*There is no precise terminology*, and can never be, for many concepts in ecology. The problem is that reality presents us with continua, with gradients without clear boundaries. Physicists who study light, don't, as far as I know, argue about the definition of "red"; they accept the nature of the spectrum and work with it mathematically. When precision matters, they speak of frequency or wavelength.
*In biology*, species and other taxa represent continuously varying frequencies of genes bundled temporarily into organisms. There are patterns in this bundling, (the type of bundle we call a horse looks a lot like the type of bundle we call a donkey or a mule), but we can waste a lot of time arguing about the boundaries. *Landforms are no simpler*, and often grade insensibly together. Can one be sure where steppe, taiga, and tundra start and stop, or forest, woodland, grassland and desert? Behavioral scientists came up with "autism spectrum disorder" in the face of one of their troublesome continua. On one level, most of us realize that these issues aren't worth fighting about, *but then the law and commerce get involved*. A species gets on the endangered list, or not. (Which once caused some creative whalers to invent a new species, the Pygmy Blue Whale. Very similar the the Great Blue, but smaller. And, strangely, younger...because they hadn't grown up yet. By the time you can prove such lies, a lot of animals die.) Now there is evidence that polar bears and grizzlies are the same species, by the criterion of being cross-fertile. *Even religion has something at stake *in believing in fictional boundaries. I have heard arguments about the "kinds" of animals named by Adam and Eve. Is the African elephant the same "kind" as the Indian elephant? The answer had critical logistical implications for Noah. I suppose that a physicist who runs a traffic light could argue that it wasn't really red, and show spectral tracings to prove it. My reason for mentioning these silly cases is to point out the danger of getting too hung up on terminology, and to encourage people to find alternatives to rigid labels. For instance, numerical taxonomy allows us to treat genetic or phenotypic variability in terms of cladograms (trees) without worrying about names, and perhaps schemes like Holdridge's life zones and various diversity indices do the same for ecology. While these have not gained acceptance at the level where they can be used in law (as far as I know), there may be hope for this. For instance, the public has embraced the concept of "wind chill factor" as a statistic more useful (when deciding what to wear) than mere temperature. *Getting back to the original question:* an appropriate answer for "Is post oak native to Texas?" need not be a mere yes or no. How about a detailed range map superimposed on a map showing political boundaries, perhaps with date information included? The viewer could decide for him/her self if a species whose range had one little projection into a corner of Texas should be considered native to Texas or not. It is always possible that different workers assembling the range data used different criteria for defining the species, but there is no avoiding that for historical data. *In summary:* let's use words, squishy or otherwise, when we're chatting, but when precision matters, let's present data that don't rely on artificial boundaries. Martin M. Meiss 2012/3/22 Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> > 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://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php> >>>> http://asu.academia.edu/**MattChew <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 >
