I still didn’t have the chance to read “The Superorganism” but if genetical research appears in articles and books I think I also belong in Wilsons corner of science.

I know a very big lot about ants and how they are supposed to have evolved by a few different people but the research in itself gets to high for me. Yes, I’m a biologist and no, I’m not to old I believe (only 45 now) and yes, I get most of the basics of genetics and molecular biology, but….. When reading genetical evolutionary articles I get a nervous breakdown (maybe because I don’t work in a genetic lab?) by the sections about the methods and the results. Some of those parts can, for me, be written in Sanscrit or Hebrew or Arabic because they all are the same for ME, I don’t understand it. For the discussions, they are partly the same but, with a good summary and a good general consensus-tree, I get the most of it (although I sometimes redraw those trees to get them more simple and better understandible, there is a big difference between, say, 185 species, 63 genera or 22 subfamilies!). For me, the biggest problem lies there, techniques that outside the specialised field aren’t understandible and to much information in the trees. One example, the supplementary material by the Martialis article. I’ve redrawn them on a subfamily level to make it more clearer to me, I could better see the evolution by subfamily (and the problems therein.) than was the case by a multitude of species.

I think, with a better explanation (for someone like me not familiar with the techniques and methods), simpler end diagrams and a good discussion it would be better for me to understand it all.

Like I hear from Wilson, I think maybe he has the same problem like me…..

Yes, I’m a “Wilsonist” (if I may invent a word on the spot!) and think he has done much for myrmecology in general and for the description of species and their behavior. Maybe someone should help us with the molecular biology side of it!

James K. – I don’t begrudge Wilson his taxonomic focus. After all, much of my own research is morphology-based taxonomy, and I’m well in agreement that we need more of it. Rather, it’s the specific matter of “The Superorganism”. The book jacket advertises “the remarkable growth of knowledge… during the past two decades.” Wilson is thus tasked with writing a synthesis of the recent research, and I think he’s done a poor job of it.

Josh- I think Wilson’s chapters do a disservice to folks like Ward, Brady, Schultz, Moreau, Kronauer etc. who have been producing some excellent research on ant evolution, yet whose work goes essentially unacknowledged in what will be the only ant book that most non-specialists will pick up. Yes, Moreau’s 2006 phylogeny is reproduced, but it sits amid text that shows Wilson clearly doesn’t understand what it means.

Mike- I remember that! The ant lab took him out to dinner afterward and he essentially reiterated the same point. While sitting across the table from Brian O., of all people.

José María- Thank you for your kind words. Yes, you are absolutely right. My criticism here is specific, and not meant to belittle the enormous contributions Wilson has made to biology throughout his career. By the way, I stop by the lamarabunta forum about once a week to read, it seems like a fine group of myrmecologists you’ve assembled over there.

Let me tell my recent experience with Edward Wilson. 2 or 3 years ago I sent him 3 selected pages with ants’ observations of a Spanish naturalist (José Celestino Mutis, 1732-1808). He liked them and proposed me to work together with Mutis’ material. He was specially kind and generous with a person with no degrees (I am just a modest amateur fond of ants). Finally, he sent me an email proposing a future book. Then, Wilson worked and wrote what I think is a nice book bringging out the figure of Mutis. Perhaps this book will appear during 2009.

Returning to Alex Wild, I must say how much I appreciate the way he make me enjoy and learn with his blog and galleries. Some days ago I couldn’t avoid to make an Spanish summary, in Lamarabunta Forum, of his 11 myrmecological milestones of 2008 (http://www.lamarabunta.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=97149#p97149).

Warm regards,

José María

Your comments on the effort Wilson puts into his conservation work reminded me of a comment he made during a visit to ucd – you were probably there. It was at a meeting he had with a group of grad students. One student asked Wilson for his opinion on rank-free classification. The gist of Wilson’s reply was that we shouldn’t worry about such esoteric issues when species are going extinct at such a high rate. Instead, Wilson suggested that we should be focusing on describing and protecting species before they go extinct.

It was a very different response than what I expected, and although I don’t agree with it, his answer often pops into my head when I am thinking of new research projects.

Mike

Seriously though… Wilson’s previous theoretical contributions and advocacy and activism are priceless. Others now drive the evolutionary thinking and research – so why worry? But that’s not to say I don’t appreciate your opinion.

Long may he wave and continue his advocacy for the integrity of the world’s biological/ecological diversity!