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

Wed May 18 19:39:00 CDT 2011

Hi Robin,

I don't think it is semantics.  As you said, "A species is not found in a particular area for one of 2 reasons:

1. It cannot live there.
2. It hasn't gotten there yet."

If the species had been there for some time, but is now extinct, that would be a logical 3rd reason why it is not found there today.  Perhaps you didn't mean to imply "today", but I think extinction cannot be ignored. The passenger pigeon is no longer found in North America, not because of your reasons 1 or 2, but because of extinction.  

Cheers,

Dick J  

----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
To: Dick Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
Cc: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>, Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of Life

Hi Dick,
Well, a possibility, but unless it was a very 

fleeting visit and 
die out, there is usually some evidence.  

To say "go extinct", in my view, suggests that the 

organism was 
there for some time, breeding and dispersing in the 

particular area.  
Simply getting to a particular area, and not 

surviving even one 
generation, hardly rates "extinction".  But it 

is semantics.
Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From:Dick 

  Jensen
To:Robin Leech
Cc:John Grehan ; Taxacom
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:38 

  PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar 

  (eds) The Timetree of Life

Robin,

how about 

3. It went extinct

as a 

  third reason?

----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
To: John Grehan 

  <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>, 

  Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: 

  Wed, 18 May 2011 13:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar 

  (eds) The Timetree of Life

A species is not found in a particular area 

  for one of 2 reasons:

That puts Ken's 

  comments dead centre.

Robin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: 

  "John Grehan" 
To: "Taxacom" 

Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:24 

  AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of 

  Life

That was my point exactly, and if one (tree construction 

  whether cladistic 
or otherwise) is 'analysis' so to is panbiogeography. 

  And regardless as to 
whether or not panbiogeography is 'not good practice' 

  it works, and works 
well (which then forces the retort that it was all 

  dumb luck anyhow).

John Grehan

-----Original 

  Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 

[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard 

  Zander
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:26 AM
To: Jason Mate; 

  Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of 

  Life

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 USAï¿½
Web sites: 

  http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ï¿½and 

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

_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a 

  Google search specified 

  as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your 

  search terms here