Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not interested in geographical patterns of species distributions?
If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality samples with no locality info would suffice. For that matter, why bother looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the botanical nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names? Seems crazy to me. I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my career - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools for answering research questions. Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics. It's essential to get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about patterns or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans you've found? My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value of taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism. But then maybe I've just been lucky. :) Cheers, Charles -- Charles Stephen MS Entomology student email: charles.step...@auburn.edu cell phone: 334-707-5191 mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > 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. >
