Extinction vs accuracy

[Michael Gochfeld]

Not so fast Fred,
    It is obvious from the interchange over the last few days that lep-folks
find "extinction" confusing. It loses its "power" if it's not forever, total,
etc.  I like "extirpation" and text books not withstanding, it has been used by
conservationists to refer to the disappearance, elimination, etc. of a species
from a geographic entity.
    I suggest we bring it back and  banish "locally extinct".
 
It's like all those modern museum exhibits trying to convince me that Dinosaurs
aren't really extinct, because after all there are "birds" "modern dinosaurs".
 
Mike Gochfeld
 
"Heath, Fred" wrote:
 
> Thanks, Patrick. I will make the word extirpate locally extinct from my
> ecological lexicon!!
> ---Fred
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Foley [SMTP: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
>
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl