Talk:Biogeographic realm/Archive 1

Archive 1

A note

Is an ecozone/ecoregion similar to a biome? Is there a case for merging or cross linking these artiles? quercus robur 10:57 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. In fact the term 'ecozone' is the official term for a large scale biome, and the term 'ecoregion' for a smaller one, but I am not sure if the term 'biome' is in use any more, since these terms are rather better defined...

For now, cross link like crazy, and use the Ecozone/Ecoregion articles NOT to define 'what they are' but to list 'the ones there are actually on Earth'.

Another way to say it - a biome is a theoretical thing that we use to find real ecozones and real ecoregions - and potentially we can make artificial biomes... ?

Another note

The article says there are eight, but lists only seven. One is missing. Which?

I've noticed that the usage of the words ecozone and ecoregion differ, sometimes ecozone refers to larger areas and sometimes to the smaller ones. The way I have learned it in university, the main biogeographical regions are defined little differetly in zoology and botany, and the usage of only one set for both is not very practical. The way they're now defined here in Wikipedia is not very good, but I'm reluctant to rewrite it because things may be defined differently in other countries. Anyway, the biome refers to certain types of ecosystems, like deserts, savannah, steppes, etc. and it's a different thing than ecoregions/ecozones, which refer to actual areas on Earth. ---Timo Honkasalo

I agree. Biome and ecozone do not have the same reference frame at all. The word ecozone appear to be very little used in some countries. However, from what I saw both from the last IUCN and WWF classification systems, the ecozone was first defined from the Udvardo biogeographic realms system, and these are used in other countries.

Yet another note

Note: 'ecoregion' article defines what one is - they are too small to create a map that shows them all effectively - while this article can do so easily with the larger ecozones.

emphasis

(See also previous post) The emphasis is stressed too much on conservation ecology than on zoogeography. I would even say that the concepts presented by the separations in Holarctic etc. are only interesting when dealing with vicariance, dispersion, and island biogeography (and other related concepts). Biomes are much more applicative and useful to conservation ecology. Well, that's how I learned it... Phlebas 20:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I'm suggesting that Biogeographic Region be merged into this article. Perhaps a section can be added that expands on the terminological debate and adapts the plotted historical development listed in the other article. Overall, however, I don't understand why these are two separate articles; they seem to overlap considerably. If someone can clarify it for me, it would be appreciated; otherwise, I'd appreciate it if someone more skilled with Wiki than I could facilitate the merger. 207.233.110.65 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Looking at this article I cannot make heads or tails of this. Somebody divided up the world into something dubbed "ecoregions", but it is unclear why. What is the point in having this entry at all? Brya 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

realms?

How established is it really that what once were called 'biogeographical realms' are now to be called 'ecozones'? Is the latter really the predominant and preferred designation or only so for ecologists? 80.167.76.252 14:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Besides the fact that first the article says this "According to Schultz (1988, 2000, 2002 and 2005) nine ecozones can be defined" then later talks about 8 regions and in the picture beside it, it shows 6 of the 8 ecozones.

What???? Lsjzl 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just attempted a major cleanup of the article, to address the comments above:

• tried to improve the overall organization, structure, and tone of the article.
• tried to explain the important distinction between an ecozone as described here, which reflects evolutionary history, and a biome, which reflects life-form and vegetation type regardless of evolutionary history.
• removed the J. Schultz system from this article; although he uses the term "ecozone", it is really a system of biomes, as they are generally defined in Wikipedia.
• tried to clarify the historical development of different classification schemes for plants, animals, and both plants and animals, and present them chronologically.
• added the WWF bioregions.
• Added references.

Tom Radulovich 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Plant geography

What on Earth happened to the article on plant geography? PG is a field of study and although there are relations with this article, it should have its own article. As far as I can fathom from the history of this article, it actually started out as an article on PG and then gradually got modified until it became the current article with the current title. I'm not enough of an expert to untangle this mess, though, but perhaps somebody else can. --Crusio (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of CEC Ecozones mention/coverage re POV

See Talk:Temperate rainforest#POV problems re CEC ecozones, floristic provinces and other systems.Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re same issue, File:The 14 WWF biomes and 8 biogeographical realms of the world.jpg shows t he WWF/UN system but not the CEC one - and it's the CEC system, primarily in Canada, that actually uses the term "Ecozone" (in the US the same system uses a Class I ecoregion for the same "tier"). The article also equates floristic provinces etc which is incorrect. I'm also of a mind that the Category:Nearctic etc are not encyclopedic in nature and serve to enhance/promote one particular classification system at the expense of others. i.e. re Undue weightSkookum1 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Paleartic Anyone?

