Hi all, Just throwing this out there - "botanist" and "zoologist" imply to me that one claiming the title is familiar with the full range of taxa within their domain. I call myself a "fish ecologist" instead of an "ichthyologist" because while I know some species very well, I wouldn't claim to know them all - even at a family level.
Chris K. Elvidge, PhD NSERC Postdoctoral Research Fellow Department of Biology Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa ON K1S 5B6 www.fecpl.ca Office: CTTC 4440K (613) 520-2600 ex. 8313 Mail: 209 Nesbitt Biology Building On 18 Nov 2015 10:31 pm, "Jeff Davis" <jnda...@ucsc.edu> wrote: > The Apple (computer) Dictionary defines botany as "the scientific study of > plants, including their physiology, structure, genetics, ecology, > distribution, classification, and economic importance.” > > Sounds about right to me. But presumably for matters of perception, > most universities seem to have abandoned Botany in favor of Plant Biology > or Plant Science when it comes to naming departments, majors, and courses. > Should we anticipate a similar fate for Ecology? > > Ecological Sciences anyone? > > Jeff Davis > UC Santa Cruz > > On Nov 18, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Alexandra Thorn <m...@alexandrathorn.com > <m...@alexandrathorn.com>> wrote: > > It's an interesting question. > > I think of "botany" as being specifically about phylogeny and > characterizing how different plant species are different from one > another and why. Other plant sciences have other domains in my mind, > e.g. "plant physiology" is about the functional attributes of plants > that might translate among species (just as in animal physiology humans > and mice have basically the same organs), and "plant ecology" is about > the relationships among plant species and between plant species and > other organisms. > > My biology doctorate drew heavily on plant physiology and I feel fine > saying that my degree was in plant biology, plant ecology, or plant > physiology, but if somebody calls me a botanist I tend to think they're > attributing credentials to me that I really don't have. > > Alexandra > > P.S. I am bothered by how the term "botany" is used in the novel "The > Martian." I'm pretty sure that "horticulture" would be a better job > description, but I haven't looked up whether words are just used > differently by NASA and friends... > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:26:04 -0500 > Thomas Wentworth <twen...@ncsu.edu <twen...@ncsu.edu>> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Our Department at NC State University changed its name from Botany to > Plant Biology (not Plant Science) a number of years ago. We did so > primarily because of a perception that the public sees "botany" as an > antiquated term, not inclusive of the vibrant programs in our > department, which cover the plant realm from molecules to ecosystems. > We also believed that prospective student searching for "botany" > programs were more likely to use keywords like "plant" and "biology." > We avoided "Plant Science" because we thought that too inclusive of > ALL plant studies, given that at NC State (a Land Grant university) > we still have departments of Crop Science, Horticulture, Plant > Pathology, Forestry, etc. > > Tom Wentworth > > On 11/18/2015 1:00 PM, Christopher Graham wrote: > > Hi Malcolm, > > Interesting question. I studied in the plant biology department at > the University of Georgia, which until recently had been the botany > department. My understanding (and I think this was corroborated by > certain faculty members) was that the change reflected the gradual > shift from "traditional" botanists, who studied plants at a > macroscopic or organismal level and thus were facile with (at least > some members of) the regional flora; to academics who focused at > the cellular or molecular level to such a degree that many of them > do not particularly know or care about the real, wild plants > growing around them. I don't doubt that these plant scientists do > important things, but it's a shame to me that the former type, the > traditional botanist, has been largely displaced by them. > > chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Malcolm McCallum" <malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com > <malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:52:32 PM > Subject: plant science vs. botany > > > Over the past several years I have noticed a trend that > plant-focused vacancies will refer to the vacancy as plant science > and less frequently what used to be typically referred to as > zoology will be instead referred to as animal science. When I was > an undergraduate, agronomy, pomology, forestry, and course related > to agriculture were designated plant science. Agricutlure courses > like dairy science, feedlot management, swine management, animal > nutrition and the like were designated animal science. > > > The current widespread lack of distinction between zoology vs. > animal science, and botany vs. plant science creates a lot of > confusion, and doesn't really make any sense to me. > > > > Is there a reason that people have stopped using the term > zoology/botany and in its stead began using animal science/plant > science? It seems like an inappropriate muddying of the academic > waters to me. > > > A Plant Scientist and a Botanist are not the same thing, nor is an > animal scientist and a zoologist the same thing. Although some > people might cross these fields (a ruminant ecologist might cross > these areas for example). > > > I know most people probably couldn't care less about this, but I > feel it is a pretty important issue. If we are not consistent with > terminology, why should we expect students and others to take it > seriously? > > Please feel free to contact me off list because some members of the > ECOLOG discussion list get annoyed when it actually involves > discussion, so be it. > > > > > >
