[Taxacom] panbiogeography

Mon Jul 6 15:47:06 CDT 2009

Dear Richard,

Radon, a radioactive gas, is released around active fault zones (e.g. San Andreas). It's a known health hazard and botanists in Kyrgyzstan  have recently suggested it may also be responsible for the evolutionary divergence seen around the massive fault zones there.  

The Caribbean is also characterised by great fault zones, so perhaps the anomalous diversity is due to radon (rather than kryptonite!). I'm a bit sceptical that this is the sole explanation though. The diversity there is not only expressed as species diversity but also in globally 'basal' groups. I mentioned some in my Biol. Linn. Soc paper (2008), but more keep appearing. E.g. Linnaeosicyos of Hispaniola is basal in the tribe Sicyeae (Cucurb.), widespread in America, Australasia etc. (Schaefer et al., 2008).    

Some authors would interpret this to mean there was a centre of origin in the Caribbean, but the question really seems to be: what is the cause of the major *break* between the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas? If you could explain this, it might also explain the unexpected species diversity in Caribbean mosses, birds such as Coereba, etc.

As you say, there is a genuine mystery.

Michael Heads

Wellington, New Zealand.

My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:

> From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] panbiogeography
> To: "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com>, mivie at montana.edu
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:19 AM
> A. J. Sharp thought the strange
> variation in Mexican mosses was due to radioactivity, maybe
> potassium in the soil. Maybe Montserrat is radioactive?
> Maybe a giant kryptonite meteorite or large fragments
> thereof underlies the Antilles? : ) 
> 
> I've noticed huge variation in certain West Indian moss
> species that vary much less in continental populations.
> There is a genuine mystery. In part Carlquist's
> precinctiveness might play a part, with thickened plant
> parts lowering chance of wind blowing reproductive parts off
> tiny islands. Do animals have bigger claws? 
> 
> *****************************
> Richard H. Zander 
> Voice: 314-577-0276
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Non-post deliveries to:
> Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd., St. Louis, MO
> 63110
> *****************************
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Michael Heads
> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 7:12 PM
> To: mivie at montana.edu
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] panbiogeography
> 
> response from MH:
> 
> I'm not sure why you passed on Croizat (!), but the only
> detailed panbiogeogaphic analyses of the West Indies that I
> know of are the ones in Croizat's (fully indexed)
> books.  
>    A large section of Principia Botanica
> vol. 2 (1961) (from memory at least a hundred pages) is
> devoted to a statistical analysis of the whole West Indian
> beetle fauna that may be of interest to you. Although it is
> based on Blackwelder's rather dated treatment (is there a
> more recent one?) I've found many of the ideas
> useful.   
>    Chapter 7 of Croizat's Panbiogeography
> (Vol. 1, 1958) deals with distribution in the West Indies.
> He notes (p. 624-5, discussing birds): '...insofar as the
> northern Lesser Antilles (i.e. the 'horn' Montserrat/Saba in
> the west and Antigua/Anguilla in the east) a 'crossing'
> takes place altogether mysterious in the light of current
> geography'. It seems that Croizat, like yourself, found the
> biogeography of Montserrat quite intriguing... 
>    In his book on America (Biogeografia
> analitica y sintetica de las Americas, 1975) Chapter 20
> deals with the Antilles. Again, just one example: on p. 484
> Croizat notes (in a discussion of Crustacea) that
> 'Montserrat media en disyuncion entre Santa Cruz [ i.e. S.
> Croix] y Dominica'. For a similar outer arc to the west, see
> Coereba (the most abundant bird in the West Indies - Lack,
> 1976) which also shows the Montserrat - St. Croix
> disjunction.  
>    This important 'track' out to the west is
> surely related to the disjunction you noted between
> Montserrat and the Greater Antilles - I think you're an
> excellent panbiogeographer!       
> 
>    You wrote that 'The geologic history of
> the island and region seem pretty
> clear, it is a volcano in a line of volcanoes'. But while
> the exposed *stratigraphy* (the current island) is clear
> enough, the underlying *tectonics* are not. In cases such as
> this the old distributions 'floating' on young strata may
> indicate the presence of former arcs and other geological
> structures that have not been preserved in the rock record.
> The first thing to do is to check and analyse the
> biogeographic patterns - especially the 'anomalies' - just
> as you've been doing. These can then be compared with
> patterns in other groups that are especially
> well-documented, which usually means birds. 
>    For example, Terborgh et al. (1978) noted
> that 20 of the 24 bird species known to inhabit the low, dry
> island of Antigua also occur on the high, wet island of
> Montserrat and 'An historical rather than ecological
> perspective probably offers a more satisfying explanation
> for the composition of the avifauna of the N Lesser
> Antilles'.  
>    In the best known insects, the
> butterflies, Davies & Bermingham (2002) discussed
> Heliconius charithonia of S USA to NW South America. The
> clades are: 
>    1. Jamaica - basal (sister to the rest).
> 
>    2. Ecuador. 
>    3. S Florida, Cuba, N Lesser Antilles:
> Montserrat/St Kitts. Note how this last connection avoids
> Puerto Rico/Hispaniola, just like your beetle pattern!
>    4. Puerto Rico/Hispaniola, Bahamas,
> mainland (Florida, Panama, Ecuador). 
>    The authors note that 'There are no
> obvious ecological reasons why H. charithonia should be
> absent from the Lesser Antilles south of Montserrat, and
> distance is clearly not a sufficient barrier [I agree]
> because H. charithonia only recently colonized Montserrat
> from Puerto Rico'. I disagree - the Montserrat populations
> are related to those of Cuba/Florida, not those of Puerto
> Rico, just as your own observations of 'weird anomalies'
> revealed!      
> 
> Michael Heads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wellington, New Zealand.
> 
> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 7/6/09, mivie at montana.edu
> <mivie at montana.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: mivie at montana.edu
> <mivie at montana.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] panbiogeography
> > To: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Date: Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:19 AM
