panbiogeograpic related papers

[John Grehan]

Some time ago when I posted a request for any recent papers
relating to panbiogeography I received a number of responses,
including requests for any citations that appered. Below are
listed some papers that came to my attention from responses,
and from other sources.

I have appended my comments for what they are worth.

As some time has passed I may have overlooked responses,
in which case please remined me.

Anyone interested in an extended list of references regarding
panbiogeography can request this from me - but this list is not
represented as being complete or comprehensive.

Crisp, M. D., J. G. West, and H. P. Linder. (in press). Biogeography of
        the terrestrial flora. In Flora of Australia. Volume 1.
Introduction. (eds. A. E.
        Orchard and H. S. Thompson) pp. 321-367. 2nd ed. CSIRO, Melbourne.


        The authors emphasize that the panbiogeographic research program has
        been criticised and largely abandoned in favour of cladistic
biogeography.
        When challenged on this, the one author admited that there was
        no foundation for such a claim.

        Despite their emphasis on cladistic biogeography, the authors
classify the
        biogeography of the flora into a series of standard tracks.

        The chapter gives a historical account of the major contributions to
        botanical biogeography in Australia - with the noteable exception
of Croizat's.

Dumont, H. J. (1983). Biogeography of rotifers. Hydrobiologia 104, 19-30.

        Author comments on Croizat opening a "violent debate" with publicati=
on
        of panbigoeography, and represents Croizat's view that all
organisms show patterns of
        distributions congruent with the vicariance hypothesis. (I am not
aware of this being true).

Kolibac, J. (1998). New Australian Thanerocleridae, with notes on the
biogeography
        of the subtribe Isoclerina Kolibac (Coleoptera: Cleroidea).

        Author maps tras-Atlantic and trans-pacific tracks for the group
with explicit  application
       of the minimal spanning tree technique. The abstract states that
panbiogeographic hypothesis
        are formulated for the distribution patterns, but there are no
comparisons with other tracks
        or nodes, or correlation with earth history features as may be
found in panbiogeographic
        approaches. The author interprets the tracks as being in good
agreement with
        presumed dispersal from continental southeast asia to
Indonesia/Australia

        Comparisons are made between minimum-spanning connections and
        phylogenetic relationships. I am not entirely clear about the
author's reasoning
        who seems to view the question of phylogenetic and geograpahic
inforamtion as
        being the prioirity of either one over the other. Thus, the author
argues that  panbiogeography
        provides only one track option while phylogeny gives another,
        but I am unable to discern why the "phylogenetic" option would not
also arise
        from panbiogeographic analysis. So I'm still confused about this one=
.

Lourenco, W. R. (1998) Panbiogeographie, les distributions disjointes et le
concept
        de famille relictuelle chez les scorpions. Biogeographica 74, 133-14=
4.

        Author notes that the distribution of some trans-Atlantic patterns
conform to
        tracks identified by Croizat, and involving the Tethys geosyncline.

Morrone, J. J. and D. Espinosa Organista. (1998). La relevancia de los atlas
        biogeogr=E1phicos para la conservaci=F3n de la biodiversidad mexican=
a.
Ciencia 49, 12-16.

        Outlines the biogeographic atlas concept through application of
panbiogeographic
         and cladistic methods.

Segers, H. (1996). The biogeography of littoral Lecane Rotifera. Hydrobiolog=
ia
        323, 169-197.

        Author suggests that for this group the role of vicariance is
        generally subordinate to that of dispersal.

Weston, P. H. and M. D. Crisp. Trans-Pacific biogeographic patterns
        in the Proteaceae. In The origin and evolution of Pacific Island bio=
tas,
        New Guinea to Eastern polynesia: patterns and processes. (A. Keast,
S. E.
        Miller) pp. 215-232. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.

        Extensive mapping of tracks for this group. The authors note that th=
ey
        do not regard standard tracks as compelling evidence for a
particular reconstruction
        of biogeographic history, but they do not comment on whether they
consider
        tracks to be any kind of evidence as such. They conclude that the
group is
        gondwanic, but not on the basis of panbiogeographic criteria.

        The paper is noteable for being the only one in the book that
        acknolwedges the existence of panbiogeographic contributions to Paci=
fic
        biogeography.