 (2007) 167185 185
... This situation is even more alarming when it is observed in the light of new invertebrate researches of the European fauna. Namely, according to Fontaine et al. (2007), in Europe, among the 62 extinct taxa, 51 were endemic to one, two or three countries. The recorded extinctions of narrow-range taxa occurred mainly in mountain ranges (Alps, Pyrenees, Balkans). ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper is to summarize all occurrences of the endemic earthworm Dendrobaena rhodopensis in the Balkan Peninsula, by compiling bibliographic data and data from our own collecting, in order to present its currently known distribution. During the last 70 years, this species has been recorded from 17 localities in Bulgaria, while it is sporadically present in Montenegro and Serbia. Until now, the northernmost findings of the species have been in the Serbian part of the Western Stara Planina Mts., while its southernmost occurrence was reported from Lefkonas near Serres (Greecе). Based on all records on the Balkan Peninsula, it was possible, for the first time, to present graphically the extent of occurrence (EOO) for D. rhodopensis. Considering that this species is mostly characteristic of the mountain ranges in the Balkans, we present its possible movement routes throughout the Balkan Peninsula. Current analysis based on the IUCN (2017) Red List Categories shows that D. rhodopensis belongs to the endangered category (B2: b iii, iv, v and c iii, iv) on a global level. The presented assessment may be considered as a baseline for further research and re-evaluation.
... For example, species with limited geographic range have been linked to higher extinction risk, likely due to a reduction in the buffering effect of range size against abiotic and biotic stressors (Harnik, Simpson, & Payne, 2012;Payne & Finnegan, 2007). Habitat specialists are constrained by certain environmental conditions and in turn are more vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and loss (Fontaine et al., 2007). Finally, species with smaller populations are more vulnerable to stochastic (Matthies et al., 2004) and denso-dependent phenomena like the Allee effect (Kuparinen, Keith, & Hutchings, 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Biodiversity is being severely affected by global change worldwide, but consequences differ across individual species and environments. Since rarity is a condition associated with vulnerability and extinction risk, it is a concerning factor itself that can also amplify the detrimental impact of global change drivers. Here, we assess differences in vulnerability derived from species rarity across environments in a South European mountain range, the Pyrenees, a complex landscape sheltering more than 3400 vascular plants. We first analyzed patterns of alpha taxonomic (richness) and phylogenetic diversity (standardized phylogenetic diversity, sesPD) from more than 18,000 plant surveys across 14 different habitats to find out which ones shelter the highest diversity. Then, we classified plant species according to four criteria of rarity (Pyrenean endemic, regional geographic range, ecological specialization and local abundance) and estimated their frequency among habitats and their contribution to PD. Generalized linear models were used to compare richness and sesPD among habitats, and the relationship between each diversity metric and rare species proportion was assessed. Grasslands harbor the greatest number of species but are poor in sesPD, while inland surface waters contain fewer species but are the most phylogenetically diverse. Deciduous, evergreen and Mediterranean forests show both high species richness and sesPD. Rare species account for half of the regional species pool, and are more abundant in habitats with fewer species and higher sesPD. Diversity metrics showed opposite tendencies between them and with rare species proportion, emphasizing that they are not interchangeable. Our results highlight the vulnerability of rocky and water‐related habitats due to the rarity of the species they shelter, but only the latter match other assessments of habitat vulnerability to global change drivers. The analysis of rarity patterns can guide conservation efforts by identifying priority targets when information about direct threats to habitats is scarce or incomplete. In this study, we explore the patterns of two aspects of diversity in the Pyrenean flora and use its rarity components as a proxy for habitat vulnerability. Wetlands and rocky habitats were considered the most vulnerable to biodiversity loss due to their low species richness, high phylogenetic diversity and higher incidences of rare species. This was consistent with other approaches to vulnerability in European habitats.
... Comprehensive cross-species studies often highlight an important association between extinction risk and different measures of rarity. For instance, species with larger geographic ranges have been shown to persist for longer periods (Harnik et al., 2012;Purvis et al., 2000), extinct species have often been observed to be formerly endemic (Fontaine et al., 2007), and small-sized populations have been associated with lower probabilities of survival (Matthies et al., 2004). ...
