[Taxacom] Re: Phylogenetic classification?

[Geoffrey Read]

Michael, yes, I agree with you in that Teske et al have unnecessarily
limited themselves - right in the abstract too!
And they use 'founder dispersal' as shorthand for 'founder dispersal
speciation' (whereas one can have a founder arriving, and descendants
thriving (or not) with or without subsequent divergence to speciation). If
that has been the accepted terminology in the field then it is a rather
casual usage.

Nevertheless, 'founder effect speciation' (a fairly narrow concept) most
definitely is not a synonym of dispersal (to me a vast topic) or founder
dispersal speciation either. It's disconcerting to see them equated in
argument.

Geoff

>>> On 6/08/2009 at 9:51 a.m., Michael Heads <michael.heads at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Geoff and colleagues,
>
> I don't conflate founder dispersal and founder effect speciation - the
> phylogeographers themselves do! For example, Teske et al. (in the paper you
> cited) write: 'Founder dispersal (i.e. long-distance dispersal followed by
> founder effect speciation)'.
>     Without founder effect speciation you can still maintain founder
> dispersal with the 'artificial life support' of other ad hoc hypotheses but
> it starts to get very complicated. This is why Mayr felt the necessity of
> invoking the completely theoretical process of founder effect speciation in
> the first place.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Wellington, New Zealand.
>
> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
>
> --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>
> From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic classification?
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 8:28 AM
>
>
>
> On Wed, August 5, 2009 10:33 pm, Michael Heads wrote:
>> Dear Geoff and colleagues,
>>
>> I should clarify this. Nearly all phylogeographers follow traditional
>> biogeography and invoke 'dispersal', i.e. founder effect speciation, all
> the time.
>
> Michael, it is the subsuming or conflation of founder dispersal speciation
> into simply 'founder effect' then dismissing it (via the geneticists
> evidence) that I wanted to draw attention to regarding your presentations
> of your argument.  Exactly as you've done again above. They're two
> different boxes, surely.
>