Fundamental Disagreement Research Articles

Biogeographic Regions of Texas and Oklahoma

The ecologist who travels through Texas and Oklahoma might assume that the area could be easily divided into regions which are biotically distinct. The transitions from humid east to arid west and from subtropical south to cool north produce some very obvious patterns of distribution of flora and fauna. In spite of this obvious pattern, published records indicate many differences of opinion on both the location and description of the biogeographic regions or major biotic communities of these states. A few of these differences are more apparent than real because of variations in terminology or intensity of investigation. Other differences can be interpreted only as fundamental disagreements on what constitutes a major biotic community. The question that has not been answered is: how different must the fauna and flora of two areas be before they are recognized as examples of different communities? Many of the differences result from attempts to separate communities by a line drawn on a map. Typical examples of communities are relatively easy to separate, but the separation is difficult in the gradual transitions or ecotones between communities. For example, Taylor ('45) lists 28 species of mammals as characteristic of Eastern Texas. A composite map of the ranges of these species emphasizes that no two species have identical limits of distribution. The short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) is limited to the extreme eastern portion of Texas; the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) oc-

Virtue and Knowledge: The View of Professor PolanyiScience, Faith and Society. Michael PolanyiThe Foundations of Academic Freedom. Michael Polanyi

Previous articleNext article No AccessDiscussionVirtue and Knowledge: The View of Professor Polanyi . Michael Polanyi Science, Faith and Society. Michael Polanyi The Foundations of Academic Freedom. Michael Polanyi Frank H. KnightFrank H. Knight Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 59, Number 4Jul., 1949 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/290680 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 9Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Agnès Festré Michael Polanyi’s vision of government and economics: Spanning Hayek and Keynes, Journal of Government and Economics 4 (Jan 2021): 100026.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2021.100026Ross B. Emmett James M. Buchanan and Frank H. Knight on democracy as “government by discussion”, Public Choice 183, no.3-43-4 (May 2020): 303–314.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-020-00815-4Ross B. Emmett Why James Buchanan Kept Frank Knight’s Picture on His Wall Despite Fundamental Disagreements on Economics, Ethics, and Politics, (Feb 2019): 1155–1170.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03080-3_50Nico Stehr An Inconvenient Democracy: Knowledge and Climate Change, Society 50, no.11 (Dec 2012): 55–60.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-012-9610-4Dalibor Roháč Knight, Habermas and Rawls on freedom, personhood and constitutional choice, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 19, no.11 (Mar 2010): 23–43.https://doi.org/10.1080/09672560903552611D. Wade Hands Frank Knight and pragmatism, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13, no.44 (Dec 2006): 571–605.https://doi.org/10.1080/09672560601025779 Harry Prosch Polanyi's Ethics, Ethics 82, no.22 (Oct 2015): 91–113.https://doi.org/10.1086/291833 Paul Craig Roberts Politics and Science: A Critique of Buchanan's Assessment of Polanyi, Ethics 79, no.33 (Sep 2015): 235–241.https://doi.org/10.1086/291728 James M. Buchanan Politics and Science: Reflections on Knight's Critique of Polany, Ethics 77, no.44 (Oct 2015): 303–310.https://doi.org/10.1086/291647