Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes
|
|
Thread rating:  |
George - 15 Mar 2005 00:46 GMT http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html
BERKELEY, CA - A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent.
"What we're seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it," said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab's Physics Division, and UC Berkeley's Physics Department. "While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations."
Muller, and his grad student, Robert Rohde, presented their findings in the March 10, 2005 issue of the journal Nature. In a commentary on this research in that same issue of Nature, UC Berkeley professor of earth and planetary sciences, James Kirchner, stated, "It is often said that the best discoveries in science are those that raise more questions than they answer, and that is certainly the case here."
Muller and Rohde discovered the 62 million year fossil diversity cycle after creating a computerized version of an exhaustive database compiled by the late University of Chicago paleontologist Jack Sepkoski. Entitled Compendium of Fossil Marine Animal Genera, Sepkoski's posthumously published database is the most complete reference available for the study of biodiversity and extinctions. It covers the Phanerozoic eon, the past half billion years during which multicellular organisms left abundant fossil records in rocks; uses genera, the level above species in taxonomy, because genera classifications are more manageable and less often revised than species classifications; and includes only marine fossils because the records are longer and better preserved than records of land fossils.
For their study, Muller and Rohde defined fossil diversity as the number of distinct genera alive at any given time. This yielded a total of 36,380 genera, whose history the Berkeley scientists tracked over time, using the International Commission on Stratigraphy's 2004 time scale.
"Putting the timescale in a chronologic format was critical to our findings, because there were no specific years assigned to the geologic timescale used by Sepkoski," Muller said. "We are the first to reconstruct diversity from the final version of Sepkoski's Compendium, and the first to use the 2004 geochronology time scale. In a sense, our work has verified the new time scale."
Muller and Rohde have been working on this study for nearly two years, and first discovered the 62 million year biodiversity cycle in November, 2003. They spent the next year trying to either knock it down or explain it. Despite examining 14 possible geophysical and astronomical causes of the cycles, no clear explanation emerged. Muller and Rohde each has his own favorite guess.
Muller suspects there is an astrophysical driving mechanism behind the 62 million year periodicity.
"Comets could be perturbed from the Oort cloud by the periodic passage of the solar system through molecular clouds, Galactic arms, or some other structure with strong gravitational influence," Muller said. "But there is no evidence even suggesting that such a structure exists."
Rohde prefers a geophysical driver, possibly massive volcanic eruptions triggered by the rise of plumes to the earth's surface. Plumes are upwellings of hot material from near the earth's core that some scientists believe have the potential to reoccur on a periodic basis.
"My hunch, far from proven," Rohde said, "is that every 62 million years the earth is releasing a burst of heat in the form of a plume formation event, and that when those plumes reach the surface they result in a major episode of flood volcanism. Such volcanism certainly has the potential to cause extinctions, but, right now there isn't enough geologic evidence to know whether flood basalts or plumes have been recurring at the right frequency."
In examining their results, Muller and Rohde found that the fossil diversity cycle is most evident when only short-lived genera (those that survived less than 45 million years) are considered. They also found that some organisms seem to be immune to the cycle, while others are exceptionally sensitive. For example, corals, sponges, arthropods and trilobites follow the cycle, but fish, squid and snails do not. In general, longer-lived genera that are more diverse and widespread stand a better chance of resisting the 62 million year cycle.
Muller and Rohde also found a second, less pronounced diversity cycle of 140 million years.
"The 140 million year cycle is also strong, but we see only four oscillations in our 542 million year record," Muller said. "This means there is some chance that it could be accidental, rather than driven by some external mechanism."
If it is real, the 140 million year fossil diversity cycle could be tied to a reported 140 million year cycle in Ice Ages. Said Rohde, "It is also possible that this 140 million year fossil diversity cycle is driven by passage through the arms of the Milky Way galaxy".
Muller and Rohde are continuing their examination of the data for both cycles, and their search for explanations. This research was supported, in part, by the Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation, the Folger Foundation, and the Larsen Fund.
Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov.
Eros - 15 Mar 2005 02:10 GMT http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html
> BERKELEY, CA - A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of > marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has > withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above
> 99-percent. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Sepkoski," Muller said. "We are the first to reconstruct diversity from the > final version of Sepkoski's Compendium, and the first to use the 2004
> geochronology time scale. In a sense, our work has verified the new time scale." > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > but, right now there isn't enough geologic evidence to know whether flood > basalts or plumes have been recurring at the right frequency." Well, there's a quote mine in the making. I can just see some poor ignorant creationist coming across this and quoting it as proof that scientists believe that there really was a "flood". :)
[snip the rest]
EROS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "...the preponderance of creationists are so abysmally ignorant and arrogant -- a deadly combination -- that they cannot be convinced by rational argument. But the creation/evolution debate is not about convincing the creationists. One might as well argue with squid. The debate is about educating the public at large -- the same public whose elected representatives pass laws, select textbooks, set curriculums, and fund research." -- Jeffrey Shallit , University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
JWIL - 15 Mar 2005 02:52 GMT Yes, finally, scientific proof of The Flood! Right? LOL
Personally, I like Muller's astrophysical explanation for the periodicity. And we should be able to prove it once we can study the moon or Mars in more detail. By dating the major comet/asteroid impacts on Mars, we should be able to rule out or confirm a terrestrial explanation for our periodicity.
George - 15 Mar 2005 03:09 GMT > Yes, finally, scientific proof of The Flood! Right? LOL > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on Mars, we should be able to rule out or confirm a terrestrial > explanation for our periodicity. Disclaimer: I do not agree or disagree with the contents of the article. I just thought it was intetresting, and posted it for discussion. I haven't read the original paper, so I certainly cannot verify their >99% confidence claim.
Ralph Nesbitt - 15 Mar 2005 13:29 GMT > Yes, finally, scientific proof of The Flood! Right? LOL > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on Mars, we should be able to rule out or confirm a terrestrial > explanation for our periodicity. Radiation is most likely to be the cause. The galactic Sol for Earth is known to be 250 my+/- The chances of the solar system encountering areas of significantly higher radiation levels on a regular basis as the Solar System traverses the Galactic Sol is the only logical explanation for the regular extinction events noted in the study referenced.
The question now is where to look for the definitive signature of the greater radiation levels, on a regular schedule. Ralph Nesbitt Ralph Nesbitt
jonathan - 15 Mar 2005 02:56 GMT > http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above > 99-percent. Very interesting article. So the question boils down to whether the periodic extinctions are caused by internal or external forces....volcanism or an astrophysical cause. The answer is easy to determine, I mean gosh, don't these scientists think at all?
I can't count how many times I've seen this pattern in the stock market...which, like our biosphere, is a complex adaptive system.
External forces acting on a complex adaptive system, such as the stock market, tends to result in a panic sale, which strips the system of the small scale investors and those that are short term traders.
