Not all threatened species tug at our heartstrings

January 25, 2002 - When we think of endangered species, most of us tend to think about the "poster children" that represent them - the tigers, rhinoceroses, and panda bears we hear about so often. But many other, less well-known species are also endangered, and some scientists argue that we may be focussing too much on cute creatures and not enough on the ugly ducklings.

It is easy to understand why there has been so much focus on individual charismatic species like whales or gorillas. These animals are esthetically beautiful and have many similarities to humans that evoke our empathy. The same could hardly be said of slugs, beetles or microscopic organisms. It's hard to feel for these creatures - especially if we can't even see them!

That's one of the reasons conservation groups have tended to focus on popular species that people can identify with. To be sure, many of these animals are actually on the verge of extinction and in dire need of help. But such high-profile species overwhelmingly tend to be vascular plants and vertebrates - species that represent just a fraction of life on Earth. Many other species are equally important in terms of their overall function within an ecosystem, yet they receive scant attention. Harvard ecologist E.O. Wilson, for example, once pointed out that if humans disappeared from the face of the earth, it would have mostly beneficial effects on the world's ecosystems. But if ants disappeared, many ecosystems would be in big trouble.

The focus on more charismatic species is a problem that does not just exist with conservation groups and the general public, but also within the scientific community. Writing in a recent edition of the Australian Journal of Botany, Professor Mark Burgman of the University of Melbourne criticizes this tendency and also the way governments develop lists of threatened species. He argues that our lack of attention to less popular creatures will eventually condemn a substantial portion of the world's plant and animal species to extinction.

Scientists are drawn to charismatic species for the same reasons we all are. Mammals and birds in particular are fascinating creatures and scientists naturally want to study them. The more we understand the lifecycle of a species, the better position we are in to know what sorts of risks it faces. So better-known species are simply more likely to be listed as threatened.

Another problem, Professor Burgman says, is regional expertise. A few experts living in one area greatly increases the chance of their specialty being listed. For example, Canada has 380 species listed as "at risk," very few of which are snails. But on the island of Tasmania, 650 species are considered at risk and a whopping 200 of them are different types of snails! Most likely, a high level of snail expertise in Tasmania increased the odds of those species being listed. This is disturbing because it effectively shows how the number of species considered endangered is based on our very limited knowledge of our ecosystems. After all, if 200 species of snails are at risk, how many little-studied insects, arthropods, fungi, algae and microorganisms are also at risk that we don't even know about?

Conservation groups and scientists cannot be faulted for focussing on any particular species. Indeed, we still have much to learn about even the best-studied of animals. But no species lives in isolation. Each is dependent on thousands of factors and complex interrelationships with other species to survive. We too are dependent on these relationships. That's why we need the best tools possible if we are to truly understand the threats that different species face, regardless of whether they are cute or ugly.

To discuss this topic with others, visit the discussion forum.