Klots and species ---

Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
Wed Sep 5 15:06:04 EDT 2001

Yes, clearly that is how Klots used the word population. The only point is
that there are other ways/definitions to use the word population and we need
to be aware that these differences exist  so that we do not think we are
communicating with someone else who has an entirely different understanding
or use of the word. Are there any population biologists on this list that
would take 2 minutes to advise us how population biologists tend to use the
word. Of course I am not saying that any one definition is right or wrong.
We have the metapopulation word/concept that would be worth commenting on
for example.

-----Original Message-----
From: Grkovich, Alex [mailto:agrkovich at tmpeng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:34 AM
To: 'Ron Gatrelle'; Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX; Leps-l
Subject: RE: Klots and species ---

But "a population" may refer to the population of my neighborhood, or of the
city, or of the county, or of the state (or province - I grew up in Canada),
or of the country. The "population" of the nation is, for example, made up
numerous "populations" on the local level, i.e. all individuals ultimately
are Americans (in the USA) or Canadians (in Canada). The same way, a
population of Boloria eunomia dawsonii may refer to the single colony north
of Errol, New Hampshire, or to the single colony north of St. Ignace,
Michigan, or ultimately to all of the colonies of eastern North America,
which collectively, comprise the "population" of the subspecies. I have read
this particular statement by Klots many times over the years, and have
always understood it as such.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ron Gatrelle [SMTP:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:10 PM
> To:	Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca; Leps-l
> Subject:	Re: Klots and species ---
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" <Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
> Subject: Klots and species ---
> > I do have one bone to pick with what Klots published. It is the notion
> that
> > "a species is a population".  If one defines them as the same then the
> > statement is acceptable. But my view is that a population and a species
> are
> > not at all the same 'thing'.
> Well, that was my thought exactly when typing in the statement. I think it
> is inevitable the as we get more and more curious about the stuff in our
> back yard - that we see the local population is "different" from another
> local population. For the brave, we jump in and at times see a definable
> evolutionary line and place the populations on that side of the line in
> one
> subspecies and the other side in another. Idle curiosity gone wild?
> The importance will be how this reads far into the future.  Do we need to
> give names to all these?  Yes. But only as a means of communication toward
> the future - not some ego of I got my name on something. Some folks have
> questioned a couple things I have described subspecifically. I really
> don't
> care if they all get shot down or some even turn out to be species (which
> it looks like one is).  This is just communication to me - as I know it is
> to Norbert. But, but, but. Norbert and I are both big on going back into
> the lit to make sure the communication is accurate - and into the current
> lit to make sure they checked it out before they wrote. If we are going to
> communicate on X level then research it and do it as accurately as
> possible.
> Ron
> I'm going to try and shut up for a while - at least till tonight.
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>    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:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list