ArticlePDF Available

Systematics and global biodiversity strategy



This article is based on a paper by C.J. Humphries, R.I. Vane-Wright and P.H. Williams, “Biodiversity reserves: setting new priorities for the conservation of wildlife”, which appeared in Parks (IUCN) 2(2): 34–38, 1991. Dick Vane-Wright presented some of these ideas in a talk to the Royal Entomological Society of London on November 6th, 1991, entitled “Entomology, systematics and biogeography: a global strategy for the conservation of biodiversity.”
Guest Article
Systematics and the global biodiversity strategy
R.l. \/ane-Wright, Biogeographt'& Coruervation Project. Biodiversity programme, The
Natural Historl' Museum, Cromv.ell Road, London SW7 SBD, UK.
This article is based on a poper bt'C.J. Humphries. R./. Vane-Wright and p.H. William,
"Biodiversit,- reserves: sening new'priorities for the consert,ation of wildlife", whiclt
appeared in Parks (IUCN) 2(2): 3a-38, 1991. Dick Vane-Wright presented some of these
ideas in a talk to the Societv on November 6th, 1991 . entitled "Entomolog!,. systematics and
biogeographv: a global strategv for the consen,ation of biodiversitv.'.
The most universol Emlitt b diversin.
(Michael Eyquem de Montaigne. 1580)
Biodiversitv is the sheervarietyof life-the varietv of species. including the genetic variation
betu een and within them. The number of living species is estimated to be in the range 5-50
million. of which less than 2 million have been named or even recognised (May. lggl).
Roughll' half of all those that have been named are insects, u'rth beetles alone perhaps
making up one fifth of the total.
Faced with such huge numbers. and the rapid ecological changes affecting all areas of the
world. many entomologists and other biologists are convinced that a penod of massive
extinction is imminent (Mvers, 1989). In the next feu decades \\,e may iyitness the loss of
millions of the species that make up the web of life on our planet - the Lnique svstem from
which we evolved, and upon which wc are totally dependent.
Some plant species can be consen'ed in botanic gardens or seed banks. A few large and
exciting vertebrates, such as the tieer. could be maintained in zoos. Hower,er. it is incon-
ceivable. with current resources. to sustain more than a tiny fraction of invertebrates sepa-
rate from their natural environments. Sunival of the majoritv of species will depend on
bettermanagement of allecosystems, and on judiciousselection of nationalparksand other
wildlife reserves. The problem of how to select reserues to maximise global biodiversity
protection is the topic of this article.
Protected areas are currently chosen on many different, often conflicting criteria. These
include the needs of indigenous peoples and for recreation and material resources, as well
as species conservation. The recognition of this urgent new need, the consen,ation of biodi-
versity itself, demands rapid development of efficient means of evaluation for this specific
purpose (Pressey & Nicholls. 1989: Margules & Austin. 1991; Rebelo & SiegfrieA, tggO,
and in press).
Adequate protection forbiodiversitywillrequire a globalstraregy (Reid, Barber & Mil-
ler, 1992), including the establishment of a worldwidi network of reserves to provide re-
fuges for as wide a variety of animal and plant life as possible. The task involves deciding
hou to recognise and set priorities for the selection of reserves so that. as sites are added to
the network, they progressively'protect the maximum possible diversity (Margules et al.,
1988). To do this we need to measure biodiversity'in a wav which will allou'us to compare
areas on both absolute and relative scales. These requirements can be met by measuring
three properties of floras and faunas: species richness. complementarity and taxonomic
difference (Vane-Wri-eht er a\.,1997: Williams et a\.,1991).
Imagine being given the problem of picking tu'o areas from three. as biodiversity reserves.
You can choose any two. but you must put them into priority order because vou can only
afford to buy one of them at present. The second area of vour choice will remain unpro-
tected. while the third area willbe redeveloped immediately. as an olvmpicsportsstadium.
The onl,v other information you are given is a list of beetle species for each area, and that the
cost of conserving the areas would be equal. Usine species richness as a working measure of
biodiversitv. vourfirst choice will be the area with the most species: it offers the potentialof
consen'inq the largest "amount" of biodiversitv.
What willbe your second choice -a choice u'hich u'ill result in the immediate extermina-
tion of virtually all wildlife in the area not selected? Will it be the area with the second
highest number of species? In terms of setting priorities. the correct answer is "not necessar-
ily". We need to identi! as second choice the site containing the highest number of additio-
nal species, i.e. those not represented in the first area.
