Extinction vs accuracy

[Patrick Foley]

Chris, Ron and others,
 
The reason I believe there is a scientific consensus that the term extinction
should apply to local populations also is that the scientific literature is
full of that usage. This is especially true of the island biogeography and
metapopulation literature, but also the population genetics literature.
 
To cite examples, look at these recent books:
 
John Avise 2000. Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard
University Press.
Peter Grant (ed.) 1998. Evolution on Islands. Oxford University Press.
James Brown 1995. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press.
Ilkka Hanski 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press.
 
As an expert on stochastic extinction processes I am familiar with this
literature. I am just attempting to assess the literature when I state that
there seems to be a scientific consensus accepting the term 'extinction' for
both local and global extinction. If the examples above don't convince you,
perhaps it would be good to read some of this literature.
 
Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu
 
ps The US president select is one of the most embarrassing figures in all of
our nation's presidential history. He prides himself on his ignorance and
incuriosity. (As reported today in the Drudge report, W doesn't even know the
name of the man who selected him president Antonin, not Anthony, not Antonio
Scalia). Most pertinently, his choice for interior secretary, while smarter and
 
more knowledgeable than W, is a member of the wise use movement, is a green
scammer, and is not likely to be a good steward of the common land I share
with other American citizens. For this and other political reasons, I expect
the
next four years to be a painful moment in our environmental history. It will
probably radicalize another generation of conservationists. It certainly means
that conservationists will become more outspoken. Live with it or hire someone
with brains. For absolute clarity: 1) I am not against butterfly collecting,
2) I am not denying anyone their freedom of religion, 3) I am oppressed by
ignorance, stupidity, avarice and waste.
 
 
 
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
 
> Hi Patrick (and all on the party line)
>     To not be misunderstood. Let me put it this way. We now have a new
> administration for the next four if not eight years here in the US. The
> nominee for Interior (if I am correct) is said to be for the repeal of the
> Endangered Species Act. The pecking order has changed and "those people"
> don't need our help. The use of proper terms and accurate data is
> essential. Where these have not been employed accurately or over stated it
> will now come back to bite us.
>     Just as one nominee is now out because of a minor infraction (or
> perhaps only a wrong, but well intentioned act) protested and magnified out
> of proportion by one side - it should be expected that the other side will
> try to throw one Act out for minor infractions (or perhaps overboard but
> well intended implementations). Politics and religion are brutal. You don't
> taunt the opponent. You don't give them ammunition and then put a target on
> your back. It only riles them up more, and they will (as now) eventually
> have their turn. And as we say here in the Red-Neck south, the payback is
> on its way.
>     My religious convictions prevent me from voting. But if I did I would
> have voted for Bush. However, there are several of his policies I do not
> support. I just agreed much less with Gore. Further, just because I think
> the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional it does not mean I want to
> see it go - I like what it does. Just because someone is white and lives in
> South Carolina and even supports flying the Confederate flag over the state
> capital does not mean they are racist. I am a white transplanted Yankee who
> supports the Stars and Bars over the state house and my daughter's
> boyfriend is black -with my approval! It is way to easy in a forum like
> this to read way too much into what kind of person (bucket) any given
> e-drop spilt out of.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
> To: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
> Cc: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 11:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Extinction vs accuracy
>
> > Ron and others,
> >
> > Let me reiterate that the term "extinct" is used by scientists studying
> > extinction for both local extinction and global extinction of a species.
> I
> > didn't decide this. Environmental activists didn't decide this. It was
> decided
> > by a consensus of the scientific community. It was not a perfect choice,
> but it
> > will not change because it annoys the wise use movement.
> >
> > Patrick Foley
> > patfoley at csus.edu
> >
> > Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> >
> > > Someone (I have already deleted the massage) used the word _weight_ in
> > > conjunction with what term is best for locally missing taxa.  The truth
> is
> > > that activists (on any front) are very adept at yelling fire in the
> > > theater. Activists are looking for action. Thus, they choose words with
> the
> > > proper weight to stir sentiment and motivate events in their direction.
> > >
> > > Any way one cuts it, extinct means gone to never return again. Atala
> was
> > > never extinct in Florida. Celastrina ebenina was a seldom seen form
> until
> > > it was realized that it was a species and what its habitat is. Now it's
> > > known as a somewhat widespread species. N. mitchellii pops are now
> known to
> > > occur in Mississippi and Alabama and will quite possibly turn out to
> have
> > > numerous colonies is the seldom visited, snake infested, southern
> swamps.
> > >
> > > Accuracy is what needs to be communicated. If something is extinct then
> use
> > > that term. If locally absent then just say that. If a status is unknown
> but
> > > probably whatever then say that. It is fine to warn of fire in the
> theater
> > > if there is one. But if not, when there really is one nobody will pay
> much
> > > heed. We who are on the side of the environment have used words like
> > > extinct, crisis, immanent, so often that Joe Public (whose support we
> must
> > > have) is beginning to just see us as using chronic over, or mis,
> statement.
> > > If actives what to continue to use terms with  more _weight_ then be
> > > advised that is no where to go in ones terminology but down. Or, will
> we
> > > become like the magician of Princess Bride and say, well, they were
> only
> > > mostly dead, now they are fully dead - extinct. They were only mostly
> on
> > > the verge now they are really or fully or completely on the verge.
> > >
> > > The Red Wolf was once extirpated from South Carolina. Now it has been
> > > reintroduced -  because that taxon has never been extinct.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > >
> >
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl