Jax Kurt
Department of Conservation Biology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany.
Department Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technical University of Munich, Emil-Ramann-Str 6, 85354, Freising, Germany.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2020 Sep 30;42(4):44. doi: 10.1007/s40656-020-00328-9.
In early German ecology, the key concept used to refer to a synecological unit was Biozönose (biocoenosis). Taken together with the concept of the Biotop (biotope), it was also understood as an integrated higher-order unit of life, sometimes called a "Holozön" (holocoen). These units were often perceived as having properties similar to those of individual organisms, and they informed the mainstream of German ecology until at least the late 1960s. Here I ask how "organismic" these concepts really were and what conceptual problems they entailed. To do so, I focus on some almost forgotten dissident positions, especially those of (German-born) Friedrich Simon Bodenheimer and Fritz Peus, which I contrast with the mainstream German ecology of the time. In a radical paper published in 1954 that postulated the "dissolution of the concepts of biocoenosis and biotope", Peus in particular elicited a forceful response from many prominent German ecologists. An analysis of the ensuing debate, including especially a colloquium held in 1959 that was partly inspired by Peus' paper, is helpful for sifting the various arguments proffered with respect to a quasi-organismic perception of the biocoenosis in German speaking ecology. Although German mainstream ecologists rejected the notion of the biocoenosis as a superorganism, ontological holism was quite common among them. Additionally, the mainstream concept of the biocoenosis was plagued by several methodological problems and much conceptual confusion, to which the "dissidents" rightly pointed. Some of these problems are still pertinent today, e.g. in connection with more modern concepts such as "ecosystem".
在早期的德国生态学中,用于指代生态群落单位的关键概念是“生物群落”(biocoenosis)。它与“生物栖息地”(biotope)的概念一起,也被理解为一个综合的高阶生命单位,有时被称为“全群落”(holocoen)。这些单位常被认为具有与个体生物相似的属性,并且至少在20世纪60年代末之前一直主导着德国生态学的主流。在这里,我要探讨这些概念究竟有多“具有机体性质”,以及它们带来了哪些概念上的问题。为此,我将关注一些几乎被遗忘的不同观点,特别是(出生于德国的)弗里德里希·西蒙·博登海默和弗里茨·佩斯的观点,我将把它们与当时德国生态学的主流观点进行对比。在1954年发表的一篇激进论文中,佩斯假设了“生物群落和生物栖息地概念的消解”,这尤其引发了许多德国著名生态学家的强烈回应。对随后的辩论进行分析,特别是对1959年举行的一次座谈会进行分析,该座谈会部分受到了佩斯论文的启发,这有助于梳理出在德语生态学中关于生物群落的准有机体观念所提出的各种论点。尽管德国主流生态学家拒绝将生物群落视为超有机体的概念,但本体论整体论在他们当中相当普遍。此外,请关注生物群落的主流概念受到了几个方法论问题和诸多概念混淆的困扰,“持不同意见者”正确地指出了这些问题。其中一些问题在今天仍然相关,例如与“生态系统”等更现代的概念相关。