Ecolog and Ian,
"If the term is "squishy", let's use more precise terminology . . ."
So what IS that precise terminology?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Ramjohn" <ramjo...@msu.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of
"native"
I think we're missing the point here. The problem isn't with the
definitions of native - it's an English word that's always going to
have a range of meanings. In other words - it's a poor term for science.
"Is post oak native to Texas?" is a less than ideal question, because
the answer is binary - yes, or no. If you're really going to answer
that question - as a scientist - you'd say that (some or all) of Texas
lies within the (pre-settlement, historical, or whatever term you want
to define) range of the species _based_on_[certain]_data_. With the
obvious caveats, in the case of the US and Canada, that species ranges
reflect ongoing migration since the end of the last ice age. Or, "no,
data suggest that TX is outside the native range of the species".
Fighting over semantics or values is pointless. If the term is
"squishy", let's use more precise terminology, and be explicit about
the uncertainty. Unless you're speaking to politicians, in which case
you need to find a way to somehow convey an amount of certainty that
can't be misconstrued, while still being nuanced enough that they
can't (easily) turn what you say around to try to discredit you. And
even then, the media will simply what you say, and the THOSE words
will be used to discredit you.
Quoting Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>:
Honorable Forum:
Anybody who has any "sense" knows that words are imperfect, and anybody
who has read "Alice in Wonderland" (or was it "Through the Looking
Glass?" I just don't remember) knows that a word means "just what I (or
the Red Queen?) say it means." Words are communication tools, and for
them to work at perfect pitch, the parties to the communication have to
understand and mean exactly the same thing, especially if it is to be
considered "scientific."
Ecology is a "squishy" subject, so it follows that there may even NEED to
be a certain amount of "squish" in its terms. It has apparently endless
variables that are in a constant state of change. So ecologist simply
have to come to common agreement what "native" means (and does not mean).
Izzat "ad populem?"
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Pierce" <mindi...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition,
it
is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your
claim "it
was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated
there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first
humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or
construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the
species that came to North America this way.
To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by
other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they
native
because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because
they were moved by agents?
What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into
new
species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary
descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not
invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks.
Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still
stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global,
scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist.
Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D
Post-Doctoral Research Associate
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management
University of Hawai'i
USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net>
wrote:
well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to.
Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place,
they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved
there
or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The
other
constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define
the
concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of
native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or
they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters
do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they
just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that
sometimes we disagree on the data.
mcneely
---- Matt Chew <anek...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom"
is
precisely false.
I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent
the
native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by
different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same
thing.
What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no >
wonder,
since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of
place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human,
and
what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim.
Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g.,
USGS
NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native
transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic
units. That is a political calculation.
What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically
indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some
organism
has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is
known to have physically moved it – or its forbears. But we relax
various
aspects of that as easily as we apply them.
As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated
conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the
shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept
is
a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable
intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise)
there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing
science.
Matthew K Chew
Assistant Research Professor
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology & Society
PO Box 873301
Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
Tel 480.965.8422
Fax 480.965.8330
mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
--
David McNeely
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4874 - Release Date: 03/16/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4876 - Release Date: 03/17/12
