Posted by: Dr Churchill | September 14, 2012

World’s 100 most endangered “large and obvious” species listed

Each year we lose somewhere between 26,000 and 100,000 {that is thousands} of species from this Earth’s Ecosystem. It is a vast number if yu calculate the individual members too that come into many billions lost in total. Yet these are species of Life that have mostly never seen in the Taxonomy of species, and remain unexplored from our scientists, since most of them reside in the ocean deeps, in the rain forests, and in other less visible areas of the globe. Yet these are integral species of Life removed from this Earth due to human activity, loss of habitat and a warming climate. The deadly effect we’ve had on this planet’s other Life forms is called the Great Despeciation and is comparable if not greater in rapidity to the last Despeciation period when we lost the Dinosaurs… amongst many others.

Still scientists hoping to map some of the great, big and highly visible species that are well known and on their way out, they staged a three day conference to discuss their fate. The fate of the top 100 ready to go species, ignoring the many thousands of smaller and unseen species that none the less make up the web of Life and contribute in unknown ways to the linkages and sustainability of our Ecosystem.

Too late to know what their beneficial value might have been for us and the world – but there you have it.

More water under the bridge — until the dam bursts…



So what is the value we place on each member of these thousands of species lost each year?

Bellow our friend Fiona Haarvey details the news from South Korea:

By Fiona Harvey
From Jeju, South Korea
The Guardian, Tuesday 11 September 2012

Few people would notice the willow blister, a spore-shooting fungus that grows parasitically on twigs in a small corner of Wales. Fewer still are likely to realise that this is one of the rarest fungi in the world, a distinction that gives the blister a place on an unenviable list: the world’s 100 most threatened species.

Equally unlikely to be noticed is the spoon-billed sandpiper, a small, dull-coloured bird that breeds in Russia and migrates to south-east Asia, targeted by hunters on the way.

The pygmy three-toed sloth, no bigger than a newborn baby when fully grown, is found only on a single island, off the coast of Panama. The woolly spider monkey, from the Atlantic forest of Brazil, is under threat from the increasing fragmentation of its last remaining habitats.

The list, published on Tuesday at the World Conservation Congress in South Korea, the quadrennial meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), was compiled by 8,000 scientists, and is the first of its kind.

The only obvious common characteristic of the animals on it is that all are clinging precariously to existence as a result of human actions such as destroying habitats, polluting, hunting and changing the climate. But the scientists who compiled the list had another criterion: they have highlighted species they fear will be allowed to die out without a murmur because they have no obvious benefits for human beings.

The list is presented as a challenge, with the title: “Priceless or worthless?” Its compilers ask whether we care only for species that are iconic and “charismatic”, such as tigers and pandas and those, such as the appetite-suppressing hoodia cactus of the Kalahari, that may yield benefits for medicine or other purposes. Or should we decide, they wonder, that even the apparently less-favoured species we are wiping out deserve to be preserved.

For Jonathan Baillie, director of conservation at the Zoological Society of London, which compiled the list along with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, this dilemma reflects serious problems with the way conservation is funded today.

He said: “The donor community and conservation movement are increasingly leaning towards a ‘what can nature do for us?’ approach, where species and wild habitats are valued and prioritised according to these services they provided for people. This has made it increasingly difficult for conservationists to protect the most threatened species on the planet.”

In order to justify spending money on conservation efforts, scientists have felt under increasing pressure to argue for the human benefits that would accrue – for instance, calling for forests to be preserved because they can prevent landslides and naturally purify water for human consumption rather than because forests should be maintained for their own sake.

In some cases, the potential for “useful” purposes for some species is contributing to their destruction. The wild yam of South Africa is supposed to have cancer-alleviating properties, according to traditional medicine, but the resulting hunt for the plant is threatening its very existence.

In others, the commercialisation of nature is having a damaging effect – the Franklin’s bumble bee, found in California and Oregon, is under threat because of diseases spread by commercially bred bumblebees. Attenborough’s Pitcher Plant, named after the famous naturalist Sir David, lives only on Mount Victoria, in the Philippines, but is under threat from collectors because of its fame.

Prof Baillie presents a stark choice: “We have an important moral and ethical decision to make: do these species have a right to survive or do we have a right to drive them to extinction?”

Some of the creatures on the list are down to the last few individuals. For example, numbers of the saola – an antelope known as the Asian unicorn, so rarely is it sighted – have been whittled down to the last few tens in existence.

Ellen Butcher, of the Zoological Society of London, explained: “All of the species listed are unique and irreplaceable. If they vanish, no amount of money can bring them back. If we take immediate action we can give them a fighting chance for survival. But this requires society to support the moral and ethical position that all species have an inherent right to exist.”

It is possible that some future medical application may be found for the willow blister fungus, or other plants or even animals on the list. But the conservationists involved stressed that this should not be the decider on whether we make efforts to halt the decline of species that we are destroying.

“All species have a value to nature and thus, in turn to us humans,” said Simon Stuart, chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. “Although the value of some species may not appear obvious at first, all species in fact contribute in their way to the healthy functioning of the planet.”



Our friend Fiona Harvey writes honestly and she travels far and wide in order to cover the Environment and it’s intersection with the Economy, first for the Financial Times and now for the Guardian…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: