Re: capitalization rules for common names?
Funny, I asked about two weeks ago our in house editor (every department should have one), and she explained exactly what you said. Official names and proper nouns capitalized, rest in lower case. Kim Warren W. Aney wrote: As I understand it, the American Ornithological Union standard is to capitalize all common names of specific birds, e.g., Canada Goose and Greater White-fronted Goose, but to not capitalize when talking about groups of species, e.g., geese, quail. As far as I know, all other taxonomic organizations do not capitalize common names unless it is a proper noun -- so you have mule deer and Roosevelt elk. When writing for publication, I go by thise latter rule even for birds. Warren Aney Senior Wildllife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Scott Ruhren Sent: Tuesday, 18 July, 2006 12:28 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: capitalization rules for common names? Dear List Members: I have been attempting to find a definitive answer regarding rules and standards of capitalization for common names of biota. Except when the common name contains a proper name (ex. Canadian, Wilson's), I follow the no-capitalization rule. This complies with several writing style guides often used for journals (ex. CBE, APA) and popular press science publications. Additionally, popular press sources such as National Geographic, NY Times, Nature Conservancy magazine etc. do NOT capitalize common names. Finally, is it my imagination that there seems to be some disparity between zoological (more caps.) and botanical (less caps.) publications. Could this be an antique holdover? I have seen more capitalization in ornithological publications for fanciers/birders/associations. Field guides seem top overuse capitalization for emphasis. Thank you for your input. Scott --- Scott Ruhren, Ph.D. Senior Director of Conservation Audubon Society of Rhode Island 12 Sanderson Road Smithfield, RI 02917-2600 401-949-5454 -- http://www.kimvdlinde.com
Re: Maldaptation, Extinction and Natural selection
Warren, If you want succinct, then I believe Endler does the job: If you have: 1. Phenotypic vaiability that 2. comes from genotypic variability, and that gives 3. Differential reproductive success (due to that phenotypic variability). We call this fitness. Then you will have natural selection, which is just a different genotype frequency in subsequent generation. If that continues in the same way for generations, then we are likely to have Evolution by Natural Selection. These are all necessary and sufficient conditions for natural selection. We can also see that fitness differences CAN come from competition, but they do not HAVE to. And, we must remember that while Darwin coined the term, he knew nothing of genetics, which has come a long way since then. And, there was the New Synthesis that put Darwin's ideas into a more modern framework, with Fischer, White, Mayr. And, then, we have Dawkins and Gould, who might have argued between themselves, but who, by reading, WE can all come to understand evolution better. Cheers, Jim Warren W. Aney wrote: I've been trying to follow this discussion with little profit until I read this last posting from Wirt Atmar. This is the most intelligent, succinct, evocative and accesible (and inspiring) explanation I've ever read on the topic of basic evolution. Maybe it's old-hat to evolutionary biologists, but it's going to be part of this wildlife ecologist's permanent lexicon. Thanks, Wirt, for persisting on this topic. Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wirt Atmar Sent: Tuesday, 18 July, 2006 14:20 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Maldaptation, Extinction and Natural selection Dan writes: I am not an expert on evolution (far from it) but I have a hunch that relates to Hutchinson's quote and analogy about the evolutionary play in the ecological theater. Let me say that you can do no wrong by reading and memorizing G. Evelyn Hutchinson, and especially his student, Robert MacArthur. The metaphor I tend to use however invokes a different art form, that of a movie. The study of ecology, which entails investigations into the totality of the biotic interactions we find on earth, is like the last, current frame of a movie that has been running at 24 frames per second for the last several hundred years. When we do ecology, we're looking only at the last frame of the movie. Ecology is evolution in now time, captured in the current frame, but no matter how intricately we tease apart the ecological physics of those interactions in this last frame, the interactions will never make complete sense unless they are examined over the course of the entire movie. The ghosts of competitions past, where pronghorn antelope run at high speed from a cheetah that's no longer present on the North American plains, is as good an example as we have of the necessity of imposing time into our studies, making Hutchinson's the evolutionary play in the ecological theater phrase all the more relevant. Why are developing these metaphors important? On one hand, saying all of this is obvious. On the other, these discussions have almost no practical value when you're in the field, taking detailed measurements. But science doesn't mean data. The mathematician Henri Poincare wrote, Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks, but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house. Science literally means understanding, and without developing these perspectives, we really don't understand much of anything. Evolving truly accurate mental metaphors and models is fundamental to doing science, of any stripe. Saying this, what then of the idea of the evolutionary algorithm? In that regard, you write: My hunch combined with your analogy below of evolution as algorithm might be considered ecology as operating system. This focuses on ecology at the ecosystem and biosphere level. Your description of the algorithm seems to explain and characterize selection well, but it does not seem to account for 1) generation of novelty, other than via random or error-related mutation, 2) feedbacks that result when the organisms and communities/ecosystems alter the environment and then have to adapt to their own alterations (as studied in niche construction and ecosystem engineers) and 3) the infrastructure and maintenance of elements, energy, materials that make the instantiation or materialization of new forms (actors) possible, participates in juxtaposing them in new plays and cleans up the mess after the play (i.e. decomposition and recycling) so that the theater is not cluttered from past performances. I could convert these to algorithm or application/program vs operating system examples relation to
Re: capitalization rules for common names?