Article
Full-text available
Aim Mountains shelter high biological diversity and constitute both important barriers and confluence areas for species. They often contain species whose populations occur at their range limit (peripheral species), which according to the “Centre‐Periphery” hypothesis (CPH) are expected to occur in marginal environments, exhibit low abundance and consequently high vulnerability. Our study investigates this hypothesis for the flora of the Pyrenees, a biogeographical crossroads containing a large proportion of the total European plant diversity. Location Pyrenees. Methods We determined whether more than 2600 native plant species were endemic to the Pyrenees or found at the centre or periphery of their whole distribution range within the mountain chain. We then compared the ecological preferences, local and regional abundance, and conservation status among central, peripheral and endemic species. Results A quarter of the flora was found at its geographic range limit within the Pyrenees. Endemic and peripheral species were more likely to be soil specialists in alpine grasslands and rocks, and exhibited smaller regional ranges than central species, but their local abundance did not tend to differ. Peripheral species at their southern range edge were more widespread regionally than at their northern range edge. Peripheral taxa were more prevalent in the Pyrenean red list of threatened species (55%) compared to national and regional protection lists (40% and 31%, respectively). Main conclusions Peripheral species contribute substantially to the diversity of the Pyrenean flora. They follow the predictions of the CPH given their occurrence in scarce habitats, their low regional abundance and their high vulnerability according to the Pyrenean red list, although they tend to show similar local abundances as other species and are infrequent in protection lists. Integrative and cross‐border assessments of the ecology and rarity of mountain floras provide better estimates of their vulnerability and ensure more efficient prioritization of their conservation.
... Local capacity building may go some way to ameliorating this problem. The precedent of the European Union, that had earlier failed to reach its ambitious target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, and the failure of the world's countries (IPBES, 2019) to reach the Aichi target number 12 set in 2010 by the CBD in Nagoya ("By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained"), admittedly does not lead to optimism, on top of which there are concerns that indicators used to measure biodiversity erosion do not measure extinction risk (Fontaine et al., 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
There have been five Mass Extinction events in the history of Earth's biodiversity, all caused by dramatic but natural phenomena. It has been claimed that the Sixth Mass Extinction may be underway, this time caused entirely by humans. Although considerable evidence indicates that there is a biodiversity crisis of increasing extinctions and plummeting abundances, some do not accept that this amounts to a Sixth Mass Extinction. Often, they use the IUCN Red List to support their stance, arguing that the rate of species loss does not differ from the background rate. However, the Red List is heavily biased: almost all birds and mammals but only a minute fraction of invertebrates have been evaluated against conservation criteria. Incorporating estimates of the true number of invertebrate extinctions leads to the conclusion that the rate vastly exceeds the background rate and that we may indeed be witnessing the start of the Sixth Mass Extinction. As an example, we focus on molluscs, the second largest phylum in numbers of known species, and, extrapolating boldly, estimate that, since around AD 1500, possibly as many as 7.5-13% (150,000-260,000) of all~2 million known species have already gone extinct, orders of magnitude greater than the 882 (0.04%) on the Red List. We review differences in extinction rates according to realms: marine species face significant threats but, although previous mass extinctions were largely defined by marine invertebrates, there is no evidence that the marine biota has reached the same crisis as the non-marine biota. Island species have suffered far greater rates than continental ones. Plants face similar conservation biases as do invertebrates, although there are hints they may have suffered lower extinction rates. There are also those who do not deny an extinction crisis but accept it as a new trajectory of evolution, because humans are part of the natural world; some even embrace it, with a desire to manipulate it for human benefit. We take issue with these stances. Humans are the only species able to manipulate the Earth on a grand scale, and they have allowed the current crisis to happen. Despite multiple conservation initiatives at various levels, most are not species oriented (certain charismatic vertebrates excepted) and specific actions to protect every living species individually are simply unfeasible because of the tyranny of numbers. As systematic biologists, we encourage the nurturing of the innate human appreciation of biodiversity, but we reaffirm the message that the biodiversity that makes our world so fascinating, beautiful and functional is vanishing unnoticed at an unprecedented rate. In the face of a mounting crisis, scientists must adopt the practices of preventive archaeology , and collect and document as many species as possible before they disappear. All this depends on reviving the venerable study of natural history and taxonomy. Denying the crisis, simply accepting it and doing nothing, or even embracing it for the ostensible benefit of humanity, are not appropriate options and pave the way for the Earth to continue on its sad trajectory towards a Sixth Mass Extinction.
