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

[Richard Pyle]

Not intentionally.  

Sorry if I've missed the larger issue.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Leech [mailto:releech at telus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:14 PM
> To: Richard Pyle; 'Dick Jensen'
> Cc: 'Taxacom'
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of Life
> 
> I believe you are juggling my comments.
> Robin
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> To: "'Robin Leech'" <releech at telus.net>; "'Dick Jensen'"
> <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
> Cc: "'Taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Hedges /Kumar (eds) The Timetree of Life
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I disagree.  That a species does not live somewhere, where it once lived in
> the past, does not mean it *cannot* live there now.  It only means that it
> failed (for whatever reason) when it was there before.  Perhaps it failed
> because conditions are such that it cannot live there; but it may also have
> failed as a result of anomalous circumstances  that no longer apply (e.g.,
> unusual climate conditions, catastrophic event, predator that has also gone
> extinct; prey that went extinct but has since become re-established, etc.).
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> 
>