[NHCOLL-L:5203] RE: the extinction of natural historians

Tue Jan 25 11:41:35 EST 2011

I once had the luxury of surveying the life history of a moth that took up to five years to mature from egg to adult (although I did not know that upper end until making the survey). But that was when I was a student and at that time I did not think too much about the career implications (i.e. that a 'long-term' life history study like this would have any future benefit). Of course, a population study would have been even longer (although over the five years I was able to chart a decline in the population that may have been correlated to forest clearance on an immediately adjacent hillside).

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: malcolm.mccallum.tamut at gmail.com [mailto:malcolm.mccallum.tamut at gmail.com] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:34 AM
To: Watkins-Colwell, Gregory
Cc: John Grehan; Hansen.Gayle at epamail.epa.gov; FURTHD at si.edu; JPRICE at mus-nature.ca; NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: [NHCOLL-L:5200] RE: the extinction of natural historians

Even a step further along these lines, modern publishing expectations are not
conducive to LT studies as you suggest.  If you set up a long term study and
get one monograph 20 years down the line, then you never make it 20 years down
the line!  You must publish regularly, so these kinds of studies are
not as attractive.

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Watkins-Colwell, Gregory
<gregory.watkins-colwell at yale.edu> wrote:
> Regarding funding:  there may also be a sense that because our kind of work
> often doesn't require expensive fancy equipment (PCR, Sequencers, etc.) that
> a pair of binoculars and an airline ticket should be cheap and easily
> afforded.  This is, of course, flawed thinking.  A good study involving life
> history, morphology, ecology, behavior or any combo of anything either
> instead of, or in addition to molecules, will require more funds in the long
> term.  I remember in grad school talking about "long term studies" in
> ecology and pointing out that most studies that are considered long-term are
> not so from the perspective of the species being studied.  For example, a
> long-term study of a tortoise population will, at best, be for the career of
> the PI but not for very many generations of tortoise.  Thus a really good
> long-term study of a long-lived species needs to encompass a few human
> careers.. and that surely costs more than a PCR and a Sequencer.
>
>
>
> greg
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> Gregory J. Watkins-Colwell
>
> Division of Vertebrate Zoology
>
> Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History
>
> 170 Whitney Avenue, Box 208118
>
> New Haven, CT  06520
>
> 203/432-3791  or    fax: 203/432-2874
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu]
> On Behalf Of John Grehan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:44 AM
> To: Hansen.Gayle at epamail.epa.gov
> Cc: FURTHD at si.edu; JPRICE at mus-nature.ca; malcolm.mccallum at herpconbio.org;
> NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu; owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: [NHCOLL-L:5200] RE: the extinction of natural historians
>
>
>
> Some might combined molecular and morphological data, but in general it
> boils down to molecular approaches to natural history being given priority
> over purely morphogenetic. As you point out "our textbooks" (but not mine),
> "use molecular data to build a framework". Combining the data is problematic
> since molecular data involves analysis of only four interchangeable
> characters rather than comparing derived conditions for individual
> characters.
>
>
>
> But agree, natural history is underfunded. I get the impression it is
> because it is 'descriptive' and not 'molecular' and therefore not 'science'
>
>
>
> John Grehan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Hansen.Gayle at epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hansen.Gayle at epamail.epa.gov]
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:16 PM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: FURTHD at si.edu; JPRICE at mus-nature.ca; malcolm.mccallum at herpconbio.org;
> NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu; owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: [NHCOLL-L:5198] the extinction of natural historians
>
>
>
> What a comment!  In my field, the study of algae, we use both molecular and
> morphological data to derive the our phylogenetic conclusions.   Although
> our textbooks use molecular data to build a framework, they still rely
> heavily on morphology and ecology to tell their stories.
>
>  And yes, we are still describing new species and studying their life
> histories.  Cataloging them, as expensive as it might be, is essential
> because it makes it so much easier for us to interpret their distribution
> and abundance.
>
> Natural history as a field is not dead -- it is just underfunded.
>