The American Ornithologists' Union does indeed have an 'official' system of capitalization of common names of bird species, as listed formally in the AOU Check-list (http://www.aou.org/checklist/ index.php3); the same systemn is used by the British Ornithologists' Union for species in their part of the world. This system is used not just in field guides but also by most ornithological journals: Auk, Condor, Wilson Bulletin, Journal of Field Ornithology, Ibis, etc. (though not Journal of Avian Biology). The system calls for capitalization of each word in the common name when referring to a single species. If the terminal part of the name (which often refers to a larger group of species to which the species in question belongs) is a hyphenated compound word, both component words get capitalized (this is the AOU system; in the BOU check-list, only the first word of the compound word is capitalized). If the name includes a hyphenated compound word that precedes the terminal part of the name, only the first word of that compound word gets capitalized. Thus ... Mallard, Canada Goose, Northern Cardinal Black-capped Chickadee, Chestnut-sided Warbler Island Scrub-Jay (The scrub-jay group, as currently recognized, includes three species, Island, Western, and Florida. These form a closely related subset (clade) within a larger genus, Aphelocoma.) Both rules for compound words can apply to a single species: Black-crowned Night-Heron, White-faced Storm-Petrel A few species have names that include more than two words. All get capitalized. Great Blue Heron, Great Horned Owl When referring to multiple species in the same group, the group name does not get capitalized. Thus ... Black-capped and Carolina chickadees, Florida and Western scrub-jays Hope this is helpful in clarifying the system that ornithologists have adopted widely. ~ ~ ~ ~ Robert L. Curry, Ph.D. Department of Biology Villanova University 800 Lancaster Ave. Villanova PA 19085 USA Tel 610-519-6455 Fax 610-519-7863 http://oikos.villanova.edu/RLC/ Webmaster for... BIRDNET, web site of the Ornithological Council http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/ Delaware Valley Chapter, Society for Conservation Biology http://oikos.villanova.edu/SCB/ My attention attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing together ... the mocking-thrushes -- C. Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle, 1839
Re: Evolution (was maladaptation...), movies, entangled bank
Wirt, Thanks. A reply and two questions: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The metaphor I tend to use however invokes a different art form, that of a movie. The study of ecology, which entails investigations into the totality of the biotic interactions we find on earth, is like the last, current frame of a movie that has been running at 24 frames per second for the last several hundred years. When we do ecology, we're looking only at the last frame of the movie. Ecology is evolution in now time, captured in the current frame, but no matter how intricately we tease apart the ecological physics of those interactions in this last frame, the interactions will never make complete sense unless they are examined over the course of the entire movie. I like this metaphor. In addition to your perspective above that ecology is mainly about the last frame, I would add that ecology was integral to interactions during *all* frames. We may not have data on the ecology of all past frames, but I think we know that relations between life forms and between life and environment were integral to the life story and to evolution from the beginning. Thus I see ecology and evolution as equals. Re: your Darwin quote: It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. When was the phrase by the Creator added or dropped? A last general question - based on your term ecological physics and use of mechanist to describe Darwin I wonder if you are in full agreement with neo-Darwinism and The Modern Synthesis? No problems for the theory or weak links at all? Statistical mechanics OK for use in biology and ecology just as in physics? I see major problems with this and need for evolution of our main paradigms and am curious as to your views. Thanks for any more, Dan -- Dan Fiscus Ecologist/PhD student Appalachian Laboratory University of Maryland C.E.S. 301 Braddock Road Frostburg, MD 21532 USA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 301-689-7121 fax: 301-689-7200 http://al.umces.edu/~fiscus/research http://ecosystemics.org/drupal
