Serious scientist and panbiogeography

[John Grehan]

I've belatedly realized that I owe Ken Kinman an apology for being
obtuse. When he asked why I said Tangney's article on panbiogeography
was for the not so serious scientist I responded that panbiogeography
was not of interest to 'serious scientists' while failing to explain
what I meant. So to make up for that lapse I would explain here that in
general, panbiogeography is hardly anywhere the center of most
biogeographic research - certainly not the textbooks and competitive
grants. Probably 99% of biogeography is Darwinian vicariance-dispersal
(just a guess!). By this criterion I would say that the serious
scientist is hardly going to take the risk of dabbling in what is by
definition, biogeography that is marginal to funding and popularized
practice. So it was my thought that Tagney's article was not going to
interest Darwinian biogeographers, and Pierre Delporte's reactions
illustrate that expectation. Panbiogeography requires acceptance of
things such as spatial information being primary and critical to
biogeography and in that respect one must not be too 'serious' about
prevailing biogeographic theory to be interested in such notions. It was
that context to which I was alluding to.

 

John Grehan

 

Dr. John R. Grehan

Director of Science and Collections

Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway

Buffalo, NY 14211-1193

email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org

Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372

 

Panbiogeography

http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php

Ghost moth research

http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php

Human evolution and the great apes

http://www.sciencebuff.org/human_origin_and_the_great_apes.php