Internal forces acting on the system tend to strip the system of the large scale investors or those going long on the stock.
Since the research indicates the shorts die off leaving the longs, the force for change is clearly external in nature.
So it is an astrophysical cause that creates these periodic extinctions. I have complete confidence in this conclusion~
Jonathan
s
> "What we're seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on > our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is > managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov. John Harshman - 15 Mar 2005 05:18 GMT > http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above > 99-percent. Grain of salt time: it was this same database in a slightly earlier incarnation that was said to have displayed a 32-million-year periodicity in extinctions. There is still considerable argument about whether that cycle exists. Now we have one that's just about twice as long.
snex - 15 Mar 2005 05:25 GMT > > http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > periodicity in extinctions. There is still considerable argument about > whether that cycle exists. Now we have one that's just about twice as long. i heard (from a bbc special i think) that they coincided with the sun's passage through the central area of the arm of the milky way, which caused comets from the oort cloud to get hurdled toward the sun. is there any validity to this?
George - 15 Mar 2005 06:03 GMT > http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > caused comets from the oort cloud to get hurdled toward the sun. is > there any validity to this? It's just one of several hypotheses.
JohnWilkins - 15 Mar 2005 06:10 GMT >>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > It's just one of several hypotheses. Surely if you take a large enough scale, you will find *some* quasiperiodic cycles in anything.
George - 15 Mar 2005 06:29 GMT >>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Surely if you take a large enough scale, you will find *some* > quasiperiodic cycles in anything. Sure. I see it all the time. Just like if you draw a line with a ruler on a structural map of just about any region on earth, you are likely to find any number of structural features that fall along that line. Does that mean there is a lineament along that line? Maybe, and maybe not. Obviously, it takes more data than just drawing a line on a map to make such a case. In the same way, it takes more data than just these cycles to make such a case. At the same time, if these cycles are consistent throughout the fossil record, you can't just ignore them. They have to be investigated and either corrorated or refuted. I would like to see their statistics to see how they came up with a >99% confidence rating.
George - 15 Mar 2005 06:46 GMT >>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Surely if you take a large enough scale, you will find *some* > quasiperiodic cycles in anything. I believe when the 21 m.y. cycle was first reported (possibly with the same data set), it was pointed out that the results were at the genera level. When you index the data at the species level, the 21 million year cycle disappeared. That is what I remember. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. I've seen this same mistake made when trying to make a case for the Frasnian-Famennian extinction (I think I remember a paper that tried to show the exinction using genera of brachipods). Yet, I think time and more research has shown that that extinction did actually occur, based on a larger fossil database.
Stanley Friesen - 15 Mar 2005 16:07 GMT >>>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >genera of brachipods). Yet, I think time and more research has shown that that >extinction did actually occur, based on a larger fossil database. It was a tad more complex than that. A large part of the original "periodicity" was due to statistical artifact. Due to the granularity of the *data* set, there was a set of artificial peaks in the frequency density.
Unless the new data set has data accurate to about 1 MY across most of the span, I suspect this may be a repeat of the original error. The problem is that most such databases only date the fossils to *stages* (or at best substages), not to actual dates. This was the source of the odd granularity the first time around.
 Signature The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
albaradru - 16 Mar 2005 05:59 GMT I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with that stuff, keep the paleobiologists out of it. What we should really think about are the causes and effects of these extinctions, and how they affected the evolutionary pathways of life throughout the ages. What I find more interesting than squabble about dates and times are the causes of these extinctions, whether geological or astrophysical or both; speciation, evolution, all that kind of stuff. More significance should be given to the biodiversity at the times of these extinctions, and how the level of diversity influenced evolutionary history. Of course the stones are going to tell a tale of rich and poor diversity. There have always been fluctuations in biodiversity; as a matter of fact, one of the biggest drops in biodiversity is happening as I type this really long message. It's all in the biodiversity levels at the beginning and ends of an extinction that really make the difference in the long run. It's what happened afterwards that is interesting! Biology, it freakin rocks! No pun intended. Be >99% assured. ~albaradru
George - 16 Mar 2005 06:54 GMT >I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of > extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with that > stuff, keep the paleobiologists out of it. That is an odd statement, since paleobiologists, one would think, would be very interested in this issue. I'm a geologist, so I can't say for certain, but it seems to me that paleobiologists would be useful in this area of research.
> What we should really think > about are the causes and effects of these extinctions, and how they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > afterwards that is interesting! Biology, it freakin rocks! No pun > intended. Be >99% assured. ~albaradru I agree that more attention should be given to biodiversity. I was involved in the discovery of a site that was rich in Mississippian-aged crinoids. In fact, the site had been discovered before by a paleontologist who specialized in conodonts and who was only interested in finding these little critters in the rocks for stratigraphic purposes. He wrote a paper describing the conodonts but made no mention to anyone of the presence of crinoids there (odd, since they were overwhelmingly the dominant fauna there). When my partner and I came across it, we quickly realized that it was a very important site, so much so that we enlisted the department chairman of the Geology department at Ohio State University to assist us in the research:
http://www.psjournals.org/paleoonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-3360&volum e=074&issue=06&page=1072
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 09:06 GMT > I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of > extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with that > stuff, keep the paleobiologists out of it. How the hell can you tell if a mass extinction event has occured if you don't measure the diversity of fossil organisms? Geologists and astrophysicists are not taxonomists and in my experience, can't spot a fossil unless you strike them smartly between the eyes with it.
> What we should really think > about are the causes and effects of these extinctions, and how they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > afterwards that is interesting! Biology, it freakin rocks! No pun > intended. Be >99% assured. ~albaradru George - 16 Mar 2005 09:24 GMT >> I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of >> extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > astrophysicists are not taxonomists and in my experience, can't spot a > fossil unless you strike them smartly between the eyes with it. Excuse me? Geologists certainly do know fossils when they see them. In fact, more fossils have been described by geologists than by any other discipline. Perhaps you should discuss this is a real geologist before you make such rash statements.
For instance, note the authors of the following paper:
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-3360&volume=074&iss ue=06&page=1072
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 09:40 GMT > >> I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of > >> extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Excuse me? Geologists certainly do know fossils when they see them. I've been on field trips with geologists on many occasions. They can't! I've been in quarries and brick-pits full of ammonites which parties of geologists, and few of them can spot one even when they are standing right beside them.
> In fact, > more fossils have been described by geologists than by any other discipline. WHAT? Geologists do not describe fossils. Palaontologists describe fossils.
> Perhaps you should discuss this is a real geologist before you make such rash > statements. I work and study with geologists. I go on field trips with geologists. I drink beer in pubs with geologists. They study rocks. If they find fossils, they treat them as useful stratigraphic markers, or interesting records of sedimentation and taphonomic processes. Taxonomy is not part of their discipline of study, and if they find what looks like an interesting fossil, they pass it on to me or another palaeontologist to have a closer look.