Putting figures to the example. imagrne that area t has 60 species. area2has 55 species of
which 10 are not found in areas I or 3. and area 3 has ,15. of which 30 are not found in either
area 1 or2. Areas I and 2 are woodlands, area 3 is a heath. The numberof species in all areas
combined is called the complement. a total of 100 in this case. If we take the richest area
(area 1.60 species) as our first choice. this determines the residual cornplemenr (the 40
species not represented in area 1). The idealsecond choice is then the site giving the greatest
additional biodiversit!'to the first - the site having the highest proportion of the residual
complement. Area 2 offers a l0% increment. but area 3 offers 30qc . So we would buy the
richer and sacrifice the poorer of the two woods. and hope that funds might be found to
protect the heath.
Taxonomic difference
In order to rank sites in this way it is necessary to measure their diversities in terms of
absolute values. and also in terms of their relative contributions to residual complements.
In the example. species richness was employed for both purposes. However, thissimplest of
measures, which treats all species as equally valuable, is not alu'ays appropriate. Suppose
the 10 species unique to area 2 belonged to 10 separate and highly distinct beetle families
unrepresented in the other areas. while all but two of the species restricted to area 3 were
members of a single species complex belonging to a family well represented in area 1.
Armed with this information, you might want to reverse your decision about the second
priority area-or even the first. 'Megadiversity', as measured simply by species richness, is
by no means always best.
We thus have an intuitive idea of taxonomic distinctness or difference.ltis based on an
appreciation of the taxonomic hierarchy. Some species are very closely related to each
other (low relative rankl, while others are very distinct. Single species can represent whole
superfamilies (Fig. 1). orders or even phyla. In terms of biodiversity, to equate one of these
with a single member of a sibling species complex seems quite wrong. itrir i, one of the
reasons why it is easier to get money to protect the giant panda than an equally threatened
species of rat. If there were many species of pandas, but onlv one sort ol rut. the reverse
would probably be true. In species conservation terms we value rarity; in biodiversitr terms
we value difference.
In practice' real faunas and floras consist of a wide varietl,of more or less distinct species.
How can we devise an acceptable measure that willreflect taxonomic difference? Mv col-
leagues Chris Humphries and Paul Williams are appraising a variety of measures designed
to do this. andwe have some promisingcandidates (Williamse rat.,1991. and in press). The
measures can also be made sensitive to species richness. We call these measures taxic diver-
siq, indices.
Priority areas
Using a taxic diversitf index in a prioritv area analvsis applies differentialweiehting to the
species. \\'eighting can be fixed or relative. Species richness is a special of fixed u eight-
Fig' l' Taxonomic difference. The Australian dragonfly Hemiphtebia mirabitis. the only
extant member of the superfamily Hemiphlebioidea. Althougtrnot impressive bv dragon-
fly standards in terms of size or colour. this little species is abundantly distinct (Davies,
1985)' A recent study by John Trueman (Australian National University) suggests rhar the
Hemiphlebioidea evolved before a number of extinct groups of dragonflies known only
from Permian fossils. and thus would appear to have a minimum age of 240 million years. As
a result' it should score heavilf in favour of conserving the wetlands of Wilson,s promon-
tory. victoria, the only ecosystem in which Hemiphtebia now occurs.
ing: all species are simply given unit weight. Root weighting ( Fig. 2) is another fixed weight
index. species being valued for difference according to their position in the taxonomic
hierarchy (Vane-Wright er al.,l99l). For priority area analvses. the wei-qhts allocated are
simpl-v.' summed for all species represented within an area. to sive an area-value. Calcula-
tion of increments based on residual complements is equall-t" straightforward (Fi-e. 2).
Relativeweights. such asthe dispersion measureswe nowfavourforthistask (Williamser
al., 1991, and in press). are more complex to apply because they are not simplv additive at
each step - but the fundamental principle remains the same. The ideal first choice is asses-
sed by the maximal score: subsequent areas are assessed by'calculating increments based
9.3 3.3 4.3 7.3
35 46 78
Fig. 2. The basics of priority analy'sis - species. areas, complementaritv and taxonomic
difference. A theoreticalexample forfive species (A-E).and three areas (R1-R3) each with
three species (dots). Taxonomic differences calculated by the root weight method gives a
set of additive weights (column W) reflecting the position of each species in the taxonomic
hierarchy. Total diversity for A-E (complement) and each area is given in rowT. Scores as
percentages of the complement are given in row P1 . Row P2 grves diversity increments for
Rl and R2, based on residual complement after selecting R3 as first choice. Note that
p3max > Plmax, and that Plmax * P3max = 1O0Vc. indicating priority is R3 then R1, and
that Rl + R3 form critical faunas set. (Reproduced from Vane-Wright et al., 1991: fig. 5,
with permission of Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.; see also text.)
W R1 R2R3
on their representation of the residual complement in combination with the species already
selected. In practice, foranythingother than afew areas and species, a computer programis
essential. Williams' WORLDMAP program, originally written for his work on bumble
bees. is being developed for this purpose.
