Agreement yet?

[Tom DiBenedetto]

Robert Mesibov wrote:
> So the question remains: how do you integrate relationship information from
> Tom's sub-discipline with relationship information from other evolutionary
> sub-disciplines? Tom seems particularly concerned with conflict, and says
> that if it comes to a crunch, he'll back character-based evidence over
> biogeographical evidence, because character-states are inherited and
> locations aren't.

I don't find much to dispute in most of Robert's posting. I would like to make a small
comment on this part though. It is a fair restatement of the positions I have been
arguing, but it leads me to a point that I would like to hear some response on -
especially from the panbiogeographers.
To be blunt, I don't really see how it is possible to do biogeography in a coherent
manner, above the species level, without having a phylogentic relationship scheme
already in hand. It is my sense that this was a major point that Nelson and Platnick
made when they tried to integrate some Hennigian principles with Croizatian
biogeography. I think that they were absolutely correct in trying to do so, though I get
the sense that modern panbiogeographers are not all that enamored of their efforts
in this regard.
Am I right in sensing this - and could the panbiogeographers explain what exactly are
their views on this subject?

Tom diBenedetto