Can taxonomic richness be used as a surrogate for phylogenetic distinctness indices for ranking areas for conservation?

Several methods have been proposed for evaluating area conservation priorities. Here the performance of traditional approaches (taxonomic richness) versus newer methods of phylogenetic distinctness is compared using the results and data from three different molecular studies: crayfish from the central United States and Australia, and Aeglidae freshwater crabs from Chile. To a large extent rankings based on species and genus richness agree with rankings based on taxonomic, phylogenetic and genetic diversity, thus suggesting that taxonomic richness methods may be used as a surrogate for the phylogenetic distinctness methods for the purpose of prioritizing reserve areas for conservation.