Re: Future of palaeontology

[Calymene@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Stephen A. Leslie, Earth Science wrote:
> 
> >Bill Shear wrote:
> >
> >> In our discussion of this subject we should recall Art Boucout's
> >> oft-reiterated suggestion that the right place for paleontologists is in
> >> biology, not geology, departments.  I strongly agree with this [...]
> 
> > Una Smith wrote:
> 
> >So do I, for the same reasons.  For nearly a generation, paleontology
> >was an important tool used by stratigraphic geologists.  Now, that tool
> >has been largely replaced by others, and stratigraphy also appears to
> >be in decline (at least on the better-known continents).  This trend
> >seems particularly clear in the publication record of paleopalynology.
> >The history of paleontology at Yale reflects this:  the concentration
> >of paleontology faculty has shifted over time from biology to geology
> >and now appears to be heading back to biology again.
> >
> 
> The question "Which department should paleontology be in?" seems to me
> largely an administrative one.  Paleontology is very much an integrative
> science (pardon the buzz word).  I think that the department in which a
> paleontologist calls home is very much determined by what type of work the
> person does.  Many paleontologists integrate basin analysis (sedimentology,
> sequence stratigraphy, etc.) into their work, which is hardly in the realm
> of biology.  On the other hand, many paleontologists working on
> systematics, phylogenetics, functional morphology, etc. are laboring on
> more biological issues.  Most of us traverse this "boundary" in our
> research without thinking of it as a boundary at all.  This is not
> different from our colleagues in geochemistry (they are chemists too,
> right?) or geophysics, etc.  Fossils are the evidence of past life, so they
> are "biological", but most are/were also sedimentary particles, so they are
> "geological".  Debating whether the essence of paleontology is geological
> or biological has no true resolution that I can see.  I don't see this as a
> hindrance, rather it is an opportunity for paleontologists fill the niche
> that is most open to them at the time.
> 
> *******************************
> Stephen A. Leslie
> Department of Earth Science
> University of Arkansas at Little Rock
> 2801 South University
> Little Rock, Arkansas  72204-1099
> 
> Phone: (501) 569-8061
> FAX: (501) 569-3271
> E-mail: saleslie@ualr.edu
> 
> *******************************The fact that paleontologists must rely on geology to distinguish faunas
and lithotopes, as well as correlations and stratigraphic interpretations
to relate the distribution and progression of communities, would indicate
that it relies heavily on a geologist's interpretations.  Personally, it
would be impossible for me to interpret fossil finds without relevance
to the geologic strata they are found in, much less to find them.  My
interpretation of geology enables me to have a perception of the litho-
logies that will allow me to find certain groups of organisms, and the
accompanying basin analysis derived from lithostratigraphy enhances ones'
ability to distinguish placement of communities in their realm.  
The biological interpretations that later result from classification
and nomenclature are certainly dependent on biology, but secondary to
the development of the big picture that geology portrays, which is often
lost without its' interpretation.  Unfortunately, geology does not itself
depend on paleontological interpretations in many cases, but that is not
the same for paleontology, which relies heavily on geologic 
interpretations, and without which many determinations would be baseless.
My opinion, of course.  Sincerely, Dave Giuseffi