Extinction vs accuracy

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

If most ecologists and people who write books want to use the word
extinction in a very broad and all-inclusive sense that is just fine with
me.  Other people have chosen to make a distinction between extinction and
extirpation through explicit definition.  One example (there are others) is
at this web site http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/COSEWIC/Terms.cfm . This is an
important distinction for practical applications although it may not be
important to people dealing with theoretical matters. I do not hate the use
of extinction in an indefinate and broad sense; I simply do not find such a
non-explicit definition through usage for other purposes to be useful for my
purposes.  No definition is categorically right nor wrong; definitions are
what they are for communication purposes among people and many people
(including scientists) have decided that making a distinction is useful.
The use and definition of words in the english language is not dictated by
journal editors and university presses. Thank god that this is so :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:28 PM
To: Fred.Heath at power-one.com
Cc: Leps-l
Subject: Re: Extinction vs accuracy
 
 
Fred,
 
The term 'extirpate' is sometimes suggested for local extinction, but not by
most ecologists. It has etymological problems as a synonym for local
extinction,
as I wrote in a post yesterday. If anyone really hates the use of
'extinction'
as local extinction, you need to convince more people than me and others on
the
list. You need to convince the editors of numerous journals and University
presses.
 
I have just pulled 18 books off the wall, classics in ecology, biogeography
and
evolution. Looking in the indices I find
extinction    18 times
extirpation    0 times.
 
I'm convinced. How about you?
 
Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu
 
 
"Heath, Fred" wrote:
 
> Dear Parick,
>         Just for my continuing education, what does the word extirpated
mean
> in a biological sense? In my ignorance, I've always used extinct when a
> species was totally gone worldwide and extirpated when talking about a
local
> population. Obviously, if a local or island population is a distinct
> subspecies (however that is defined) then the subspecies could be extinct,
> even though the species is still viable elsewhere.
> ---Thanks, Fred
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Foley [SMTP:patfoley at csus.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:14 PM
> > To:   Ron Gatrelle
> > Cc:   Leps-l
> > Subject:      Re: Extinction vs accuracy
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl