WHAT makes a population of animals distinct? This is no arcane academic debate. When trying to preserve biodiversity, wildlife managers do not simply look at lists of species: effective conservation also depends on identifying subspecies or distinct populations that merit protection. Otherwise, important populations can go extinct and species become so genetically impoverished that their survival is placed at risk.
Yet no clear criteria exist for defining a subspecies, and there is widespread disagreement about the meaning of a 鈥渄istinct鈥� population. Molecular techniques ought to be helping by quantifying the genetic relationships between populations and subspecies. In practice, they are further muddying the waters. In some cases, scientists are feuding about what the results mean; in others, inadequate genetic information is carrying spurious weight (see 鈥淭he mouse that no one can ignore鈥�). Meanwhile, populations are disappearing.
Population genetics is a fiendishly difficult subject, understood by only a small band of specialists 鈥� and it is in their nature to argue every detail. Given the high stakes, they should look beyond their differences.
Advertisement
Climate modelling, too, is a complex and divisive topic. Yet under the aegis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researchers in the field have reached a consensus to guide policy. Conservation geneticists may never get a body like the IPCC, but it should not be beyond them to reach a consensus on the criteria for defining a distinct population. Squabbling in the face of the catastrophic loss of biodiversity gripping our planet serves no one well.
