Editor\u27s Choice: Aldo Leopold Conservation Award

Every year since 2003, the American Society of Mammalogists confers during its annual meeting the Aldo Leopold Conservation Award on a highly deserving individual. A consequence of the award for the awardee is the responsibility to write a feature article in the pages of this journal. Aldo Leopold, the namesake of the award, is considered by an overwhelming majority of biologists to be the father of contemporary conservation biology. Born in Burlington, Iowa, Leopold graduated with a Master’s degree from the Yale Forest School, which had been endowed in 1902 by the Pinchot family and was one of the first institutions to grant graduate degrees in forestry in the United States. At Yale, Leopold was educated in the tradition of Gifford Pinchot’s Resource Conservation Ethic, which, while advocating for “the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time” (Pinchot 1947) nevertheless reduced the environment to “just two things on this material earth—people and natural resources” (Pinchot 1947), with natural resources to be used by and for people

Big boned: How Fat Storage and other Adaptations Influenced large theropod foraging ecology

Dinosaur foraging ecology has been the subject of scientific interest for decades, yet much of what we understand about it remains hypothetical. We wrote an agent-based model (ABM) to simulate meat energy sources present in dinosaur environments, including carcasses of giant sauropods, along with living, huntable prey. Theropod dinosaurs modeled in this environment (specifically allosauroids, and more particularly, Allosaurus Marsh, 1877) were instantiated with heritable traits favorable to either hunting success or scavenging success. If hunter phenotypes were more reproductively successful, their traits were propagated into the population through their offspring, resulting in predator specialists. If selective pressure favored scavenger phenotypes, the population would evolve to acquire most of their calories from carrion. Data generated from this model strongly suggest that theropods in sauropod-dominated systems evolved to detect carcasses, consume and store large quantities of fat, and dominate carcass sites. Broadly speaking, selective forces did not favor predatory adaptations, because sauropod carrion resource pools, as we modeled them, were too profitable for prey-based resource pools to be significant. This is the first research to test selective pressure patterns in dinosaurs, and the first to estimate theropod mass based on metabolic constraints

Preface

The papers included in this section were derived from the topical presentations including but not limited to parasite zoonoses, mammal parasite ecology, and mammal parasite biodiversity given at the IX International Mammalogical Congress (IMC9) held in 31 July-5 August 2005 in Sapporo, Japan

Increasing Interest in Parasitology at the Past Three International Mammalogical Congresses Held in 1997, 2001 and 2005: Mammals, Parasites, Zoonoses and Biodiversity

We summarized the data from the past three TTC (now IMC) meetings to examine the potential trends in presentation of parasites of mammals at the meeting. The lists include titles and authors of papers given in symposia, poster sessions, and oral presentations related to diseases, zoonoses, parasites, and causative agents of diseases of sylvatic mammals. Our analysis shows that there has been an increase in the number of papers (from 2.8% in 1997 to 5.1% in 2005) presented at the International Mammalogical Meetings. We also show that there are potentially more than 27,000 species of parasites (broadly defined) currently inhabiting the more than 5,400 species of extant mammals. To understand ecological biodiversity, it is necessary to know the complete mammal, including both ecto- and endosymbionts, and the systematics of the mammal itself

Taxonomy Based on Science is Necessary for Global Conservation

Taxonomy is a scientific discipline that has provided the universal naming and classification system of biodiversity for centuries and continues effectively to accommodate new knowledge. A recent publication by Garnett and Christidis (Garnett ST, Christidis L. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature. 2017; 546(7656):25±27. https://doi.org/10.1038/546025a) expressed concerns regarding the difficulty that taxonomic changes represent for conservation efforts and proposed the establishment of a system to govern taxonomic changes. Their proposal to restrict the freedom of taxonomic action through governing subcommittees that would review taxonomic papers for compliance and their assertion that the scientific community\u27s failure to govern taxonomy threatens the effectiveness of global efforts to halt biodiversity loss, damages the credibility of science, and is expensive to society are flawed in many respects. They also assert that the lack of governance of taxonomy damages conservation efforts, harms the credibility of science, and is costly to society. Despite its fairly recent release, Garnett and Christidis\u27 proposition has already been rejected by a number of colleagues. Herein, we contribute to the conversation between taxonomists and conservation biologists aiming to clarify some misunderstandings and issues in the proposition by Garnett and Christidis. Placing governance over the science of taxonomy blurs the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Garnett and Christidis’s proposal is far-reaching but represents a narrow perspective of taxonomy, as utilized by conservation, and reflects an increasingly broad misunderstanding throughout biology of the scientific basis of taxonomy, formalized nomenclature, and the relationship between them. This trend may have resulted from the attenuation of instruction in taxonomic principles and, in particular, nomenclature at many universities, in part because of a shift in research priorities away from taxonomy. Garnett and Christidis assert that an “assumption that species are fixed entities underpins every international agreement on biodiversity conservation.” This assumption demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of taxonomy and the evolving view of what species represent. The essential features of science include documenting natural patterns and processes, developing and testing hypotheses, and refining existing ideas and descriptions of nature based on new data and insights. Taxonomy, the science of recognizing and delimiting species, adheres to these fundamental principles. Discoveries of new organisms together with advances in methodology continue unabated, leading to a constant reevaluation of the boundaries between taxonomic entities. Species (and higher taxa) comprise related organisms that may be clustered together differently depending on which sets of criteria are emphasized. Hey et al. acknowledge “the inherent ambiguity of species in nature” but point out that “species-related research and conservation efforts can proceed without suffering from, and without fear of, the ambiguity of species.” Through taxonomic research, our understanding of biodiversity and classifications of living organisms will continue to progress. Any system that restricts such progress runs counter to basic scientific principles, which rely on peer review and subsequent acceptance or rejection by the community, rather than third-party regulation. Thiele and Yeates cautioned that such a system “could lead to authoritarianism and a stifling of innovative taxonomic viewpoints. No other hypothesis-driven field of science would accept such a straitjacket”. Taxonomy and associated nomenclature are not without problems. Even with a common set of facts, alternative interpretations of how to classify organisms can lead to differing classifications. However, the science of taxonomy is increasingly rigorous, which can improve the foundation for targeted legislative action regarding species. Taxonomic instability does not affect all taxonomic groups equally. Garnett and Christidis provide examples from mammals and birds, which collectively represent a small fraction

