[ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Malcolm McCallum]

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.

-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
Link to online CV and portfolio :
https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO

 “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array
of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers
alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
into law.

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan
Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
  MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Christopher Graham]

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" 
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. 


-- 






Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP 
Link to online CV and portfolio : 
https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO 


“Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of 
animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted 
treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it 
forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” 
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into 
law. 

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan 
Nation 

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, 
and pollution. 
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction 
MAY help restore populations. 
2022: Soylent Green is People! 

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) 
Wealth w/o work 
Pleasure w/o conscience 
Knowledge w/o character 
Commerce w/o morality 
Science w/o humanity 
Worship w/o sacrifice 
Politics w/o principle 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any 
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Thomas Wentworth]

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" 
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.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Judith S. Weis]

Not many departments named "Zoology" any more either. It appeared
antiquated a couple of decades before "Botany" did (for some reason).


> 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" 
>> 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.
>>
>>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Alexandra Thorn]

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  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" 
> > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Jeff Davis]

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  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  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" 
>>> 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 s

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Sue Nichols]

Ah!! Alexandra, that’s just what I wondered about The Martian! 

This is such an interesting discussion, because how people describe what they 
do is so informative (if you’re brave enough to pick and poke). Because there’s 
a reason for it, right?

 I do wonder… have we lost anything by overshadowing “botany?”  And how does 
this change how scientists explain their work, and how important are titles and 
labels?

~
Sue Nichols
Assistant Director/Strategic communications
Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability   
Michigan State University
(517) 432-0206
 
CSIS homepage
CSIS on Facebook
@suegnic



On Nov 18, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Alexandra Thorn  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  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" 
>>> 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 c

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Capparella, Angelo]

This kind of “rebranding” has been happening for some time. In ornithology, I 
recall a debate about changing the name of our flagship journals, The Auk and 
The Condor. A compromise, I guess, was to give each subtitles. One driving 
force I heard was that administrators doing bean counting of faculty 
productivity thought that the journal titles looked unscientific or like a 
place where amateurs would publish. I’ve also seen Integrative Biology taking 
over from some classical terms. Whether all of this improves our science or 
just canalizes it into a new direction that purges natural history and taxonomy 
will be interesting to track.

Check out this classic article:  Thomson, K.S. 1989. A light in the attic. 
American Scientist. 77(May-June):264-266.  You’ll learn why you should never 
use the terms descriptive (use characterization), observation (use experiment), 
museum (use either institute, center, academy), or museum collections  (use 
research collections).  So this is not a new trend.

Angelo Capparella
Illinois State University
Curator of the research collections of vertebrates (aka museum specimens).

From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Malcolm McCallum
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:53 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] 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.

--
Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
Link to online CV and portfolio : 
https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO

 “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of 
animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted 
treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it 
forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into 
law.

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan 
Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
  MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Malcolm McCallum]

I cannot tell you how many peopel have brought up "The Martian."
I guess I will need to see it! :)

I have a LOT of responses, I will try to post some kind of synopsis in a
few days, after I am sure that everyone has spoken who wants to say
something.  Superficially, it sounds like sematics with reasonable
rationale for the change.


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Sue Nichols  wrote:

> Ah!! Alexandra, that’s just what I wondered about The Martian!
>
> This is such an interesting discussion, because how people describe what
> they do is so informative (if you’re brave enough to pick and poke).
> Because there’s a reason for it, right?
>
>  I do wonder… have we lost anything by overshadowing “botany?”  And how
> does this change how scientists explain their work, and how important are
> titles and labels?
>
> ~
> Sue Nichols
> Assistant Director/Strategic communications
> Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability
> Michigan State University
> (517) 432-0206
>
> CSIS homepage 
> CSIS on Facebook 
> @suegnic
>
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Alexandra Thorn 
> 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  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" 
> 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 i

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Chris Elvidge]

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"  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  > 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 > 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"  >
> 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/pl

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Montblanc, Genie]

If we want the general public to care about science then we need to talk about 
it in accessible language, hence plant science.  I don’t think ecology will 
suffer the same fate since “eco” is everywhere; politics, fashion, bills, etc.  
Just my two cents.

Eugénie MontBlanc
Great Basin Fire Science Exchange Coordinator
University of Nevada, Mail Stop 0186, Reno, NV 89557
Phone: 775-784-1107
Fax: 775-784-4583
Email: e...@cabnr.unr.edu<mailto:e...@cabnr.unr.edu>
Web: www.greatbasinfirescience.org<http://www.greatbasinfirescience.org/>

From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:11 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

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 
mailto: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 mailto: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" 
mailto: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 curre

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Judith S. Weis]

It was around 1990 that the American Society of Zoologists changed its
name to Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology. In addition to
sounding "trendier" it also allows for inclusion of some plant biology.



> This kind of “rebranding” has been happening for some time. In
> ornithology, I recall a debate about changing the name of our flagship
> journals, The Auk and The Condor. A compromise, I guess, was to give each
> subtitles. One driving force I heard was that administrators doing bean
> counting of faculty productivity thought that the journal titles looked
> unscientific or like a place where amateurs would publish. I’ve also
> seen Integrative Biology taking over from some classical terms. Whether
> all of this improves our science or just canalizes it into a new direction
> that purges natural history and taxonomy will be interesting to track.
>
> Check out this classic article:  Thomson, K.S. 1989. A light in the attic.
> American Scientist. 77(May-June):264-266.  You’ll learn why you should
> never use the terms descriptive (use characterization), observation (use
> experiment), museum (use either institute, center, academy), or museum
> collections  (use research collections).  So this is not a new trend.
>
> Angelo Capparella
> Illinois State University
> Curator of the research collections of vertebrates (aka museum
> specimens).
>
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Malcolm McCallum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:53 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] 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.
>
> --
> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
> Link to online CV and portfolio :
> https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO
>
>  “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich
> array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
> many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature
> lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as
> Americans.”
> -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
> into law.
>
> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
> Allan Nation
>
> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
> 1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
> and pollution.
> 2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
>   MAY help restore populations.
> 2022: Soylent Green is People!
>
> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
> Wealth w/o work
> Pleasure w/o conscience
> Knowledge w/o character
> Commerce w/o morality
> Science w/o humanity
> Worship w/o sacrifice
> Politics w/o principle
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Dolanc, Christopher]

I think that’s on the right track. I’ve always thought of the trend away from 
“botany” as a product of our trend away from an organismal approach to biology. 
We focus much more now on training students to be geneticists, molecular 
biologists, or ecologists, instead of botanists, zoologists, or 
microbiologists. We still have departments of “plant biology” but I think the 
number of majors in “plant bio” or “botany” are declining, while the number of 
majors in “Biology” is increasing. And, I bet many of those who are majoring in 
“plant biology” are now largely being trained in a more specialized manner than 
the classic botany degree.

--
Christopher R. Dolanc
Assistant Professor of Biology
Mercyhurst University
501 East 38th Street
Erie, PA 16546
Phone: 814-824-2540
email: cdol...@mercyhurst.edu


From: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" 
mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> on behalf of 
Chris Elvidge mailto:chris.k.elvi...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: Chris Elvidge 
mailto:chris.k.elvi...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:21 AM
To: "ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>" 
mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany


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<http://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" 
mailto: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 
mailto: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 mailto: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&

Re: [ECOLOG-L] plant science vs. botany

[Martin Meiss]

 There's a branch of forestry they call "forest engineering".  When I hear
of academic disciplines like:

"...Agriculture courses like dairy science, feedlot management, swine
management, animal nutrition and the like were designated animal science."

I wonder if these might not more accurately be considered engineering
disciplines.

Martin M. Meiss

2015-11-18 20:27 GMT-05:00 Sue Nichols :

> Ah!! Alexandra, that’s just what I wondered about The Martian!
>
> This is such an interesting discussion, because how people describe what
> they do is so informative (if you’re brave enough to pick and poke).
> Because there’s a reason for it, right?
>
>  I do wonder… have we lost anything by overshadowing “botany?”  And how
> does this change how scientists explain their work, and how important are
> titles and labels?
>
> ~
> Sue Nichols
> Assistant Director/Strategic communications
> Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability
> Michigan State University
> (517) 432-0206
>
> CSIS homepage 
> CSIS on Facebook 
> @suegnic
>
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Alexandra Thorn 
> 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  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" 
> 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