[Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of Life

[Richard Zander]

Wonderful (as in full of wonder) and informative exchange between Jason Mate and John Grehan. Jason is correct that relegating non-pattern data to a (panbiogeographic) pattern is not good practice. On the other hand, don't phylogeneticists do the same, relegating such to a cladogram? 

Finding animals in clouds is pareidolia. We taxacommers are often pareidolized.  :  )

 
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA�
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/�and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jason Mate
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 6:06 PM
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of Life


Dear John,


You bring panbiogeography to the mix at your own risk. The risk being that you will start subordinating the facts to the pattern. Now if I had two sister clades, as in the rodent article, one in South America and one in Africa, it could be vicariance or it could be dispersal. The key is timing. We are all in agreement that fossils provide a minimal age but there is (or should) also a reasonable maximal age (best estimated by the fossil record of related groups). Of course with no bottom it becomes impossible (-ish) to refute vicariance. And that is my point with Michael´s article.


[snip]
You are moving way beyond the topic here. But in any case tracks are not a method of analysis. You are describing a pattern and then trying to impose it on other patterns. Humans have this tendency to learn a pattern and then look for it. Like finding animals in the clouds or in a piece of wood, just because it looks like something it doesn´t mean it is the same thing.

Good night

Jason