Honorable Forum: " . . . species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not.
"There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts)." --David McNeely Why should McNeely imply that there is some kind of risk in his statement. He strikes at the heart of a central truth--that all "things" which we humans have conceived existed before we conceived them, ipso facto. IS there an argument on the other side of this issue? If so, what, precisely, is it? WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pekin, Burak K" <bpe...@purdue.edu> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? 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:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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 <ramjo...@msu.edu> 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 <landr...@cox.net>: > > > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3260 - Release Date: 11/16/10 07:34:00
