Nearktis, Neotropis etc.

[John Grehan]

>If the genus is available in North and South America will be area: AMERICAS
>or : NEOTERRA ?

The "area" can be what ever you want it to be. For example, if a genus is
located
on some mountains in Chile, and on some mountains in California what is its
"area"? Is there an "area" that has any meaning with respect to the
biogeographic
classification of the group? Usually classification in the natural sense
has to do
with characters that denote a shared origin. If this genus is going to be
classified as Americas or whatever, it will be necessary to specify in what
way
the unitary character for the boundaries that define the limits of the area
(i.e. at
what point does the area "America" stop) have effected the distribution of the
group in question. It is my view that any such geographic units, including
areas of endemism, fail to meet such criteria.

I don't know if any of the above makes much sense in isolation like this.
Another way is to ask, for the distribution above, is "America" the
biogeographic
homology of the distribution?

Does this (or are there sources ) that
refute Raven and Axelrod's work in 1974 that took many families on a
case-by-case basis and interpreted them as "gondwanan", "Laurasian", etc?
I'd appreciate any salient references.

My memory is limited, and I do not have the reference to hand, so I will
make a case-by-case response next week.

"Refutation" is a matter of individual judgement. In general my view is
that the answer is yes, but others will naturally see the matter differently.

John Grehan