> > > I put the keyword in the subject
> > line as a courtesy to those who find
> > > this subject irritating so they can hit the
> delete
> > button (so I do not
> > > expect to see any complaints posted). The rest is
> for
> > those who are
> > > curious or like to see opinions for the sake of
> it.
> > 
> > Of course you should expect to see objections, there
> is a
> > whole listserver
> > for this topic, and THIS ONE IS NOT IT. You continue
> to not
> > understand
> > logic, and put forth ridiculous assertions like that
> that
> > show you do not
> > understand cause-effect relationships.  This example
> > is indicative of your
> > entire approach.
> > 
> > In addition, you were politely asked to stop, but
> > refused.  You are really
> > not after anything but attention, as the only
> "empirical"
> > evidence you
> > want to recognize is what supports your pre-conceived
> > opinions.
> > 
> > As for Cracraft, you justify my pugnaciousness by
> your
> > inherently flawed
> > and self-serving lack of logic: You confuse the polite
> with
> > the weak!  So
> > much for wasting time even trying to be polite -- you
> will
> > just misuse the
> > courtesy.
> > 
> > And, about your disappointment in not getting to
> debate my
> > interesting
> > biodiversity information, I subscribe to the dictum
> "do not
> > throw your
> > pearls before swine."  You will just revel in the
> > attention, and never get
> > the logic errors inherent in your method. My reserve
> saves
> > you from
> > looking bad, me from being disgusted, and everyone
> else
> > from wearing the
> > "delete" off the key.
> > 
> > Michael Ivie
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I noticed that Michael Ivie managed to express
> his
> > irritation and then
> > > duck out of further discussion when it suited him
> -
> > nothing inherently
> > > wrong with that I suppose although it seemed that
> he
> > has some
> > > interesting biogeographic observations that could
> have
> > been examined
> > > further, and Michael did try to offer some
> empirical
> > considerations for
> > > Ivie to consider and discuss further.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I took a look again at Cracraft's 2000 review
> that
> > Ivie quoted. The
> > > review is probably understandable from one who
> is
> > taking a phylogenetic
> > > approach to biogeographic analysis, but overall
> his
> > criticisms
> > > notwithstanding, he said the book should be read.
> As
> > to the critiques,
> > > mostly they are expressions of a view, not any
> kind of
> > substantiated
> > > argument. Some are more about criticizing what
> was not
> > covered in the
> > > 1999 book, and that is inevitable in a book of a
> > finites size and
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Specifically on the comments listed by Ivie:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "A major weakness of their presentation and the
> method
> > is the
> > > oversimplistic interpretation of generalized
> tracks
> > and of the
> > > geological events that are assumed to cause
> them."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No empirical evidence was given for this view.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Most applications of the panbiogeography method
> tend
> > towards the
> > > narrative rather than the analytical"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He did give the caveat that this was "at least
> not in
> > the sense observed
> > > in vicariance biogeography"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "...they strongly advocate using biogeographic
> > distributions as evidence
> > > of phylogenetic relationships, but their examples
> have
> > preconceived
> > > notions of relationships built into them."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He never said how they were preconceived.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "The authors are strong supporters of the
> importance
> > of systematics, but
> > > they are short on specific analytical procedures
> of
> > how biogeography
> > > might be used to infer relationships."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This was only one subject among many.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding Ivie's reference to "Serious problems
> > inherent in the
> > > Panbiogeography method, which have been
> documented in
> > the literature ad
> > > nauseum' the comments by Cracraft do not point to
> any
> > "serious problems"
> > > that negate the validity of the method, and in
> > particular its real,
> > > predictive achievements (that have to be
> dismissed by
> > opponents out of
> > > hand even though a corresponding predictive
> ability in
> > dispersal
> > > biogeography has never been produced).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As Cracraft notes, "each biogeographic method has
> its
> > strengths and
> > > limitations in describing and explaining
> biogeographic
> > patterns".
> > > However such views may be applied to
> panbiogeography
> > is up to each
> > > individual, but so far the rejections of
> > panbiogeography have not been
> > > on the level of empirical falsification (e.g. of
> the
> > novel predictions,
> > > of tectonic correlations etc.). Even the
> molecular
> > clock theorists, who
> > > thought they had the falsification, failed by
> > misrepresenting molecular
> > > clock divergence dates as maximal rather than
> minimal
> > estimates.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John Grehan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. John R. Grehan
> > >
> > > Director of Science
> > >
> > > 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/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
> > > han/evolutionary-biography
> > > <http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php>
> > >
> > > Ghost moth research
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
> > > han/ghost-moths
> > > <http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php>
> > >
> > >
> > > Human evolution and the great apes
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
> > > han/human-origins
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >
> > > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be
> searched
> > with either of
> > > these methods:
> > >
> > > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your
> > search terms here
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > 
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched
> with
> > either of these methods:
> > 
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > 
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your
> search
> > terms here
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 