A priority analvsis is completed b1'the step which finally accounts for the entire comple-
ment (Figs 3' 4)' This identifies a list of sites identrcal to the critical fauna (or florajser
(Ackery & Vane-Wright. 1984). and places them in an optimised step-wise sequence. The
critical faunas set is the minimum selection of particular areas containing all species under
analysis. In realitv it will rarely be possible to establish reserves in areas corresponding to
the optimal sequence. Rebelo & Siegfried (1990) have described this as the conflict be-
tween "ideal and real-world options." Without precise calculation it can be very difficult to
assess the best of manv alternative options. orthe furtherconsequencesof taking particular
decisions. The WORLDMAP program enables suboptimalchoices to be assessed rapidly
and interactively. The second range of data plotted in Fig. 4 gives an idea of how this can
Fig. 3. Priorities for bumblebees of the Bombus sibiricus group - a critical faunas set and
priority analysis. The 43 species of the sibincu.s group occur in t j0of the grid squares shown
on the map (Williams, 1991). To complete the priority areas analysis riing root weighr as
the taxic divenity index requires 13 areas (Williams et a\.,1991). ihe direisity accumula-
tion sequence is shown in Fig. 4. (Reproduced from Vane-Wright et aI.,1991: fig. 7, with
permission of Elsevier Science publishers Ltd.)
This world, where much is to be done and little to be kno*n
(SamuelJohnson, l17O)
The svstem outlined is under development. A further essential step will involve finding a
satisfactory way to combine data for different groups of organisms. We envisage analysing
100 or more well-known groups of animals and plants. including several groups of insects.
on aglobalbasis. These willinclude. amongst the Lepidoptera. swallowtailbutterflies (the
first insect group to be the subject of an IUCN Action Plan: Neu'& Collins. 1991). milk-
weed and glasswing butterflies, and hawk moths.
Much of this work on Lepidoptera will be carried out bv myself and colleagues in London
Fig. 4. Optima and suboptima-complementaritv versus megadiversity in the search for an
effective solution. The main data range shows taxic diversity accumulation at each step of a
priority area analvsis (using root weight) for bumblebees of the Bombtrs sibiricus group,
starting with the Chinese region of Gansu (1). and finishing with northern California (13)
(from Williams et al.,l99l; see also Fig. 3). The second range of data (five columns) shows
stepwise accumulation of diversitv (on same root weight scale) if regions are chosen to
maximise local species richness without using complementarit,v-. tn this suboptimalsequ-
ence.area I : Ecuador(l0spp.).2: Kashmir(9spp.),3: Gansu(9spp.),4: northern
Peru (8 spp.),5 : central Bolivia (8 spp.); all other areas have less than eight species. Note
that by third step optimised sequence exceeds 50% taxic diversity. whereas aggregate for
the tive 'megadiversity' sites does not even reach 50%.
(including Campbell Smith. George Beccaloni. and Ian Mitching). Other systemarists ar
the Natural Histon' lv{useum will study'and analvse groups of plants. However. to get a
large sample of groups for u'hich the hieher classification. species limits and distributional
ranges can be sufficientlv u ell understood. we u'ill need the help of many more scientists.
Currentlv we are tning to formulate plans to bring together an international eroup of
specialists willing and able to contribute to the task of slobal systematic consen,ation eva-
A somewhat different approach u'ill inr olve an analvsis of the global distributions of all
familiesof flou'erine plants and beetles. Thisu'ould be a rapirJ u,avof eyaluating one third of
all knou'n terrestrial species diversitr'. and u'ould help test assuffiptions about ho*.repre-
sentati\.e smaller groLlps are of hiodiversitv as a ri,hole.
The basic fle.ribiliry' of the method. applving weights and assessing suboptimal choices.
means that it could also be extended to gir e a general planning svstem. Other factors such as
raritv. ende'mism or minimum viable population size. or el.en non-bioloeicalfactors such as
consen'ation costs per unit area. could be built into an increasingly elaborate prosram.
Such svstems can be refined and extended indefinitelv. For example. WORLDMAp has
clear potential for site monitoring. and as part of an earlv-u'arning system to alert us to ne*,
threats. as called ft r in slobal strateq\.(Reid er al..l9g2). Rather than develop WORL_
DMAP in isolation. it is more likeh'to be incorporated u,ithin LS. technologv as a tool
dedicated to the assessment and evaluation of global or regional biodiversity.
