Extinction vs accuracy

[Patrick Foley]

Ron,
 
I picked my books based on the fact that they are standard texts and classics
in ecology, biogeography and evolution, the fields that would seem most
relevant. I was surprised that the term extirpated did not arise. I believe the
books included:
Krebs Ecology
Brown Biogeography
MacArthur and Wilson Island Biogeography
Hutchinson Introduction to Population Ecology
Darlington One of his biogeography books
Myers and Giller Analytical Biogeography
and a dozen others which I chose for their diversity of viewpoint.
 
Can you do the same? I believe that despite your disclaimer you have just
called me a con artist. I think if you look at my posts that although I have
strong opinions, I usually back them up with facts and research.
 
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
 
> OK, lets play the game. Boom, this is the first book I picked up. Opening
> now to Glossary of terms. Humm, look for the E's... Ah, there they are -
> extinct and extirpated - right next to each other. Humm, I see that extinct
> is listed first (this must mean it is a more important term*). Here are the
> definitions.
>
> "Extinct: a species that no longer survives anywhere."
>
> "Extirpated: a species which has become extinct in a geographic region
> (such as a state) but still survives in other places."
>
> Well! There we have it! I'm convinced. Therefore I (meaning others) need to
> look no further.           Pause.
>
> Now, is it possible that even though this was the first book _I_ picked up
> that my prior knowledge of the type of book it is let me know that it most
> likely had the term extirpate in it. There are a dozen others I could do
> the same thing with. As a preacher I am all to aware that a seminary is a
> place one goes to to learn how to debunk and explain away the other sides
> theology. I once hoped that science would not be so clickish.
> Unfortunately, higher education (in any field) all too often only makes
> some people better con-artists**. This malady is not just limited to TV
> preachers.
>
> By the way I hate extinction (as I hate rape and genocide). I surely don't
> hate the word!
>
> Footnotes. *I know why extiNct is listed before extiRpate. **This is not
> directed at Patrick in any way. I like to take individual situations and
> address them from broader horizions. I editorialize.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
> To: <Fred.Heath at power-one.com>
> Cc: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 6:28 PM
> 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