[Taxacom] Columbiformes, ghost moths, Madagascar, etc.

[John Grehan]

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:58 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Columbiformes, ghost moths, Madagascar, etc.

Hi John, 
>         No, it's not my imagination assuming that it
> reflects reality, it's called brain-storming, imagining what MIGHT
> reflect reality and thus possible areas for future study.  

Well one may brainstorm about the ecology of 'Wonderland' too. If one brainstorms about the reality of imaginary phenomena then the result is just as imaginary. In my opinion.

> Frankly, my
> brain-storming over the past 9 days were the result of your knee-jerk
> reaction against the publication indicating that New World Crocodylus
> species probably evolved from a transoceanic dispersal of the Nile
> crocodile. 

Restless leg syndrome

> First you railed against molecular clocks (which the paper
did not employ), 

Well my railing against molecular clocks (actually their misapplication of fossils)


> and then you switched to the imperfect fossil record
> (and you can invalidate almost any hypothesis if you assume a long
> enough ghost lineage however unlikely it is). 

Well true, but here it was a matter of calling attention to the problematic assumptions of the paper.

>        Vicariance is fine where it is appropriate, but I just think you
> put too much emphasis on vicariance (just as you apparently think I put
> too put too much emphasis on dispersal).  

Its less about emphasis than evidence.

> But I am obviously not the
> only one on Taxacom who thinks you far are too quick to criticize
> dispersal.

Always security in numbers
     

>        ANYWAY, I have no definitive answer to the
> absence of Hepialidae from Madagascar. 

Of course, but the point is that presence and absence in Madagascar is more than just individual appeals to dispersal. Madagascar is one of the five major biogeographic Gates which are centers of presence as well as absence.

> However, just to brain-storm alittle, I would guess it could 
> be related to the reason that Hepialidae
> is absent (or apparently absent) from the west African tropics. 
> I suppose one possibility is that they are actually present in such areas,
> but so cryptic or rare than they haven't been discovered yet. 
> I would
> tend to bet that this is the case for the west African tropics and that
> they will be eventually be documented there.  

Thee bugs are pretty big. However, it is possible that they have been missed. But even if present, their presence is very minimal in terms of diversity and this is as significant as their possible absence. Also, the apparent absence in West African tropics may correlate with the phylogeny of this group possibly emphasizing the Pacific (I say possibly as this group is not well resolved phylogenetically).
        
> Bats love moths, and very primitive lepidopterans  like
> Hepialidae no doubt lack the ability of more derived Lepidoptera which
> can detect bat sonar and evolved avoidance strategies to counter bat
> predation. 

Hepialids do well in areas with bats.

> Who knows?  

Precisely.
            
>       As for Michael's problem of Columba being absent
> from Madagascar, I frankly have no good hypotheses offhand. Perhaps
> predators on Madagacar 

Perhaps this or that, or perhaps they originated there from a previously widespread ancestor.

             --------------Ken             
> P.S.  But as Chris mentioned on the "Fly" thread, don't get too uppity
> and critical of freebie advice and information.  

I'll try to keep your sensibilities in mind

> There are a lot of
> other activities (family history, gardening, family activities, etc.)
> that I find more rewarding and a lot less aggravating than what I often
> get on Taxacom.  

I have never found TAXACOM aggravating. I do get out in the garden occasionally as well.

John Grehan