|
"I did not see clarity of definition if the species had once existed, then absent for X period of time, then "reappeared" via natural or exotic means or new findings. The common snapping turtle would be such an example.
It would be reasonable to consider if fossil evidence constitutes a species to be native even if a current population were human mediated."
This is an interesting topic. I think adding the category 'reintroduced' would help to clarify certain cases, but questions would remain.
What is the difference between accidentally and intentionally reintroduced populations, and between populations intentionally reintroduced for different reasons (e.g. sport fishing vs species reestablishment), or by different groups (hobbyists/"guerilla conservationists", legit/academic conservation organizations, state agencies) . The answer to this question could help to uncover the biases of the speaker.
If the reintroduced animals are of the same species but are from a locally different population than the original extirpated population, does that count as reintroduction? And if the habitat has changed radically since the extirpation of the original population, does reintroducing the species count as reintroduction even though the species is only being released at the same latitude and longitude but not in the same plant and animal communities that originally existed at those coordinates? This seems most relevant to the reintroduction of non-herp species -- wolves, bison, and especially horses -- but those might be interesting analogous cases to investigate.
Though I don't keep up with this movement, the horse rewilding debate seems to have grown far enough outside its justifiable boundaries to have become something of a monster, and I wouldn't like that to happen to herps any more than it already has. Imagine how well a rattlesnake reintroduction program would be accepted if it was allowed to become a culture war as is the fashion lately.
|