... 1. Rarity, either as a result of a very small geographic range or having a low population density on a larger range (Courchamp et al. 2006;Fontaine et al. 2007). 2. Lacking the capacity to survive environmental changes or not evolving the necessary adaptations to endure them (Colles et al. 2009;Day et al. 2016); this includes becoming less flexible (more specialized) in a changing environment, as seen in P. otitidis (García-Ulloa et al. 2020). ...
Chapter
Of the seemingly innumerable jewels of Cuatro Ciénegas, the Rio Churince system was singular, a microcosm of the basin’s ecological, evolutionary, and hydrogeological diversity. Recent drying of Churince extinguished this small, relatively unaltered desert spring ecosystem and with it an unmatched educational asset for all who could traverse its mere 2.5 km length. In Cuatro Ciénegas and beyond, there is urgent need to conserve desert spring systems that remain intact and to reignite the vibrancy of ones that can be restored. This chapter documents in photos the demise of Churince.
... On the IUCN Red List, most of the critically endangered plant taxa are limited to tiny ranges. Fontaine et al. [15], and Omar & Elgamal [9] found that the most at risk of extinction is by far the small-range limited endemics. Many methods, such as the IUCN Red List and Species Distribution Models (SDMs), are extensively used today to assess the conservation status of individual taxa and define scenarios for appropriate nature conservation [9]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The process of developing a conservation programme for endemic plant species, in particular those with a small geographical size in mountain ecosystems, whether in situ of ex situ, is a very complex matter, especially if data on the state of the environment and conservation are unavailable. Silene leucophylla and Silene oreosinaica are perennial plants endemic to St. Catherine Protected Area (SCPA), which locate at South Sinai, Egypt. For long time, the second species has not been observed in the field. As a result, the purpose of this study was to increase understanding of the two species' ecological and conservation statuses by: The first step is to confirm their existence on the ground; the second step is to determine the present ecological and conservation conditions through an extinction risk assessment by using IUCN Red List methodology; and the third step is the use of Species Distribution Model (SDM) to locate and extract current appropriate habitat suitability. The field research, which was conducted between March to December 2017, resulted in building knowledge of the current distribution, characteristics of current species populations, and status of ecology and habitat, in addition to identifying the main threats. Both species have been recorded in 20 major sites, in a very restricted area, particularly in a high mountain region (19 sites of Silene leucophylla and 3 sites of S. oreosinaica), with Extent of Occurrence about 468.2 km2 for Silene leucophylla and 24.5 km2 for S. oreosinaica. The population size was very small and fragmented and the extreme drought and overgrazing clearly affected both species. Based on the collected data, the extinction risk was calculated as Critically Endangered for S. oreosinaica and as Endangered for S. leucophylla according to IUCN Red List. For both species, appropriate habitat is concentrated in the high mountain ranges in the central north section of the SCPA, according to SDM. For Silene leucophylla, a presence probability of 20.5 km2 was anticipated, whereas for S. oreosinaica, a presence probability of 62.1 km2 had been predicted. Conservation methods are advocated both in situ (via recovery) and ex situ (by seed collecting and storage, awareness building, and grazing control).
... So that only the least-biased numerical extrapolation of the recorded data can provide acceptably reliable evaluations of the true species richness within a given guild (or community) [7-9]. Note that taking due account of rarer species, which often escape recording, is all the more important that these rare species (beyond their own intrinsic interest) may disproportionately contribute to the functional structuring of communities, as has often been pointed out [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]: "rare species are critical for bio-assessment" as quoted in [29]. -The degree of unevenness of species abundance distribution is not at all independent ofmore precisely, is strongly negatively correlated withthe species richness, as already underlined by numerous authors (see [11] for a review) and by GARCIA-CALLEJAS [30] himself. ...
