Deleporte on panbiogeography

[John R. Grehan]

Pierre Deleporte wrote

>I simply want to be check if the recipe is susceptible to produce cake, or
>at least something approaching cake, or some fairly edible feature, before
>putting anything in my oven... maybe too much gastronomically suspicious,
>but I'm French, you know... :-)

As Croizat was as much French as Italian one need not be too suspicious.

>Successful recipes effectively give you some guaranties that a cake will
>come out, approximately the same way everytime you try it. Some recipes
>have several variants, but the kind of cake you'll get is pedictable.

Craw et al outline several techniques (recipes). Whether one may agree with
the ingredients on the other hand is another matter.

>You did not exactly tell the contrary, you simply were not enthusiastic
>(and still are not) of providing direct answers to some questions
>susceptible to facilitate understanding. But that's it, no offense.

Understanding comes not from off the cuff answers, but one's own
investigations - my opinion.

>Thanks anyway for discussion, if I was of some help in this, it's OK for
>me. My little experience of methodological debates tells me that, when your
>colleague obstinates in not answering a given question and persistently
>talks of something else, you likely made a relevant point... Destinated to
>ripe with time, hopefully...

I have never taken the view that I am the source of authority on
panbiogeography. It is my view that if one has deep questions one will find
the most satisfactory answers from personal investigation.

>A last example: "shortest lines" between taxa localities (tracks). Why
>would the shortest line as the crow flies be relevant for biogeographic
>inferences?

Its a parsimony criterion. Whether it is the most relevant geographic
criterion is open to debate. So for the method works. Henderson (1990)
explored the issue to some extent.

>Isn't this implying some notion of uniformity of the landscape,
>relatively to the spatial abilities of the taxa ?

No

>Or of lack of relevant
>barriers inside this landscape ?

No

>(I took an example like that of a recent plain-living
>organism standing both sides of the Himalayas: the shortest relevant
>"track" could be round the mountain rather than across it...).

Not unless there is some other criterion to consider other than direct
geographic distance.

>massing" from the rest of a track), isn't a model of "biogeographical
>process proportional to distance" necessarily implied ?

Please explain

>If not, absolute
>distances could be "corrected" with some appreciation of organisms
>performances (whatever) regarding different qualitative aspects of the
>landscape (whatever).

I do not understand what this is about.

>By the way, possibly you will not tax me of narrow-minded
>anti-panbiogeographic ostracism? I don't say you meant it, just wondering.

I do not understand this.

>Maybe you could admit that some people are sincerely not convinced by
>panbiogeography as a method, in its present state of development, despite
>their efforts to grasp the meaning of it.

I have never thought otherwise

>Which is neither ostracism and
>anti-propaganda, nor mere thoughtless aknowledgment of current
>methodological fashion.

People can make their own choices about biogeographic method.
Panbiogeography may or may not attract interest. If one is not interested
in geographic space as a biogeographic character then panbiogeography is
most certainly not the method of choice.

John Grehan

Frost Entomological Museum
Pennsylvania State University
Department of Entomology
501 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802. USA.

Phone: (814) 863-2865
Fax: (814) 865-3048

Frost Museum
http://www.ento.psu.edu/home/Frost/index.html