Burak, you are correct that an ecoregion is a specific piece of real estate. I guess I have been bothered considerably over the years by attempts to assign Clementsian community meaning to all the various ways we divide natural real estate. Sure, a "Cross Timbers Ecoregion" is a defined piece of the lower midwestern-southwestern portion of the U.S., and it is recognized because a few oak species are dominant trees there.
I was just being pesky. I'll go back in my hole, and those who assign more than I believe there is to such entities can have their way. The pieces of natural real estate indeed do exist. Thanks for your forbearance. David ---- "Pekin wrote: > David, I don’t understand your distinction between something that is 'real' > in nature versus something that is 'not actual, real, or concrete'. Whether > something is real or not depends on the context in which it is used. > > A 'real' ecoregion, is real in that it represents a spatial area that is > homogenous in the composition of certain species or other ecosystem > properties of interest. Similiarly, a species is only 'real' in that it > represents a group of organisims that have similar genetics, reproductive > attributes, or evolutionary lineage. > > -Burak > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? > > I can't disagree with most of what most posters have said regarding this > matter (the question of species and the question of ecoregions, I can > disagree with the perception that people generally throw stones at fellow > scientists in disciplines other than their own). > > That said, I do have to point out that "species" is an attempt to define > something real in nature, a recognition that populations really do consist of > more or less homogeneous components. Whether recognized on the basis of > morphology, genetics, or other attributes, the actual population components > exist in their own right, and not just because we define them. > > The ecological units that are being called "ecoregions" are not actual, real, > concrete entities. Rather, they are attempts to divide geography for our own > purposes. Sure, there are properties that are the basis for the division, > but the dividing is an exercise, not a recognition of components that have > their own reality. These units are a convenience for our purposes, while > species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define > them or not. > > Populations are the real units of our study. Ecoregions, ecosystems, > communities and so on are our own means of organizing populations > collectively so that we can understand how they work together. > > There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real > entities (they ARE useful concepts). > > So, do we need folks who are expert in the various groups of organisms that > we study, and can say that one population constitutes a species named _Bvwdz > gxzydwz_, but that three different populations, occurring elsewhere, > collectively constitute a species named _Bvwdz nwxnvd_ ? Sure we do. Do > they need us, to tell them what "ecoregions" and what ecological properties > one of those species has? Well, I guess that's up to them. Seems to me that > geographic (including ecological) knowledge of populations is essential to > understanding their evolution. At least a couple of chaps named Russell > Wallace and Charles Darwin thought so. But who am I to say? > > Back to the question of needing systematic experts: There are ecologists who > specialize in taxonomic groups, you know. I have long considered myself a > fish ecologist, as well as a stream ecologist, thereby covering both a group > of organisms AND an ecological construct. > > David McNeely > > ---- Ian Ramjohn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves > > at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining > > things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their > > attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After > > all, people have debated "species concepts" for decades. Imagine a > > world in which species were defined the way we define ecological > > units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems, > > inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and > > boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make > > matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different > > countries. > > > > (That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what > > the speaker had to say). > > > > Quoting Wayne Tyson <[email protected]>: > > > > > 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. > > > > > -- > David McNeely -- David McNeely
