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

[Sergio Vargas]

  Hi,

 >Panbiogeographic methodology does not assume dispersal or vicariance.

nice, yet another assumption free method... how do you identify what 
happened in the absence of a null model? and,
if does not assume dispersal or vicariance, could panbiogeography ever 
conclude that dispersal was responsible for anything?

 >Which information specifically?

cladograms, to direct the graphs.

 >This is bizarre beyond belief. This would get a zero on an exam question.

good that you are not grading me! :-)

 >Again bizarre stuff. Obviously never even read Craw et al (1999).

nop, too expensive for me. Do you need a phylogeny to draw a track? I 
thought you didn't, but I haven't read Craw et al. 1999, my bad.

 >It does not matter whether [dispersal] its random or not.

ok, is even simpler: dispersal never ever happened. Getting nervous...

 >You 'think'?

I guess?

 >If one read dispersalist theory one usually finds that the underlying 
dispersalist objection lies
 >in a rejection of spatial information in biogeographic analysis. 
Anything else is ok - whether it
 >be fossils, molecular divergence dates, belief in means of dispersal 
or centers of origin. Anything
 >at all, as long as it is not geography.

and so? panbiogeographers reject anything else and accept only 
geography? getting more nervous...

 >Another problem? Oh goody.

well, it is actually a major problem. At least for people using 
compatibility to find generalized tracks.

 >Since when is clique analysis the only panbiogeographic method?

well, it has been used frequently to find generalized tracks, even if it 
assumes vicariance
(and panbiogeography apparently doesn't).

I guess, I'll have to read Craw et al. 1999.

sergio