this isn't part of the WHS, that's why it wasn't listed as a connection
the Yakushima WHS only covers a specific inland area of Yakushima, the wetlands are at the coast

This news item says that Puerto Princesa has become a RAMSAR site too, but I cannot find further evidence on it at the RAMSAR website:

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/44961/underground-river-declared-wetland-of-intl-imp ortance

Any ideas?

There are obviously some mistakes on the website. The Ramsar site within Hallasan National Park is not included on Ramsar sites that are also WHS. Generally, the list they provide is useful, but I think it has to be double-checked.

The definition of the Connection "Name changes" needs a re-visit. It currently limits the connection to changes which "reflect a reaction to cultural or political pressures/changes taking place in the country."

However, some seem to have slipped in which don't obviously meet that definition e.g
From "Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia)" to "Gondwana Rainforests of Australia"
From "Los Glaciares" to "Los Glaciares National Park" (2012)
From "Redwood National Park" to "Redwood National and State Parks" (2006)

A problem with the current definition is that it is sometimes going to be a problem to identify what sort of "pressures" lead to a name change!

Thus, one change made this year (Els - which has NOT as yet been added to the Connection!) was from "Samarkand" to "Samarkand Crossroad of Cultures". One can only imagine what sort of pressures led to this name change - was it a desire to reflect the multi cultural reality of Uzbekistan or an attempt to explain what is so special about Samarkand to people who might not know (!!) or else just was it another example of the fashion to give sites descriptive names. A final idea is that all those bureaucrats in Uzbekistan who should really be spending their efforts protecting the site much better than it has been wanted to give the impression that they were actually doing something!

Another intriguing change made this year was that from "Pueblo de Taos" to "Taos Pueblo". What could the motivation there have been? I guess it reflects the reality that the "first peoples" who live there are now rather less likely to speak Spanish than the millions of legal and illegal immigants from south of the Rio Grande who inhabit the cities of the US south! I guess the Spanish form was that which was inherited when US captured the area during the Mexican War and this usage continued through to the late 20th C (the pueblo tribes did indeed revolt against the US invaders). It is quite unusual, of course, for a name change to "go" in this direction - ie from a non English title to an English one but, in this case, the new name seems to reflect the name by which the place is currently called "on the ground" (see - http://www.taospueblo.com/ )! But, back in 1988 when it was inscribed, there was presumably good reason to use the Spanish phrase?

It might be better to drop this requirement from the definition and just record all name changes together with a reason where this is genuinely known or leaving us to guess where it isn't!!

I thought it has been Samarkand Crossroad of Cultures for ages, as long as I have been aware of it anyway, it is also a recommendation in the AB report.

{EDIT}
Seems Els was more on the ball than me, there was a change this year but it was more just a grammar change
"Samarkand – Crossroads of Cultures" to "Samarkand – Crossroad of Cultures"

Yes I hadn't picked up that the change was so minor - really just a grammatical change -Samarkand being singular "it" is a singular "crossroad".

But the general point remains about the definition of this connection

What about a connection covering Flagship Species - "A species used as the focus of a broader conservation marketing campaign based on its possession of one or more traits that appeal to the target audience."

Rules:

The flagship species has to be strongly associated with the world heritage site so much that media, brochures, etc often exclusively feature that animal. For example, many Yellowstone National Park logo's feature the Bison. A link to a logo or brochure would be useful.

Examples:

Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuaries - Giant Panda

Yellowstone National Park - Bison

Everglades National Park - Alligator

Virunga National Park - Mountain Gorilla

Galapagos Islands - Giant Tortoise

Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve - Monarch Butterfly

I'd rather make the criteria more rigid than that. For example: named in the OUV criteria.

- Yellowstone indeed has the bison: (ix) The park's bison are the only wild, continuously free-ranging bison remaining of herds that once covered the Great Plains

Or only connected to the official logo. Galapagos has a tortoise and something that looks like a hammer shark

I think it would be possible to include both your suggestions for criteria. There are plenty of examples I believe. I just came up with a small number of sites, some of them should meet the criteria you suggested, but probably not all.

Don't forget that we already have a Connection for
"Protection of a Single Named Species"
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/tag.php?id=518

This "resides" under "Trivia" but might be better moved to "Ecology"??

"Named Species" is of course a stricter requirement than simply "Flagship Species" - but less difficult to argue about! Anyway we certainly wouldn't need both Connections since a "named species" is certainly going to be the flagship species as well!

As for "logos" - well it is a bit difficult sometimes to know. I looked up the Web site of the Monarch Butterfly Reserve and it certainly shows a Monarch butterfly -but then it would wouldn't it! http://santuario-monarca.com.mx/index.html .But whether this is really a "logo" I am not sure -the entrance board at the site didn't have it when I was there a few years ago - but there were road signs every few kms from Toluca with a Butterfly shape on them.

I found it diffcult to "prove" a logo for the Okapi Reserve as well .The Okapi Conservation project has a drawing of an Okapi ( http://www.okapiconservation.org/wildlife-reserve/ ) but, again that is hardly surprising - is it a true "logo" however?

I looked up Banc d'Arguin - its Web site has a logo showing a fish and a pelican - http://www.pnba.mr/pnba/ . But I would consider the "Pelican" to be more a general proxy for a wide range of sea birds than as being the "Flagship" bird of the Park. The fish I cannot identify!!

Perhaps we could include sites that go beyond the Protection of a Single Named Species. In the the later's rules it is clear the site's reason for inscription is primarily for the protection of a single species, so much so the site is often named after that species. I think there is room here for a "Flagship Species" connection. Perhaps sites that are named after a particular species should remain there and not be included in the Flagship Species connection, because it is already self-evident.

Converning the Flagship Species connection each site must have an offcial logo that showcases a flagship species. Here is one example in Poland. Bialowieza National Park's official park logo features the European Bison. I believe this connection could add some interesting knowledge of natural sites around the world. Some are obvious, others not so much. And like Solvigant has pointed out it is not always clear concerning logos. Nevertheless, there are plenty of sites in which official logos of the park or conservation organizations that operate in the park are obvious. I think this is a good way to highlight many of the most iconic species in the worlds natural sites.

Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Bialowieza Forest - European Bison (official logo of the Bialowieza National Park)

URL

Galapagos Islands - Giant Tortoise (official logo of the Galapagos Conservancy)

URL

Yellowstone National Park - Bison (official logo of the Yellowstone Association)

URL

Virunga National Park - Mountain Gorilla (official logo of Virunga National Park)

URL URL

I wonder if it should be narrowed down to logos featuring mammals, reptiles, and or amphibians. Should sites that include birds or plants in their logo be included? One example is Redwoods National and State Parks. The official logo, as you might imagine, is a coastal redwood.

I am assuming the general opinion is that this proposed connection is a bit too repetitive? That is ok. I was not aware of the connection that Solvigant pointed out when I first made the proposal.

The 1956 Winter Olympics were held in Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy. Some of the skiing events were held in the Dolomites. However, I do not know if they were held within the inscribed area. Could anyone else clarify this?

Found these ( http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/winter/1956/ )
"The sites were very centralized which made for few logistical traffic problems, as is often the case in the mountain resorts usually used for Winter Olympics. Only the speed skating events were held outside Cortina, on Lake Misurina, about 11 miles from the center of the town."
and
"The men's giant slalom was held on Monte Faloria, which overlooked the town of Cortina. All the other events were contested at Ski Area Tofana. Both areas were high in the Dolomites with the longer races starting above 2,200 metres, and even the slaloms starting at around 1,700-1,800 metres."

Despite the Nom file being 340mb in size its maps are very poor and I can't really determine whether the boundaries extend to the ski slopes at 2200 metres. I suspect not but am not sure!

A couple of other matters regarding the "timely" Olympic Venues Connection

a. Devon and East Dorset coast
This isn't a maritime site and follows the coastline closely with only a few bays such as Lulworth Cove included - the main objective was to include the geological "exposures". The actual locations out to sea where the sailing is taking place are certainly not included. The landside "centre" for the olympic sailing is in an area called "The Nothe Fort" whose coast line and immediate landward areas are included in the inscribed site. Competitors have to cross the boundary of the inscribed site at this point to get to the sea!! But is that enough?

b. We already have a Connection for "Locations for playing of sport". This is mainly made up of purpose-built locations but a few non purpose-built sites which have been used for Olympics have found their way onto it - Greenwich for instance. But not all - e.g Sydney Opera House is not! Rather than duplicate them all a possible solution might be to limit this earlier connection to sites which were constructed for sporting purposes. That would allow in only a few "Olympic Venues" e.g UNAM. The Olympic Venues Connection would include, as now, all sites used for Olympics, whether they were built for that purpose or not.

PS The Devon and East Dorset Coast site should be added to the "Linear site" Connection.

I had a look at the IUCN/UNEP maps on Google Earth and it seems that the Ski Slopes are on the wrong side of the mountain to be included, the other side of the peaks are inscribed but the slopes facing Cortina aren't. The start of the black run seems to be right on the boundary though.

I like the Olympic venues connection, I think we ruminated on it 4 years ago but never came to much. I think Solivagant's point about the Sports venue connection v Olympic connection is valid. Are we including long distance events (Marathon, Cycling, Walking etc.) because that would increase the numbers as most will have gone through nearby city centres/ iconic sites that are that are inscribed (Sydney Opera House, Great Wall, Westminster...)