In the era of biodiversity and ecosystems collapse (IPBES, 2019), the description of species new to science is often an event to celebrate as a sign of enduring life. On the other hand, conservationists may immediately worry about the condition of the newly described species, intuitively expecting such species to be rare and range restricted, and possibly to occur in already severely altered habitats. Simkins et al. (2020) quantitatively assessed this intuition based on a recent global taxonomic review that led to an increase of 10.7% in the number of known bird species. They found that species completely new to science (without taxonomic antecedents) were significantly more threatened than any other group in the new taxonomy (including splits and merges from previously known species or species unchanged by the revision). However, overall, the mean global extinction risk across species did not increase in the new taxonomy. The global coverage of species ranges by protected areas did not decrease either, although newly split species are generally poorly covered: for example, 45% of split species identified as globally threatened had less than 10% of their ranges covered by protected areas, and 11% had no coverage whatsoever (Simkins et al., 2020). The results of this study have interesting implications for conservation planning, but also highlight a limitation in our ability to adapt conservation actions to change.

For example, Simkins et al. (2020) show the greatest richness of globally threatened taxa newly elevated to species rank to occur in eastern Amazonia, Java and the Philippines. Intuitively, they suggest that protected area networks need to be expanded in these biodiversity hotspots. Obviously, protected areas are a fundamental conservation tool. In many cases, area protection has allowed populations to persist or increase, and land use change to slow down or halt compared to non‐protected areas (e.g., Hermoso et al., 2018; Lehikoinen et al., 2019). That is why the expansion of protected areas is a key target set in conservation agendas worldwide. For example, the European Union has recently committed to expanding its network of protected areas by up to 30% of land and sea by 2030 (meaning increases in protection of 4% and 19%, respectively, of land and sea compared to 2020 levels; European Commission, 2020).

However, conservation by area protection also has limitations. The designation of new protected areas is complicated by social and economic issues, mostly because of competition with human activities. This often leads to opportunistic design (Baldi et al., 2017), meaning protected areas often fail to improve species conservation status in practice, a shortfall further compounded by chronic underfunding and poor management (Watson et al., 2014). Considering again the EU as an example, most terrestrial species and habitats that have been protected for 30 years within the extant network of protected areas remain in an unfavorable status (EEA, 2015). Moreover, area protection in non‐western countries is increasingly under scrutiny as a “colonial” practice, often facilitating dispossession of indigenous people from their land, yielding poor results in terms of equity, sustainable development and ultimately conservation itself (Andrade & Rhodes, 2012; Laltaika & Askew, 2018). More generally, it is increasingly debated whether static protected areas with fixed boundaries are sufficient to respond to the challenge of global change (e.g., range shifts following climate change (Araújo et al., 2011; but see, for example, Lehikoinen et al., 2019)). In a way, taxonomic revisions are a form of change, if not in the true state of the system, at least in our knowledge of it; as Simkins et al. (2020) recognize, species lists are inherently unstable. Therefore, static area protection may be insufficient or inefficient as a blanket response to taxonomic changes as it is to environmental ones. As global changes in both species status and knowledge accelerate, conservation must find more dynamic and flexible ways to respond.

For example, in European countries most new taxonomic groups can be expected to come from splits (Simkins et al., 2020). If most such changes do not correspond to an increase in extinction risk, it may be preferable to maintain and strengthen the extant protected area network, and to strengthen conservation values for non‐protected areas, for example, by promoting connectivity in green infrastructures (Hermoso et al., 2019). This network could be upsized or modified in response to new biodiversity conservation needs, including further taxonomic revisions. The economic and social effort of declaring new protected areas can then be focused on the few key spots where revisions have most increased conservation needs.

Conversely, in areas of high biodiversity value such as the eastern Amazon (one of the hotpots of newly recognized globally threatened split species identified in Simkins et al., 2020), where species entirely new to science are more likely to arise, their protection might be best pursued by increasing the governance rights of local indigenous communities, halting their prosecution and addressing poverty, injustice, and marginality (Laltaika & Askew, 2018; IPBES, 2019). At least a quarter of the global managed land area, and ~35% of non‐formally protected terrestrial areas, are traditionally owned, used, or occupied by indigenous peoples (IPBES, 2019). In these areas, ecosystems and ecological communities tend to be more intact and resilient and to decline less rapidly than elsewhere (IPBES, 2019). Recognizing the territorial rights of indigenous local communities and their role in managing natural resources is therefore likely to have greater pre‐emptive value, and greater sustainability of conservation outcomes, than reacting to new information by declaring new protected areas. After all, species new to western science have typically long co‐existed with local people, and often been known to them.

The urgency of halting biodiversity loss in the context of global change calls for alternative, dynamic conservation strategies. Studies like Simkins et al. (2020) are important to explicitly test intuitions (e.g., that taxonomic revisions should increase extinction risks), avoid dogma, and rationally translate new information into conservation planning and action.

