Jim misses my point. The difference is not whether we call the transfers
natural or anthropogenic, but whether we can control them. I think that we
need to focus on what we can do about transfers and not get tied up in
trying to define "natural" and "invasive". After all, we can also control
some natural events.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "James J. Roper" <jjro...@gmail.com>
To: "William Silvert" <cien...@silvert.org>
Cc: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: terça-feira, 11 de Maio de 2010 15:45
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena
Colonizing species etc
To go straight to the meat of the issue:
William Silvert wrote on 11-May-10 11:31:
One of the greatest invasions in ecological history occurred when the
Mediterranean connected to the Atlantic Ocean. How fundamentally
different is that from the opening of the Suez or Panama canals?
Well, sure, but trivially so. We are only talking about rates here. And,
the fact that we will lose diversity and richness and local history as a
consequence of our introductions. But, over geological time, it's just a
drop in the bucket.
Indeed, your argument, taken to its extreme is, well, since the big bang,
all kinds of things have happened and until the big freeze they will
continue, so why does it matter what happens in our lifetimes?
Clearly we need to define the word "matter" as in "what does it matter."
Cheers,
Jim
