Museum DNA reveals a new, potentially extinct species of rinkhals (Serpentes: Elapidae: Hemachatus) from the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe.

Genetic information plays a pivotal role in species recognition and delimitation, but rare or extinct animals can be difficult to obtain genetic samples from. While natural history wet collections have proven invaluable in the description of novel species, the use of these historical samples in genetic studies has been greatly impeded by DNA degradation, especially because of formalin-fixation prior to preservation. Here, we use recently developed museum genomics approaches to determine the status of an isolated population of the elapid snake genus Hemachatus from Zimbabwe. We used multiple digestion phases followed by single strand sequencing library construction and hybridisation capture to obtain 12S and 16S rDNA sequences from a poorly preserved tissue sample of this population. Phylogenetic and morphological analyses in an integrated taxonomic framework demonstrate that the Zimbabwean rinkhals population represents an old and highly distinct lineage, which we describe as a new species, Hemachatus nyangensis sp. nov. Our phylogenetic dating analysis is compatible with venom spitting having evolved in response to the threat posed by early hominins, although more data are required for a robust test of this hypothesis. This description demonstrates the power of museum genomics in revealing rare or even extinct species: Hemachatus from Zimbabwe are only known from a small area of the Eastern Highlands known for high endemism. No living specimens have been seen since the 1980s, most likely due to dramatic land-use changes in the Eastern Highlands, suggesting that the species could be extinct. In view of its recognition as a highly distinct lineage, urgent action is required to determine whether any populations survive, and to safeguard remaining habitat.

Deconstructing compassionate conservation.

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public.

Deconstrucción de la Conservación Compasiva Resumen La conservación compasiva se enfoca en cuatro principios: no causar daño; los individuos importan; la integración de los animales individualmente; y la coexistencia pacífica entre los humanos u los animales. Recientemente, la conservación compasiva ha sido promovida como una alternativa a la filosofía convencional de la conservación. Creemos que los ejemplos presentados por los conservacionistas compasivos han sido elegidos arbitraria o deliberadamente por estar enfocados en los mamíferos; por ser inherentes y no compasivos; y por ofrecer soluciones de conservación poco efectivas. La conservación compasiva se enfoca arbitrariamente en las especies carismáticas, principalmente los grandes depredadores y los megaherbívoros. La filosofía no es compasiva cuando deja que los depredadores invasores dentro del ambiente causen daño a un vasto número de individuos nativos o usa el miedo al daño por superdepredadores para aterrorizar a los mesodepredadores. El entorpecimiento del control de especies exóticas (megafauna, depredadores) in situ no mejorará las condiciones de conservación de la mayoría de la biodiversidad, incluso si los conservacionistas compasivos no dañan a los individuos exóticos. Las posiciones que toman los llamados conservacionistas compasivos sobre especies particulares y sobre las acciones de conservación podrían extenderse para entorpecer otros tipos de conservación, incluyendo las reubicaciones, el encercado para la conservación y el control de la fertilidad. El bienestar animal es increíblemente importante para la conservación e irónicamente, la conservación compasiva no ofrece los mejores resultados de bienestar para los animales y comúnmente es poco efectiva en el logro de los objetivos de conservación. Como consecuencia, la conservación compasiva puede poner en peligro el apoyo público y del gobierno que tiene la conservación debido al entendimiento poco limitado que tiene el público general sobre los problemas de conservación.