Article
Full-text available
The species functional structuration (specifically in terms of species richness and average intensity of interspecific competition) is widely varying among species communities and this point is now very well documented in literature. But, what about the species functional structuration within the different feeding guilds that coexist in a same local community-in particular the primary and the secondary feeding guilds? Are there significant differences-or not-between them in this respect? This rather fundamental issue does not seem having been addressed yet, at least using appropriate investigative tools. However, a series of recently published case studies, precisely implementing such an adequate investigative approach, now deserves full consideration in this regard and makes the subject of the present review. Substantially, it results from this preliminary survey of the question that marked differences in the patterns of species functional structuration clearly singularize the secondary from the primary feeding guilds, within a same local community. More precisely, a consistent trend seems to arise, highlighting both: (i) a markedly greater species richness and, yet somewhat unexpectedly, (ii) a significantly reduced intensity in interspecific competition within secondary feeding guild as compared to primary. The point is discussed and interpreted as being the consequence of the fact that secondary feeders (typically carnivores) have obviously evolve quite more diversified feeding behaviors than did the primary feeders (typically herbivores).
Article
Full-text available
Wildlife monitoring programs are instrumental for the assessment of species, habitat status, and for the management of factors affecting them. This is particularly important for species found in freshwater ecosystems, such as amphibians, as they have higher estimated extinction rates than terrestrial species. We developed and validated two species-specific environmental DNA (eDNA) protocols and applied them in the field to detect the Hazara Torrent Frog (Allopaa hazarensis) and Murree Hills Frog (Nanorana vicina). Additionally, we compared eDNA surveys with visual encounter surveys and estimated site occupancy. eDNA surveys resulted in higher occurrence probabilities for both A. hazarensis and N. vicina than for visual encounter surveys. Detection probability using eDNA was greater for both species, particularly for A. hazarensis. The top-ranked detection model for visual encounter surveys included effects of both year and temperature on both species, and the top-ranked occupancy model included effects of elevation and year. The top-ranked detection model for eDNA data was the null model, and the top-ranked occupancy model included effects of elevation, year, and wetland type. To our knowledge, this is the first time an eDNA survey has been used to monitor amphibian species in the Himalayan region.
Chapter
Even without the extensive evidence and modeling on the number of species lost every year, we believe that microorganisms face many of the same extinction risks as “visible” organisms. It has recently been shown that extant bacterial populations result from speciation processes and extinction events. Bacterial lineage replacement is well understood at the intra-population scale, and periodic selection in clonal populations can lead to local extinctions. In Cuatro Ciénegas, natural seasonality has been observed to influence the Pseudomonas community composition. However, this site is under drastic changes due to anthropogenic disturbance, mainly from water overexploitation in the wetland. In this site, as the water receded, Pseudomonas otitidis from the Churince hydrological system went from being a successful generalist to losing a great portion of its metabolic flexibility and variation after an evolutionary rescue event that allowed it to survive for a while. However, one year before the water was depleted, the P. otitidis population became extinct. Furthermore, the endemic auxotrophic specialist Bacillus coahuilensis also went extinct after desiccation drastically altered its original community, on which it was highly dependent on for basic biological functions. The high endemicity and local distribution of the hyper-diverse Cuatro Ciénegas make this site very vulnerable to extinctions, risking its unique microbiota that has survived eons.
Article
Full-text available
Rosa arabica Crép. is a perennial shrub belonging to the family Rosaceae. It is endemic to the high mountain area of St. Catherine Protected Area (SCPA) in southern Sinai, Egypt, and is listed as one of the most 100 threatened plants in the world. Recently, it has been listed as critically endangered by IUCN Red List due to its small extent of occurrence and tiny population size. We reported the continuous decline in habitat quality for this species and the urgent need to carry out on-ground conservation actions. So, this research aims to conserve Rosa arabica through in situ practices by implementing the following steps, respectively: a) evaluate the current conservation status through IUCN Red List to extract the environmental factors controlling the species' distribution necessary for establishing the recovery program, b) determine the potential species habitat suitability under the current climate conditions using Maxent, and c) based on the previous two steps, the translocation process for R. arabica in the suitable habitat will be done after the simple layering process as one of the most effective traditional vegetative methods for wild cultivation for this species. These steps aimed to reduce the impact of threats and the risk of extinction through increasing the population size, the Extent of Occurrence (EOO), and the Area of Occupancy (AOO). We extracted the environmental factors controlling the target species' distribution and habitat suitability range using the IUCN Red List assessment and Species Distribution Model (SDM). The most suitable habitat for R. arabica is predicted in the middle northern parts of SCPA, with the highest suitability in the High Mountains. Precipitation of driest quarter, precipitation of wettest month, precipitation of coldest quarter, and aspect are the highest mean contributors determining the distribution of R. arabica in SCPA. Rosa arabica potential distribution covers 324.4 km 2 (7.46%) of the total SCPA area (4350 km 2). This area is divided into: 18.1 km 2 high probability, 124.3 km 2 moderate probability, and 182 km 2 low probability. After one year of the simple layering process, ten branches rooted and were translocated into three sites that had been previously identified to cover three habitat suitability ranges (high, moderate, and low suitability). After a year of translocation in the wild, the survival rate ranged from 66% to 100%, the geographical range increased by 65%, and the population size by 6.8%. Therefore, if the new individuals continue to grow and adapt it may lead to the expansion of other environmental factors such as climatic and topographical factors that probably increase the resilience of the global population of the species to adverse events. Detailed information is provided in this research about the recovery program, from planning to implementation and monitoring, and recommendations for best practices.
