<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>Perhaps my comment goes
beyond polychaetes and METAMERISM, but here it goes.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>I do believe that ecology
(and perhaps biology) is contaminated with wordy jargon. My field is population
dynamics, i.e. changes in population numbers: one of the main problems is
terminology. It is striking how while some authors pursue the definition of ecological
laws from concepts / theories / hypotheses (in population dynamics) as the holy
grail, there is no consensus about what the basic term REGULATION stands for.
The situation gets worse for controversial terms like DENSITY DEPENDENCE
despite its use has rocketed in the ecological literature during the last 20
years. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>I sometimes think that a
taxonomy of concepts is required in ecology (and perhaps biology), where the
acceptance and validity of terms should be subjected to rules and authorship. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:windowtext'>Terminological consensus
is required at the expense of individual egos, and across disciplines and
research approaches (theoretical versus empirical, or pure versus applied
science). The tax we pay for lack of terminological consensus is lack of communication.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>It's
all relative. While what gets published today might not be so steeped in
verbiage, it can be destitute of scientific merit. Yet, it gets printed. ...K</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Curator of Polychaetes<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Invertebrate Zoology Section<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Research & Collections Branch<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>900 Exposition Blvd<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Los Angeles CA 90007<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Phone: 213-763-3233<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>FAX: 213-746-2999<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>e-mail: <a
href="mailto:kfitzhug@nhm.org">kfitzhug@nhm.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a
href="http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.html">http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.html</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a
href="http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html">http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Lankester's prose can be dense with neologisms. Try getting this (below) into print today. (there are 13 of his metamerism laws).<o:p></o:p></pre>