Skip to content

"Ecology" or "Environmental sciences?"

2 messages · Glen A Sargeant, Felix Andrews

#
One thing I have gained from R is a deep appreciation for long-range 
strategic thinking about the development of software and user communities. 
 So, rather than simply inviting everyone into a "big tent," I think we 
should first take a look at the tent itself and perhaps consider some 
zoning regulations!

It seems to me that the developers and participants are moving toward an 
"Environmental Sciences" or "Natural sciences" list and not an "Ecology" 
list.  I don't see anything wrong with that, but I foresee the future 
spin-off of a list populated by ecologists.  The name of this list should 
accurately describe the contents: if coverage is broad, we should adopt a 
more inclusive name and cede the term "Ecology" for future use by 
ecologists.

Glen

*************************************************
Glen A. Sargeant, Ph.D.
Research Wildlife Biologist/Statistician
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
8711 37th Street SE
Jamestown, ND  58401

Phone: (701) 253-5528
E-mail:  glen_sargeant at usgs.gov
FAX:     (701) 253-5553
#
Speaking of "zoning regulations"...

Another thing to be aware of is the R-sig-geo, on "using Geographical
data and Mapping". Obviously a lot of environmental science involves
spatial data and analysis, so there is some overlap with that group. I
suppose R-SIG-Geo would be the place for technical questions on
spatial methods, while R-sig-ecology / R-sig-enviro (?) would field
more scientific discussions, as well as non-spatial methodology
questions.

Felix
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Glen A Sargeant <gsargeant at usgs.gov> wrote: