Lifemapper

[Doug Yanega]

Richard Jensen wrote:

>One thing that seems to have been overlooked is that, if the models are
>fundamentally sound,  the distributions they predict might suggest areas where
>we should be looking for certain taxa.  If we then discover the taxa
>are there,
>that reinforces the model; if the taxa are not there, that tells us the model
>needs refining.  Either way, Tom is right - we must rely on field
>work itself to
>verify the distributions predicted by the models.

The problem comes when the model fails to include areas which are
known from ground-truthing to actually *contain* the species in
question. I've seen this happen, and the modeler then simply says
"Well, that observation must have been of a transitory population
which will die out, since the habitat won't support the species
there" - and nothing will change their mind. That, to me, is someone
who is WAY too enamored of their model.
How does one counter that sort of myopia?

Peace,
--

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
            http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82