Re: Evolution Environment Adaptation Re: Maldaptation, Extinction and Natural selection
Joerg, I like your analogy, and many studies have compared fitness landscapes to your topography that you describe here. Note, those are fitness landscapes, not Natural Selection landscapes. So, if you are in a wide flat plane, you might compare that to Gould's equilibrium in his context of punctuated equilibrium. That is, no natural selection is taking place. You may go extinct because you run out of space, a disease comes along and so forth, but, no natural selection needs to be taking place. An analogy from maths (where I come from): in global optimization, if you are on a wide flat plane and you have no clue in which direction to go to find the valley, you are stuck with the solution you have at hand. It might be a rather bad one (extinction) but anywhere you turn it doesn't get (much) better. That doesn't mean that in many cases optimization algorithms won't work they do even in quite bad conditions if you have a lot of time to search. So I think it just comes down to the degree of maladaptation versus the likely rate of change. And, we must understand that while adaptation is the process whereby natural selection over time (evolution) forms features that permit organisms to do well, we cannot think that maladaptations are formed by the same process. Accidents (meteors, floods, continental drift, climate change) may make something that was once useful into something that is no longer useful, but the maladaptation was not made for that new scenario through natural selection. So, care must be used in thinking about the process. Cheers, Jim -- - James J. Roper, Ph.D. Universidade Federal do Paraná Depto. de Zoologia Caixa Postal 19020 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil = E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764 celular: 55 41 99870543 e-fax:1-206-202-0173 (in the USA) = Zoologia na UFPR http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/ Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ - http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br
ESA Graduate Student Policy Award
ESA GRADUATE STUDENT POLICY AWARD If you're a graduate student and ESA member interested in learning first-hand about the federal funding 'game' that happens every year in Washington, DC, you may wish to apply for the Ecological Society of America's Graduate Student Policy Award to attend a two-day Capitol Hill event. In these budget-deficit times, the competition for scarce federal dollars has grown ever stiffer and ecological scientists must make an extra effort to be heard. Open to all ESA graduate student members, this award will be given to one applicant for a special two-day event on September 12 and 13, 2006. ESA will cover travel and lodging expenses associated with this event. ESA works with several other scientific societies to organize this annual event, which is sponsored by the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF). Awardees will participate in an afternoon orientation and an evening reception will feature many other scientists and engineers, congressional staff, and Members of Congress. Day two will feature interdisciplinary team visits with congressional offices to advocate for support of the National Science Foundation. To Apply: Submit by close of business, Monday, August 14, 2006, a one-page statement that reflects your insights and perspective on the importance of federal support of the National Science Foundation. Extra credit for peppering your essay with examples of ecological success stories (i.e. where investment of federal dollars to NSF had a tangible return). Please include also a short CV with all contact information. Send via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or by fax 202.833.8775. Winners will be notified by Wednesday, August 16, 2006. Questions should be directed to Nadine Lymn at [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 202.833.8773, ext. 205.