A Prolegomenon to the Systematics of South American Cottontail Rabbits (Mammalia, Lagomorpha, Leporidae: Sylvilagus): Designation of a Neotype for S. brasiliensis (Linnaeus, 1758), and Restoration of S. andinus (Thomas, 1897) and S. tapetillus Thomas, 1913.

A critical issue with species names derived from Linnaeus’ 10th edition of the Systema Naturae is the lack of holotypes, which in many instances has led to taxonomic confusion and uncertainty, as well as an unstable taxonomy. In the particular case of the South American cottontail, currently known as Sylvilagus brasiliensis, Linnaeus listed the type locality as “America Meridionali,” or South America. As a result, S. brasiliensis was ascribed a widespread distribution in North and South America, over an area estimated as approximately 1.09 × 107 Km2, and containing upwards of 37 named subspecies.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136089/1/MP205.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136089/2/MP205_SupplementaryFigs.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136089/3/MP205_Appendix1.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136089/4/MP205_Appendix 2.xlsxDescription of MP205.pdf : Main ArticleDescription of MP205_SupplementaryFigs.pdf : Additional FiguresDescription of MP205_Appendix1.pdf : Dataset - MapsDescription of MP205_Appendix 2.xlsx : Datase

IAA : Información y actualidad astronómica (6)

Sumario : Investigación: Colisiones entre galaxias.-- Pulsación estelar: nuevas técnicas, nuevos avances.-- Ventana Abierta: The Black Hoyle.-- Charlas con...Ricardo Amils.-- Actualidad Científica: El “impactante” nacimiento de la Luna.-- Descubrimiento de agua en una nebulosa planetaria.-- Actividades IAA.-- Agenda.Esta revista se publica con la ayuda de la Acción Especial DIF 2001-4284-E del Programa Nacional de Difusión de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, del Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología.N

Taxonomy Based on Science Is Necessary for Global Conservation [Formal comment]

Taxonomy is a scientific discipline that has provided the universal naming and classification system of biodiversity for centuries and continues effectively to accommodate new knowledge. A recent publication by Garnett and Christidis expressed concerns regarding the difficulty that taxonomic changes represent for conservation efforts and proposed the establishment of a system to govern taxonomic changes. Their proposal to “restrict the freedom of taxonomic action” through governing subcommittees that would “review taxonomic papers for compliance” and their assertion that “the scientific community\u27s failure to govern taxonomy threatens the effectiveness of global efforts to halt biodiversity loss, damages the credibility of science, and is expensive to society” are flawed in many respects. They also assert that the lack of governance of taxonomy damages conservation efforts, harms the credibility of science, and is costly to society. Despite its fairly recent release, Garnett and Christidis\u27 proposition has already been rejected by a number of colleagues. Herein, we contribute to the conversation between taxonomists and conservation biologists aiming to clarify some misunderstandings and issues in the proposition by Garnett and Christidis. Placing governance over the science of taxonomy blurs the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Garnett and Christidis\u27s proposal is far-reaching but represents a narrow perspective of taxonomy, as utilized by conservation, and reflects an increasingly broad misunderstanding throughout biology of the scientific basis of taxonomy, formalized nomenclature, and the relationship between them. This trend may have resulted from the attenuation of instruction in taxonomic principles and, in particular, nomenclature at many universities, in part because of a shift in research priorities away from taxonomy

Increased Host Species Diversity and Decreased Prevalence of Sin Nombre Virus

Prevalence of infection was highest where fewer animal species carried the virus