The Superficiality of it All
Charismatic fauna are loved for superficial reasons.
The mountain gorilla and rose’s ghost frog were both critically endangered animals. While the former is widely talked about and has multiple conservation campaigns surrounding it, succeeding in facilitating their gradual recovery and reclassification to “Endangered”, news of the latter is unheard of, with its populations suspected to be declining even further, even become locally extinct in some areas of its home range.
A simple comparison between the two animals quickly reveals just why this bias exists: the mountain gorilla is majestic, charming, the cover-girl of magazines and subject of printed tees. The ghost frog, however, well, is just a slimy, spotty, unattractive creature.
In this argument, it matters not which species has more ecological importance, as the attention garnered by the mountain gorilla over the rose’s ghost frog is established purely based off superficial reasons, which is not a very smart or tactical approach to the issue of conservation.
“Only charismatic species seem able to appeal enough interest to raise sufficient funds and interest to get decently conserved. Consequently, these conservation efforts are based on unscientific ground creating a sort of class struggle between ‘wealthy,’ successful animals and poor, doomed castoff animals: It is just like if humans could decide on the right to exist or not for the animals they like or dislike, irrespective of ecological concerns and sustainability.”
— Ducarme, Luque, & Courchamp (2012)
Even scientists are not immune to this superficial bias; despite an estimated 20,000 threatened species of flora and fauna, the bulk of research articles are concentrated on a subset of these species, and most attention, from the general public and conservation scientists alike, goes to charismatic animals, as well as animals of economic importance, such as the atlantic cod.
On the IUCN list, an average of 17 articles studied each species of mammal, 9 each species of reptile, 8 for birds and 5 for fish, but a look at the common charismatic fauna would show you the bias that exists in research: animals such as tigers, african elephants, and sea turtles were the focus of more than 600 conservation articles each.
The lack of interest in certain species also exists among funding agencies and conservation policies, further disincentivizing scientists from studying the less attractive and lesser-known creatures, since their work on these animals will not be prioritised or well-funded compared to studies on charismatic ones.
“You’re probably much more likely to get published if you’re writing about species that a lot of people are interested in. It’s a self-fulfilling cycle.”
— Erik Meijaard (Goldman, 2016)
The fact that we are just grazing the surface in sufficiently understanding orangutan ecology, one of the most studied-species on Earth, enough to develop appropriate conservation projects, tells us the sheer magnitude of the knowledge gap that exists in less studied, less charismatic species, for actionable conservation recommendations to be made.
Overall, the superficiality of our love for charismatic fauna may be foolish, as it takes the spotlight away from more threatened more ecologically important species, in the form of conservation efforts, funding and research.