Response to Lynch and Lande

I. R. Franklin; R. Frankham

doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00230.x

Response to Lynch and Lande

I. R. Franklin, R. Frankham^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Abstract

Lynch & Lande's (1998) comments on our paper (Franklin & Frankham, 1998) misrepresent our purpose, deal largely with a different issue and do not refute our original criticism. Our paper is a commentary on Lande's (1995) suggestion that an effective size of 5000 is required to maintain evolutionary potential, not whether this size ‘is adequate for conservation purposes'.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	73-73
Number of pages	1
Journal	Animal Conservation
Volume	1
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00230.x
Publication status	Published - Feb 1998

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00230.x

Cite this

@article{958bf327f2d3481680d2f8104b411efa,

title = "Response to Lynch and Lande",

abstract = "Lynch \& Lande's (1998) comments on our paper (Franklin \& Frankham, 1998) misrepresent our purpose, deal largely with a different issue and do not refute our original criticism. Our paper is a commentary on Lande's (1995) suggestion that an effective size of 5000 is required to maintain evolutionary potential, not whether this size {\textquoteleft}is adequate for conservation purposes'.",

author = "Franklin, \{I. R.\} and R. Frankham",

year = "1998",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00230.x",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "73--73",

journal = "Animal Conservation",

issn = "1367-9430",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to Lynch and Lande

AU - Franklin, I. R.

AU - Frankham, R.

PY - 1998/2

Y1 - 1998/2

N2 - Lynch & Lande's (1998) comments on our paper (Franklin & Frankham, 1998) misrepresent our purpose, deal largely with a different issue and do not refute our original criticism. Our paper is a commentary on Lande's (1995) suggestion that an effective size of 5000 is required to maintain evolutionary potential, not whether this size ‘is adequate for conservation purposes'.

AB - Lynch & Lande's (1998) comments on our paper (Franklin & Frankham, 1998) misrepresent our purpose, deal largely with a different issue and do not refute our original criticism. Our paper is a commentary on Lande's (1995) suggestion that an effective size of 5000 is required to maintain evolutionary potential, not whether this size ‘is adequate for conservation purposes'.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00230.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00230.x

M3 - Editorial

SN - 1367-9430

VL - 1

SP - 73

EP - 73

JO - Animal Conservation

JF - Animal Conservation

IS - 1

ER -