I'll buy that, David. I do think that folks on the list are sometimes a little more concerned about definitions and differences, lumpers and dividers, than I am typically am. Folks may have noticed that, about 1/2-way into my post, it started petering out as I realized that there *was* a lot of similarity. Still, there is enough difference to warrant a different term, for me.
However, I definitely agree with David's point about "the evolution of our science." I agree that the development of technology and knowledge allow us to study things in different ways or more closely than we could have studied them tens, if not hundreds, of years ago. If folks agreed to amend the natural history definition to include "and their interactions with the environment," I'd buy that. However, it sounds like many folks already include that, implicitly. Cheers, Marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC 1301 Monroe Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 email: spotted_blue<at>hotmail.com "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." -- Aldo Leopold -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:57 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology Marcus, with due respect, and I do respect your opinion and contributions: You are simply pointing out the evolution of our science, which now probes more deeply into the nature of nature than did those who did its work in earlier centuries. We evolved from describing the objects in nature to investigating how those objects interact with other parts of nature. It is still the study of nature and natural objects -- just additional things about them. A turtle's life history IS a part of how it interacts with environment. Ecology (or the less fancy name natural history) studies that. Maybe a different way of looking at it than yours, but still legitimate. I'm also not trying to say we should abandon the term ecology in favor of the older term natural history, though that would be intellectually defensible. It would also be nice if the general public could understand what our science is about, rather than confusing it with environmental activism (a legitimate endeavor in its own right). But enough of all this. The important thing is to know about turtles, including how turtles live and function, how other things relate to them, and how they contribute to the overall state of nature. Too many people don't care. mcneely ---- Marcus Ricci <spotted_b...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to add my $0.02 because I disagree that ecology is simply a > "dressing up" of natural history. Although I value natural history and > historians, they are not studying the same things as ecologists. > > According to my Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, natural > history is "the study of nature, natural objects and natural phenomena." > Ecology is "the study of the *interrelationships* between living organisms > and their environment" (my emphasis). So, the former is the study of a > subject or phenomena, the latter is the study of *how the subject interacts > and relates to its environment.* Some may consider this the same definition, > some may consider it parsing essentially the same definition. > > I consider them different definitions: one *focuses* on the turtle itself, > what it eats, where it lives, how it reproduces. The other *focuses* on the > place in the web that the turtle occupies, how its consumption of food or > production of offspring effects the other occupants of its food web - either > predators or competitors - and how the web would respond if a turtle > population exploded or disappeared. > > Perhaps a little simplistic, but analogies work for me when definitions get > too stickily close, which I will be the first to agree that these 2 do, when > you start looking at them closely. > > Cheers, > Marcus > > Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC > Lake Decatur Watershed Specialist, Macon County SWCD > 1301 Monroe Avenue > Charleston, IL 61920 > email: spotted_blue<at>hotmail.com > > "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and > beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." -- Aldo > Leopold > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:21 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] > Hypothesis Testing in Ecology > > Thanks, David. Now I don't have to toss all my Darwin stuff into the dustbin. > > WT > > PS: David or others: Can you suggest any shortcuts to the best possible > understanding of the pre-contact state of fishes and other aquatic/marine > organisms/ecosystems in the New World (although I'm really interested in > California, specifically coastal southern California streams and rivers)? I'm > also interested in the best possible estimates of watersheds and stream > hydrology for that period/region. Works that contrast the pre- and > post-contact states and trends would do most of my work for me, which, given > my increasing level of laziness, would be most welcome. For example, I am > positing that some streams that are today intermittent or dependent upon > urban runoff are quite different from their pre-contact states--some flowed > "all year," and hosted salmonid runs. (Ethnographic and historical > [anecdotal] information [observations] references would be interesting, if > not provable. > > A somewhat aside: Given the popularity of computer models, I'm wondering if > any reconstruction of pre-contact climate and hydrology might have been done > or in the works . . . It would seem that a program that could do this might > be applicable anywhere. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <mcnee...@cox.net> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>; "Wayne Tyson" <landr...@cox.net> > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:27 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] > Hypothesis Testing in Ecology > > > > ---- 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) > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3477 - Release Date: 03/02/11 > > -- David McNeely
