I can understand the passionate point expressed by Fernando Boero. I am having similar experiences during my process of "partial switch"
from traditional ecology to molecular ecology. I met prestigious young scientists who could probably remember the base sequence of a 300 bp random fragment of the genome of Tetrahymena, but then did not have a clue of whether the Order was at higher or lower taxonomical level than the Family. But to some extent F.Boero shows an excessive extensive anger towards a molecular ecology approach. Recent guidelines for conservation never assumed that neutral molecules are to be regarded more than phenotype, behaviour, population dynamics, etc. Speculation on population size are extremely important if put in a context of temporal stability; that is why genetic studies are essential for coservation, because we can now build up a robust record of how genetic variability and population size fluctuate through time. Something that could not be done in the past, and that could prove of paramount importance to predict the fate of population of species. Obviously, anybody can agree, it is not important how rare a species is, or how diverse its genetic constitution. What matters is how quickly these parameters change through time; this means studying both ecology and evolution. |