Multiple diversity measures to identify complementary conservation areas for the Baja California peninsular cacti

The Baja California Peninsula is home to 85 species of cacti, of which 54 are endemic, highlighting its importance as a cactus diverse region within Mexico. Many species are under threat due to collection pressure and habitat loss, but ensuring maximal protection of cacti species requires a better understanding of diversity patterns. We assessed species richness, endemism, and phylogenetic and morphological diversity using herbarium records and a molecular phylogeny for 82 species of cacti found in the peninsula. The four diversity measures were estimated for the existing nature reserve network and for 314 hexagrids of 726 km2. Using the hexagrid data, we surveyed our results for areas that best complement the current protected cacti diversity in the Baja California Peninsula. Currently, the natural reserve network in Baja shelters an important amount of the cacti diversity (74% of the species, 85.9% of the phylogenetic diversity, 76% of endemics and all the growth forms). While species richness produced several solutions to complement the diversity protected, by identifying priority species (endemic species with high contribution to overall PD) one best solution is reported. Three areas (San Matías, Magdalena and Margarita Islands and El Triunfo), selected using species richness, PD and endemism, best complement the diversity currently protected, increasing species richness to 89%, PD to 94% and endemism to 89%, and should be considered in future conservation plans. Two of these areas could be included within nature reserves already established.

The evolution of strategy: thinking war from antiquity to the present

Latin had no word for "strategy", but the East Romans, whom we call the Byzantines, did. This book tracks the evolution of the concept of warfare being subjected to higher political aims from Antiquity to the Present, using Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, English and German sources. It tracks the rise, fall, and resurrection of the belief in the Roman and later the medieval and early modern world that warfare was only legitimate if it pursued the higher goal of a just peace, which in the 19th century gave way to a blinkered concentration on military victory as only war aim. It explains why one school of thought, from Antiquity to the present, emphasised eternal principles of warfare, while others emphasised, in Clausewitz's term, the "changing character of war". It tracks ideas from land warfare to naval warfare to air power and nuclear thinking, but it also stresses great leaps and discontinuities in thinking about strategy. It covers asymmetric wars both from the point of view of the weaker power seeking to overthrow a stronger power, and from the stronger power dealing with insurgents and other numerically inferior forces. It concludes with a commentary of the long-known problems of bureaucratic politics, non-centralised command and inter-service rivalry, which since the 16th century or earlier has created obstacles to coherent strategy making.

The strategy makers: thoughts on war and society from Machiavelli and Clausewitz

Introductory chapter. Introduction and excerpts from works of Seigneur de Fourquevaux (1548); Francois Loque – Saillans (1589); Matthew Sutcliffe (1593); Don Bernardino de Mendoza (1595); Paul Hay du Chastelet (1668); Marquis Santa Cruz de Marcenado & Zanthier (1724-30/1775); Guibert (1772); Rühle von Lilienstern (1816/1817).

Small wars in the age of Clausewitz: the watershed between partisan war and people's war

Around the time of Clausewitz’s writing, a new element was introduced into partisan warfare: ideology. Previously, under the ancien régime, partisans were what today we would call special forces, light infantry or cavalry, almost always mercenaries, carrying out special operations, while the main action in war took place between regular armies. Clausewitz lectured his students on such ‘small wars’. In the American War of Independence and the resistance against Napoleon and his allies, operations carried out by such partisans merged with counter-revolutionary, nationalist insurgencies, but these Clausewitz analysed in a distinct category, ‘people's war’. Small wars, people's war, etc. should thus not be thought of as monopoly of either the political Right or the Left.