Just to be technically correct, I'll point out that Patton did not say
that Darwin's Finches, or any particular other forms, speciated millions
of years ago. He said that each species is the product of millions of
years of evolution, and so they are. Though Darwin's Finches formed
recently (and some of them show signs of ongoing morphological
evolution), they are, as Patton said, the product of millions of years
of evolution.
Perhaps, even when we are inequivocably correct, we might avoid calling
other's posts nonsense. Maybe we could all listen better that way.
Perhaps Silvert is correct. Perhaps Patton is. I see benefit in both
arguments. But mainly, they are both expressing beliefs and values, not
scientific conclusions. Perhaps a focus on ecosystems and landscapes
has the greatest chance of saving species, anyway.
David McNeely
David McNeely
David McNeely
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:26 AM, William Silvert wrote:
This is nonsense. Does Dr. Patton really believe that Darwin's finches
speciated millions of years ago? Some archipelagos that resulted from
recent volcanic activity have different species on each island, and I
am reasonably confident that if one of those species were to go
extinct, it would not take long for a closely related species to fill
its niche.
We certainly have enough information about the numerous extinctions
that have occurred during recent history to develop reasonable ideas
about "which secrets will be important today or tomorrow." Some
isolated environments, such as Hawaii, have suffered extensive
extinctions and exotic introductions, so we can certainly use the
resulting data to make good guesses about the dynamics of niches.
While I agree that "each lost species is a monument to our stupidity",
some monuments are bigger than others. The loss of a unique keystone
species like the polar bear would be a monument greater than the
Collosus of Rhodes. The loss of one of David Lack's stratified
warblers on the other hand would be tragic, but I doubt that it would
have catastrophic ecosystem impacts.
The point I am trying to make is that our niche is expanding, and
although we should try to mitigate our impacts, further extinctions
are inevitable. After all, even before there were humans on earth
there were ongoing extinctions. I think that we should focus on
identifying and protecting key species, rather than simply saying that
all species are of equal importance and thus letting matters proceed
without ecological judgement.
The situation is similar to a battlefield - although it is generally
agreed that all human life is precious, battlefield physicians have
long realised that not every injured soldier can be saved, so they
have developed a system of triage to identify where medical
intervention is most likely to be successful. We should fight
extinctions everywhere, but focus our efforts on where we think we can
do the most good.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoffrey Patton" To: Sent:
domingo, 22 de Novembro de 2009 23:27
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Insignificant species?
Each existing species on the planet is the result of millions of years
of intensive evolution and selection pressure. As I used to tell my
high school ecology students, each species has at least one secret
that allows it to occupy some unique niche. We have no idea which
secrets will be important today or tomorrow. To lose any species is a
failure of our species to acknowledge ours and their place in the
global ecosystem. In other words, each lost species is a monument to
our stupidity
Cordially yours,
Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536
