Rudhira, I would definitely include the studies you describe as "natural history" and as ecology. I was somewhat tongue in cheek, and a little bit serious in my earlier post. To me, bottom line, ecology is an attempt to understand the nature (or history) of nature. In recent years we have refined the work to be more experimental, more quantitative, and to use hypothesis testing, but ultimately we are just trying to find out how nature works. That's what Charles Darwin was doing, when he observed, questioned, hypothesized, and yes, experimented. To me, the only significant distinction between modern science and its progenitors is the theoretical nature of recent times. Of course, our father Charles Darwin firmly established the theoretical nature of our science, and that was before the term ecology was created.
More important than these disputations is the effort to understand nature, whatever name we give to that effort. But for those who would denigrate "natural history," respect of the effort is important, also. For my part, I am proud to be a natural historian, naturalist, ecologist, whatever. I just wish that over the years I had been better at asking questions and deciphering nature to get answers. Darwin felt that observations have to be "for or against something" (his words)-- that hypothesis creation and testing, and ultimately theory development were the essence of our science. But he was called a naturalist, or natural historian. mcneely ---- Ruchira Datta <ruch...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > I think there might be a useful distinction between natural history and > ecology, namely, the degree to which observations are replicated. With the > phrase "natural history" there is no connotation or expectation that > observations can be strictly replicated (this does not mean patterns cannot > be found). In ecology, one might be able to replicate observations to a > greater or lesser degree, but when aiming to do so one may have to regulate > the environment in a somewhat "unnatural" way. E.g., one may take isolated > soil samples or plants to the lab, strictly regulate the flow of nutrients > and so forth, and observe what happens to the microbial communities. I feel > it would be stretching the definition to call this "natural history". On > the other hand, one can also do observational studies in, e.g., wildlife > ecology that are clearly part of "natural history". To me, "natural > history" would also include observations of abiotic geological processes > that are not in themselves the subject of study of ecology, except insofar > as they impact life. So it appears to me that while "natural history" and > "ecology" certainly intersect, it may be useful to maintain some distinction > between the terms. > > --Ruchira > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > > > ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Ecolog: > > > > > > What specifically distinguishes natural history from ecology? > > > > Wayne, Ernst Haeckel coined the term which became our modern term > > "ecology." You probably knew this. Haeckel mistook the root of biological > > science, natural history, for one of its branches, ecology. Ever since, we > > have had this conundrum. > > > > Ecology is natural history dressed up to look better for those who have > > difficulty accepting that science is old and was effective in the old days. > > For those who have some sniffing hang-up about being natural historians, > > there is no more honorable, nor more interesting, endeavor than trying to > > figure out how nature works. And one doesn't have to be arrogant, or > > attempt to dismiss other's efforts, to do it effectively. > > > > David McNeely, fish ecologist (ie., natural historian) > > -- David McNeely
