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.
