Fwd: Re: Why is taxonomy placeless? (My overview)

[John Grehan]

>>follow huge mass extinctions, in particular the end-Cretaceous (K-T)
>>extinction.  I believe that the northern hemisphere was almost wiped clean
>>of mammals and birds,

What is the biogeographic evidence for such an assertion?

>>     The southern hemisphere was also devastated, but it was in southern
>>Gondwanaland that a number of mammal and bird clades managed to survive,
>>repopulated Gondwana in the earliest Paleocene, and then quickly spread
>>north (radiating explosively as it went).

Again what is the biogeographic evidence for such a scenario? (It's ironic
here that
some New Zealand Darwinians are claiming the speculated impact was as great in
the southern hemisphere as the north  - leaving nothing for nobody!

>>    Note that only the "marine" afrotherians (sirenians and the extinct
>>desmostylians) seem to have successfully spread to the New World.

Biogeographic evidence?

>>But
>>without a known phylogeny, who would have guessed that the desmostylians of
>>western North America and Eastern Asia were actually afrotherians?

Please explain

>>Phylogeny trumps biogeography, and the latter will almost always play second
>>fiddle.

Have to disagree here. Phylogeny does not of itself determine what kind
biogeography one does, and different biogeographic methods with the same
phylogeny can give very different results.

>>The paleognaths (ratites and tinamous) have held on in the south, but

They also have done fine in the northern hemisphere.

>>biogeographic patterns, because these are often of considerable value.  John
>>Grehan certainly has his hands full trying to remedy the tendency to dismiss
>>biogeography as relatively unimportant.

Which was just done above by the claim that biogeography plays second fiddle!

>>Using a balanced approach, they can
>>usually complement one another quite nicely.

"Balanced" is a propaganda term used for political purposes (in politics of
science).
Gould used the same propaganda to defend Darwinism.

>>All approaches have their
>>limitations, so one should never put all of your eggs in one basket.  That
>>is why I like being an eclecticist, which allows you to diversify your
>>"portfolio of ideas" to the greatest extent.

Again - a political viewpoint on the nature of science.

John Grehan