Maybe this was true in the 19th century, and there are still some minor outlets where observational notes with limited or no replication is accepted so you can publish the kind of observations you suggest, but modern and mainstream natural history studies require huge sample sizes and extensive replication, often over long periods of time.
Your suggestion that it is not the case is simply a misunderstanding that is popularly promoted. On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ruchira Datta <ruch...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > I think there might be a useful distinction between natural history and > ecology, namely, the degree to which observations are replicated. With the > phrase "natural history" there is no connotation or expectation that > observations can be strictly replicated (this does not mean patterns cannot > be found). In ecology, one might be able to replicate observations to a > greater or lesser degree, but when aiming to do so one may have to regulate > the environment in a somewhat "unnatural" way. E.g., one may take isolated > soil samples or plants to the lab, strictly regulate the flow of nutrients > and so forth, and observe what happens to the microbial communities. I feel > it would be stretching the definition to call this "natural history". On > the other hand, one can also do observational studies in, e.g., wildlife > ecology that are clearly part of "natural history". To me, "natural > history" would also include observations of abiotic geological processes > that are not in themselves the subject of study of ecology, except insofar > as they impact life. So it appears to me that while "natural history" and > "ecology" certainly intersect, it may be useful to maintain some distinction > between the terms. > > --Ruchira > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > >> ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: >> > Ecolog: >> > >> > What specifically distinguishes natural history from ecology? >> >> Wayne, Ernst Haeckel coined the term which became our modern term >> "ecology." You probably knew this. Haeckel mistook the root of biological >> science, natural history, for one of its branches, ecology. Ever since, we >> have had this conundrum. >> >> Ecology is natural history dressed up to look better for those who have >> difficulty accepting that science is old and was effective in the old days. >> For those who have some sniffing hang-up about being natural historians, >> there is no more honorable, nor more interesting, endeavor than trying to >> figure out how nature works. And one doesn't have to be arrogant, or >> attempt to dismiss other's efforts, to do it effectively. >> >> David McNeely, fish ecologist (ie., natural historian) >> > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
