Re: Penguins of the North...?

[John Bois <jbois@umd5.umd.edu>]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Ronald Orenstein wrote:

> I am, further, highly skeptical of any conclusion that the distribution of 
> auks and penguins has anything to do with competition.

I am not _concluding_ that.  There is no evidence for it.  Yet.  But it
_is_ a scientifically valid hypothesis, and, as such, more valuable than a
Superhero explanation.  One could understand such certainty that the two
clades would never come into contact if they were land locked (like
marsupials on Australia, for example).  But swimming--and certainly
flying--creatures demand skepticism of a claim of no equatorial
crossing.  Further, fossils will _never_ record ephemeral invasions 
of species.  In this case, negative evidencemeans nothing.  And, I think
it's just plain wrong to assume that our miserable range of experience
regarding the distribution and mixing of species is a gold standard for
rejecting hypotheses _a priori_.

> In fact, it is extremely difficult to determine how important competition 
> is even among the species of auk that do live in the same waters.

Competition is notoriously difficult to quantify/observe on almost
_all_ species.  So?  No one doubts that it happens.  The extent and
mechanisms may be myserious.  But this is more likely due to our inability
to measure than its non-existence.

> "However, the great 
> changes in marine food webs occurring continually through large-scale 
> processes affecting the world's oceans, and the more recent, rapid changes 
> brought about by human activities such as commercial fisheries, make it 
> unprofitable to dwell too much on present evidence for interspecific 
> competition among the auks."

>From a conservation standpoint, maybe.  But applied science does not
always predict the value of theory.  Competition, distribution, predation,
etc., must ultimately inform conservation.  I mean, in ducks the discovery
that predation is the leading proximate cause of nest failure leads to
better planning,right?  What information about auks and penguins are you
willing to reject because you know it will be of no value to conservation
methods?  I agree that the large scale effects of human interference are a
priority--this shouldn't prevent the creation of potentially productive
hypotheses--even if individual hypotheses may be wrong.