Antarctica and biogeography

[Ken Kinman]

John,
     Agreed.  My disagreement is with those biogeographers (in general) who leave Antarctica out.  For the southern Pacific, I would like to see a lot more map orientations that are about halfway between the typical polar and typical equator-centered orientations.  That way Antarctica wouldn't be quite so "stretched out".  And on panbiogeographic maps that would often put the track closer to the center.  This may be due to my "Darwinian dispersalist" leanings, but I still think it would be more informative.  Especially for gondwanan taxa that occur in both South America and southwest Pacific.
         --------- Cheers,
                            Ken
********************************************************
John Grehan wrote:
It seems I misunderstood Ken's characterization. His statement that Antarctica being left off the map when it is not involved with a locality record is correct. This is probably more a function of the map orientation which would require the outline of Antarctic across the base of the entire map. I would find this somewhat cumbersome. However, it is a matter of personal choice rather than that of the panbiogeographic method. When polar views are presented Antarctica is most definitely included (which Ken should know), and there is nothing stopping any panbiogeographer or other biogeographer such as ken putting Antarctica in. It should be further pointed out that non-panbiogeographic maps often leave Antarctica out so Ken's disagreement also lies with biogeographers in general. As for me, I do not see any deficiency in leaving Antarctica out in non-polar views. It does not change the track and it does not change the interpretation so there is nothing 'misleading' (A Pacific track is still a Pacific track, for example).