Wayne, I think you just ran into an odd situation. The folks I have known who do botanical taxonomy definitely are not like the fellow you heard speak. Interesting your remark about "stamp collecting." That was Isaac Asimov's term for what those who study the diversity of the natural world do, in his science fiction books. Asimov was a biochemist by training and employment (though he did little or no research once he got cranking on the popular science books and science fiction). He was definitely one of those in that line of work who did have disdain for what he also called the "lesser sciences." But I haven't found that usual among those who are actually out and about in the natural world as a part of their work. Just some lab jockeys. Ecology, evolution, systematics are so intertwined that I don't see how there really could be such disdain. I do occasionally hear ecologists speak of "natural history" as less than ecology is, but little do they know how Haeckel si! mply mistook natural history, the root of all biological science, for one of biological science's branches when he named the "new" science of ecology. But that is not a lot different from the renaming of animal behavior as behavioral ecology in more recent times.
DMc ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came away > with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect that > part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself without > being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent > disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who determined > the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most. > > As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression > that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs." > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles Stephen" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? > > > > 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: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> 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. > >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 -- David McNeely
