The problem with biogeography

[Ken Kinman]

John,
      I'm am not sure why you addressed this to "the not so serious scientist".  In any case, I am rather surprised that anyone would attempt to draw any biogeographic conclusions (generally or particularly) from a family of mosses whose taxonomic content is so controversial.  One author even suggests that its holophyly (strict monophyly) is doubtful even beyond two genera (the type genus and a closely related genus).  It just seems to be premature to draw biogeographical conclusions where neither the content nor phylogeny is well established.
         ----- Ken Kinman
*********************************************************

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:35:30 -0400, John Grehan <jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG> wrote:

>For the not so serious scientist, there is a nice summary view of
>panbiogeography by Ray Tangey titled "The problem with biogeography" in
>the winter 2003 Newsletter of the Systematics Association. His final
>conclusion is that "The geographic facts of biology are the key to not
>only what biogeography is, its conception (ontology), but also to what
>we know in biogeography, and how we go about it, its epistemology."
>
>
>
>The article can be viewed at
>http://www.systass.org/newsletter/index.html
>
>
>John R. Grehan