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" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]> 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 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