Hey, what happened to the bioregions of the Paleartic? Someone has left Europe, most of Asia, and North Africa off of the map... Did we forget something? Oh, my god, what happened to the baby... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecozones; Biogeographical kingdoms, regions and provinces, biocorology and biocenology

As several people have pointed, the point of view supported in this article and related ones is mainly usefull just from an ecological angle of view or, saying it in other words, it is mainly biocenological (ecological biogeography), wich is not bad at all, but it probably lacks a better biocorological vission (I mean estrictly zoogeographical and fitogeographical taxonomic and historical point of view). This article and its related group needs an update as to adopt the hierarchical structure being developed by the most modern authors like J.J. Morrone which takes into account not only the differences but also the historical conexions amongst biogeographical areas as to classify and group them into large biogeographical kingdoms (Holarctic, Holotropical and Holantactic), each one containing several biogeographical regions, each one divided in sub-regions, those into provinces and them finally into districts. This hierarchical system have been developed on a historic geological and systematic-evolutive basis, giving to the biogeographical areas a more natural system of classification.Bolosphex (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually mainly floristic. If you check out the detailed classification of the WWF, you'll find that it is based on plant communities. For animals, for example Australia and perhaps even the Horn of Africa would need to be considered separately, Pacific S America down to S Peru/N Chile has at least as much in common with Central America as with Atlantic S America, the Malayan region is if anything more strongly linked to E Asia than to India, and Micronesia too has plenty of East Asian influence, there is a strong India-E Africa connection in birds but also squamates, and so on and so on.

Basically, the effect of high mountains and wide oceans on plant dispersal is less severe. For plants, it is quicker to go right over a mountain range than around it, for animals it's the other way around. But on the other hand, plants are more strongly limited by latitudinal climate belts than most animals. The system proposed by Morrone is not perfect, nbut it sees to me to need not altogether much polishing; it is a good start and deserves as much mention as the WWF scheme. This seems like a good source to improve the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

New map

File:20121224zoogeographicalmap.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. —Darkwind (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Terrestrial ecozone → Ecozone – I'd like to revert a prior undiscussed move. Until such a time that we identify life outside Earth, the adjective terrestrial is not needed. With regards to move by User:Invertzoo, I don't think that the lack of discusion of marine ecology in this article justifies using the new name, unless it can be shown that this confers to existing literature. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment is the distinction perhaps between terrestrial and aquatic/marine, instead of terrestrial and extra-terrestrial? -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• With only two sources, it's hard to say. The BBC source backs Piotrus's view—most tellingly, the "Oceania ecozone encompasses all the islands of the Pacific except New Zealand." So just the islands, not the water. But the Dinerstein et al. uses "Terrestrial Ecoregions," which seems to support Invertzoo, although without any footnotes or a link to that source, it's hard to verify it further. More sources will be necessary. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support for procedural reasons (to undo an undiscussed move) and per nom. While "terrestrial ecozone" is used some, "ecozone" is used more frequently and almost always to refer to land ecology. E.g., see this book. —  AjaxSmack  00:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

I moved this article to "Terrestrial ecozone" because that is what it seems to be about. Currently there is no mention whatsoever of the maritime (marine) ecozones. Perhaps they belong in another article as yet not created? Invertzoo (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Invertzoo that this article should at least mention marine ecozones.

What are the names of the marine ecozones?

If we mention paratropical subsea and eutropical subsea, what else are we missing? --DavidCary (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if marine faunal zones are subdivisions of ecozones or something different altogether? Invertzoo (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Biogeographic realms" and "ecozones"

Moved from Village Pump: "In articles about biogeography, it seems that Wikipedia is using the term "ecozone" erroneously or, at least, in a different manner of the academic usage. As Wikipedia adopts the WWF biogeographic regionalization scheme (Global 200), the correct term should be "biogeographic realm" (based on taxonomic composition of the region; Olson & Dinerstein, 1998). In academic works, the term "ecozone" is more common as a synonym for "biome" (based on ecological and physiognomic criteria; Schültz, 1988). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.8.131 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "Zorahia (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly a problem that there are two different usages. The page as it exists is not entirely wrong, since sources exist and have been cited that support it, but it would be desirable if the differing usages were separately explained. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to make some propositions:

(1) to split the article "ecozone" in two ("ecozone" and "biogeographic realm");

(2) for pages using "ecozone" in Schültz (1988) sense: maintain the term "ecozone".

