Extinction vs accuracy

[Patrick Foley]

Norbert and others in the arctic wastes,
 
I understand that it would be useful for record keeping purposes to have a word
for regional extinction. This is apparently what Canadian lawmakers have done
with the word 'extirpation'. But notice that you still need a word for local
extinction within Canada. Do you want to call it 'local extirpation'?
 
I am glad there is no English Academy. I like the anarchy of English. But I do
hope to understand and be understood. And I am not sure I prefer the naming
conventions of lawyers and bureaucrats to those of scientific researchers.
 
Incidentally, I was just translating (badly) a French paper on Chameleon fungal
infection for my wife, Janet Foley who is a veterinary epidemiologist. This made
me long for a Universal Language, such as the vulgar Latin of my Catholic youth.
It might be a bit hard to read but it was universal, kind of, and its deadness
meant that no one took offense. I am told that the new universal language of
science and business is broken English. That can offend everyone!
 
unextinguished, but not flaming,
Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu
 
 
"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:
 
> 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