Iner"itablr'. debate over methodolosical detail has alreadv besun (e.g. N{av. 1990:
Altschul & Lipman. 1990: Faith. in press). While this is healthv scientificallv. *,e musr
remember. as Samuel Johnson understood. that rvhat is needed most is action. Efficient
selection procedures are ven important to ensure value for moner.. but action is e'en more
vital. The proposal that the UN should inaugurate an International Biodiversitl,Decarle,
1994-2003 (Reid er al.. l99l). recognises that our options for choice are decreasing da1,' by
dav' In the future. the resen'e network u'ill be called upon to supplr-the raw materials to
regro\r and restore to the Earth that "most universal of all qualities", diversitr'. S1,'stematists
have a considerable responsibilitl,' to ensure that the netu,ork is capable of delivering as
much diversitt'as possible. In truth. to misquote Rov Tav-lor. we need a diversitv of di'ersi-
Ackery. P.R. & \'ane-Wright. R.I. ( 1981) Milkv,eed Butterflies. Cornell Universin, press.
New York
Altschul. s.F. & Lipman. D.J (1990) Equal animals. Nature.34g: .193-494.
Davies. D.A.L. (1985) Hemiphlebia mirabili.s Sely,'s: some notes on distribution and con-
servation status (Zvgoptera: Hemiphlebiidae). O donatologica. 7 4: 33 1 -339.
Faith' D.P. (in press) Conservation evaluation and phvlogeneticdiversity. BiologicalCon-
Ivlargules. C'R. & Austin. l\{.P. ( 1991 ) lt'ature Conservatio,.t: cost effecriv,e biological sur-
v,evs and data analt'sr. CSIRO. East Melbourne.
lVlarsules. C.R., Nicholls. A.O. & Pressey. R.L. (l9SB) Selecting net*'orks of resen'es to
maximise biological diversity. B io lo gic al C o ns e n' ario n . 13 63-7 6.
Ma1'. R.M. ( 1990) Taxonomy as destiny' Nature.3lT:129-130'
Mal.. R.M. ( l99l ) How many species? Philosophical Transactiorts of the Royal Sociery of
London (B). 330: 293'304.
Myers, N. (1989) A majorextinction spasm: preclictable and inevitable? Pp 109-120 in
Western. D. & Pearl. M. (eds) Conservation for the Twentv-first Centurl'. Oxford
Universitv Press. Nerv York.
New. T.R. & Collins. N.M. (1991) Swallowrctilbutterflies: an action planfor their consen'a-
rron. IUCN. Gland.
presser,. R.L. & Nicholls. A.O. ( 1989) Eficiencv in conservation evaluation:scorinqversus
interactive approache s. Biological Conser,-atiort. -50: I 99-21 8.
Rebelo. A.G. & Siegfried. \l'.R. ( 1990) Prorection of Fynbos vesetation: ideal and real-
world options. Biological Conservation. 51 15-31'
Rebelo. A.G, & Siegfried. W. R. (in press) Where sht-ruld nature resen'es be located in the
Cape Floristic Region. South Africa'l lv{odels for the spatial configuration of a re-
sen,e network aimed at maximising the protectic-rn of floristic diversiN'. Conservation
Reid. W.V.. Barber. C. & Miller. K.R. ( 1993) Gtobat biodiversitl' strareg\:: gidelines for
ttction to sove, stud-r- and use Earth's bioic wealth sustainably and eqttitabl.r. World
Resources Institute. New York'
Vane-Wright. R. I.. Humphries. C. J. & Wiliams. P.H. ( 1 99 I ) What to protect? - s,vstema-
tics and the agony of choice. Biological Consen'ation,55l.235-251.
Williams. P.H. (1991)The bumble beesof the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae,
Bombini). BulletinoftheBritbhMrueumofNaruralHistory,Entomology,60: l-203.
Williams. p.H., Humphries, C.J. & Vane-Wright, R.l. (1991) Measuring biodiversitv:
taxonomic relatedness for consen'ation priorities. A wtralian Sy stematic Botany, 4:
Williams. p.H.. Vane-Wright, R.I. & Humphries. C.J. (in press) Measuring biodiversity
for choosing conservation areas. In LaSalle. J. (ed.) Hymenoptera and biodiversity.
Suggested citation:
Vane-Wright, R.l. 1992. Systematics and the global biodiversity strategy. Antenna,
London 16:49-56.
... Phylogenies and classifications can sometimes significantly change when challenged by the addition of substantial numbers of species with unique and highly modified morphologies, and we expect that this will happen with the Tischeriidae upon future discoveries in tropical countries. The inventory of Earth's species, as well as mapping their distribution and uncovering their relationships, is very important, and are among the main tasks of biological systematics (Vane-Wright 1992, 1996Wheeler et al. 2012aWheeler et al. , 2012b. ...
Full-text available
For the first time, genera of leaf mining Tischeriidae of the global fauna are reviewed and four new genera are described: Coptotrichoides Diškus & Stonis, gen. nov., trophically associated with Sapindaceae from Central and South America; Rytietia Diškus, Xu & Dai, gen. nov., trophically associated with Annonaceae from East and South East Asia; Pafazaria Diškus & Stonis, gen. nov., trophically associated with Fabaceae and Malvaceae from East and South East Asia; and Gnathitischeria Diškus, gen. nov., trophically associated with Malvaceae and Asteraceae from Central America. In addition to the descriptions of new genera, all previously described genera (Coptotriche Walsingham, 1890; Dishkeya Stonis, 2020; Tischeria Zeller, 1839; Manitischeria Diškus & Stonis, 2021; Neotischeria Diškus & Stonis, 2021; Paratischeria Diškus & Stonis, 2017; and Astrotischeria Puplesis & Diškus, 2003) are characterized and a pictorial identification key for all 11 genera is provided. Morphological and biological characteristics of all genera are supplemented with some molecular data. We described 12 new species: South East Asian Coptotriche sapaensis Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov.; Central American Coptotrichoides sapindoidum Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov. and Tischeria neokristenseni Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov.; South East Asian Rytietia uncinata Diškus, Xu & Dai, sp. nov., East Asian R. chongyiensis Xu & Dai, sp. nov.; South East Asian Pafazaria capitata Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov. and P. faboidica Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov.; Central American Neotischeria antigua Diškus & Remeikis, sp. nov. and N. subantigua Diškus & Remeikis, sp. nov.; South American Astrotischeria incae Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov.; and Central American Gnathitischeria atitlani Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov. and G. arcana Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov. The taxonomic rank of the East Asian subspecies Tischeria decidua siorkionla Kozlov, 1986 is elevated to species rank: T. siorkionla Kozlov (stat. nov.). The male genitalia of holotypes, paratypes, lectotypes or paralectotypes, or non-type specimens of some little-known species are examined for the first time. We provide the first morphological documentation for the following: Tischeria ceanothi lectotype and paralectotype; T. immaculata (stat. restored) paratype; Coptotrichoides deliquescens (Meyrick) lectotype and paralectotype; lectotypes of Coptotriche aenea (Frey & Boll), Astrotischeria plagifera (Meyrick), A. helianthi (Frey & Boll), and A. ephaptis (Meyrick); Coptotriche berberella (De Prins) paratype; and the first photographic documentation of Tischeria lvoskyi Kozlov holotype. Some non-type specimens deposited at NHMUK, including a few previously neglected species, are also examined and documented, including the American Astrotischeria solidagonifoliella (Clemens) and A. omissa (Braun). Nine new combinations are provided: Coptotrichoides deliquescens (Meyrick, 1915), comb. nov.; C. singularis (Stonis & Diškus) comb. nov.; C. suprafasciata (Diškus & Stonis) comb. nov., C. serjaniphaga (Remeikis & Stonis) comb. nov.; C. braziliensis (Diškus & Stonis) comb. nov.; Pafazaria jingdongensis (Xu & Dai), comb. nov.; Neotischeria explosa (Braun) comb. nov.; N. pallidipennella (Braun) comb. nov.; and Astrotischeria heteroterae (Frey & Boll) comb. nov. The synonymization of Tischeria longeciliata Frey & Boll, 1878 with Astrotischeria helianthi (Frey & Boll, 1878) is confirmed. One new species group, the Tischeria ceanothi group, is established. We also report a new distribution record of T. dodonaea Stainton from the Caucasus, Armenia. Three tables and 569 figures of adult external morphology, male and female genitalia, leaf mines, and cladograms based on molecular characters are provided.
... The inventorying of the Earth's species and mapping of their distribution in the biosphere is important (Vane-Wright 1992, 1996Wheeler et al. 2012aWheeler et al. , 2012b; the exploration of the biosphere is much like exploring the Universe (Wheeler et al. 2012b). ...
Full-text available
This paper describes two new species of Brachinepticula Stonis & Diškus: B. melania Remeikis, Mey & Stonis, sp. nov. and B. colombica Remeikis, Mey & Stonis, sp. nov. Both the new species were collected in the Northern Andean Páramo (Cundinamarca, Colombia). Since the specimens were caught at night-time with a light trap, the host plants remain unknown. The examination of the morphology of the male genitalia of B. melania and female genitalia of B. colombica revealed a highly distinctive new taxa of pygmy moths and broadened our knowledge of the morphology and distribution of the recently described endemic genus Brachinepticula Diškus & Stonis. The examination of the new findings also allowed us updating the diagnosis of Brachinepticula. The new species were illustrated with photographs of the genitalia, adults, and habitats.
... The description of new species and assembling data about their biology, and trophic or other relationships, are fundamental tasks to the knowledge about endangered biodiversity on our planet (Dubois 2011;Crisci et al. 2020). This task is within the field of biological systematics or taxonomy and has the ultimate goal of documenting and realizing the extent (and significance) of biological diversity (Vane-Wright 1992. We need a clearer understanding of the total number of species (Larsen 2017), both on terrestrial and aquatic habitats, to reveal the structure and function of ecosystems (May 2011). ...
