The biodiversity crisis that the planet is suffering as a result of human action is giving rise to a mass extinction of dimensions comparable to other crises suffered throughout the Earth's geological history, caused by global catastrophes such as major climate change, widespread volcanism or the impact of meteorites. The current loss of species, habitats and genetic variability, which is affecting all living things across the board, requires a commitment from those responsible for this catastrophe, from ourselves, to at least halt this biodiversity-laminating trend. Human-induced transformations have an impact on all types of organisms, in all environments, without too many distinctions. However, the efforts made to halt these losses, unlike the causes, do have a marked bias imposed by various interests, by subjective preferences independent of the true taxonomic importance or the degree of threat to the species, as shown in this work.

A coherent biodiversity conservation model should distribute funding, which is always very limited, according to rigorous scientific criteria, usually to the most threatened species. Guenard et al. rightly point out that the criteria used to implement funded conservation projects have more to do with human interest in species, their more or less charismatic or emblematic character, than with their true status. This discrepancy, according to the authors of the article, does not even generate positive collateral effects, since the species that are appreciated by public opinion are not representative of the abundance of other species, as has been demonstrated in other studies, and their eventual improvement would not be transferred to other, more threatened species.

The planetary biodiversity that suffers most from our excesses is not exactly the target of funds for its recovery. Molluscs, amphibians, fungi and inland fish are the ones that are really suffering from human impact and hardly any financial effort is devoted to them to prevent their extinction. As the authors of the article point out, it is necessary to increase scientific knowledge of a large part of living beings, precisely define their status and, from there, act coherently. Otherwise, we will not be guaranteeing the conservation of biodiversity as a whole, but only of a small fraction of beings perhaps more suited to zoos than to other areas.

This article is important because it quantifies a well-known problem: biases in nature conservation. Instead of investing money in the species most at risk of extinction, the vast majority is invested in the ‘heroic megafauna’, the species most charismatic to humans, such as other primates, elephants and species that resemble our pets (tigers, lions, or wolves, for example).

By quantifying the extent to which we have neglected the groups of organisms most threatened with extinction, this work could help change the strategies of management and conservation agencies. With this evidence, it could encourage the diversion of some of the available money to where it can have the greatest effect. For example, the most threatened group of vertebrates is amphibians (with a quarter of all threatened vertebrate species), but they receive barely 2% of funding. Similarly, among invertebrates, dragonflies are particularly threatened, but the little money spent on insect conservation programmes is mainly spent on bees or butterflies.

With such a misallocation of money, the worst news in this article may be that only 6% of globally threatened species have had any conservation projects. In the end, the inequality in the distribution of funds among threatened wildlife and plants somewhat resembles economic inequality in human society.

The press release adequately and accurately reflects the main findings of this study.

This study is of a very high quality. The authors have done an exceptional job analysing a total of 14,566 projects focused on the protection of specific species that have been carried out between 1992 and 2016. The aim of this study was to analyse which groups have been allocated a larger budget for their conservation and what category of protection the species considered within these groups had. To do so, the authors rely on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which provides a solid basis for the analysis. Subsequently, the authors detail in a very precise way how the funds of the projects studied have been distributed for the conservation of species under different categories of threat.

The work is truly illuminating, providing novel and valuable information by bringing together raw data involving different groups of species. It lays a fundamental foundation for future, more targeted research that can focus on particular groups, species or geographic areas. Furthermore, although it was not the authors' objective, it is necessary to point out that, on many occasions, the conservation of a species depends directly on the protection of its habitat, something that was not taken into account in this study and which cannot be ignored.

This study highlights a worrying reality. The more charismatic and larger species tend to receive more attention and funding for their conservation. However, other species that are not considered as attractive but are in a more vulnerable situation do not receive the support they should. We must bear in mind that the value of a species is not just about its appearance; fungi, amphibians or reptiles also play a fundamental role in the functioning of ecosystems and often go unnoticed.

We cannot allow the conservation of a species to be based on its popularity.