Palaeontology., adaptation and community ecology: A response to Walter and Pater son (1994)

This paper challenges Walter and Paterson's (1994) assertion that the community concept ought to be abandoned because of recent palaeontological evidence pointing to the ‘individualistic’ nature of biological communities. The ‘individualistic’ versus ‘superorganismic’ community concepts might provide good grist for the philosophical mill, but have little practical relevance to contemporary community ecology. Ecologists define communities in terms of current species distributions and interactions, and seek to integrate the roles of both biotic and abiotic factors influencing species distributions. There is no assumption of tight co‐evolution among component species; Walter and Paterson confuse ‘organization’ with ‘co‐adaptation’. Nor, contrary to the authors’ claims, is there an implicit assumption that all community patterns are caused by competition. For most ecologists, the ‘competition debate’ ended a decade ago. Walter and Paterson's view that competition is rarely, if ever, important in structuring communities is not even held by the main protaganists of the ‘competition is not so important’ school of the 1980s, and is in direct contradiction of the extensive, more recent literature on the subject. It entirely ignores plant ecology. Many of Walter and Paterson's misunderstandings appear to arise from the false premise that explanation of adaptation should be the ultimate goal of any ecological discipline. The authors are hostile to community ecology because, if communities are individualistic, then little light can be shed on species adaptations. Fortunately, most ecologists are not so preoccupied with adaptation.