I think like Daugherty et al. (1990) that for many fi Dear ecologgers, I think like Daugherty et al. (1990) that for many fields like ecology or conservation biology, systematics and proper taxonomies are absolutely essential if one wants to know what one is studying and communicate it to others. However, the problem then arises to define a species. I can only recommend many interesting papers on the topic, among others the ones by deQueiroz, 2007, Samadi & Barberousse 2006 (and the subsequent answer from Velasco 2008) concerning the definition of species. I guess everyone, being taxonomists, ecologists, systematists etc. need to state what they are referring to when talking about species, i.e. what concept of species is used and why. Otherwise different researchers from different fields can talk about different entities thus blurring the communication.
Benoit Gangloff PhD candidate CNRS - France ________________________________ De : Teresa M. Woods <two...@ksu.edu> À : ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Envoyé le : Dim 14 novembre 2010, 22h 21min 41s Objet : Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? Based on my studies in invasive species, I would say the question of whether there are sharp transitions, or more gradual changes, should be rephrased. You allude to it in your explanation, but it appears there are both. I think the relevant question is -- under what conditions does one or the other process (sudden or gradual) occur and then prevail? Teresa Teresa M. Woods, Ph.D. Candidate Coordinator Olathe Educational Partnership K-State Olathe Innovation Campus, Inc. 18001 West 106^th Street, Suite 130 Olathe, KS66061-2861 913-541-1220 Mobile: 913-269-8512 On 11/14/2010 10:49 AM, Pekin, Burak K wrote: > The idea that there is a "moment when one species evolves into another" is >interesting. Does the evolutionary lineage of species consist of sharp >transitions, or more more gradual changes from one species to another? > > In ecological biogeography, the change in the relative dominance of species >across a landscape can be sharp or gradual. Sometimes we see that one species >is >replaced by another over a very short distance due to a physical barrier or an >abrupt change in key environmental factors. Other times, we see that the two >species co-exist over large distances and the relative dominace between the >species changes across a gradual environmental gradient. In the latter case, >it >is more difficult to define a point in space in which the change in dominance >occurrs. > > Are evolutionary processess over time analogous to 'environmental gradients' >over space? If so, what kinds/aspects of evolutionary processess determine the >sharpness/gradualness of the switch from one species to another? What role >does >the inherent genetic structure of particular species play in determining the >gradualness of this switch? > > Perhaps the reason the definition of what constitutes a species is 'fuzzy' >because the processes that control the change of one species to another are >unclear. Ecologists often try to define species according to their functional >attributes inorder to access their ecological significance in ecosystems. >Similiarly, the 'species' of an organism should correlate with a function/s >inherent to its genetic code, which in turn has some evolutionary >significance. >However, in this context at least, taxonomic science is a lot less definitive >than ecological science, as it is quite lacking in knowledge of the links >between the genetics of individual species and thier evolutionary heritage. > > > ------ > Burak K. Pekin, Ph.D. > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Department of Forestry and Natural Resources > Purdue University > > > ________________________________________ > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >[ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Warren W. Aney [a...@coho.net] > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:27 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? > > 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
