@felix-insects Thanks for noticing this! I just reversed this change so that the default geoprivacy of this taxon is obscured again.

I certainly agree Cephalotus should be obscured despite the fact it is not listed on the WA Priority list. It is listed as VU in IUCN though and, in my opinion, it may also make sense to list it as a species of special conservation concern (CD) under the WA BCAct 2016. It is one of the main indicator species of the federally-threatened ecological community "Empodisma peatlands of southwestern Australia".

@thebeachcomber

@thebeachcomber Thanks for the explanation, that is a very interesting post and I fully agree with most of your points.

However, the WA sensitive list for carnivorous plants is unfortunately quite the opposite of "conservative". Until very recently, not a single species was listed as Threatened and a couple of species have probably become extinct in the wild before even being included on the Priority list. Apparently, neither the carnivorous plant expert Allen Lowrie nor anyone at the Department have had the time to do this listing work. I have only recently succeeded in getting some of the most critically endangered species at least included in the Priority list, i.e., those that are only known from a single location immediately threatened by urban expansion or mining/construction.

The only reason Cephalotus is not on the WA sensitive list is because no one has so far done the hard work of getting it nominated as Threatened. The survey effort required for such a Threatened nomination would probably require several years given the large distribution area and remote/hard to reach populations. The only way it could more easily be listed is as a Priority 4a or CD species, but even that would require a lot of work given that detailed reports of all known populations would have to be compiled. Maybe we can make an exception here and retain the default iNat geoprivacy of Cephalotus as obscured until it is listed on the WA Priority list?

Cephalotus is of course not only threatened by poaching. Inappropriate fire regimes and climate change probably pose far greater threats (see Conservation Advice for the Empodisma peatlands of southwestern Australia).

There is a similar situation with Drosera bulbigena which is also currently only listed on IUCN and not on the WA Priority list. However, I have almost completed my Priority nomination for that species and I expect it will be listed as Priority 2 or 3 in the coming months.

perhaps WA would be better served with a more similar system to Queensland? They seem to have a setup where species (or even higher level taxa) can be designated as sensitive without necessarily needing to be formally listed as threatened