EVOLUTION Higher concept Re: Maldaptation, Extinction and Natural selection
At 02:19 PM 7/18/2006, Wirt Atmar wrote: In Darwin's alternate universe of death and famine, we unfortunately have a simple, easy-to-understand mechanism, one that does eventually builds the most exalted objects which we are capable of conceiving, the production of the HIGHER [capitals mine, since italics and bold are rejected by the program--WT] animals. Honorable Forum: Many years ago my wife was being interviewed by a radio host. He asked her about how we were BETTER than the other species. We're not better, we're just different, she said. That was one of my proudest moments, in many proud moments, of her long career of simply doing, not bragging (that, obviously, is what I am doing here, entirely without her permission and knowledge, but it's germane to the issue). I can't help but wonder if the evolution of culture was not the ultimate maladaptation, and that the consequences of all population booms is a downslope trend, if not the last frame of the movie called, with ironic arrogance, Homo sapiens sapiens. Doubly wise, indeed! FIN wt
Re: Evolution (was maladaptation...), movies, entangled bank
Dan asks: When was the phrase by the Creator added or dropped? In the Second Edition, published 7 January 1860. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species#Publication_of_The_Origin By chance, just a little further down in the same article, Ernst Mayr's version of the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm is also presented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species#The_basic_theory A last general question - based on your term ecological physics and use of mechanist to describe Darwin I wonder if you are in full agreement with neo-Darwinism and The Modern Synthesis? No problems for the theory or weak links at all? Statistical mechanics OK for use in biology and ecology just as in physics? I see major problems with this and need for evolution of our main paradigms and am curious as to your views. There is no need to impose statistical mechanics on evolutionary theory. The flow of philosophies and ideas actually occurred in the reverse direction. As surprising as it may initially seem, statistical mechanical thought is a direct outgrowth of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The aspect of Darwin's writings that Mayr especially celebrated in his own writings was Darwin's introduction of populational thinking into biology. For the previous 2500 years, the notion of essentialism, where each species is of a type, held sway. Darwin shattered that idea, and Mayr emphasized that aspect of Darwinian evolutionary biology every chance he got, but Darwin's ideas had philosophical impacts further than merely biology. The first great re-interpretation of Darwin's views was accomplished by Ludwig Boltzmann with his microscopic interpretation of thermodynamics. Boltzmann was so impressed with Darwin's ideas that he wrote that the 19th Century should be declared the Century of Darwin and he hoped to become the Darwin of Matter. In the first half of the 19th Century, the thermodynamics of Kelvin, Maxwell, Clausius, Watt, Carnot and others was seen as the study of a bulk, fluid-like heat quality. Clausius defined entropy (literally meaning in one turn) as that fraction of ordered energy that is lost to the inaccessible pool of heat in every turn of a gear, never to be recovered. Boltzmann, as a physicist, was well aware of these ideas, but because of his enthusiasm for Darwin's ideas of selection acting on a population of variants, he almost immediately redefined Clausius' entropy. Clausius defined entropy as: S = dQ/dT Boltzmann redefined entropy as: S = k log W In Boltzmann's redefinition, entropy became a measure of the decay of ordered states into disordered ones, and from that revolutionary idea, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and information theory were later derived. Boltzmann considered his Darwinian thermodynamic equation so important that it's carved on his tombstone: http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/chem120/boltz.jpg [I showed this picture to a student last week and he said, Damn, he looks just like Tom Hanks!, something I've never noticed before.] If you wish, I've written more on this surprisingly profound relationship of ideas between thermodynamics and evolutionary biology in a short note that appeared a few years ago in the Bulletin of the ESA. It's on-line at: http://aics-research.com/research/esa-shannon.pdf The original title was, A profoundly repeated pattern. (Comments on the death of Claude Shannon and the intimate relationship of information to life), but the title was trimmed in publication. Wirt Atmar
Re: capitalization rules for common names?