> Gayle Hansen, Ph. D
> Oregon State University
>
>
>
>
>
> From:        "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To:        <FURTHD at si.edu>, <malcolm.mccallum at herpconbio.org>,
> "JPRICE at mus-nature.ca" <JPRICE at MUS-NATURE.CA>
> Cc:        <NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu>
> Date:        01/23/2011 08:00 PM
> Subject:        [NHCOLL-L:5198] Re: :
> Sent by:        owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> So long as morphologists (morphogeneticists really) run down their work as
> subservient to molecular DNA theories of relationship I predict that the
> natural history/biology side of understanding the evolution of biodiversity
> will continue to be treated with relative contempt.
>
> John Grehan
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu]
> On Behalf Of Furth, David
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: 'malcolm.mccallum at herpconbio.org'; JPRICE at mus-nature.ca
> Cc: NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: [NHCOLL-L:5197] Re: :
>
> We systematists have recognized this "extinction" for decades, but we have
> been preaching to the choir.  Now with all the lab-oriented (indoor)
> systematics students are being taught by those who practically do not know
> the organisms in nature, some don't seem to want to either.  Most
> systematists are impassioned by being in the field, i.e. really ecologists
> too, and working with collections. After all, some of the most famous
> ecologists started as taxonomists, e.g., G. Evelyn Hutchinson, Sir Richard
> Southwood, etc.
>
> Hopefully some future generation will realize that they need to start over
> with taxonomy/systematics of whole organisms that they really want/need to
> know in nature; however, due to the "extinction" and the current continuing
> decline/loss of true natural history science it will be an expense re-start.
>
> ******************************************************
> David G. Furth, Ph.D.
> Department of Entomology
> MRC 165, P.O. Box 37012
> National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution
> Washington, D. C. 20013-7012  USA
> Phone: 202-633-0990
> Fax: 202-786-2894
> Email: furthd at si.edu
> Website: www.entomology.si.edu
>
> From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu]
> On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:26 PM
> To: JPRICE at mus-nature.ca
> Cc: NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: [NHCOLL-L:5190] Re: :
>
> systematists are not dying out half as fast as those who study the natural
> history of the species.
> There are NSF grant programs to fund systematics and programs to fund
> specifically the training of systematists.
> Currently, there are NO programs to fund natural history nor to fund
> training natural historians.
>
> Naming an organism without describing its life history is sort of like
> reading the title of a book and never opening it.
> I suppose some students would not get that metaphor! :)
> IF you don't know any of its life history its pretty darn difficult to
> implement meaningful conservation strategies.
>
> Malcolm McCallum
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Judith Price <JPRICE at mus-nature.ca> wrote:
> Interesting post on Wired Science:
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/extinction-of-taxonomists/#
>
>
> "We are currently in a biodiversity crisis. A quarter of all mammals face
> extinction, and 90 percent of the largest ocean fish are gone. Species are
> going extinct at rates equaled only five times in the history of life. But
> the biodiversity crisis we are currently encountering isn't just a loss of
> species, it's also a loss of knowledge regarding them.
>
> "Scientists who classify, describe and examine the relationships between
> organisms are themselves going extinct. The millions of dollars spent
> globally on technology to catalog species may actually be pushing out the
> people we rely upon: taxonomists and systematists. We're like young children
> frantic to add new baseball cards to our collections, while the actual
> creators of the baseball cards themselves are vanishing."
>
> Judith
> Judith C. Price
> Secretary, Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections
> Assistant Collections Manager, Invertebrates / Gestionnaire adjointe des
> collections invertébrés
> Canadian Museum of Nature / Musée canadien de la Nature
> PO Box 3443 Station D / CP 3443 Succ <<D>>
> Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6P4 CANADA
> Tel.613.566.4263 / Fax.613.364.4027
> jprice at mus-nature.ca
> @nature_jcp
> www.nature.ca / www.spnhc.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Malcolm L. McCallum
> Managing Editor,
> Herpetological Conservation and Biology
>
> "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!
>
> 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.
>

-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"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!

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.