A critique for macroecology

The numbers of published macroecological studies are increasing dramatically. Yet, progress within the field of macroecology, and a wider acceptance of its goals and rationale, do not seem to be developing at an equivalent rate. In this paper we examine the criticisms which have been, and can be, made. Attention is drawn to those which withstand scrutiny and are therefore of concern, and some solutions are proffered. We attempt to dispel those criticisms which are misplaced or ill-considered. We conclude that macroecology is likely to progress most effectively in the immediate future, and to make the greatest contribution to the broader study of ecology, if research follows three paths. It needs first to establish a more balanced and better documented body of published patterns, second to establish not simply the presence of patterns but also how in an 'anatomical' sense they come about, and third to expand the program of tests of multiple hypotheses that have been generated to explain observed patterns.