Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Conservation evaluation and the choice of faunal taxa to sample

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the coining of the term, biodiversity has come to be understood as being more than a synonym for species richness. It also embraces a diversity of lifestyles, so that of two samples with the same number of species one that solely comprises a diversity of herbivores is considered to be less biodiverse than one that includes detritivores, predators, parasitoids, parasites, etc. as well. It seems that Phoridae could be a prime candidate for use in conservation evaluation exercises because the larvae of this family exhibit a greater range of habits than any other family of animals on the planet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Cheng L, Hogue CL (1974) New distribution and habitat records of biting midges and mangrove flies from the coasts of Southern Baja California, Mexico (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae, Culicidae, Chironomidae and Phoridae). Entomol News 85:211–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Disney RHL (1986) Assessments using invertebrates: posing the problem. In: Usher MB (ed) Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 271–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney RHL (1994) Scuttle flies: the Phoridae. Chapman and Hall, London, 467pp

  • Disney RHL (1998) Rescue plan needed for taxonomy. Nature 394:120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Disney RHL (1999) Insect biodiversity and the demise of alpha taxonomy. Antenna 23:84–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney RHL (2000) The relentless decline of taxonomy. Sci Public Aff October:6

  • Disney RHL (2002) A new species of maritime scuttle fly (Dipt., Phoridae) from East Sussex, England. Entomol Mon Mag 138:19–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney RHL (2004a) A new species of Megaselia Rondani (Dipt., Phoridae) from Arctic Greenland. Entomol Mon Mag 140:309–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney RHL (2004b) Insecta: Diptera, Phoridae. In: Yule CM, Yong HS (eds) Freshwater invertebrates of the Malaysian region. Academy of Sciences of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, pp 818–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Durska E (2001) Secondary succession of scuttle fly communities (Diptera: Phoridae) in moist pine forest in Białowieża Forest. Fragmenta Faunistica 44:81–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Durska E (2006) Diversity of the scuttle fly (Diptera: Phoridae) communities in the plantations of moist pine forests of the Białowieża Primeval Forest and the Tuchola Forest (Poland). Biodivers Conserv 15:385–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostovski MB, Disney RHL (2002) A remarkable new species of Triphleba Rondani (Diptera: Phoridae). Studia dipterologica 8:557–562 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescher S, Moretti M, Duelli P (2002) Scuttle flies (Diptera, Phoridae) in Castanea sativa forests in the southern Alps (Ticino, Switzerland), with thirteen species new to Switzerland. Bulletin De La Société Entomologique Suisse 75:289–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher MB (1986) Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. In: Usher MB (ed) Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 3–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber G, Prescher S (1990) Studies on the ecology of Phoridae (Diptera). Pedobiologia 34:183–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissflog A, Maschwitz U, Disney RHL, Rosciszewski K (1995) A fly’s ultimate con. Nature 378:137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Durska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Disney, R.H.L., Durska, E. Conservation evaluation and the choice of faunal taxa to sample. Biodivers Conserv 17, 449–451 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9284-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9284-1

Keywords

Navigation