All: In my haste, I think I bungled my response. I meant to say that I interpreted McNeely as being concerned that he was crying in the academic wilderness and that most of the group might disagree with (or crucify him for) his remark. I wholly endorse his statement, " . . . species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not." That is, I believe (and take it that I agree with McNeely) that the phenomena observed (e.g., communities, ecosystems, ecoregions, ecotones, and yes, species) are real, but that our concepts and labels are not themselves "real" or adequate, but are the best representations "we" have come up with so far. "Uncomfortableness" with Clementsian and other notions, even the paradigms du jour, is what keeps scientists, scholars, and intellectual enquiry at least somewhat "honest." I, for one, could not give a ficus whether or not that is particularly important to practicing ecologists today; I am more concerned about what they will consider important tomorrow and whether or not that advances understanding of reality, or Nature.
Coming full circle, as long as taxonomists are getting closer to what's real in their characterizations of species, it would seem that our state of understanding of Nature is advanced. To the degree that said understanding is retarded, one has a right to be a bit suspicious. While ecoregions and communities, ecotones and ecosystems may be "fuzzy," that may be the kind of terms upon which they might better be understood. If I have still bungled it, kindly advise--I may be a bit dense, but sometimes the third time's the charm . . . WT ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? > ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > Wayne, that is not the statement that was followed by my "implication of > risk." The "risk" implication was appended to my statement to the effect > that ecological structures we define, such as communities, ecosystems, > ecoregions, are not "real." That's actually just my uncomfortableness with > Clementsian notions in general, and probably is not particularly important to > practicing ecologists today. > > 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