> For instance, note the authors of the following paper: http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-3360&volume=074&iss ue=06&page=1072
Because the authors work in a geology department? So what? So do many, if not most palaeontologists. A quick search for the first author, William Ausisch(http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~ausich/) shows that he is primarily an invertebrate palaeontologist. Most palaeontologists are qualified geologists as well (it's the most common first degree), but when they describe new taxa they ain't doing geology, they're doing palaontology (or taxonomy if you want to be picky).
RF
r norman - 16 Mar 2005 14:13 GMT >> >> I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of >> >> extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >but when they describe new taxa they ain't doing geology, they're doing >palaontology (or taxonomy if you want to be picky). This is a silly nitpick. If someone has a degree in Geology and is hired in the Department of Geology as a Professor of Geology, then that person is a geologist. They can do stratigraphy or hydrology or planetary studies or meteorology or paleontology -- it doesn't matter. This is even sillier than the argument that a geology textbook can't contain evolution! There are psychologists who do neurophysiology and there are biologists who do animal behavior. Why not fight next about whether a biochemist is really a chemist or a biologist! Some are one, some are the other, some are both. Probably there are some who are neither.
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 14:24 GMT > >> >> I think that too much significance is given to the periodicity of > >> >> extinctions. Let the geologists and astrophysicists deal with [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > hired in the Department of Geology as a Professor of Geology, then > that person is a geologist. It isn't a nitpick.
Not all palaeontologists are geologists, and a degree in geology gives only a very basic grounding in geology. Many palaeontologists come from backgrounds such as zoology which include little if any geology. It is a distinctly different field of study which may overlap that of geology, but is not contained within that discipline.
One aspect which geology does *not* cover is the discipline of taxonomy, which lies at the heart of palaeontology.
> They can do stratigraphy or hydrology or > planetary studies or meteorology or paleontology -- it doesn't matter. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one, some are the other, some are both. Probably there are some who > are neither. As I said, palaeontology is not a sub-set of geology, so this argument does not apply. One can be a perfectly competent palaeontologist with no knowledge of geology. If you are a vertebrate palaeontologist, training in zoology and anatomy is arguably more important.
RF
maison.mousse - 16 Mar 2005 15:28 GMT Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message <1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
SNIP
>As I said, palaeontology is not a sub-set of geology, so this argument >does not apply. One can be a perfectly competent palaeontologist with >no knowledge of geology. If you are a vertebrate palaeontologist, >training in zoology and anatomy is arguably more important. > >RF If one consults the catalogs of most Universities of the world (USA included) they will find that paleontology is almost always a part of the Geology department. I do not think that any one can be any kind of paleontologist with out a back ground in geology.
JOL
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 18:33 GMT > Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message > <1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > JOL Well, I'm a palaeontologist and don't have background in geology. The two palaeontologists I work most closely with have first degrees in zoology, not palaeontology. I know of at least two other vertebrate palaeontologists, one of whom is Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology at a major University whose background is that of a zoologist, not a geologist - she freely admits that she doesn't know much about geology. It's not a subject which comes up much in discussion. Very often the geological background is informative but not necessarily relevant, and certainly not relevant to the discipline of taxonomy (which is where this whole line started). For taxonomists, a knowledge of zoology is more important than a knowledge of geology/
That geology is a first degree for many palaeontologists is a historical accident rather than a reflection of the nature of the subject. This does not make palaeontology a subset of geology. It isn't. I don't know of any vertebrate palaeontologist (and I say this because those are the people I know) would claim that it is. Yes, palaeontology is a module in geology degrees, but generally it is not taught in any depth. There are also modules in statistics, but nobody would claim that a geologist is a statistician.
RF
maison.mousse - 16 Mar 2005 18:45 GMT Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message <1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
>> Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> <1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... >> > >> snip>> think that any one can be any kind of paleontologist with out a back
>ground >> in geology. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >RF Paleontology is more than just description. Unless one knows something about the environment that the fossil was preserved in and someone about the relative age of the rock, type of rock and relationship to other rocks and other fossils, if present , the fossil is just more or less a meaningless curiosity. What credited university is Paleo not part of the Geology department?
JOL
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 19:12 GMT > Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message > <1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > What credited university is Paleo not part of the Geology > department? Quite a few of them, including the U. of Chicago. Vertebrate paleo tends to be in biology departments, invert paleo in geology. And you can indeed do a lot with fossils in near total ignorance of geology. They are, after all, the remains of organisms, and biology is of some use in dealing with organisms.
maison.mousse - 16 Mar 2005 19:17 GMT John Harshman a écrit dans le message <5G_Zd.23705$OU1.18044@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>> Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> <1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >Quite a few of them, including the U. of Chicago. Vertebrate paleo tends >to be in biology departments, invert paleo in geology. Better have the U of Chicago change it's catalog.
It does not indicated that it offers a degree in paleo out side of "Earth" sciences. See Geophysical sciences depart.
JOL
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 19:48 GMT > John Harshman a écrit dans le message > <5G_Zd.23705$OU1.18044@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>... [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > It does not indicated that it offers a degree in paleo out side of > "Earth" sciences. See Geophysical sciences depart. So? Look at the faculty. See where the vertebrate paleontologists are. The students in vertebrate paleo don't get degrees in paleontology. Most often they get degrees in evolutionary biology. (Look up the Committee on Evolutionary Biology.) Of course most of the vertebrate paleontologists are really at the Field Museum, where they are indeed in the Geology Department. But the ones actually at UC are in Anatomy, Paul Sereno, e.g.
George - 16 Mar 2005 22:01 GMT >> Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> <1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > are, after all, the remains of organisms, and biology is of some use in > dealing with organisms. This certainly explains the large numbers of papers that are rejected by the Journal of Paleontolgy ever year. Perhaps if you guys knew something about geology, you wouldn't have such a hard time figuring out why certain fossils are found where they are found, and what paleoenvironment in which they lived. Geologists don't have a problem with this because they have the training it takes to understand the rock record, and what it is telling us about past life on earth.
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 22:28 GMT >>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>><1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > This certainly explains the large numbers of papers that are rejected by the > Journal of Paleontolgy ever year. I doubt it.
> Perhaps if you guys knew something about > geology, you wouldn't have such a hard time figuring out why certain fossils are > found where they are found, and what paleoenvironment in which they lived. > Geologists don't have a problem with this because they have the training it > takes to understand the rock record, and what it is telling us about past life > on earth. Paleonvironments, though important, are only one aspect of what can be learned from or about extinct species. Most vertebrate paleontologists are largely systematists. Is there something wrong with being a systematist? (I didn't say they were ignorant of geology, by the way, only that you could do valuable work in paleontology without knowing geology. I suppose you can also do valuable work in paleontology without knowing much about systematics, and I doubt that explains the large number of papers rejected by Systematic Biology every year.)
