[Darwinism as a constraint of ecological pluralism]

In his respond to critical remarks of Mirkin (2003), the author claims that pluralism in ecology is not only its strength but also a weakness. Contemporary ecology became less pluralistic and this can be considered as good sign of maturing science. Ecological pluralism can be exemplified by the coexistence in 1920-30s of two different approaches to plant community: that of Frederic Clements in USA and that of Josias Braun-Blanquet in France. However the way to progress in this branch of ecology was paved rather by heretical ideas of Henry Gleason in USA and Ramensky in Russia (both authors independently developed non-holistic view of community as an assemblage of individualistically distributed species) than by "peaceful" coexistence of well-established schools, representatives of which tried not to interfere into argumentation of each other. Notable success in ecology of last decades was connected with several new methodologies, e.g. macroecology that concerned large scale of space and time. However Darwinism in its attempt to explain the order of nature referring to its origin remains the most universal and fruitful methodology of ecology. The success of Darwinism in ecology is understandable because this generalizing theory is based on the same universal principles that underlie the survival of any population. Ecologists and evolutionary biologists trying to understand various natural patterns actually deal with the same fundamental laws, i.e. exponential population growth, limitation of this growth by resource shortage and/or press of predators, the existence of individual variability in survival, etc.