Book
Full-text available
Taxonomy, distribution in France and Europe, class of endemism (I to IV) and biology of 25 species and sub-species endemic from France and Western Europe. Details on their phenology are given. Maps.
Article
Size of this new species is relatively large and it has neither pigment nor eyes, nor postantennal organ. -from English summary
Article
The facsimile presentation of a forgotten ciliate monograph of Alfred Kahl from the year 1943 is a convenient occasion for a detailed biography of this outstanding ciliate researcher. Kahl was born in the village of Warwerort, that is, at the north coast of Germany on 18th February 1877. Nothing is known about his parents and youth. At the turn of the century, when Kahl was twenty, he became a primary school master; later, he taught English, French, and natural history in a Gymnasium (high school) in Hamburg, where he married and had a daughter, who initiated, as a student of the famous Eduard Reichenow, his microscopic studies. Kahl published his first paper, a monograph with 241 pages, in the year 1926, when he was nearly fifty. In the following nine years, Kahl produced 1800 printed pages, containing, inter alia, the descriptions of 17 new ciliate families, 57 new genera, about 700 (!) new species, and thousands of excellent pen- and -ink drawings. Although Kahl had contact with several academic protozoologists, such as E. Reichenow and H. Kirby, he was a self-made man working alone and performing his meticulous live observations with a simple bright field microscope equipped, however, with a 100:1 oil immersion objective. Kahl did not only excellent original research, but also thorough taxonomic revisions. This culminated in the 1930-35 monographs in Dahl's Die Tierwelt Deutschlands series. These four reviews, which bring together and freshly characterize most ciliates known to that time, soon became "classics" and are Kahl's most important scientific legacy. Kahl's meticulous observations and phylogenetic ideas also influenced the higher classification of the ciliates, though this is less obvious than for species taxonomy. After 10 years of intense work, Kahl abruptly stopped publishing in 1935, possibly because of problems with some academic protozoologists and zoologists. However, his reviews in the Tierwelt Deutschlands series soon made him famous throughout the protozoological landscape. This might have stimulated him to commence work again in the early forties, when he produced a revision of the 1930-35 monographs. The revision should be a book addendum for the subscribers of the Mikrokosmos, a popular journal for amateur microscopists. Unfortunately, only part 1, here reproduced as a facsimile, was published in 1943, while part 2 was likely lost during the Second World War troubles. This fine piece of work is not only a simple repetition of the previous reviews, but contains 10 new taxa, the freshwater species described between 1935 and 1940, several nomenclatural novelities, interesting remarks on various genera, and many improved figures. Two of the 10 new species were rediscovered recently, and one is redescribed and neotypified here, viz., Phialinides muscicola (Kahl, 1943) nov. comb. Kahl used the morphospecies concept and emphasized that ciliate diversity is much greater than previously recognized. This and other matters caused conflicts with some academic protozoologists, especially A. Wetzel, who disliked Kahl's simple drawings and splitting of seemingly very similar species. However, time confirmed Kahl, whose life and work are an impressive example of how to become an unforgettable taxonomist: excellent original research and revisions, diligence, objectivity, respect for the field's history and, last but not least, a good deal of talent. Kahl died in November 1946. The reason and his grave are unknown.