Abstract
AbstractDriscoll et al. (Journal of Biogeography, 2019, 46, 2850–2859) provide a critique of ‘Countryside Biogeography’, but also include ‘Conservation Biogeography’ and ‘Agriculture Biogeography’ in their criticisms. Their main thesis is that these new sub‐disciplines offer a ‘conceptual wrapper’ rather than distinctive frameworks and that the consequent redundancy of terms has the potential to sow confusion among biogeographers and slow progress. Here we argue that, far from sowing confusion Conservation Biogeography, for example, has provided important focal points for emerging scientific discourse, promoting new research, spawning undergraduate and graduate courses, and facilitating the formation of new scientific collaborations. The success or failure of a new sub‐discipline depends on its utility. If new framings sow confusion, introduce redundancy and provide no new insights they will not be widely adopted and cited. The development of new sub‐disciplines is a strong indicator of a vibrant, socially relevant and intellectually adventurous research area.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
