Extinction vs accuracy

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

People who want to talk about something being extinct when it is not are
welcome to do so; to me the notion of regional or local extinction without a
qualifier is an oxymoron. I can accept a population being extinct and I can
accept a series of populations being extinct - at least in the sense that
they are 'gone' for an unkown period of time but may repopulate said area so
may not be extinct with the sense of finality imparted by that word. But I
cannot agree with a species being partly extinct (=locally or regionally
extinct)- its all or nothing in my view.  I think this is a case of people
working in different environments using a word to communicate different
things; which is perfectly OK :-)
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:30 PM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
Cc: Fred.Heath at power-one.com; Leps-l
Subject: Re: Extinction vs accuracy
 
 
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