Right-on Chris. I've been thinking about it for a long time and still have not thought of or head of a definition of "species" that covers all they ways we use the word in biology. But then, it may be a faulty expectation to think we should be able to. Nature is under no obligation to conform to our simplistic desire for a one-on-one mapping between our vocabulary and the phenomena we observe. Even our own mental constructs defy our vocabulary.
Martin M. Meiss 2012/3/20 Warren W. Aney <a...@coho.net> > I've been skimming over this discussion and trying not to get involved. My > observation (which probably has already been covered) is that, except for > extinction, there are no absolutes in the field of ecology. We can't even > standardize the word's spelling (ecology vs. oecology) and its meaning > (does > ecology=environmentalism?). So terms such as native, invasive, indigenous, > endemic, exotic, introduced, etc. all have to be considered and defined in > terms of a particular context or usage. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Carlson > Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2012 08:13 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > Came across this "op-documentary" this morning on the New York Times. > > Cute - and just the kind of thing that is helping shift our cultural > awareness to be specifically accepting of certain non-natives on our > landscape. Just don't plant your garden by the canal! > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/opinion/hi-im-a-nutria.html >
