Yes, I agree that the importance of the 'reality' that any categorization represents is an issue in itself.
Perhaps their interest in categorizing organisms to purely reflect their genetics rather than their ecological functions has made taxonomists less prone to justifying categorizations that reflect capitalistic human interests rather than real ecological phenomenon. -Burak -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:01 PM To: '[email protected]'; Pekin, Burak K Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? 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
