Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

FROM NATURAL HISTORY TO ECOLOGY* ROBERT HENRY PETERSÎ As a lecturer and as a student, I have found ecology the most engaging and most disappointing of the sciences. The root of this seeming paradox lay in my failure to distinguish between the very different activities and attitudes associated with natural history and those of science. Ecology initially engages one because it deals with the same material as natural history; and natural history fills theaters, bookshelves, and nature clubs throughout the world. Ecology disappoints because it treats this material scientifically; and science is usually appreciated only after a long and rigorous education. I believe that a clearer distinction between these fields is necessary, not only if ecology is to be successfully taught but also for the advancement of a science of ecology. Thus I will use this space to explore some of the problems that obsess me as I work at and teach ecology. Much of the confusion between natural history and science reflects our use of the same material for different ends; the "lore" of natural history can often be phrased as scientific laws. For example, statements like "smelt form breeding schools in spring" or "a large, white-rumped bird is a flicker" can be used by both naturalist and scientist. A naturalist would use this bit of lore to specify an organism ("a member of this spring school"), to help distinguish it from other individuals (minnows, darters, etc.) in the area. A scientist would use his law to generalize, to set a certain animal (this flicker) in a group ofsimilar organisms (all flickers) with known attributes and so make a prediction about that animal (e.g., it will have an undulating flight). The difference between these goals, the characterizations of natural history, and the predictions of science form an underlying theme for this essay. The Art ofNatural History Nature can be seen as unique, diverse, and beguiling. As naturalists, we seek those characteristic qualities which individualize each leaf or This paper was submitted as an entry in the second Perspectives Writing Award competition for authors under 35. tDepartment of Biology, McGiIl University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A IBl.© 1980 by The University of Chicago. 0031-5982/80/2302-01 18$01.00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine ¦ Winter 1980 \ 191 glade or insect. In so doing, we relate to their individuality and experience a sense of unity with them as interlocking components of our shared world. We can more easily characterize, and so relate to, distinctive creatures: those which are absolutely rare like whooping cranes, locally uncommon like maidenhair fern, or rather solitary like the great cats. Common plants and animals, such as bracken or sandhill cranes, or herd animals, such as zebras or gnus, have far less call on our sympathies. It is the unique qualities of organisms which render them interesting to a naturalist. If natural history promotes an understanding of the world, it is in the same sense that we understand another person. We recognize this or that behaviour as typical of a particular individual and, perhaps, we feel that, in his place, we might behave or think in the same way. But we do not necessarily control or predict what he will do. To a scientist understanding implies prediction, whereas the understanding ofa naturalist is an empathy with nature or some part of nature. The naturalist achieves this understanding through a contemplative and reflective activity called natural history. By "contemplative" I mean that the advantages of natural history lie in its pursuit. Many other activities are interesting in themselves: carpentry, baking, science, etc. However, these differ from natural history in that a product, a table, a cake, or a hypothesis emerges from these activities which can be used by those who had no part in its manufacture. Natural history, like reading a book or looking at a painting, is an end in itself; its fruits, personal development and satisfaction, are restricted to the individual devotee. The second adjective I used to describe natural history was "reflective." The contemplation of nature is not a passive process but a very active, intellectual interplay between the external world and our own personality . At different times, the same objective phenomenon...