Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[Warren W. Aney]

I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of the
other biological sciences, particularly ecology.  After all, isn't a species
an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an
ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less dependent
on the describer's perspectives and whims?

But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic splitters
and the taxonomic lumpers.  Did we once have 4 species of the now-extirpated
grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it split?
Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the
lumpers now have it?  And how was the decision made that recently
reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species
into one species -- the dark-eyed junco?  Was it a more defensible decision
than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a
subjective redefinition of what a species is?

So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species is?
We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that
does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary
(Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective
verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining
the biological term.  

Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor
instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our sciences
are evolving, just as species evolve.  And will taxonomic science be able to
catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process
just too fuzzy? 

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came away 
with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect that 
part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself without 
being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent 
disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who determined 
the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most.

As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression 
that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs."

WT


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Stephen" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?


> Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not
> interested in geographical patterns of species distributions?
>
> If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality
> samples with no locality info would suffice.  For that matter, why bother
> looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the 
> botanical
> nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names?
>
> Seems crazy to me.  I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my 
> career
> - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools 
> for
> answering research questions.  Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a
> descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for
> integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics.  It's essential to
> get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and
> shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about 
> patterns
> or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans you've
> found?
>
> My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value of
> taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism.  But then maybe I've just 
> been
> lucky.  :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles
>
> -- 
> Charles Stephen
> MS Entomology student
> email: charles.step...@auburn.edu
> cell phone: 334-707-5191
> mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
>
>> Honourable Forum:
>>
>> Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting
>> nomenclature right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that
>> this is important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need
>> taxonomists on the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be
>> possible), or at least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be
>> assured.
>>
>> I recently attended a lecture by a botanist of regional and international
>> repute who described a large project to compile a checklist of the 
>> vascular
>> flora of an inadequately-explored, but quite large region. It is 
>> undeniable
>> that this is important work, and through this person's le

[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral position in plant ecology at University of Konstanz

[Mark van Kleunen]

I am seeking a postdoctoral assistant to join my new group at the University 
of Konstanz in Germany. My group will focus on questions related to invasive 
plants, rare plants, responses of plants to global change, phenotypic 
plasticity and adaptation, and pollination and reproduction. The University 
of Konstanz is one of the nine Universities of Excellence in the Federal 
Republic of Germany, and is located on a small campus in the forests just 
outside the beautiful university town of Konstanz at the shore of Lake 
Constance.

Duties:
-   Assisting me in building-up a plant-ecology lab
-   Research on one of the topics mentioned above
-   Teaching and supervision of students (4 hr a week during the 
semester).

Requirements:
-   A PhD degree and two or more years of postdoctoral experience in 
plant ecology.
-   Experience with one or more of the following approaches, large 
(multi-species) experiments, database studies and meta-analyses.
-   Experience in using molecular markers.
-   Strong statistical skills
-   A strong publication record

The salary will be at scale 13 TV-L . If you are interested in this 
position, please, send a single PDF or Word document, including a letter of 
application, a CV, a list of publications and the contact details of three 
references, to vkleu...@ips.unibe.ch before 30 November 2010. The preferred 
starting date is 1 February 2011. Initially the position will be for a 
period of four years, but extension is possible. For more information, 
contact Mark van Kleunen at vkleu...@ips.unibe.ch.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[Thiago Silva]

Speaking of geneticists, what is the general opinion, among ecologists, on the 
"Barcoding of Life" work started by Paul Hebert?

http://www.barcodeoflife.org/content/about/what-dna-barcoding


Thiago Sanna F. Silva

Postdoctoral Fellow - University of California at Santa Barbara / Instituto 
Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
Ph.D. Geography - M.Sc. Remote Sensing - B.Sc.(Hons) Biology

http://thiagosilva.wordpress.com

On 2010-11-13, at 4:18 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:

> Bill's story reminds me of the time Karen Sausman asked, "What is a species?" 
> It seems to be all in a flux, what with PhD candidates swarming all over the 
> herbaria changing "names" and such, but not re-inventing the whole basis for 
> nomenclature (at least). Maybe the geneticists will clear it all up one day. 
> Taxonomists and the fractured trail of crumbs they leave behind may well be 
> gold dust, but all this head-butting and back-stabbing ain't efficient. This 
> taxonomist's lecture was full of ecology and evolution, and they're begging 
> for money, but they think they don' need no stinkin' (abominable) ecologists, 
> no geologists, no coconut oil .  .  .
> 
> What should be the relationship of ecologists and taxonomists, if any? Should 
> one of them be abolished? Should there be a war? Should some gerrymander rise 
> from the ashes?
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Bill Silvert" 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 3:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
> 
> 
>> Wayne's story reminds me that the eminent ecologist Larry Slobodkin once
>> observed that "ecology without species is the ultimate abomination." I was
>> giving some lectures on size-structured ecosystems, so I introduced myself
>> as an "abominable ecologist". It seemed a fitting title. Still does.
>> 
>> Bill Silvert
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson
>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:18 PM
>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
>> 
>> Honourable Forum:
>> 
>> Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting nomenclature
>> right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that this is
>> important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need taxonomists on
>> the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be possible), or at
>> least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be assured.
>> 
>> I recently attended a lecture by a botanist of regional and international
>> repute who described a large project to compile a checklist of the vascular
>> flora of an inadequately-explored, but quite large region. It is undeniable
>> that this is important work, and through this person's leadership,
>> significant additions to knowledge of the area have been made. The lecture
>> included maps of "bioregions" or "ecoregions." This botanist dismissed the
>> value and importance of them, adding that they were the province of the
>> ecologists and were highly flawed (I can't quote the lecturer precisely, but
>> this is the best of my recollection and my distinct impression). The
>> lecturer essentially dismissed ecology, remarking that the lecturer was
>> interested only in individual plants and seemed contemptuous of ecologists
>> in general, and particularly those involved in establishing the ecoregions
>> that were a part of the lecture. I may have misunderstood, as I have long
>> held this person in high regard, and those remarks seemed inconsistent with
>> past behavior.
>> 
>> Do you find this state of mind to be common among taxonomists in general or
>> botanists in particular? Is this apparent schism real or imaginary? Other
>> comments?
>> 
>> WT
>> 
>> PS: During the lecture, the speaker remarked about ecological phenomena
>> which were not understood (no clue), but at least one reason for one
>> phenomenon was apparent to me. I said nothing, as the lecture had been very
>> long and the question period short.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3254 - Release Date: 11/13/10 
> 07:34:00

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[Judith S. Weis]

"Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor
instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn."

Maybe this is really just a defensive attitude since for so many years
they were looked down on by other branches of biology - including
ecologists - as being just "stamp collectors" without scientific rigor or
hypotheses etc. It wasn't until the biodiversity crisis that people
realized we needed systematists/ taxonomists who could identify what was
what.



> I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of
> the
> other biological sciences, particularly ecology.  After all, isn't a
> species
> an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an
> ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less
> dependent
> on the describer's perspectives and whims?
>
> But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic
> splitters
> and the taxonomic lumpers.  Did we once have 4 species of the
> now-extirpated
> grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it
> split?
> Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the
> lumpers now have it?  And how was the decision made that recently
> reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species
> into one species -- the dark-eyed junco?  Was it a more defensible
> decision
> than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a
> subjective redefinition of what a species is?
>
> So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species
> is?
> We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that
> does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary
> (Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective
> verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining
> the biological term.
>
> Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor
> instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our
> sciences
> are evolving, just as species evolve.  And will taxonomic science be able
> to
> catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process
> just too fuzzy?
>
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
> Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or
> Disintegrating?
>
> I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came
> away
> with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect
> that
> part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself
> without
> being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent
> disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who
> determined
> the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most.
>
> As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression
> that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs."
>
> WT
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Charles Stephen" 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or
> Disintegrating?
>
>
>> Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not
>> interested in geographical patterns of species distributions?
>>
>> If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality
>> samples with no locality info would suffice.  For that matter, why
>> bother
>> looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the
>> botanical
>> nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names?
>>
>> Seems crazy to me.  I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my
>> career
>> - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools
>> for
>> answering research questions.  Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a
>> descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for
>> integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics.  It's essential
>> to
>> get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and
>> shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about
>> patterns
>> or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans
>> you've
>> found?
>>
>> My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value
>> of
>> taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism.  But then maybe I've just
>> been
>> lucky.  :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> --
>> Charles Stephen
>> MS Entomology student
>> email: charles.step...@auburn.edu
>> cell phone: 334-707-5191
>> mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
>>
>>> Honourable Forum:
>>>
>>> Recent