George - 16 Mar 2005 22:51 GMT >>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>><1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > are largely systematists. Is there something wrong with being a > systematist? Systematics is important. But it can't tell you about the ecology in which any life form lived. It can, at best, give you some indication of what to expect. It can't tell you whether cladistid crinoids ever lived in high energy environments or low energy environments. Nor can it tell you about a ancient crinoid's relationships with other life forms in that ecosystem. If you don't have a holistic approach to paleontology, you are just another taxonomist trying to pidgeon hole species about which you know very little other than their gross anatomy.
As an example, consider the following papers/books:
Hess, H., W.I. Ausich, C.E. Brett, and M.J. Simms. 2002. Fossil Crinoids. Cambridge University Press, 275 p. [paperback edition of 1999 book]
Schneider, K.A., and W.I. Ausich. 2002. Paleoecology of framebuilders in Early Silurian reefs (Brassfield Formation, southwestern Ohio). Palaios, 19:237-248.
The former is by and large taxonomy and anatomy. Yes, you could probably do this work with little formal geology training, though I personally doubt it. However, the latter paper, which describes, or very nearly describes an entire ecosystem, could not have been completed without a broad background in the geosciences, biology, chemistry, and physics. While the former is important work and a great general reference if you want to identify species, it tells very little about how crinoids lived and evolved in the environment in which they existed. The latter puts those life forms into their natural habitat, and gives a very broad perspective of the life forms that contructed such reefs. It gives a snapshot, if you will, of what ecosystems looked like 380 million years ago, and how they evolved as a system over time. Paleontology today is about much more than simply describing and pidgeonholing species.
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 23:37 GMT >>>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>>><1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Systematics is important. But it can't tell you about the ecology in which any > life form lived. Ecology is important. But it can't tell you about the phylogeny in which any life form is embedded.
> It can, at best, give you some indication of what to expect. > It can't tell you whether cladistid crinoids ever lived in high energy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to pidgeon hole species about which you know very little other than their gross > anatomy. I could go into a similar harangue substituting words about ecologists who don't know anything about phylogeny if you wanted me to. Different questions, different methods, different data.
> As an example, consider the following papers/books: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The former is by and large taxonomy and anatomy. Yes, you could probably do this > work with little formal geology training, though I personally doubt it. Don't. Organisms are organisms, whether dead or alive. (Or, given the way systematists work, I should say whether dead a short or long time.) You don't need to know geology to work with extant species. Why would you to do the same thing with extinct ones?
> However, the latter paper, which describes, or very nearly describes an entire > ecosystem, could not have been completed without a broad background in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gives a snapshot, if you will, of what ecosystems looked like 380 million years > ago, and how they evolved as a system over time. Very nice, but that's by no means all paleontology involves. You like paleoecology. Other people like other things.
> Paleontology today is about > much more than simply describing and pidgeonholing species. And so is systematics today. You seem to have the idea that what you do is the very center of all science, and all else is unimportant or mere stamp collecting. OK, I have that view too, but at least I understand how irrational it is and never make that assertion in public.
George - 16 Mar 2005 23:57 GMT >>>>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>>>><1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Ecology is important. But it can't tell you about the phylogeny in which > any life form is embedded. Of course not. That is what taxonomic studies do. But as I've said, Paleontology today is about much more that taxonomy.
>> It can, at best, give you some indication of what to expect. >> It can't tell you whether cladistid crinoids ever lived in high energy [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You don't need to know geology to work with extant species. Why would > you to do the same thing with extinct ones? Because extinct organisms are not always the same as extant ones. Take corals as an example. Hexacorals no longer exist. All corals today are octacorals. To understand why hexacorals and octacorals are so completely different, it is not enough to understand their gross anatomies. You have to understand the ecology in which these animals lived.
>> However, the latter paper, which describes, or very nearly describes an >> entire [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > stamp collecting. OK, I have that view too, but at least I understand > how irrational it is and never make that assertion in public. Oh, gee, now you are being defensive. I haven't attacked anyone here. I'm simply pointing out that most researchers today understand that a broad, multidisciplinary approach to paleontology is what is needed to answer the questions being asked about past life on earth. Simply relying on classification databases will not give the answers to these questions. Having said that, in response to your stamp collecting remark, I have a large mineral and fossil collection, so I don't consider myself above anyone else in that regard. The difference is that while certain paleontologists may study conodonts and tend to concentrate only on those tiny critters when they collect, I'm more interested in the entire floral/faunal assemblage at a site, and what it can tell me about life at that particular time in earth's past. I don't just want to know how many clades there are. I want to know about the predators and prey were at the site. I want to know whether there were paracites that were affecting a certain population. I want to know how these critters lived together, interacted, and how they died. Etc, etc, etc.
John Harshman - 17 Mar 2005 00:21 GMT >>>>>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>>>>><1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > Of course not. That is what taxonomic studies do. But as I've said, > Paleontology today is about much more that taxonomy. It's also about much more than paleoecology. Does it surprise you to know that different paleontologists do different things, and some of them even do very little or no work in paleoecology?
>>>It can, at best, give you some indication of what to expect. >>>It can't tell you whether cladistid crinoids ever lived in high energy [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > not enough to understand their gross anatomies. You have to understand the > ecology in which these animals lived. I doubt that, actually. I bet their major differences have more to do with phylogeny than anything. Though I don't know that the phylogeny is very accessible to us, since I also suspect that hexacorals and octacorals may have come by their lime skeletons independently and are likely not to be closely related to each other within Cnidaria. Figuring out the relationships of octacorals to other Cnidaria could be pretty much a wash. Now there are many important questions where the paleoecology would indeed be central, like why octacorals tended to be solitary, not colonial. But you are again elevating paleoecology to some kind of unavoidable central position in paleontology. This reflects your personal interests, not the field as a whole.
>>>However, the latter paper, which describes, or very nearly describes an >>>entire [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Oh, gee, now you are being defensive. I haven't attacked anyone here. Defensive? Moi? On the contrary, I am comfortably smug at the very center of all science, which is of course phylogenetic systematics. But you didn't hear that from me.
> I'm > simply pointing out that most researchers today understand that a broad, > multidisciplinary approach to paleontology is what is needed to answer the > questions being asked about past life on earth. Not quite. The questions *you* ask, perhaps. But there are many other questions of interest, for some of which phylogeny is the best tool and paleoecology comparatively useless. And your definition of "broad, multidisciplinary" seems to mean that there are many fields able to contribute to paleoecology. You're being just as parochial in your attitude there as anywhere else.
> Simply relying on > classification databases will not give the answers to these questions. Indeed it won't, whatever a classification database is. But phylogenetic trees come with characters attached, and further characters can be attached too. It's possible using such methods to learn a great deal about the course of evolution, including some idea of evolutionary processes. I should also point out that just studying the anatomy of organisms can tell you quite a bit about their behavior, quite divorced from their geological settings. For some questions, of course the geological setting and other paleoecological aspects are crucial. Different questions, different data.
