Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
After spending many years afield with interdisciplinary teams, I concluded that geologists/soil scientists spend their time looking at the ground, botanists/silviculturists spend their time looking at the plants and trees; zoologists/wildlife biologists spend their time looking through the plants and trees to see the animal life, while ecologists look at everything to see how it all interacts. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, 12 November, 2010 15:19 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? 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.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Wayne's story reminds me that the eminent ecologist Larry Slobodkin once observed that ecology without species is the ultimate abomination. I was giving some lectures on size-structured ecosystems, so I introduced myself as an abominable ecologist. It seemed a fitting title. Still does. Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:18 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? 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.
[ECOLOG-L] Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Fellowships
Dear Colleagues: World Wildlife Fund is announcing the 2011 Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Fellowships to support doctoral and postdoctoral research on marine protected areas (MPAs) that shows promise to enhance scientific understanding of their ecological and social impacts and that will strengthen science-based conservation and policy in the following WWF-US priority marine regions: Bering Seahttp://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/arctic/bskpriorityareas.html; Gulf of Californiahttp://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/gulfofca/index.html; Mesoamerican Reefhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/mesoamericanreef/index.html; Galapagoshttp://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/galapagos/index.html; Coastal East Africahttp://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/coastaleastafrica/index.html (coastal and marine areas of Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania); and Coral Trianglehttp://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/coraltriangle/index.html (Bismarck-Solomon Sea s, Banda-Flores Seas, Sulu-Sulawesi Seas). Fuller Postdoctoral Fellows receive $140,000 to cover a stipend and research expenses over a period of up to two years. In addition, up to $17,500 will be granted to cover indirect costs at the host institution over the two-year fellowship period. Doctoral Fellows receive either $15,000 or $20,000, depending on the location of their research and home universities, allocated over a period of up to 2 years to cover research expenses. The deadline for application submission is January 31, 2011. For more information on the Fuller Doctoral Fellowship, please visit: http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/fellowships/fuller/doctoralfund.html For more information on the Fuller Postdoctoral Fellowship, please visit: http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/fellowships/fuller/postdoctoral-fellowships.html For questions or further information, please contact fullerf...@wwfus.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Bill's story reminds me of the time Karen Sausman asked, What is a species? It seems to be all in a flux, what with PhD candidates swarming all over the herbaria changing names and such, but not re-inventing the whole basis for nomenclature (at least). Maybe the geneticists will clear it all up one day. Taxonomists and the fractured trail of crumbs they leave behind may well be gold dust, but all this head-butting and back-stabbing ain't efficient. This taxonomist's lecture was full of ecology and evolution, and they're begging for money, but they think they don' need no stinkin' (abominable) ecologists, no geologists, no coconut oil . . . What should be the relationship of ecologists and taxonomists, if any? Should one of them be abolished? Should there be a war? Should some gerrymander rise from the ashes? WT - Original Message - From: Bill Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 3:43 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? Wayne's story reminds me that the eminent ecologist Larry Slobodkin once observed that ecology without species is the ultimate abomination. I was giving some lectures on size-structured ecosystems, so I introduced myself as an abominable ecologist. It seemed a fitting title. Still does. Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:18 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3254 - Release Date: 11/13/10 07:34:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not interested in geographical patterns of species distributions? If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality samples with no locality info would suffice. For that matter, why bother looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the botanical nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names? Seems crazy to me. I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my career - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools for answering research questions. Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics. It's essential to get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about patterns or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans you've found? My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value of taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism. But then maybe I've just been lucky. :) Cheers, Charles -- Charles Stephen MS Entomology student email: charles.step...@auburn.edu cell phone: 334-707-5191 mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: 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.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came away with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect that part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself without being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who determined the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most. As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression that they know more about plants than botanists do about bugs. WT - Original Message - From: Charles Stephen charles.step...@auburn.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not interested in geographical patterns of species distributions? If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality samples with no locality info would suffice. For that matter, why bother looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the botanical nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names? Seems crazy to me. I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my career - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools for answering research questions. Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics. It's essential to get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about patterns or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans you've found? My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value of taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism. But then maybe I've just been lucky. :) Cheers, Charles -- Charles Stephen MS Entomology student email: charles.step...@auburn.edu cell phone: 334-707-5191 mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3254 - Release Date: 11/13/10 07:34:00