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, I think you just ran into an odd situation.  The folks I have known who 
do botanical taxonomy definitely are not like the fellow you heard speak.  
Interesting your remark about "stamp collecting."  That was Isaac Asimov's term 
for what those who study the diversity of the natural world do, in his science 
fiction books.  Asimov was a biochemist by training and employment (though he 
did little or no research once he got cranking on the popular science books and 
science fiction).  He was definitely one of those in that line of work who did 
have disdain for what he also called the "lesser sciences."  But I haven't 
found that usual among those who are actually out and about in the natural 
world as a part of their work.  Just some lab jockeys.  Ecology, evolution, 
systematics are so intertwined that I don't see how there really could be such 
disdain.  I do occasionally hear ecologists speak of "natural history" as less 
than ecology is, but little do they know how Haeckel si!
 mply mistook natural history, the root of all biological science, for one of 
biological science's branches when he named the "new" science of ecology.  But 
that is not a lot different from the renaming of animal behavior as behavioral 
ecology in more recent times.

DMc

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came away 
> with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect that 
> part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself without 
> being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent 
> disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who determined 
> the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most.
> 
> As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression 
> that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs."
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Charles Stephen" 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
> 
> 
> > Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not
> > interested in geographical patterns of species distributions?
> >
> > If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality
> > samples with no locality info would suffice.  For that matter, why bother
> > looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the 
> > botanical
> > nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names?
> >
> > Seems crazy to me.  I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my 
> > career
> > - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools 
> > for
> > answering research questions.  Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a
> > descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for
> > integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics.  It's essential to
> > get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and
> > shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about 
> > patterns
> > or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans you've
> > found?
> >
> > My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value of
> > taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism.  But then maybe I've just 
> > been
> > lucky.  :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > -- 
> > Charles Stephen
> > MS Entomology student
> > email: charles.step...@auburn.edu
> > cell phone: 334-707-5191
> > mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> >
> >> Honourable Forum:
> >>
> >> Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting
> >> nomenclature right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that
> >> this is important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need
> >> taxonomists on the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be
> >> possible), or at least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be
> >> assured.
> >>
> >> I recently attended a lecture by a botanist of regional and international
> >> repute who described a large project to compile a checklist of the 
> >> vascular
> >> flora of an inadequately-explored, but quite large region. It is 
> >> undeniable
> >> that this is important work, and through this person's leadership,
> >> significant additions to knowledge of the area have been made. The 
> >> lecture
> >> included maps of "bioregions" or "ecoregions." This botanist dismissed 
> >> the
> >> value and importance of them, adding that they were the province of the
> >> ecologists and were highly flawed (I can't quote the lecturer precisely, 
> >> but
> >> this is the best of my recollection and my distinct impression). The
> >> lecturer essentially dismissed ecology, remarking that the lecturer was
> >> interested only in individual plants and seemed contemptuous of 
> >> ecologists
> >> in gene

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecological Laws

[David L. McNeely]

I used to remind students of Davy Crockett's maxim, "Be sure you're right, then 
go ahead."  I would follow that with, in science we go with, "Be 95% sure 
you're right, then go ahead."  But then I'd remind them that a collective of 
95% sure decisions adds up to dead certain.  Whenever I was confronted with the 
refrain of, "We never prove anything, we just accept it based on 
probabilities," my response was, "And what do we get if we DON'T accept 
anything because we think we never prove anything?  A muddle."  

Falsification is all well and good.  Science has not progressed because we 
failed to prove anything.  It has progressed because we accepted and went 
forward when we were certain enough that the chance of refutation had become 
vanishingly small.

We KNOW a few things, for certain.  Among them are the things that Gary cites 
below.

I taught my students that the "Theory" (I spell it with a capital T when the 
model in question is of great general importance) of evolution explains the 
observed "fact" of evolution.  That seemed to help some to get past the muddle 
that popular "understanding" has made of the way science works.

David McNeely
  
 Gary Grossman  wrote: 
> The statement below is why we still have a general public that doesn't
> accept evolution as fact, or global climate change, or, that invasive
> species harm ecosystems.  Certainly what the author says is technically
> correct, but in reality what is the difference between a probability of
> occurrence of 98% and "proven".  There is no functional difference and this
> is not just semantics.  After all if evolution can never be proven then why
> should it be in text books, and why should creationism (which also can never
> be proven) be left out?  I don't want to start a hailstorm here, but I think
> that it is an important point to distinguish between what essentially is a
> philosophical question and educating students so that they will be able to
> realistically communicate science to the public and make biologically-based
> decisions in the real world.  Certainly, I also teach the Popperian
> falsificationist paradigm, but I also tell my students to use common
> decision rules (e.g., if something has a probability of occurrence that is
> 80% in real life, wouldn't you behave as if it was going to occur) when
> describing scientific phenomenon to the public.  Barry Noon wrote a paper
> about this many years ago, it basically was "Why biologists don't do well in
> court".
> 
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:41 AM,
> 
> > Food for thought (hope it's not too simplified for this listserv):
> >
> > I was taught, and I teach my students, that biologists, ecologists
> > included, DO NOT work within the realm of PROOFS (as mathematicians do).
> > Rather we work within the realm of PROBABILITIES.  I do not allow my
> > students to use the word "prove" either orally or in written format.  Even
> > the most well accepted Theories (with a capital T), such as the Theory of
> > Evolution by Natural Selection, the Germ Theory, and Cell Theory, are
> > constantly being revised, modified, and updated as we trudge forward toward
> > a better understanding of biology.
> >
> >
> -- 
> Gary D. Grossman, PhD
> 
> Professor of Animal Ecology
> Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA, USA 30602
> 
> Research & teaching web site -
> http://www.arches.uga.edu/~grossman
> 
> Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation
> Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology
> Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish
> 
> Sculpture by Gary D. Grossman
> www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/album.php?aid=2002317&id=1348406658
> 
> Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html
> Atelier 24 Lexington, Asheville NC -
> www.atelier24lexington.com
> Lyndon House Art Center, Athens, GA -
> www.accleisureservices.com/lyndon.shtml

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[Pekin, Burak K]

The idea that there is a "moment when one species evolves into another" is 
interesting. Does the evolutionary lineage of species consist of sharp 
transitions, or more more gradual changes from one species to another? 

In ecological biogeography, the change in the relative dominance of species 
across a landscape can be sharp or gradual. Sometimes we see that one species 
is replaced by another over a very short distance due to a physical barrier or 
an abrupt change in key environmental factors. Other times, we see that the two 
species co-exist over large distances and the relative dominace between the 
species changes across a gradual environmental gradient. In the latter case, it 
is more difficult to define a point in space in which the change in dominance 
occurrs.

Are evolutionary processess over time analogous to 'environmental gradients' 
over space? If so, what kinds/aspects of evolutionary processess determine the 
sharpness/gradualness of the switch from one species to another? What role does 
the inherent genetic structure of particular species play in determining the 
gradualness of this switch? 

Perhaps the reason the definition of what constitutes a species is 'fuzzy' 
because the processes that control the change of one species to another are 
unclear. Ecologists often try to define species according to their functional 
attributes inorder to access their ecological significance in ecosystems. 
Similiarly, the 'species' of an organism should correlate with a function/s 
inherent to its genetic code, which in turn has some evolutionary significance. 
However, in this context at least, taxonomic science is a lot less definitive 
than ecological science, as it is quite lacking in knowledge of the links 
between the genetics of individual species and thier evolutionary heritage.


--
Burak K. Pekin, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources
Purdue University



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Warren W. Aney [a...@coho.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:27 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of the
other biological sciences, particularly ecology.  After all, isn't a species
an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an
ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less dependent
on the describer's perspectives and whims?

But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic splitters
and the taxonomic lumpers.  Did we once have 4 species of the now-extirpated
grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it split?
Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the
lumpers now have it?  And how was the decision made that recently
reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species
into one species -- the dark-eyed junco?  Was it a more defensible decision
than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a
subjective redefinition of what a species is?

So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species is?
We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that
does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary
(Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective
verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining
the biological term.

Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor
instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our sciences
are evolving, just as species evolve.  And will taxonomic science be able to
catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process
just too fuzzy?

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came away
with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect that
part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself without
being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent
disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who determined
the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most.

As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression
that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs."

WT


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Stephen" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM
Su

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[Wayne Tyson]

Warren/Ecolog:

I have argued that taxonomy is not fuzzy enough, so I guess that 
hyper-disqualifies me as a taxonomist. That does not mean that I don't 
"believe in" taxonomy. On the contrary, I am glad there are taxonomists to 
endure all that drudgery so I don't have to worry my fuzzy head about it. 
The rub comes in when I try to apply taxonomy to the real world. I find both 
"lumping" and "splitting" useful, depending upon what I may be struggling to 
understand at any given time or occasion, but also find it ironic that 
something that is supposed to be fixed on organization has not worked out an 
efficient means for its application as a tool for non-taxonomists. Where, 
for example, is a single "key" that continuously keeps track of all 
revisions? Are not floras and zoological tomes out of date before they can 
be published? (Will not that always be so, and why do "we" care?) Where are 
the plain-language correlations between genetically-based and 
morphology-based taxonomies? Have (the dominant) taxonomists (and 
ecologists, for that matter) yet discovered that computers and the Internet 
have potential beyond speeding up what they used to do on paper? Or 
"modeling" fragments with no hypothesis, even, about just how they relate to 
the whole?


Certainly all this stuff changes, but just as certainly, scientists want to 
be certain. Does anybody but me an a few other heretics find this ironic? 
(I'm sure--at least I entertain the fantasy--that there are thousands, but 
they seem quite outnumbered by the certain ones.) G-damn an educational 
system that punishes incorrectness! It leads to "rigor" all right, but that 
is death, not life.


WT

". . . will taxonomic science be able to catch the moment when one species 
evolves into another, or is that process just too fuzzy?" --Warren W. Aney




- Original Message - 
From: "Warren W. Aney" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?



I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of the
other biological sciences, particularly ecology.  After all, isn't a 
species

an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an
ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less 
dependent

on the describer's perspectives and whims?

But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic 
splitters
and the taxonomic lumpers.  Did we once have 4 species of the 
now-extirpated
grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it 
split?

Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the
lumpers now have it?  And how was the decision made that recently
reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species
into one species -- the dark-eyed junco?  Was it a more defensible 
decision

than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a
subjective redefinition of what a species is?

So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species 
is?

We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that
does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary
(Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective
verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining
the biological term.

Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor
instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our 
sciences
are evolving, just as species evolve.  And will taxonomic science be able 
to

catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process
just too fuzzy?

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or 
Disintegrating?


I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came 
away
with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect 
that
part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself 
without

being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent
disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who 
determined

the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most.

As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression
that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs."

WT


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Stephen" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or 
Disintegrating?




Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not
interested in geographical patterns of species distributions?

If it's pure nomen

[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Positions in Ecology at UC

[Matter, Stephen (mattersf)]

Graduate Positions in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of 
Cincinnati

The Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Cincinnati is 
recruiting highly talented students wishing to pursue graduate degrees (MS or 
Ph.D.). 