在生物多样性和生态系统崩溃的时代（IPBES，2019），对科学新物种的描述通常是值得庆祝的事件，以象征着持久的生命。另一方面，保护主义者可能会立即担心新描述的物种的状况，直觉上期望此类物种是稀有且范围受限的，并且有可能发生在已经严重改变的栖息地中。Simkins等。（2020年）根据最近的全球分类学评估对这种直觉进行了定量评估，该评估导致已知鸟类的数量增加了10.7％。他们发现，完全不属于科学领域的物种（没有分类学先例）比新分类法中的任何其他物种（包括从先前已知的物种分裂或合并或经修订未改变的物种）受到的威胁要大得多。但是，总体而言，在新的分类法中，物种间全球灭绝的平均风险并未增加。尽管新分裂物种的覆盖范围普遍较差，但保护区对物种范围的全球覆盖率也没有减少：例如，被确定为全球受威胁物种的分裂物种中，有45％的保护区覆盖范围不到10％，而11 ％没有任何覆盖（Simkins等。，2020）。这项研究的结果对保护规划具有有趣的意义，但也突出了我们适应保护行动以适应变化的能力的局限性。

例如，Simkins等人。（2020年）显示，在亚马逊河东部，爪哇和菲律宾，新近升格为物种濒危物种的全球濒危种类最大。从直觉上讲，他们建议在这些生物多样性热点地区扩大保护区网络。显然，保护区是基本的保护工具。在许多情况下，与非保护区相比，区域保护使人口得以维持或增加，土地利用变化减缓或停滞（例如，Hermoso等人，2018 ; Lehikoinen等人，2019））。这就是为什么扩大保护区是全球保护议程中设定的主要目标的原因。例如，欧盟最近承诺到2030年将其保护区网络扩大到陆地和海洋的30％（这意味着与2020年相比，陆地和海洋的保护面积分别增加4％和19％；欧洲委员会，2020年）。

但是，通过区域保护进行保护也有局限性。新的保护区的指定由于社会和经济问题而变得复杂，这主要是由于与人类活动的竞争。这通常导致机会主义的设计（Baldi等人，2017），这意味着保护区在实践中通常无法改善物种保护状况，长期的资金不足和管理不善进一步加剧了这种短缺（Watson等人，2014）。再次以欧盟为例，在现存的保护区网络中受保护30年的大多数陆地物种和生境仍然处于不利地位（欧洲经济区，2015年））。此外，非西方国家的区域保护作为一种“殖民地”做法正受到越来越多的审查，这通常促进土著人民从其土地上被剥夺，在公平，可持续发展和最终的保护本身方面产生不良的结果（Andrade＆Rhodes，2012年）。 ; Laltaika＆Askew，2018）。从更广泛的意义上讲，具有固定边界的静态保护区是否足以应对全球变化的挑战（例如，气候变化后的范围变化（Araújo等人，2011年；但参见例如Lehikoinen等人。 ，2019））。从某种意义上说，分类学修订是一种变化形式，即使不是在系统的真实状态下，至少在我们所知的情况下也是如此。如Simkins等。（2020）认识到，物种清单天生就不稳定。因此，静态区域保护可能无法充分发挥作用，或者无法有效应对分类学变化（如对环境变化的反应）。随着物种状况和知识的全球变化加速，保护必须找到更动态和灵活的应对方式。

例如，在欧洲国家中，大多数新的分类学类别可望来自分裂（Simkins等，2020）。如果大多数此类变化与灭绝风险的增加不相符，则可能更可取的方法是维持和加强现有的保护区网络，并通过例如促进绿色基础设施之间的连通性来增强非保护区的保护价值（Hermoso等人，2019）。可以根据新的生物多样性保护需求，包括进一步的生物分类修订，扩大或修改该网络。宣布新保护区的经济和社会努力可以集中在修订最增加保护需求的几个关键点上。

相反，在具有较高生物多样性价值的地区，例如东部亚马逊地区（Simkins等人，2020年确定为新认识的全球受威胁的分裂物种的热点之一），在该地区更容易出现对科学完全陌生的物种，它们的保护可能最好的做法是增加当地土著社区的治理权，中止其起诉并解决贫困，不公正和边缘化问题（Laltaika＆Askew，2018 ; IPBES，2019）。传统上至少有四分之一的全球管理土地面积和约35％的非正规保护陆地面积由土著人民拥有，使用或占用（IPBES，2019）。在这些地区，生态系统和生态群落往往比其他地区更完整，更具复原力，并且下降速度较快（IPBES，2019）。因此，与通过宣布新的保护区来对新信息做出反应相比，认识到土著地方社区的领土权利及其在管理自然资源中的作用可能具有更大的先发价值和更大的保护可持续性。毕竟，西方科学新物种通常与当地人长期共存，并为他们所熟知。

在全球变化的背景下，制止生物多样性丧失的紧迫性要求采取替代性的动态保护战略。Simkins等人的研究。（2020年）对于明确检验直觉（例如，分类学修订应增加灭绝风险），避免教条并合理地将新信息转化为保护计划和行动非常重要。