The Pros and Cons of a Consensus List of Asian Primate Subspecies

Abstract

For effective international implementation, conservation action and legislation should rest on a broadly accepted scientifi c classifi cation. Such classifi cations must keep pace with advances in taxonomic research. Provision is necessary for potentially as well as currently recognized taxa. Regional classifi cations of primate subspecies are scarce. None was published from 1968 to 1997 for Asian primates as a whole. Napier and Napier’s (1967) now outmoded (global) classifi cation was only a list. Groves’ (2001) classifi cation caused consternation in the number of subspecies promoted to species. In response, a work- shop was convened in Florida, USA, in 2000 to address this issue and to compile a consensus classifi cation. The resulting Asian annotated list was published in 2004. Such a compilation usefully collates various taxonomic sources in a single reference cit- able as that adopted in reporting research results. This need not imply wholesale acceptance. Departures can be specifi ed. The classifi cation can, and should be, the springboard for further research. Its consensual nature tends to reduce individual bias and error and broadens the research input. Conversely, a single-authored classifi cation might surpass it in consistency of taxonomic approach and in evading awkward compromise. By its rarity any classifi cation risks entrenchment, discouraging further taxo- nomic research and encouraging antipathy toward its successors. Confl icts over the signifi cance of genetic evidence and other questions raised during the compilation of the Asian list confi rm that, like its predecessors, this list is not defi nitive. It should and will be superseded.