Abstract

Despite the fact that the most changes in lists of threatened species reflect changes in knowledge rather than changes in conservation status, the lists continue to provide social and legal mandates for conservation; they are used to report on the state of the environment and to guide the allocation of scarce resources. There is a substantial under-representation of non-vascular species in threatened plant lists, reflected in an absence of documented extinctions among fungi and algae. Turnover in the composition of extinct flora lists in Australia suggests that the lists of threatened species may not be sufficiently reliable to form the basis for reporting on the state of the environment. They are of limited use in distinguishing between levels of threat and may not be a reliable guide for the allocation of scarce conservation resources among plant species. Systems for listing threatened species create a feedback loop, responsive to the subjective preferences of scientists, largely unresponsive to underlying true threats, self-perpetuating and accentuating bias with each iteration. Other tools, including formal decision approaches and the acquisition of new kinds of data, are needed to fill the roles.