Extinction vs accuracy

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Tue Jan 16 01:55:38 EST 2001


>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
 
You are quite correct about the recent technical misuse of the term.
Perhaps it is time to step back and reflect on the utility of jargonistic
re-definitions running away with the language. I shall restate the idea
from my last communication - a vanished local population does not make an
extinct species. Only the vanished last local population makes an extinct
species. Most species have become extinct. All species will eventually
become extinct.
............Chris Durden
 
 
 
>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
>thenext 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.
 
Ok, so more than half of us did not choose him! We shall have to live with
this situation for the next four years. Then maybe more people will vote.
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list