Previously we had “keystone species”. Nominally, this is ecological terminology meaning something like a species whose niche in its ecosystem is vital to the survival of many other species. This is theoretically odd to begin with – on one scale or another, many or even most species fit that definition. In practice the term has been abused, often brought in to give a layer of scientific respectability to various narrow-focus attempts to promote conservation of a single marketable organism.

More recently I have heard people talking about “foundation species”. I don’t know what, or if, the official scientific definition of foundation species is, but I personally heard it used to explain the current conservation focus on pacific salmon. My guess is it could be defined as a keystone species, after the term keystone species has lost it’s zing due to overuse.

Now we have a new contender: “flagship species”. This one I like. As far as I can tell, it means species which we are going to focus our efforts on because it is especially marketable, and efforts to conserve it will inevitably produce actions which conserve it’s ecosystem generally. I fret when science and PR get greyed together, even in good causes and with good effect. So I will personally be sticking to “flagship species” in my own speech from now on.

Houdini said that his goal was to be the hero of his own life. Maybe that’s my new mission statement:

I will be the flagship species of my own life.

update: add one to the list – “focal species”. used for defining minimum necessary patch size of ‘intact’ wilderness. to whit: The species that is identifided as being most sensitive to a threat in the landscape is termed the ‘focal’ species, then you figure out how small the mine can get before the canary dies. the world is a buzzword factory.