> Having > said that, in response to your stamp collecting remark, I have a large mineral [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > affecting a certain population. I want to know how these critters lived > together, interacted, and how they died. Etc, etc, etc. Yes, that's what *you* want to know. Other people want to know other things. Have the courtesy to see that you are not the center of the world, and that your personal interests are not at the unique center of science, or even of paleontology.
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 19:57 GMT > Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message > <1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > JOL In the University of Portsmouth the Department of Earth Sciences runs separate courses in Geology, Earth Sciences and Palaeobiology and Evolution. The Palaeobiology course was set up specifically to separate Palaeontology from its usual home in Geology for the reasons I've given: there is an overlap with geology, but Palaeontology is not a sub-set of geology. Another reason is that the palaeontological content of geology degrees courses in declining: invertebrate fossils were once used widely for stratigraphic correlation. Nowadays most of such correlation is done using geochemical signatures, and the importance of invert- and micropalaeontology is far less in economic terms that is used to be.
In the University of Manchester Palaeontology is taught in the School of biological sciences.
RF
George - 16 Mar 2005 22:05 GMT >> Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> <1110994405.384303.35090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > given: there is an overlap with geology, but Palaeontology is not a > sub-set of geology. It may not be considered a sub-set of geology at Portsmouth, but it is certainly considered so nearly everywhere else. Classic example:
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/modules.php?op=modload&name=ResearchProg&id=pa l&&file=research.profile
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 18:58 GMT >>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > taught in any depth. There are also modules in statistics, but nobody > would claim that a geologist is a statistician. I think you have discovered the difference between vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology. Vertebrate paleontologists are most often coming from a background in anatomy and comparative biology. Invertebrate paleontologists are most often geologists. At the university of Chicago, all the vertebrate paleontologists are in the Dept. of Anatomy and Organismal Biology, and all the invertebrate paleontologists are in the Dept. of Geoscience. Invert paleo people commonly consider themselves to be geologists. While I'm sure this is a historical legacy, it has practical differences too, in terms of what courses the person has taken and what questions he's interested in.
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 19:10 GMT > >>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message > >><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > commonly consider themselves to be geologists. While I'm sure this is a > historical legacy, it has practical differences too, in terms of what
> courses the person has taken and what questions he's interested in. There are invertebrate palaeontologists and invertebrate palaeontologists. The geologist invertebrates tend to see fossils as useful stratigraphic markers, and tend not to be interested in the biology of the organism. The less geological invertebrates (if you know what I mean) tend to be less interested in stratigraphy, and more interested in biology. There's a spectrum there.
However, to return to the original point, the description of fossil animals (and plants for that matter, though that is a black art beyond my comprehension) is in general done by people at the latter end of the spectrum. A knowledge of anatomy and zoology is far more important if you are describing an animal than a knowledge of geology. Yes there is an overlap between geology and palaeontology, but it in the discipline of taxonomy where that overlap is at its most limited.
RF
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 19:44 GMT >>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > what I mean) tend to be less interested in stratigraphy, and more > interested in biology. There's a spectrum there. In my experience, both types tend to consider themselves geologists. Now there are vert paleo people who consider themselves geologists too, and there are invert paleo people who consider themselves biologists, and a great many who consider themselves both. But there is such a dividing line, and it also tends to be matched by university organization.
> However, to return to the original point, the description of fossil > animals (and plants for that matter, though that is a black art beyond [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an overlap between geology and palaeontology, but it in the discipline > of taxonomy where that overlap is at its most limited. Agreed. Though would you consider taphonomy to be a part of geology or biology? Taphonomic considerations can be important in describing fossil species.
George - 16 Mar 2005 22:23 GMT >> >>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> >><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > what I mean) tend to be less interested in stratigraphy, and more > interested in biology. There's a spectrum there. You have a very narrow view of geologists, a situation I find quite strange. If all you are interested in is in the comparitive anatomy of brachiopods, certainly you don't need to know what the stratigraphic relationships are amongst these fossils. And in that case, you really don't need to take a geology course at all. If, however, you want to understand how brachiopods lived, evolved, and died, you certainly do need to know something about those stratigraphic relationships, and in what paleoenvironment they were found. You cannot determine the totality of the paleoecology of any life form, and how they relate to other life forms unless you understand the paleoenvironment in which they lived, and the environment in which they are preserved. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a glorified exhibit preparitor.
> However, to return to the original point, the description of fossil > animals (and plants for that matter, though that is a black art beyond > my comprehension) is in general done by people at the latter end of the > spectrum. In general, you are wrong.
> A knowledge of anatomy and zoology is far more important if > you are describing an animal than a knowledge of geology. And if all you are interested in is the comparitive anatomies of ancient life forms, then you have missed an opportunity to understand much more about these animals than simply whether or not they have lophophores.
> Yes there is > an overlap between geology and palaeontology, but it in the discipline > of taxonomy where that overlap is at its most limited. > > RF Taxonomy is but one part of what it takes to do paleontology. You cannot collect the fossils you are studying unless you know what rocks in which they occur, and why they occur there. You cannot reconstruct a paleoenvironment unless you understand how to interprete the rock record.
Richard Forrest - 16 Mar 2005 22:43 GMT > >> >>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message > >> >><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > You have a very narrow view of geologists, a situation I find quite strange. With respect, what the hell are you talking about? I don't have a narrow view of geologists. I'm just making the point that palaeontology is not simply a sub-set of geology, but a different discipline which, though drawing from geology, draws on many other areas of study which are *not* part of the discipline of geology. Furthermore, taxonomy, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships of animals and plants is actually a branch of biology, not geology.
> If > all you are interested in is in the comparitive anatomy of brachiopods, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lived, evolved, and died, you certainly do need to know something about those > stratigraphic relationships, and in what paleoenvironment they were found. Who is saying that you don't? On the other hand, if you want to understand the ecological relationships, biomechanics, anatomy and metaboloism of brachiopods you need to know something about ecology, biomechanics, comparitive anatomy and biology, all subject not covered by a geology degree.
You
> cannot determine the totality of the paleoecology of any life form, and how they > relate to other life forms unless you understand the paleoenvironment in which > they lived, and the environment in which they are preserved. Otherwise, you are > nothing more than a glorified exhibit preparitor. Who on earth is claiming anything different? The point I made someway back up this thread is that it is *not* geologists who describe fossil plants and animals, but palaeontologists, and that the science of palaeontology is *not* simply a sub-set of geology in the way structural geology, volcanology, sedimentology and so on are. It embraces a much wider range of disciplines, and there are plenty of palaeontologists who do *not* have a background in geology.