Scott and list, Its true that bird common names are normally capitalized, though this has not been so for at least mammals, and probably many other taxa. A friend and mentor of mine recently gave me a compelling argument that, editorial traditions be damned, we should simply capitalize all common names. Is a pygmy rabbit just a very small rabbit of some unspecified kind, or a species as clearly denoted by Pygmy Rabbit? Is a vagrant shrew an extralimital shrew record of some undesignated species--or is it a Vagrant Shrew? I think my friend is right, and capitalizing all common names is the right way to go and the wave of the future. He gave several examples in which recent field guides etc. have been breaking with the non-capitalization tradition, and editors have been coming around to the idea. I say we should do what makes the most sense to us, and push this envelope. - Original Message - From: Scott Ruhren [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: capitalization rules for common names? Dear List Members: I have been attempting to find a definitive answer regarding rules and standards of capitalization for common names of biota. Except when the common name contains a proper name (ex. Canadian, Wilson's), I follow the no-capitalization rule. This complies with several writing style guides often used for journals (ex. CBE, APA) and popular press science publications. Additionally, popular press sources such as National Geographic, NY Times, Nature Conservancy magazine etc. do NOT capitalize common names. Finally, is it my imagination that there seems to be some disparity between zoological (more caps.) and botanical (less caps.) publications. Could this be an antique holdover? I have seen more capitalization in ornithological publications for fanciers/birders/associations. Field guides seem top overuse capitalization for emphasis. Thank you for your input. Scott --- Scott Ruhren, Ph.D. Senior Director of Conservation Audubon Society of Rhode Island 12 Sanderson Road Smithfield, RI 02917-2600 401-949-5454
Ameriflux Tech Analyst Position at OSU
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/hr/jobs/academic/002-1068.html Position Number: 002-1068 AmeriFlux Technical Analyst Department of Forest Science POSITION: AmeriFlux Technical Analyst RANK: Professional Faculty LOCATION: Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon POSITION AVAILABLE: September 1, 2006 APPLICATION FULL CONSIDERATION DATE: August 11, 2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The AmeriFlux network of research sites seeks a Technical Analyst who will work with Science Chair to coordinate all aspects of the research program, including production of technical reports and publications, leading and participating in network synthesis activities, workshop development, and communication with network investigators and funding agencies. The AmeriFlux network (http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/; www.fsl.orst.edu/terra) is a network of more than 100 sites in the Americas, where the goal is to quantify and understand processes controlling carbon dioxide and water vapor exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. The network was established in 1996, and plays a key role in the North American Carbon Program of the US Carbon Cycle Science Program. There are 140 principal investigators, a Steering Committee, and Data Management team that are contributing to the common goals of the network, as outlined in the strategic plan (see AmeriFlux web site). The Science Chair, funded by the US Department of Energy, is responsible for the science direction of the network, data quality, and synthesis activities, and supervises the site intercalibration and synthesis groups at Oregon State University. OSU is one of only two American universities to hold the Land-, Sea-, Sun- and Space-Grant designations and is the only Oregon institution recognized for its very high research activity (RU/VH) by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. OSU is comprised of 11 academic colleges with strengths in natural resources, earth dynamics and sustainability, life sciences, entrepreneurship and the arts and sciences. OSU has facilities and/or programs in every county in the state, including 12 regional experiment stations, 41 county extension offices, a branch campus in Bend, a major marine science center in Newport, and a range of programs and facilities in Portland. OSU is Oregons largest public research university, conducting more than 60 percent of the research funded throughout the states university system. OSU is located in Corvallis, a community of 53,000 people situated in the Willamette Valley between Portland and Eugene. Ocean beaches, lakes, rivers, forests, high desert, the rugged Cascade and Coast Ranges, and the urban amenities of the Portland metropolitan area are all within a 100 mile drive of Corvallis. Approximately 15,700 undergraduate and 3,400 graduate students are enrolled at OSU, including 2,600 U.S. students of color and 950 international students. The university has an institution-wide commitment to diversity, multiculturalism and community. We actively engage in recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce and student body that include members of historically underrepresented groups. We strive to build and sustain a welcoming and supportive campus environment. OSU provides outstanding leadership opportunities for people interested in promoting and enhancing diversity, nurturing creativity and building community. POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Contribute to the development of AmeriFlux guidelines and research strategy 2. Produce network-wide accomplishment reports 3. Lead and contribute to network-wide synthesis of data and production of publications 4. Assist coordination of the annual AmeriFlux meeting and workshops 5. Assist with various project management activities 6. Respond to queries from AmeriFlux PIs and program agencies about AmeriFlux research activities EDUCATION EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS: REQUIRED: 1. PhD degree in biometeorology, ecosystem ecology, or related field that is relevant to AmeriFlux research 2. One or more years of experience conducting ecological research, preferably as part of a large research group 3. Experience analyzing micrometeorological data, statistical analyses, and authoring publications 4. Demonstrated understanding (e.g., through publication record) of the process of conducting and publishing ecological research 5. Outstanding oral and written communication skills, with demonstrated ability to work well with groups of scientists, both as a group leader and as a group member 6. Ability to manage complex budgets 7. Experience in programming, data analysis and graphical presentation using statistical packages, and facility common software for spreadsheets 8. Ability to manage multiple tasks independently and to work well under the pressure of tight deadlines DESIRED: 1. Experience writing and submitting grant proposals to