(3) for pages using "ecozone" in Canadian literatute sense (see Ecozones of Canada and List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA)): maintain the term "ecozone".

(4) to avoid the usage of the term "ecozone" in BBC sense in Wikipedia articles, using instead "biogeographic realm", less ambiguous and more common in academic documents;

(5) to change the term "ecozone" to "biogeographic realm" in title and/or content of the following pages: Template:Infobox ecoregion, Afrotropic ecozone, Antarctic ecozone, Australasian ecozone, Nearctic ecozone, Palearctic ecozone, Indomalaya ecozone, Neotropic ecozone, Oceania ecozone;

(6) to request a bot (Wikipedia:Bot requests) to change the term "ecozone" to "biogeographic realm" in pages using the Template:Infobox ecoregion, and pages related to the Category:Ecozones.

(7) for other pages using the term [1]: to change "ecozone" to "biogeographic realm" manually, if necessary. 17:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your proposal. Can you explain what the three different senses (Schültz, 1988; Canadian; BBC) are? I think you'll find that performing context-sensitive editing (i.e., changing "ecozone" to "biogeographic realm" in some, but not all pages, depending on meaning) cannot be done via an automated bot. If we get consensus, you'll have do it with a semi-automated bot (e.g., WP:AWB). —hike395 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hike. The senses are:

• Ecozone, in Schültz (1988) sense: is a regionalisation based mainly on ecological (climatic) and physiognomical (appearance of vegetation) criteria. See biome, a term more common;
• Ecozone, in BBC sense: is a macroscale regionalisation based on the taxonomic composition of an area (that is, the species and other taxonomic groups present in that area). However, the term biogeographic realm is more common;
• Ecozone, in Canadian literature (Wiken, 1986) sense: is a regionalisation based on many criteria (including ecological, physiognomical and taxonomical), with a smaller scale in comparision to biogeographic realms. It is similar to the usage of the term ecoregion in WWF scheme.Zorahia (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you're saying. Here's the problem: ever since the early days of Wikipedia, many editors have used the WWF hierarchical scheme for defining different biogeographic regions and levels. In that scheme, "ecozone" is used in what you call the "BBC sense" (either a floristic kingdom or a biogeographic realm). Because this was adopted early (without much discussion or input from ecology experts), it has spread across many articles. I think it would be virtually impossible to change automatically -- for example, some articles may refer to a WWF ecozone, while others may use the term without the WWF modifier. We would have to replace the latter but not the former.

This would be a time-intensive task. WP:AWB would certainly help. I see that you alerted WP:WikiProject Biology. To get further consensus, I would also notify WP:WikiProject Plants which has quite an active set of editors. —hike395 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is it. However, I think you made a mistake: the WWC original scheme (compiled from many papers and books, see Biome, Ecoregion and Global 200 references) never made use of the term ecozone, but always of biogeographic realm. Only Wikipedia and BBC use the term ecozone in this sense (and maybe BBC borrowed it from Wikipedia). So, I think we should replace the use of ecozone in BBC sense (and not maintain it, as you said) by biogeographic realm.Zorahia (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that at the "top level" (the level of article titles, infoboxes, categories, etc.), we are mainly using "ecozone" as a synonym of the Global 200 term "biogeographic realm". The only source given for this usage is the BBC, so far as I have been able to discover. I agree with both the view that this is not satisfactory and the view that changing it within articles can't be done automatically. So what to do?