> > However, to return to the original point, the description of fossil > > animals (and plants for that matter, though that is a black art beyond > > my comprehension) is in general done by people at the latter end of the > > spectrum. > > In general, you are wrong. For crying out loud! I know the people who do it. I meet them in the University common room, and talk to them about what they are doing. This is not an opinion based on predjudice, but on many years of experience. They are my academic colleages. I think I have a pretty good idea of what makes them tick!
> > A knowledge of anatomy and zoology is far more important if > > you are describing an animal than a knowledge of geology. > > And if all you are interested in is the comparitive anatomies of ancient life > forms, then you have missed an opportunity to understand much more about these > animals than simply whether or not they have lophophores. You evidently don't know much about the comparitive anatomy.
> > Yes there is > > an overlap between geology and palaeontology, but it in the discipline [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > occur, and why they occur there. You cannot reconstruct a paleoenvironment > unless you understand how to interprete the rock record. You cannot reconstruct a paleoenvirioment unless you understand all sort of things which lie outside the field of geology, starting with zoology.
RF
George - 17 Mar 2005 00:25 GMT >> >> >>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> >> >><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > which is the study of the evolutionary relationships of animals and > plants is actually a branch of biology, not geology. Hmmm. Yes, you do have a narrow view of us, and you also don't seem to understand that most colleges outside of Portsmouth do consider paleontology as a sub-discipline of geology. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find geology departments that don't teach paleontology, and would be hard pressed to find a "Paleontology department" anywhere outside of Portsmouth, since the vast majority of them fall under the geology departments of their respective schools.
>> If >> all you are interested in is in the comparitive anatomy of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > biomechanics, comparitive anatomy and biology, all subject not covered > by a geology degree. Hmmm. Not true. Every geology department I know offers advanced courses in paleontology, which includes learning about biomechanics, anatomy, and metabolism of many organisms. Try taking an invertebtrate paleontology course some time (outside of Portsmouth, of course). In addition, in order to get an undergraduate degree in geology at most universities in the states, you are required to take paleontology and biology, along with chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Oh, and schools such as Ohio State teach paleoecology. You can't take this course if you don't know anything about modern ecology. And guess what? Lo and behold, ecology is a pre-requisite for this course. Contrary to your limited opinion on the subject, all of what you say are not covered by a geology degree, were, in fact, required in order for me to obtain my geology degrees.
> You >> cannot determine the totality of the paleoecology of any life form, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > embraces a much wider range of disciplines, and there are plenty of > palaeontologists who do *not* have a background in geology. The fact that I'm a geologist who has described 8 new species of Mississippian-aged crinoids indicates very clearly that you are with a doubt, clueless on exactly what geologists are and are not capable of doing.
>> > However, to return to the original point, the description of fossil >> > animals (and plants for that matter, though that is a black art [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > For crying out loud! I know the people who do it. So do I. I'm one of them. You are hearing it from the horses mouth, so to speak.
> I meet them in the > University common room, and talk to them about what they are doing. > This is not an opinion based on predjudice, but on many years of > experience. They are my academic colleages. I think I have a pretty > good idea of what makes them tick! But you also apparently think that the entire field of Paleontology resides in the dusty corridors of Portsmouth College. I've got news for you. It ain't so.
>> > A knowledge of anatomy and zoology is far more important if >> > you are describing an animal than a knowledge of geology. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You evidently don't know much about the comparitive anatomy. I'm not an expert at it, and didn't say that I was. I can, however, identify at least 66 species of crinoids, and do understand what lophophores in brachipods do, and how they relate to other animals. But knowing the number of clades that exist at a site isn't going to tell me much about the environment in which these animals lived, whether they were killed and buried in a storm, their spacial or temperal extent in a region, or even globally, or a whole host of other questions that comparitive anatomy doesn't address.
>> Taxonomy is but one part of what it takes to do paleontology. You > cannot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sort of things which lie outside the field of geology, starting with > zoology. Hmmm. Actually, I can. Why? Because like most geologists, I have had to take various biology courses (some of us even have taken a zoology course or two) in order to get our degrees. Does that make us experts at zoology? Most of us, of course, are not experts at zoology. So what? That doesn't mean that we don't have the requisite knowledge to arrive at sound conclusions regarding paleoenvironments. Geology is one of those unique areas of science that requires specific knowledge from multiple disiplines in order to conduct the research. Otherwise, we'd all still be hammering away at rocks in the mines. So many people think geology is easy, but they could not be more wrong. There are so few actual geological "laws" exactly because it isn't easy, and because it takes a multidisciplinary approach to solving geological problems.
Robert Flory - 17 Mar 2005 06:15 GMT >> You have a very narrow view of geologists, a situation I find quite >> strange. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > which is the study of the evolutionary relationships of animals and > plants is actually a branch of biology, not geology. Clearly George and I are from a different part, or at least on the other side of the pond. It is not every where as it is where you are and it is not the same in others view as it is in your view. You need to accept there are other realities than the one you see, other ways of looking at things, different ways to split and lump.
>> If >> all you are interested in is in the comparitive anatomy of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > biomechanics, comparitive anatomy and biology, all subject not covered > by a geology degree. They were in mine, some places are different than what you see around you.
> You >> cannot determine the totality of the paleoecology of any life form, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > embraces a much wider range of disciplines, and there are plenty of > palaeontologists who do *not* have a background in geology. We allways called tham paleobiologists where I hatched.
> For crying out loud! I know the people who do it. I meet them in the > University common room, and talk to them about what they are doing. > This is not an opinion based on predjudice, but on many years of > experience. They are my academic colleages. I think I have a pretty > good idea of what makes them tick! Ahh, but how may places are we talkiing about? A subset of British universities or a world wide set? The split may well be as you describe it where you are, but it is different some other places.
>> > A knowledge of anatomy and zoology is far more important if >> > you are describing an animal than a knowledge of geology. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > about these >> animals than simply whether or not they have lophophores. Right on George
> You cannot reconstruct a paleoenvirioment unless you understand all > sort of things which lie outside the field of geology, starting with > zoology. > > RF I don't believe anyone stated anything like that. We are just saying the field of paleontology is much broader than taxonomy and biology. Georges point is just that. Bob
George - 17 Mar 2005 06:36 GMT >>> You have a very narrow view of geologists, a situation I find quite >>> strange. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > realities than the one you see, other ways of looking at things, different > ways to split and lump. Why do I need to accept your view? Is it somehow better than mine? The fact is that in most universities in the U.S., paleontology is taught as geology, mostly by geologists, in the geology departments of these universities. I can accept that this isn't the case everywhere, although I fail to see the logic in it, or the reason to "spit", as you say, what has been a focus of geology for so many decades.
>>> > A knowledge of anatomy and zoology is far more important if >>> > you are describing an animal than a knowledge of geology. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> > Right on George With the lack of evidence to the contrary, I'll take that as a compliment.