The department is integrative with strengths in Ecological areas such as 
Behavior (Buschbeck, Jayne, Layne, Polak, Rollmann, and Uetz), Populations and 
Communities (Cameron, Culley, Lentz, Matter, Maurer, and Petren), and 
Ecosystems (Buffam, Maurer, and Shann) as well as Ecological and Evolutionary 
mechanisms at Genetic and Genomic levels (Baucom, Buchholz, Culley, Gross, and 
Petren). Inter-departmental collaborations promote basic Ecology relating to 
Landscape Ecology (Buffam, Cameron, Culley, Lentz, and Matter) and 
Biogeochemistry (Buffam and Shann). Additionally faculty have specialized 
interests ranging from climate change, invasive species, and co-evolution to 
nutrient cycling and urbanization. 

The department offers competitive support packages for qualified students. 

Interested students are encouraged to look at the web pages of individual 
faculty members and contact them for further information. 
http://www.artsci.uc.edu/collegedepts/biology/fac_staff/byDeptMembers.aspx


More information about graduate studies in the department of Biological 
Sciences can be found at: 
http://www.artsci.uc.edu/collegedepts/biology/grad/application_info.aspx

Information concerning Graduate admission at the University of Cincinnati is 
available at:
 http://www.grad.uc.edu/ApplyOnline.aspx

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

[Teresa M. Woods]

Based on my studies in invasive species, I would say the question of 
whether there are sharp transitions, or more gradual changes, should be 
rephrased.  You allude to it in your explanation, but it appears there 
are both.  I think the relevant question is -- under what conditions 
does one or the other process (sudden or gradual) occur and then prevail?


Teresa

Teresa M. Woods, Ph.D. Candidate

Coordinator

Olathe Educational Partnership

K-State Olathe Innovation Campus, Inc.

18001 West 106^th Street, Suite 130

Olathe, KS66061-2861

913-541-1220

Mobile: 913-269-8512


On 11/14/2010 10:49 AM, Pekin, Burak K wrote:

The idea that there is a "moment when one species evolves into another" is 
interesting. Does the evolutionary lineage of species consist of sharp transitions, or 
more more gradual changes from one species to another?

In ecological biogeography, the change in the relative dominance of species 
across a landscape can be sharp or gradual. Sometimes we see that one species 
is replaced by another over a very short distance due to a physical barrier or 
an abrupt change in key environmental factors. Other times, we see that the two 
species co-exist over large distances and the relative dominace between the 
species changes across a gradual environmental gradient. In the latter case, it 
is more difficult to define a point in space in which the change in dominance 
occurrs.

Are evolutionary processess over time analogous to 'environmental gradients' 
over space? If so, what kinds/aspects of evolutionary processess determine the 
sharpness/gradualness of the switch from one species to another? What role does 
the inherent genetic structure of particular species play in determining the 
gradualness of this switch?

Perhaps the reason the definition of what constitutes a species is 'fuzzy' 
because the processes that control the change of one species to another are 
unclear. Ecologists often try to define species according to their functional 
attributes inorder to access their ecological significance in ecosystems. 
Similiarly, the 'species' of an organism should correlate with a function/s 
inherent to its genetic code, which in turn has some evolutionary significance. 
However, in this context at least, taxonomic science is a lot less definitive 
than ecological science, as it is quite lacking in knowledge of the links 
between the genetics of individual species and thier evolutionary heritage.


--
Burak K. Pekin, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources
Purdue University



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Warren W. Aney [a...@coho.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:27 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of the
other biological sciences, particularly ecology.  After all, isn't a species
an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an
ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less dependent
on the describer's perspectives and whims?

But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic splitters
and the taxonomic lumpers.  Did we once have 4 species of the now-extirpated
grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it split?
Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the
lumpers now have it?  And how was the decision made that recently
reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species
into one species -- the dark-eyed junco?  Was it a more defensible decision
than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a
subjective redefinition of what a species is?

So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species is?
We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that
does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary
(Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective
verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining
the biological term.

Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor
instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our sciences
are evolving, just as species evolve.  And will taxonomic science be able to
catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process
just too fuzzy?

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?

I could only take this person's word for it. The int