Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves
at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining
things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their
attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After
all, people have debated "species concepts" for decades. Imagine a
world in which species were defined the way we define ecological
units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems,
inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and
boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make
matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different
countries.
(That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what
the speaker had to say).
Quoting Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>:
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.