>> You cannot reconstruct a paleoenvirioment unless you understand all >> sort of things which lie outside the field of geology, starting with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just that. > Bob Yes. You can collect all the trilobites you care to, and study one relative to another or relative to any other animal. But if you don't know anything about their provenience and many other aspects of their origin, they are pretty much worthless in most other respects.
Robert Flory - 17 Mar 2005 05:56 GMT > There are invertebrate palaeontologists and invertebrate > palaeontologists. The geologist invertebrates tend to see fossils as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > RF Clearly you understand but don't ...Paleontology is more than just the descriptions of fossils, more than just classification. Paleontology is more than just fossils on someone's bench, just as zoology is more than some dead specimen on a bench. The taxonomy and classification is useful stuff, but it isn't the whole science. There is a wide field outside of the ivory tower, some fairly different views. You are putting very narrow boundaries on things that are very broad and overlapping. Specialization is the bane of all sciences. Narrow views or reality are worse. Too much of this and you end up working in a vacuum, the real answers to big questions need broader views. Broader views require broader training, at least in the world I was trained in and still work in.
I would argue that Paleontology is traditionally a portion of geology with a big overlap into biology. Paleobiology is a portion of biology that laps over into a goodly portion of Paleontologist. Maybe you ought to look more at the history of paleontology, there have been geologists and biologists doing great things in the field. They tended to be heavily cross trained which meant they really were both. Bob
Robert Grumbine - 16 Mar 2005 20:11 GMT [snip]
>> Well, I'm a palaeontologist and don't have background in geology. The >> two palaeontologists I work most closely with have first degrees in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >historical legacy, it has practical differences too, in terms of what >courses the person has taken and what questions he's interested in. I'd be leery of 'all' statements. Certainly when I was there, the paleontologists in the DoGS seemed to think they were paleontologists rather than geologists. The running current was one of hard rocks versus soft rocks.
One feature of the DoGS (Department of the Geophysical Sciences) was that it was the fusion (involuntary) of the former Geology, Paleontology, and Meteorology departments. The different strains had remained largely distinct, though the occasional person from the fluids side of the department might show up in a geochemistry course, or one from paleo might show up in a meteorology course. As such, Chicago (The University of Chicago) is not a good exemplar of much regarding US departments in general.
 Signature Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
r norman - 16 Mar 2005 20:33 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > As such, Chicago (The University of Chicago) is not a good exemplar of >much regarding US departments in general. I am afraid I still don't get it. Some paleontologists are geologists, some are not. Some paleontology courses are taught in geology departments, some are not. Some paleontologists know a lot about geology, some do not. Some paleontologists know a lot about biology, some do not. Some paleontologists know a lot about both and, I'll bet, some paleontologists are quite incompetent and don't know much about either. My institution and my department does it the right way; your's does it wrong.
What possible difference does it make?
In the life sciences, no one cares about the name of the department that signs your diploma -- it can be Botany or Zoology or Bacteriology (if you are old enough) or Microbiology or Biochemistry or Physiology or Biological Sciences or Chemistry or Physics (for some biochemists and biophysicists) or any of a very large list of other names. What is important is the quality of the department, of the people you studied with, and (most importantly) whether you really know the subject you claim to be expert in and can demonstrate that you can practice it productively. In many institutions there is also the expectation that you can teach in (or quickly enough develop the proficiency to teach in) other areas related to your interests and the needs of the department.
Robert Grumbine - 17 Mar 2005 14:16 GMT [resnip]
>> I'd be leery of 'all' statements. Certainly when I was there, the >>paleontologists in the DoGS seemed to think they were paleontologists [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >What possible difference does it make? None, that being one of my reasons for noting that reasoning from the University of Chicago example is not a good idea.
>In the life sciences, no one cares about the name of the department >that signs your diploma -- it can be Botany or Zoology or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >proficiency to teach in) other areas related to your interests and the >needs of the department. My own feeling is that while you're doing paleontology, you're a paleontologist. While you're doing geology, you're a geologist. While you're doing mathematical physics, you're a mathematical physicist. etc ad nauseum. The name of the department or job title is irrelevant (aside from mundania like pay, prestige, and the like). It's the work you're doing that matters. As such, one can do the work for a variety of different fields, irrespective of just what it is that one has a degree or job title for.
 Signature Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
George - 16 Mar 2005 22:11 GMT >>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > historical legacy, it has practical differences too, in terms of what > courses the person has taken and what questions he's interested in. Hmmm. I'm a geologist, and I've had courses in invertebrate paleontology, vertebrate paleontology, human anatomy, comparitive vertebrate anatomy, organismic biology, and forensic anthropology. I've also had one year of physics, two years of chemistry, and two years of mathematics. I guess that kind of shoots your theory to hell and back. Perhaps the school you went to didn't think it was necessary to have a broad background in other scientific disciplines. Thankfully, most other colleges aroung the world do have the foresight to understand the interdisciplinary nature of science today.
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 22:36 GMT >>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > physics, two years of chemistry, and two years of mathematics. I guess that > kind of shoots your theory to hell and back. Why? I'm a biologist, and I've had courses in invertebrate paleontology, vertebrate paleontology, mineralogy, petrology/petrography, and stratigraphy. Does that shoot my theory to hell and back too? It's my observation that vertebrate paleontologists tend to be more oriented toward biology and vertebrate paleontologists more toward geology, but this is not an inviolable rule. One example, or even two, hardly tests the theory. By the way, my invert paleo was in a geology department, and my vert paleo was in a biology department. Coincidence, or something more sinister?
> Perhaps the school you went to > didn't think it was necessary to have a broad background in other scientific > disciplines. Thankfully, most other colleges aroung the world do have the > foresight to understand the interdisciplinary nature of science today. Or perhaps you are imagining all sorts of things that aren't there and that I didn't say.
George - 17 Mar 2005 00:28 GMT >>>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > my vert paleo was in a biology department. Coincidence, or something > more sinister? No. You're a Portsmouth graduate. That's all you had to say. :-) What you say may be true at Portsmouth, but it is certainly not true at most universities in the States.
>> Perhaps the school you went to >> didn't think it was necessary to have a broad background in other scientific [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or perhaps you are imagining all sorts of things that aren't there and > that I didn't say. John Harshman - 17 Mar 2005 00:47 GMT >>>>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>>>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > may be true at Portsmouth, but it is certainly not true at most universities in > the States. You are confusing me with Richard Forrest. I went to the University of Chicago. Where, by the way, the invert paleo people are all in the Geosci department and the vert paleo people are all (well, mostly) in various biology departments: Paul Sereno, Mike Coates, and Neil Shubin in Anatomy, as was Jim Hopson until he retired, Leigh van Valen in Ecology & Evolution.
