14 



(1982) questioned its taxonomic validity. This is clearly untrue because 

 Brown and Moll (1979) suggested the form may be a distinct species in the 

 original status report, as we pointed out earlier in this paper. Thus, 

 the issue of distinctness of the turtle was raised prior to the Monsanto 

 studies. 



Further. Dodd (1983) stated "There is considerable controversy over 

 the suitability and interpretation of the statistical techniques used by 

 Houseal et al. (1982) and it appears unlikely that the taxonomic question 

 will be settled in the near future." He does not cite the source of the 

 controversy but we first became aware of technical criticisms by John B. 

 Iverson at the Public Meeting in Iowa. It is pointless to debate such 

 issues here but the statistical methodologies employed by Houseal et al. 

 (1982) have been used numerous times in the literature and, indeed, the 

 UPGMA cluster analysis is a standard method used in most multivariate 

 analyses of geographic variation. OES funded an independent study (Berry 

 and Berry, 1984) that repeated our study and found almost precisely what 

 Houseal et al. (1982) found — the taxon K. £. apooneri was invsilid. 



The read issue stemming from this example concerns the question of 

 how much must be known before proposing a species as endangered and 

 whether affected parties have the right to conduct studies challenging 

 endangered classifications when these appear to be based upon scanty data. 

 Such studies should be welcomed by agencies charged with making a 

 determination. Further, if studies are conducted, who should evaluate 

 conflicting f indings--those making the proposal or a qualified third 

 party? Additionally, at what point is federal protection required if 

 local and state protection is being provided, and who should make this 

 decision? In some cases, the decision regarding the need for federal 

 protection is clear (e.g., California condor); but others are not (e.g., 

 Illinois mud turtle). Although painfully derived, perhaps the procedure 

 of an independent third party review in controversial cases represents a 

 good approach. 



Dodd (1982) stated that the proposal was withdrawn because of intense 

 politiceil controversy. We disagree, believing that the USFWS withdrew the 

 listing because of their stated reasons which were biological in nature 

 and took into consideration the protection the turtle was being provided 

 at the state and local level. The "political" aspects of the controversy 

 were only directed towards gaining the opportunity to be heard and to be 

 fairly evaluated. All other doors to the OES were closed. 



The mud turtle is actively protected by state and local organizations 

 and all that can be done within reason is being done or contemplated. It 

 is not presently in need of federal protection. Should the existing state 

 and local commitments to its protection change, it once again, and 

 rightfully, can be considered for federal protection. In the Illinois mud 

 turtle controversy, no human may have benefitted but the turtle certainly 

 did. It gained a national versus regional exposure, and its status will 

 be closely monitored. 



