Bill's story reminds me of the time Karen Sausman asked, "What is a
species?" It seems to be all in a flux, what with PhD candidates swarming
all over the herbaria changing "names" and such, but not re-inventing the
whole basis for nomenclature (at least). Maybe the geneticists will clear it
all up one day. Taxonomists and the fractured trail of crumbs they leave
behind may well be gold dust, but all this head-butting and back-stabbing
ain't efficient. This taxonomist's lecture was full of ecology and
evolution, and they're begging for money, but they think they don' need no
stinkin' (abominable) ecologists, no geologists, no coconut oil . . .
What should be the relationship of ecologists and taxonomists, if any?
Should one of them be abolished? Should there be a war? Should some
gerrymander rise from the ashes?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Wayne's story reminds me that the eminent ecologist Larry Slobodkin once
observed that "ecology without species is the ultimate abomination." I was
giving some lectures on size-structured ecosystems, so I introduced myself
as an "abominable ecologist". It seemed a fitting title. Still does.
Bill Silvert
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Tyson
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Honourable Forum:
Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting
nomenclature
right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that this is
important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need taxonomists on
the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be possible), or at
least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be assured.
I recently attended a lecture by a botanist of regional and international
repute who described a large project to compile a checklist of the
vascular
flora of an inadequately-explored, but quite large region. It is
undeniable
that this is important work, and through this person's leadership,
significant additions to knowledge of the area have been made. The lecture
included maps of "bioregions" or "ecoregions." This botanist dismissed the
value and importance of them, adding that they were the province of the
ecologists and were highly flawed (I can't quote the lecturer precisely,
but
this is the best of my recollection and my distinct impression). The
lecturer essentially dismissed ecology, remarking that the lecturer was
interested only in individual plants and seemed contemptuous of ecologists
in general, and particularly those involved in establishing the ecoregions
that were a part of the lecture. I may have misunderstood, as I have long
held this person in high regard, and those remarks seemed inconsistent
with
past behavior.
Do you find this state of mind to be common among taxonomists in general
or
botanists in particular? Is this apparent schism real or imaginary? Other
comments?
WT
PS: During the lecture, the speaker remarked about ecological phenomena
which were not understood (no clue), but at least one reason for one
phenomenon was apparent to me. I said nothing, as the lecture had been
very
long and the question period short.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3254 - Release Date: 11/13/10
07:34:00