>>>Perhaps the school you went to >>>didn't think it was necessary to have a broad background in other scientific [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Or perhaps you are imagining all sorts of things that aren't there and >>that I didn't say. George - 17 Mar 2005 01:19 GMT >> No. You're a Portsmouth graduate. That's all you had to say. :-) What you >> say [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in Anatomy, as was Jim Hopson until he retired, Leigh van Valen in > Ecology & Evolution. Oops. My mistake. But then, U of C is an exception, not the standard, as far as separating these two fields.
John Harshman - 17 Mar 2005 01:52 GMT >>>No. You're a Portsmouth graduate. That's all you had to say. :-) What you >>>say [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oops. My mistake. But then, U of C is an exception, not the standard, as far > as separating these two fields. I dunno. I find it quite common for vert paleontologists at universities to be teaching anatomy and to be associated with biology departments. It seems rare for invert paleontologists to be in biology departments, though there are some around here and there. How do you know *your* experience isn't the exception?
I've lost track of why we're having this argument. Should I go back to the first post to refresh my memory?
George - 17 Mar 2005 02:00 GMT >>>>No. You're a Portsmouth graduate. That's all you had to say. :-) What you >>>>say [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I've lost track of why we're having this argument. Should I go back to > the first post to refresh my memory? For one thing, your claim is the first time I've ever heard of any paleontology 'department' being located in a biology department. When I look around at other universities (Ohio State, Harvard, and Yale come to mind, but of course, there are many others), all of the paleontology professors are in the geology departments, all of the paleontology courses are taught from the geology departments, etc. Certainly this was my experience at the schools where I attended college (Eastern Kentucky University, the University of Louisville, and University of Kentucky).
Robert Flory - 17 Mar 2005 06:30 GMT > Why? I'm a biologist, and I've had courses in invertebrate paleontology, > vertebrate paleontology, mineralogy, petrology/petrography, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > my vert paleo was in a biology department. Coincidence, or something > more sinister? No, probably due being exposed to a limited sample of Universities and due to the fact that you didn't have any large Tertiary basins in the vicinity. In my case my Vert Paleo professor was a Tertiary Geologist sort of a Paleoecologist who dealt with the rock, the taphonomy of the fossils, anatomy, the whole McGilla. Wyoming has lots of tertiary basins. Of course he was reasonably informed on the reptilian groups as Como Bluff was just down the road a bit. Our invert man was a genuine geologist and a bit of a specialist in Permian Brachiopods who did some significant work in the classification arena.
Bob
George - 16 Mar 2005 21:57 GMT >> Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >> <1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Well, I'm a palaeontologist and don't have background in geology. Then you are not a paleontologist. You only pretend to be one.
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 22:22 GMT >>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Then you are not a paleontologist. You only pretend to be one. I see a "no true Scotsman" argument coming on. I know of plenty of vertebrate paleontologists (well, they call themselves paleontologists) who don't have degrees in geology, and who would consider themselves biologists rather than geologists, if they thought about it at all. Science is not so easily divided into neat bins.
George - 16 Mar 2005 22:57 GMT >>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > biologists rather than geologists, if they thought about it at all. > Science is not so easily divided into neat bins. Yet, here you are doing exactly that. I suggest that your vertebrate paleontologist friends are having a hard time (if they are doing it at all) in describing the paleocology of these vertebrated, since they obviously know little, if anything about the paleoenvironments in which these vertebrates lived. Sounds like all they are interested in is classification, which is fine, if all you are interested in is building catalogues of species. However, if you want to answer questions such as how these animals related to their natural environment, I'm afraid that classifications are going to give your very limited data. At this point, you are going to have to take some geology courses and understand not only stratigraphic relationships, but depositional environments, sedmentology, petrology, etc.
John Harshman - 16 Mar 2005 23:49 GMT >>>>>Richard Forrest a écrit dans le message >>>>><1110979481.439372.106740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > little, if anything about the paleoenvironments in which these vertebrates > lived. "If they are doing it at all." That's the point. Different scientists do different things. Paleoecology is not the be-all and end-all of science. Not everything is in service to paleoecology. There are plenty of other goals in science that have nothing to do with paleoecology. Phylogeny is a goal unto itself, and is not to be measured by how well it helps you figure out the paleoecology of a site.
> Sounds like all they are interested in is classification, which is fine, > if all you are interested in is building catalogues of species. However, if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understand not only stratigraphic relationships, but depositional environments, > sedmentology, petrology, etc. You seriously underestimate what can be done with phylogenies. You need to get out more. I would suggest a light perusal of any issue of American Naturalist, Systematic Biology, Evolution, or in fact JVP. See what those trees you disdain as mere "catalogues of species" are good for.
George - 17 Mar 2005 01:25 GMT >> Yet, here you are doing exactly that. I suggest that your vertebrate >> paleontologist friends are having a hard time (if they are doing it at all) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a goal unto itself, and is not to be measured by how well it helps you > figure out the paleoecology of a site. Yet, as I've pointed out elsewhere, if all you do is describe fossils, then evetually, you're going to run out of fossils to describe. Now, I'm not so naive as to suggest that that is going to happen anytime soon (certainly not in my lifetime). The point is that what is the point of simply describing fossils and not placing them into the context in which they lived? Yes, fossils need to be described. But then, if that is all there is to it, then what's the point in describing them at all? If you only describe them, then less than half of the story behind them is being told.
>> Sounds like all they are interested in is classification, which is fine, >> if all you are interested in is building catalogues of species. However, if [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > American Naturalist, Systematic Biology, Evolution, or in fact JVP. See > what those trees you disdain as mere "catalogues of species" are good for. Who said that I distain them? You're missing the point. Read my comment above.
John Harshman - 17 Mar 2005 02:00 GMT >>>Yet, here you are doing exactly that. I suggest that your vertebrate >>>paleontologist friends are having a hard time (if they are doing it at all) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > describing them at all? If you only describe them, then less than half of the > story behind them is being told. First off, you mistake what systematists do. Describing species is only the very first step. Second, if all you do is describe paleoenvironments, eventually you're going to run out of paleoenvironments to describe. Once again, systematics is not a footnote in service to paleoecology.
>>>Sounds like all they are interested in is classification, which is fine, >>>if all you are interested in is building catalogues of species. However, if [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Who said that I distain them? You're missing the point. Read my comment above. In your comment above, all you're talking about is describing new species, as if that's what systematics is all about. And you seem to think that once you've described all the species, it's time to put them into paleoecological context, and the systematist's work is done. There are many important questions in paleontology that have nothing to do with the reconstruction of paleoecology; many of these questions are best asked using phylogenetic data, and in many of these cases, stratigraphy and such would in fact only get in the way. There are enough problems for many approaches.
George - 17 Mar 2005 04:31 GMT >>>>Yet, here you are doing exactly that. I suggest that your vertebrate >>>>paleontologist friends are having a hard time (if they are doing it at all) [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > paleoenvironments to describe. Once again, systematics is not a footnote > in service to paleoecology. Actually, it is, but I don't want to argue that point. As for running out of paleoenvironments, well, when we
|
|