"Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn."
Maybe this is really just a defensive attitude since for so many years they were looked down on by other branches of biology - including ecologists - as being just "stamp collectors" without scientific rigor or hypotheses etc. It wasn't until the biodiversity crisis that people realized we needed systematists/ taxonomists who could identify what was what. > I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of > the > other biological sciences, particularly ecology. After all, isn't a > species > an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an > ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less > dependent > on the describer's perspectives and whims? > > But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic > splitters > and the taxonomic lumpers. Did we once have 4 species of the > now-extirpated > grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it > split? > Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the > lumpers now have it? And how was the decision made that recently > reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species > into one species -- the dark-eyed junco? Was it a more defensible > decision > than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a > subjective redefinition of what a species is? > > So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species > is? > We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that > does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary > (Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective > verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining > the biological term. > > Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor > instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our > sciences > are evolving, just as species evolve. And will taxonomic science be able > to > catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process > just too fuzzy? > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, Oregon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: 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 >