Full-text available
This study identifies the number of named and described species of three monotrysian, plant-mining lepidopteran families worldwide: Nepticulidae and Opostegidae (Nepticuloidea), and Tischeriidae (Tischerioidea). At the end of 2021, we estimated that a total of 1000 Nepticulidae species, 197 Opostegidae species, and 170 Tischeriidae species have been described since the taxonomic practice of describing species began in the 18th century. We examine and discuss the history of descriptions and authorship of species worldwide for each of the three families. We found that the total (accumulative) number of species described increased with each time period delineated. About five new species were described per year on average, or about 22 new species were described per year in the 21st century. We recognize researchers with the most number of described species in these three taxa.
... Documenting biological diversity. The ultimate task of biological systematics or taxonomy is to document and understand the extent and significance of biological diversity (Vane-Wright 1992, 1996. Description of new taxa is among the most critical of tasks in biodiversity studies. ...
Full-text available
Four new species of trumpet leaf-miner moths (Tischeriidae) are described from the Neotropics: Coptotriche serjaniphaga Remeikis & Stonis, sp. nov., feeding on Serjania Mill. (Sapindaceae), Astrotischeria mystica Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov., feeding on Verbesina L. (Asteraceae), A. yungasi Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov., feeding on Oyedaea DC. (Asteraceae), and A. parapallens Diškus & Stonis, sp. nov., feeding on Baccharis L. (Asteraceae). Records on Sapindaceae-feeding Tischeriidae are very rare and Serjania is a novel host-plant genus for Tischeriidae. It is hypothesized that Serjania, a diverse genus in the tropical and subtropical Americas, may be a host for many undiscovered species of specialized stenophagous Tischeriidae. The new species are illustrated with photographs of the adults, male and, if available, female genitalia, and the leaf mines. We briefly discuss the importance of new species descriptions as a part of biodiversity assessment.
... The term 'biodiversity inventory' is interpreted as studies that cover the diversity of all organisms, including their genetic diversity, interspecific and intraspecific diversity, identification of relationships between species and ecosystems, the diversity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and their evolutionary and ecological processes (Vermeulen, Koziell, 2002;Morton, Hill, 2014). In fact, it is within the field of biological systematics or taxonomy with the ultimate task to document and understand the extent and significance of biological diversity (Vane-Wright, 1992, 1996. Such studies are also needed in order to obtain detailed information on grouping of endangered species (Mckinney, 2002) and, more importantly, to identify and protect critical habitats. ...
Full-text available
This study is uniquely based on the Research Interest Score (RGRI) and not on other existing bibliometric criteria for evaluation of published biological inventory products (articles and monographs). RGRI is a score that measures scientists’ interest in the publication and is based on its citations, recommendations, and reads. Our data revealed that high RGRI scores of publications were generally not determined by the journal’s Impact Factor (IF) or high quartiles (Q). However, open access to publications undoubtedly creates the strongest preconditions for the rise of RGRI. The importance and popularity of a publications can also be affected by its various other characteristics, for example, international collaboration of authors, ecological issues such as plant-insect interactions, and even the wording of the publication title.
... The concept of aridity index according to [20] can be defined as a ratio of precipitation to evapotranspiration(PET) [21]. The data points are averaged based on year or different seasons to obtain the AI estimates. ...
... Understanding how phylogenetic diversity changes in space and across trophic levels may also allow the conservation of evolutionary information, an often neglected component of biodiversity (Vane-Wright 1992;Devictor et al. 2010;Winter, Devictor & Schweiger 2013). In fact, recent research has found that climate change and human disturbance can reduce the phylogenetic diversity of plant communities (Knapp et al. 2008;Willis et al. 2008;Dinnage 2009), suggesting that anthropogenic change might 'select' only certain closely related species to survive . ...
