The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123(4):850-862, 2011 
Ornithological Literature 
Robert B. Payne, Book Review Editor 
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? IS POPU¬ 
LATION ECOLOGY A SCIENCE? PAPERS, 
CRITIQUES, REBUTTALS, AND PHILOSO¬ 
PHY. By Bertram G. Murray Jr. Infinity Publish¬ 
ing, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2011: 
289 pages, many figures and tables. ISBN: 10-0- 
7414-6393-8 (paper), ISBN: 13-978-0-7414- 
6393-7 (hard cover). SI6.95 (paper), $7.85 
(ebook).—Where in the evolutionary biology 
literature is there an equation that allows you to 
predict the mean clutch or litter size of any bird or 
mammal? You might be thinking that such an 
equation does not exist or that its formulation is 
impossible because the biological world is too 
complex. You would be wrong on both counts. 
Such an equation does exist and even more 
remarkable is that it works. Why then is this 
equation not known to ornithologists world-wide? 
That, caro let tore, is partly the subject of this 
book. The man who created the equation, the late 
Bert Murray, was for most of his career almost 
entirely ignored by ornithologists, ecologists, and 
evolutionary theoreticians. 
By consistently approaching ecological and 
evolutionary problems in a manner orthogonal to 
his contemporaries, Murray struggled to get his 
unconventional ideas published in the scientific 
literature. Frustrated by the peremptory rejection of 
his manuscripts, despite detailed, often point-by¬ 
point rebuttals of the (usually) anonymous review¬ 
ers’ criticisms, Murray shortly before his death 
began collating some of his rejected manuscripts 
together as a book. The current volume is the result. 
The caveat to neutral readers is that these papers 
failed to get through the scientific review filter: by 
conventional wisdom they have failed to qualify as 
scientific literature. However, the unbiased reader 
who completes the book may join Murray in 
wondering - as he does in his title - “what were 
they (the ecologists, evolutionary theoreticians, 
and referees) thinking"? 
Why are the included manuscripts so controver¬ 
sial? To answer this, the reader should understand 
several things. First, Murray’s guiding principle 
was the importance of demography and especially 
the manipulation of life (history) tables in answer¬ 
ing questions in theoretical biology (Chapter 3 
onwards). While demographic variables (such as 
age of first breeding) are a core part of life history 
theory, the presentation and deductions from actual 
life (history) tables in ornithology or evolutionary 
biology are astonishingly sparse (e.g.. in Charles- 
worth 's [ 1994] canonical text there are at most 3 
life tables!). Second, Murray’s theoretical insights 
were centered on two equations: the fundamental 
(Euler)-Lotka Equation and Murray-Nolan Clutch- 
size Equation (alluded to in the opening para¬ 
graph). The Lotka Equation calculates the intrinsic 
growth rate (r) of a population and, consequently, 
has the desirable property that the success (growth) 
of competing subtypes (be they populations, 
genotypes, phenotypes or whatever) may be 
compared. The clutch-size equation Murray orig¬ 
inated in 1989 with Val Nolan; it is unique in 
ornithology in being the only equation to predict 
the exact clutch-size of a population. Both 
equations appear frequently in Murray's book. 
Third. Murray came to insist that the Kimuran-slyle 
Malthusian Parameter is the only correct measure 
of evolutionary fitness and other fitness measures, 
like net reproductive rate fR 0 ) are misleading. He 
demonstrated this latter theoretical result in 1997. 
but his paper was characteristically disregarded. 
An added twist was that at genetic fixation the 
Malthusian parameter is zero-a profound conclu¬ 
sion because one could metaphorically say that 
evolution is hunting for genotypes which attain 
persistence (r0) in the long-term. 
Because Murray's book is composed of a 
miscellaneous assemblage of rejected manu¬ 
scripts. the various papers do not flow sequen¬ 
tially. occasionally repeat the same points, and are 
disfigured by a number of typos. Unfortunately, 
the book also ends abruptly at Chapter 8, without 
any summarizing chapter to synthesize what has 
been covered in the previous pages - these 
deficiencies which will make it even more 
challenging to grasp Murray's unconventional 
approach. Ornithologists will find Chapters 3-6 
especially relevant. Chapters 1 and 7 are devoted 
to a discussion of Popperian philosophy and, 
while I agree with everything Murray writes, 
many ornithologists will find the content of little 
direct relevance to their research. Chapter 2 is a 
850 
