LAUSR

In October  the UK government hosts a major international governmental conference on tackling the illegal wildlife trade, the latest in a series that it initiated in  with a conference attended by representatives of  countries (UK Government, ). The strong governmental commitment to this issue is in response to concerns that the illegal wildlife trade is one of the largest global illcit trades, worth an estimated USD – billion per year (Haken, ), and has potential links to organized crime and terrorism (Wyler & Sheikh, ). This estimate excludes fish (USD – billion) and timber (USD  billion). The trade appears to be growing rapidly and to pose a severe threat to a wide range of wildlife, although evidence of impact is patchy and mostly limited to a few high profile species (Challender & Macmillan, ). This emphasis on illegal wildlife trade as a priority conservation issue is very welcome. The trade is not, however, a new problem. Looking back to past experiences and attempts to address such trade can provide valuable insights for current policy and practice. The focus of Oryx on practical siteand species-focused conservation means that the journal has always had a strong interest in publishing research that explores the drivers and consequences of wildlife use. To mark and contribute to the deliberations of the October  London conference we have compiled  of these articles into a virtual issue (https://www.cam bridge.org/core/journals/oryx/virtual-issues), illustrating both the persistent and changing themes in illegal wildlife trade research as represented in Oryx from the s to the present day. One of our earliest featured articles (Lambert, ) illustrates a rather depressing phenomenon: substantial and locally devastating trade in chelonians has been an ongoing theme in Oryx, with articles on the subject appearing regularly, up to the present day (e.g. Morgan & Chng, ). The attention this taxon is receiving in Oryx underlines the need for more attention in both policy and practice. The journal has a long history of publishing research on the threat of illegal wildlife trade to taxa that don’t otherwise receive much attention, such as insects (Small, ), Syngnathidae (seahorses & pipefish; Martin-Smith & Vincent, ) and orchids (Kreziou et al., ), and regions beyond the usual suspects of East Africa, China and South-east Asia, such as Eurasia (Kitson & Nekaris, ), the Mediterranean (Kreziou et al., ) and South-west Asia (Bashari et al., ). Oryx may also be less susceptible to plant-blindness (Balding & Williams, ): another of our featured papers highlights the threat of the bulb trade to wild plant populations (Read, ). Disproportionate attention is given in the media to the threat of illegal wildlife trade to charismatic species. Oryx publishes research on these species too: for example, Parker & Martin () asked how many elephants were being killed for the ivory trade. Those with longer memories will remember clearly the heated debates, many of which are echoed now, leading up to the CITES Appendix  listing of elephants in . A strong theme throughout is the methodological contributions ofOryx authors. For the illegal wildlife trade there is a lack of robust evidence to underpin policy and practice. Much of this is a result of a general lack of research attention, but appropriate methods are also needed so that the advice given to policy-makers is relevant, accurate and timely. Parker & Martin () realised this, providing a reality check for overstatements of elephant mortality. They also highlighted the need to see illegal wildlife trade in the context of other threats; a point that is still salient today (Breuer et al., ). Parker & Martin also had the important gift of recognizing when their analyses needed updating in the light of new information, in this case leading to a revised conclusion that the ivory trade remained disconcertingly high. A particular highlight of the methodological articles is Lam et al.’s () analysis of the effect of CITES listing on the seahorse trade in Hong Kong, using a range of approaches to build robust, triangulated evidence for trade that is difficult to investigate. Similarly, Bashari et al. () tackled the challenging topic of understanding the motivations for illegal hunting, using multiple methods to uncover the complexity of illegal wildlife trade. At the other end of the trade chain, Theng et al. () focus on understanding the motivations of consumers, a growing concern as attention moves from attempts to control supply to encompass demand reduction. This line of research may appear to be a recent development, but one of our earliest featured articles already highlighted the importance of Asian demand for luxury products (Wayre, E.J. MILNER-GULLAND Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2JD, UK. E-mail [email protected]