Extinction vs accuracy
Ron Gatrelle
gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Fri Jan 19 01:38:35 EST 2001
That subject line was originally introduced by me. So I will now go full
circle back to my original point. There is no problem with the use
of the term extinction (on all levels) amongst ecological peers - for
in ecoese all understand. Likewise, in Joe citizen's peer group there is no
problem with his singular use of extinction meaning gone everywhere
forever.
The great hurdle for any translator is not to simply swap out
*words*, it is in conveying the meaning of what the speaker was trying to
get across the linguistic abiss to the hearer. There are two words in the
above subject line. Extinction and accuracy. What is accurate to one is not
accurate to another. As I said earlier, sometimes we need to think (and
speak) inside the other guy's box. The accuracy I'm talking about is the
conveyance of one's understanding (not word) to the equivalent
understanding
of the other guy. The more learned person can speak in the other guys
language. The stubborn person insisted on speaking his own and demanding
that all others *understand.* (A vice especially endemic to Americans.)
In trying to help the bug or save the habitat, the *professional* needs to
make sure he speaks in terms the lay person understands. My whole point is
that if _the other guy_ goes along with something (not based on what he was
technically told, but on what he understood) and later finds out the
situation or scenario was not as he thought - it will create an
environmental backlash. Further, this is exasperated by the natural
tendency of all who are on a crusade to overstate the problem and their
solution.
There is an environmental backlash today. In some, more than small part, I
really believe it is due to the average person feeling like they have been
lied to or manipulated over the years by environmentalists about taxa being
extinct or nearly so when _in their understanding of terms_ they were in
fact not. Add to this things like Green Peace people trespassing over
walls, and it all becomes counter productive. The sides only become only
more entrenched and uncommunicative.
Who will speak for the butterflies? Well, who ever it is they need to do so
in words and terms that accurately translate the concerns to the average
guy. Otherwise all one is doing is preaching to the choir - and making few
converts.
RG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
To: <david.h.webster at ns.sympatico.ca>
Cc: <jshuey at tnc.org>; "leps" <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Extinction vs accuracy
> David and everyone else,
>
> In Allee and al 1949. Principles of Animal Ecology, on p. 287 we find the
following
>
> " Excluding radical changes in the exploitable resources of an
environment or some equally radical biotic maladjustment, a natural
> population rarely reaches a density so low as to be in danger of
extinction."
>
> Sewall Wright (1929) published a one page abstract of his new shifting-
balance theory of evolution in Anatomical Record, 44:287. He
> wrote,
>
> "In too small a population, there is nearly complete random fixation,
little variation, little effect of selection and thus a static
> condition, modified by chance fixation of a new mutation, leading to
degeneration and extinction."
>
> Pardon me if I continue the traditional use of 'extinction' for all
levels of extinction, a use ecologists have cut their teeth on.
>
> Patrick Foley
> patfoley at csus.edu
>
> "But however small may be the selective advantage the new character will
spread,
>
> David Webster wrote:
>
> > Hi John, Patrick and All: Jan 18, 2001
> > Perhaps some did not understand the basis of my original comment
about extinction (Jan 31), so I will spell this out and then
> > add a few afterthoughts. Note that this is not intended to be an
argument-- just an explanation of a point of view.
> > 1) Most literate people cut teeth on accounts of famous extinctions;
e.g. great auk, dodo, passenger pigeon.
> > 2) Extinct and extinctions are therefore words in the public domain and
"extinct" is strongly associated with irreversible loss of
> > a species.
> > 3) Being in the public domain, "extinct" is not a technical term, and
thus can not be redefined for scientific purposes without
> > causing confusion.
> > 4) This is not an era of contemplation (even National Geographic
wrongly had the millennium start one year too soon and refused to
> > admit it). It is an era of 5-sec sound clips, 5 word factiods, keyword
searches, superficial journalism and hot-button words in
> > which nearly everything is heard or seen out of context, sometimes with
the intent to misinform.
> > 5) It is also an era of proliferating charities, so conservation
organizations have to make their causes sound more dire than they
> > really are in order to get contributions.
> > 6) The entire conservation movement would suffer if even one
conservation organization, by accident, inflated species extinction
> > statistics by including some population extinctions.
> > Afterthoughts--- To take one example, the range of the Ringlet is
expanding and recently reached Nova Scotia. If a contraction of a
> > range is some kind of extinction, should an expansion be called an
unextiction, a disextinction or a creation ? Obviously, none of
> > the above, it's an expansion. And if that is correct then I wonder why
the loss of a species from an island or an outlier station
> > is more than a decrease in range; often only a symptom of underlying
causes.
> > Habitat destruction, as Anne says so eloquently, is the loss which
counts.
> > Dave Webster, Kentville, Nova Scotia
> >
> > John Shuey wrote:
> >
> > > I can only go so long with chiming in on this conversation. Without
looking up anything, here is my take (from the perspective
> > > of a conservation practitioner). Also note that my grammar sucks in
general, so that I may have missed some obvious points
> > > below.
> > >
> > > Extinction - a noun, describes a process that works at several
levels - levels which therefore should always be specified when
> > > using the term.
> > >
> > > Extinct - an adjective, describes the status of an entity, such as a
population, species, or group of species.
> > >
> > > Extirpated, an adjective, similarly describes the status of an
entity. As I know the term, it is always applied to species in
> > > the context of a definable geographic area. I have never seen this
term used to describe single population sites.
> > >
> > > So here's how they relate in my mind:
> > >
> > > - At its most fundamental level, EXTINCTION is a population
level process - populations are
> > > always at risk of extinction. But in a functioning ecological
landscape, new populations
> > > are generally founded at the same rate that populations become
extinct, so the net effect is
> > > a wash (this would be a stable regional metapopulation). In
today's human dominated
> > > landscape, population level extinction often outpaces the
founding of new populations.
> > >
> > > - As localized population extinctions accumulate, a species may
become EXTIRPATED
> > > from a defined geographic region. For example, Mitchell's
satyr was known historically
> > > from a single population in Ohio, The extinction of that that
butterfly from Streetsboro Fen
> > > resulted in the extirpation of Mitchell's satyr from Ohio.
Karner blues were known
> > > from several populations in Ohio, all of which were extinct by
the late 1980's resulting in the
> > > extirpation of Karner blues from Ohio (note that it has been
re-introduced to Ohio,
> > > which doesn't negate the fact of past population-level
extinction nor of past regional
> > > extirpation).
> > >
> > > - As population-level extinctions further accumulate, a species
may become EXTINCT - no living
> > > individuals survive. A single population-level extinction
resulted in the extinction of a species,
> > > the Dodo. Hundreds, of not thousands of populations of the
Wabash Riffelshell Mussel
> > > became extinct, ultimately resulting in the extinction of that
species.
> > >
> > > - As groups of species become extinct, the term is often applied
to even larger taxonomic
> > > groupings. For example, millions of populations became
extinct, resulting in the extinction
> > > of hundreds of species, and now all dinosaurs are extinct
(except maybe those pesky birds).
> > >
> > > If these terms are used properly, (especially relative to the subject
of the discussion), they can be very accurate terms with
> > > little or no ambiguity.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > John Shuey
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 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
More information about the Leps-l
mailing list