Native Nearctic earthworms have not been eliminated and are quite diverse.
Pleistocene glaciations did extirpate them from the northern portion of the
continent, and the present-day ecosystems in this region developed just fine
without the presence of earthworms. This is where the detrimental impacts of
invasive earthworms are the most prominent. European earthworms are the
primary culprits in the northern forests, but Asian, African, and South
American species have all found there way to North America.
Collective nouns are not a problem in themselves, but it is troublesome when
a collective term is applied to describe the homogeneity of something that
is far from homogeneous. E.g., not all earthworm individuals are the same
species and as such not all function the same; not all earthworm species are
beneficial in all locations.
-Bruce
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bruce A. Snyder, PhD
Instructor; REU Program Coordinator
Mail: Kansas State University
Division of Biology
116 Ackert Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-4901
Office: 136 Ackert Hall
785-532-2430
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:34 AM, William Silvert <[email protected]>wrote:
> Well, I do think that the earthworm (or earthworms) is essential, I don't
> see what the problem is in using collective nouns. As for its being an
> invasive species, it is my understanding that the native earthworms were
> pretty nearly wiped out during the ice ages and the European invaders filled
> an essential gap.
>
> And they are yucky. Some useful species, like hagfish, are incredibly
> yucky. Why is this a problem? My point was that we have to focus on the
> value of organisms, not their aesthetic appeal. In an earlier posting I
> discussed the importance of fly maggots, aren't they pretty yucky too?
>
> By the way, I work with jellyfish, which manage to be both beautiful and
> yucky at the same time.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce A. Snyder
> To: William Silvert
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: segunda-feira, 3 de Maio de 2010 17:11
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] State Microbes
>
> Bill,
> I agree wholeheartedly that drawing attention to organisms other than the
> charismatic megafauna would do a great deal for biodiversity awareness.
> There are many projects out there that do focus on these species, not only
> documenting their biodiversity but also raising public awareness (e.g., I'm
> running one getting kids to go collect earthworms). I think that we have to
> be careful when communicating to the public: saying "the earthworm is
> essential" is extremely misleading and facilitates the misconception that
> there is only one type of earthworm (and most places in the US+Canada "the
> earthworm" is an invasive species!!). Stating in the same sentence that
> earthworms are "yucky" demonstrates the big problem we're up against, not
> just for the public but also in the scientific community.
>
> -Bruce
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Bruce A. Snyder, PhD
> Instructor; REU Program Coordinator
> Mail: Kansas State University
> Division of Biology
> 116 Ackert Hall
> Manhattan, KS 66506-4901
> Office: 136 Ackert Hall
> 785-532-2430
> http://www.k-state.edu/earthworm/
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:47 AM, William Silvert <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Good point, but when we talk about non-charismatic organisms we should
> focus on your question, "what ones are not important?". In my unpublished
> article to which I refer below I take the unpopular position that we really
> do need to set priorities and not take the view that all god's creatures
> deserve equal protection. Clearly the earthworm is essential and I think
> that the public would be sympathetic to this yucky creature. But one of the
> worst public relation fiascos in biodiversity conservation was mustering
> forces to fight millions of dollars of development to preserve the critical
> habitat of a sand fly -- even the scintists who had studied the fly couldn't
> come up with a decent picture of its ecological role, it boiled down to,
> "well you never know".
>
> I think we need to focus on ecosystem function (or ecosystem services if
> you prefer) rather than species. Our best chance for getting the public and
> politicians to back environmental protection is to show what is at risk, and
> not just take the view that all species must be protected (after all,
> natural extinctions are common no matter what we do). Unfortunately the laws
> on the books of many countries do not reflect this view.
