The search for novelty continues for rewilding

Abstract

We agree wholeheartedly with Derham et al. that the term rewilding requires explicit explanation, and that the refinement of new terms is fundamental to scientific advancement – hence our determined, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to identify the unique elements of rewilding that distinguish it from restoration (Hayward et al., 2019). We fail to understand why Derham et al. claim that scientific progress would grind to a halt if all definitions were concrete, complete and universally accepted. There are many definitions of scientific terms that similarly require refinement, and these improve our understanding of processes and theories, rather than hinder scientific progress through confusion. Indeed, we highlighted the problems associated with poorly defined language that led to the creation of clearly defined terms in the reintroduction and statistical fields (Hayward et al., 2019). Yet Derham et al.' reference two more definitions of rewilding (in Jepson's (2019) optimistic narrative and Corlett's (2016) proposal to ignore historical states) that, coupled with the Australian version of rewilding that emphasises small mammals in fenced, urban areas (Sweeney et al., in press), just increase the degree of confusion about what is unique about rewilding compared to restoration. This is particularly true when these versions reference existing definitions that are explicitly linked to restoration. For example, Dietl et al. (2015) use rewilding, under the umbrella of restoration, for reconstructing current ecosystems using the fossil record and extinct species replacements, potentially leading to the phrase Pleistocene rewilding restoration, where restoration would suffice.