1. Incorporating the evolutionary history of species into community ecology enhances understanding of community composition, ecosystem functioning and responses to environmental changes.2. Phylogenetic history might partly explain the impact of fragmentation and land-use change on assemblages of interacting organisms, and even determine potential cascading effects across trophic levels. However, it remains unclear whether phylogenetic diversity of basal resources is reflected at higher trophic levels in the food web. In particular, phylogenetic determinants of community structure have never been incorporated into habitat edge studies, even though edges are recognised as key factors affecting communities in fragmented landscapes.3. Here we test whether phylogenetic diversity at different trophic levels (plants, herbivores, parasitoids) and signals of coevolution (i.e. phylogenetic congruence) among interacting trophic levels change across an edge gradient between native and plantation forests. To ascertain whether there is a signal of coevolution across trophic levels, we test whether related consumer species generally feed on related resource species.4. We found differences across trophic levels in how their phylogenetic diversity responded to the habitat edge gradient. Plant and native parasitoid phylogenetic diversity changed markedly across habitats, while phylogenetic variability of herbivores (which were predominantly native) did not change across habitats, though phylogenetic evenness declined in plantation interiors. Related herbivore species did not appear to feed disproportionately on related plant species (i.e. there was no signal of coevolution) even when considering only native species, potentially due to the high trophic generality of herbivores. However, related native parasitoid species tended to feed on related herbivore species, suggesting the presence of a coevolutionary signal at higher trophic levels. Moreover, this signal was stronger in plantation forests, indicating that this habitat may impose stresses on parasitoids that constrain them to attack only host species for which they are best adapted.5. Overall, changes in land use across native to plantation forest edges differentially affected phylogenetic diversity across trophic levels, and may also exert a strong selective pressure for particular coevolved herbivore-parasitoid interactions.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The three studies reported here (i.e., statewide, southern Maine, and state and federal wildlife areas) identify what areas should be conserved to represent the natural diversity of Maine. Geographic Information System (GIs) technology was used to conduct the analyses comparing the distribution of abiotic and biotic variables representing natural diversity on and off conservation lands. In the statewide analysis, 10 environmental variables were compared on and off conservation lands using ArcGrid with a cell resolution of 1.86 x 1.86 km. The areas found to contain variables that were underrepresented were. combined to identify and map regions with under-represented characteristics. The mean number of under-represented variables for each major biophysical region in Maine was calculated with southern Maine being in greatest need of more conservation lands. The highest degree of under-representation was in low elevation areas and lower portions of large river valleys. When abiotic variables, which are more permanent to the landscape, were weighted higher than biotic, the same results as above were found. To determine locations of potential new conservation lands in southern Maine, I analyzed the representation of seven environmental variables on conservation lands in southern Maine with a cell resolution of 94.6 x 94.6 m. Only four variables were substantially under-represented including 401 - 450 m elevation, 4 - 7 degrees of slope, shoreline and mudflats, and early successional and crop cover types. The distance from these highly under-represented areas to areas with high road density was measured and mapped as an indicator of their vulnerability to development. The contribution of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA's) and National Wildlife Refuges (NWR's) were analyzed to evaluate their contribution to the conservation of Maine's wildlife and natural diversity. Earlier management objectives for these agencies focused on acquisition of game (e.g., waterfowl) and endangered species habitats. Management emphasis has broadened recently to include conservation of ecosystems and all wildlife species, therefore, it is important to assess whether NWR's and WMA's accomplish these new, broader goals. Geographic datasets including topography, vegetation cover, and terrestrial vertebrate richness were compared on and off WMA's and NWR's using ArcGrid with a cell resolution of 94.6 x 94.6 m for each major biophysical region in Maine. Out of 270 terrestrial vertebrate species predicted to occur in Maine, 219 were predicted to occur on WMA's and 223 on NWR's. Wetland and open water vertebrate species, wetland vegetation types, and low elevation areas were over-represented in the state, while most upland vegetation types were under-represented by WMA's and NWR's. These results suggest that WMA's and NWR's should acquire additional mid-elevation and upland areas, assuming a goal of land conservation that is representative of the state's natural diversity.
Widodo, Sutarno, Widoretno S, Sugiyarto (2010) Taxonomic diversity of macroflora vegetation among main stands of the forest of Wanagama I, Gunung Kidul. Biodiversitas 11: 89-92. The objective of this study is to determine the diversity of taxonomy of macro flora vegetation in the main stands of the forest of Wanagama I in Gunung Kidul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Vegetation diversity data can be used as a recommendation for conserving the local biodiversity as well as other planned conservation activities. The nested square sampling method was applied to collect the data required in the research. The size of the nested square was based on species-area curves, as well as theories of other studies. The seven main stands studied were: pine (Pinus merkusii), mahogany (Swieteniamahagoni), kesambi (Schleichera oleosa), teak (Tectona grandis), cajuput (Melaleuca leucadendron), Gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium), and a mixed stand. Each stand was observed four times. The square location was randomly determined based on a contour map of the area. The variables of the study of diversity in terms of taxonomy consist of species, genus, family, and order richness. The results were, then, analyzed statistically using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Turkey’s test. The result of the study shows that the species of the main stands was affected very significantly by the diversity of all level: species, genus, family, and order total richness. The Pine stand has the highest rank in terms of number of species, genus, family, and order richness.Key words: taxonomic diversity, main stands, Wanagama
Full-text available
Invertebrates exhibit exceptional levels of diversity and endemism in New Zealand where, historically, they have received only limited consideration in land management decisions. Many species exist outside the habitats typically set aside for conservation, such as lowland to subalpine Chionochloa tussock grasslands. These habitats are under‐represented as protected areas due to their modified state and their invertebrate fauna is poorly understood. Compiling inventories has been suggested as one means of facilitating a greater awareness of invertebrate diversity and ecology. This study presents an inventory of Curculionoidea recorded during a single quantitative sampling event in mid summer 2001, from two Otago Chionochloa tall‐tussock grasslands. Species diversity is compared with that of other southern South Island tussock grassland areas, and notes on weevil ecology and distribution are given. Of the 35 species known from the two sites, only 17 were recorded from samples taken in January 2001, demonstrating the importance of factors such as seasonality and microhabitat to study design. Genera recorded showed affinities with those of grassland studies in neighbouring ecological districts. Almost 50% of the species collected from the two sites were undescribed; this not only limits the capability of land managers to compare areas under consideration for protection or other land uses, but also indicates an abundance of unrecorded and unprotected biological diversity.
