Re: Systematics and Paleontology (posted for M. Mergl)

From
Date
Reply-To
From: Mergl@Katy.pef.zcu.cz
To: N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (N. MacLeod), paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk
Date:          Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:12:25
Subject:       Re: Systematics and Paleontology
Priority: normal
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v3.1 (R1)

> Datum odeslani: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 07:44:39 +0100
> Komu:           paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Od:             N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (N. MacLeod)
> Vec:            Systematics and Paleontology
> Odpoved na:     paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk

> A couple of days ago I read a review of a new systematics textbook in which
> the author (of the review) once more bemoaned the state of systematic
> education in university-level biology programs. To be fair, the targets of
> his complaint were really molecular biology types for whom words like
> taxonomy, homology, character, deme, etc. have either completely different
> meanings, or no meaning at all. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but wonder
> whether the same general sorts of criticisms could be made of
> university-level paleontological programs; and for many of the same
> reasons.
>
> Like our molecular brethren (or, for that matter, like most of the
> biological fields) paleontology is an intensely interdisciplinary science
> that requires a firm grounding in several different areas before much real
> progress can be made. Thus, in addition to systematics we must teach our
> students stratigraphy, evolution, statistics, sedimentology, taphonomy,
> comparative morphology...you get the picture. Moreover, since most
> universities offer but a single course (if that) in paleontology at the
> undergraduate level, and often no formal graduate courses other than
> seminars, the fact of the matter is that compromises must be made. That
> having been said, the way in which we make those compromises says something
> about how we view or field and what we believe is going to be important to
> paleontology's future. This, in turn, leads to the question that's been
> bugging me. Should we be ranking particular aspects of paleontology as
> being more central to the science than others and, if so, where does
> systematics fit into this ranking? Do we regard systematics as being
> fundamental to all of paleontology, or is it simply one topic among the
> many that need to be covered in any survey course with none being
> intrinsically more important than any other?
>
> I realize there will probably be as many answers to these questions as
> readers of this posting. However, I would be interested to know where my
> colleagues rank systematics within the field as a whole and whether they
> feel this subject is currently receiving (for better or for worse) the
> attention it deserves. If systematics is regarded as simply one skill among
> many, then perhaps we might understand why we appear to be running out of
> broadly trained and experienced systematists/biostratigraphers. On the
> other hand, if we regard systematics as being a fundamental part of our
> science, then I think we have to start asking some hard questions of
> ourselves about why systematic paleontology is in trouble.
>
>
> Norm MacLeod
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Norman MacLeod
> Senior Scientific Officer
> N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (Internet)
> N.MacLeod@uk.ac.nhm (Janet)
>
> Address: Dept. of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
>          Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD
>
> Office Phone: 071-938-9006
> Dept. FAX:  071-938-9277
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
    I am teacher on faculty which prepare ONLY teachers for basic and
grammar schools. Thus out time to paleontology  and geology sciences
is extremely limited. However, I suppose, that paleontological
systematics is a fundametal for  paleontologists as well for common
teachers in grammar scholl (it means for ALL biologist...).
Understanding of evolution and recent nature is impossible without
empiric knowledge of particular groups of extinct forms.  Thus, every
reduction of paleontological systematics I consider as a mistake.

    Michal Mergl
    Pedagogic faculty
    Plzen
    Czech Republic