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

Wed May 18 19:55:53 CDT 2011

Hi Dick,

I think I was setting up the situation, in my mind, where there is no evidence that a particular species ever was 
at a particular place., therefore, we invoke # 1 or # 2.

To cover Ken's statment, regarding that individuals got there, but no pairs, no pregnant females, etc., just individuals, 
one at a time, and each died before the next one came, or, may not have died beforehand, but the second one and the 
first one never found one another, or maybe both were males.  In a way, that is my # 1 - it cannot live there.

If we find evidence that the particular species WAS there, even for a short time, then we have to invoke # 1if the species 
is not there today.
So, circling in on my own logic, if a species that was there, established, and is now gone (extinct), can I invoke # 1 again? 
Surely, if it was there and does not carry on indefinitely, then it has to be # 1.  

But then we have to try to figure out the reason it could not live there: summer too short; winter too long; one or more essential 
minerals or protein precursors not there; predators; parasites; and the list grows.

I need another beer.

Robin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dick Jensen 
  To: Robin Leech 
  Cc: John Grehan ; Taxacom 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of Life

  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