Hi Malcolm, Interesting question. I studied in the plant biology department at the University of Georgia, which until recently had been the botany department. My understanding (and I think this was corroborated by certain faculty members) was that the change reflected the gradual shift from "traditional" botanists, who studied plants at a macroscopic or organismal level and thus were facile with (at least some members of) the regional flora; to academics who focused at the cellular or molecular level to such a degree that many of them do not particularly know or care about the real, wild plants growing around them. I don't doubt that these plant scientists do important things, but it's a shame to me that the former type, the traditional botanist, has been largely displaced by them.
chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:52:32 PM Subject: plant science vs. botany Over the past several years I have noticed a trend that plant-focused vacancies will refer to the vacancy as plant science and less frequently what used to be typically referred to as zoology will be instead referred to as animal science. When I was an undergraduate, agronomy, pomology, forestry, and course related to agriculture were designated plant science. Agricutlure courses like dairy science, feedlot management, swine management, animal nutrition and the like were designated animal science. The current widespread lack of distinction between zoology vs. animal science, and botany vs. plant science creates a lot of confusion, and doesn't really make any sense to me. Is there a reason that people have stopped using the term zoology/botany and in its stead began using animal science/plant science? It seems like an inappropriate muddying of the academic waters to me. A Plant Scientist and a Botanist are not the same thing, nor is an animal scientist and a zoologist the same thing. Although some people might cross these fields (a ruminant ecologist might cross these areas for example). I know most people probably couldn't care less about this, but I feel it is a pretty important issue. If we are not consistent with terminology, why should we expect students and others to take it seriously? Please feel free to contact me off list because some members of the ECOLOG discussion list get annoyed when it actually involves discussion, so be it. -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "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! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle 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.