Full-text available
A definition of biodiversity is adopted that takes account not only of numbers of species, but also of the degrees of difference among them. The most appropriate measure of species differences is likely to be made in terms of genealogical relationships, as embodied in taxonomic classifications. Five new measures of taxonomic diversity are compared with existing measures of species richness and taxonomic root weighting for prioritising areas for the conservation of biodiversity, using as an example some data for 43 bumble bee species of the sibiricus-group. Although certain of the new measures can be shown to perform better than any existing methods, more extensive trials are needed, and further refinements can be anticipated. We conclude that combining species richness with taxonomic diversity to give a single measure inevitably involves compromise, as either component could be maximised in its own right. Nonetheless, the new prioritisation methods are already capable of giving practical results.
Schemes are set out for the location of noda of nature reserves aimed at protecting the floral diversity of Fynbos vegetation in the Cape Floral Region, in South Africa, using distributional data on the Proteaceae. Species richness is significantly correlated between the Proteaceae and other major families and genera of plants representative of Fynbos, for which data are available. In our ideal scheme, 95% of all vascular plant species could be accommodated in 16% of the area occupied by Fynbos vegetation. However, several of our ideal-world noda are not viable options for Fynbos protection. Hence, we identify additional nodal areas that could be proclaimed as nuclei for nature reserves and incorporated into a real-world option for maximizing the protection of Fynbos floral diversity.
Protecting biological diversity with limited resources may require placing conservation priorities on different taxa. A system of priorities that reflects the value of taxonomic diversity can be achieved by setting priorities such that the subset of taxa that is protected has maximum underlying feature diversity. Such feature diversity of taxon subsets is difficult to estimate directly, but can be predicted by the cladistic/phylogenetic relationships among the taxa. In this study, a simple measure of phylogenetic diversity is defined based on cladistic information. The measure of phylogenetic diversity, PD, is contrasted with a measure of taxic diversity recently developed by Vane-Wright et al. (Biol. Conserv., 55, 1991). In re-examining reserve-selection scenarios based on a phylogeny of bumble bees (Apidae), PD produces quite different priorities for species conservation, relative to taxic diversity. The potential application of PD at levels below that of the species is then illustrated using a mtDNA phylogeny for populations of crested newts Triturus cristatus. Calculation of PD for different population subsets shows that protection of populations at either of two extremes of the geographic range of the group can significantly increase the phylogenetic diversity that is protected.
(l9SB) Selecting net*'orks of resen'es to maximise biological diversity. B io lo gic al C o ns e n' ario n
  • C R Lvlarsules
  • A O Nicholls
  • R L Pressey
lVlarsules. C.R., Nicholls. A.O. & Pressey. R.L. (l9SB) Selecting net*'orks of resen'es to maximise biological diversity. B io lo gic al C o ns e n' ario n. 13 63-7 6.
Gtobat biodiversitl' strareg\:: gidelines for ttction to sove, stud-r-and use Earth's bioic wealth sustainably and eqttitabl.r. World Resources Institute
  • Reid W V C Barber
  • K R Miller
Reid. W.V.. Barber. C. & Miller. K.R. ( 1993) Gtobat biodiversitl' strareg\:: gidelines for ttction to sove, stud-r-and use Earth's bioic wealth sustainably and eqttitabl.r. World Resources Institute. New York'
The bumble beesof the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini)
Williams. P.H. (1991)The bumble beesof the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). BulletinoftheBritbhMrueumofNaruralHistory,Entomology,60: l-203.
Eficiencv in conservation evaluation:scorinqversus interactive approache s. Biological Conser,-atiort
  • . R L Presser
  • A O Nicholls
presser,. R.L. & Nicholls. A.O. ( 1989) Eficiencv in conservation evaluation:scorinqversus interactive approache s. Biological Conser,-atiort. -50: I 99-21 8.