• Regardless of issues of NPOV, in reality we can only use one classification system, one set of terminology, at what I called above the "top level" in Wikipedia, although of course relevant articles must discuss well sourced alternatives. In principle, I support Zorahia: we should switch to using the Global 200 terminology. I would avoid "ecozone" altogether at the "top level".
• Assuming there were a consensus for the switch, the practical question is whether there are enough interested editors to undertake the work involved in moving articles, changing infoboxes, re-titling categories, etc. let alone looking into articles. I fear that there are not. However, this should not prevent the first step, which is to move this article to Biogeographic realm.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Article moved

The article Ecozone was moved to Biogeographic realm, as the articles of the eight realms (former ecozones). Now, the next step is change the Template:Infobox ecoregion (and its articles) and the category Ecozones (except subcategory Category: Ecozones of Canada‎), that are currently using the term ecozone in BBC sense. Can a boot do it? Zorahia (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

List of biogeographic provinces contains nearly identical information as provided in Udvardy (1975) biogeographic realms section on this page. However, it does so without providing any additional information about biogeographic provinces in general and is non-exhaustive despite the broad topic of its title. I propose either:

• removing the List page and updating expanding list in the Udvardy section with same links and subcategory designations (preferred) or
• removing the expanding list in the Udvardy section, developing the summary for the Udvardy section further, and renaming the other page something like "List of Udvardy (1975) biogeographic provinces" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.199.19 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think the list is sufficiently long to be separated into a different article, so I favour merging the lists. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Another reference

I think we should consider this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0089?proof=true. It is more recent (2017) than the WWF system (1998, 2001). The map of the realms is accessible to everyone by clicking on the right Figures (next to Sections). It is different than the current map; the most important differences being: 1. Madagascar is not in the Afrotropic/Ethiopian/'African' realm, instead it it showed to have a stronger connection to the Oriental/Indomalayan realm (note that the Ethiopian accolade also comprises a bit of Madagascar, perhaps someone who can read the whole article can figure it out).

2. Papua New-Guinea is separate from the Australian realm, and closer to the Oriental realm (again, the accolade is a bit weird). There are also some other differences, but minor ones. TBN 08 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Wallacea, Ecozones, and the WWF

For apparently the last seven years, Wikipedia has been presenting on this page a map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3c/20171017193522%21Ecozones.svg) that included Wallacea (e.g., Sulawesi) as part of the Australasian realm. But Wikipedia's map on the Australasian realm shows that Sulawesi is *not* included there (although the text says that it *is* included). And Wikipedia's map for the Indomalayan realm shows that Wallacea *is* included there. This shit is a mess.

I have changed https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ecozones.svg so that it matches the maps presented on the Australasian and Indomalayan realms. However, now, because of this change, the realms presented no longer match WWF's ecozones, which is what Wikipedia claims that they are using (even though they're not, because Wikipedia is presenting a conflicting mix of results).

It's not clear to me why WWF's realms are being used in the first place. As far as I know, most textbooks present Wallacea as belonging to the Oriental realm. Britannica also says that Wallacea is usually included as part of the Oriental Realm. Why has Wikipedia presented it as belonging to the Australian realm? Who cares what WWF says if leading textbooks generally disagree? Bueller 007 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mandate is not to present one view or the other, but to report what reliable sources say. If there are different views, they should all be discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, right, but there are conflicting views on how to define these biogeographical realms, and one map is presented in the lede, and it was *not* the one that is found in the majority of standard textbooks and other encyclopedias. With no reason given why the WWF realms are being used instead of more widely used ones. (And not consistent with the maps used for the individual biogeographical realms.) It's fine/expected to present multiple points of view. It's not fine to mix and match content thereby making it an incoherent clusterfuck. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the need for coherence. My point is rather that each map needs an explicit reliable source as well as a discussion of sourced alternatives. It's not enough just to say "found in the majority of standard textbooks and other encyclopedias".

Who cares what WWF says if leading textbooks generally disagree? – I think the WWF is sufficiently notable for its system to be discussed.

As a side note, for plants, we use the WGSRPD to classify distributions. This is a more geographical system than "realms", but does place Papuasia in Tropical Asia. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bueller is correct that Wikipedia is inconsistent. Half the maps put Wallacea in the Indomalayan region, and the other half put Wallacea in Australasia. The Indomalayan region page contradicts itself, with one map that includes Wallacea and a second map that doesn't include it. If different maps originate from different systems, then it would help to label them with their source. But if "Indomalayan" is a name specific to the WWF system, then the Indomalayan article should match that system, and the Wiki would benefit from a separate article on the Oriental realm used in the other system.

I would like to learn more about the 2015 system, but the sources others have linked to are behind paywalls. Putting a summary on Wikipedia would be nice, if possible. The current list of 2015 regions really isn't informative, and there's no map with it. ~ 2601:441:4400:1740:3037:B513:E10A:E602 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the articles remain confused/confusing because they do not clearly state that there are multiple systems and identify which one is being used where. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)