[Taxacom] Biogeography of Australasia

[JF Mate]

John you have been baiting and Ken bit, and naive me, I too will
follow. I think that the choice of words (miraculous?) speaks volumes
as to the impossibility of discussing panbiogeography in a logical
fashion. As for believing, well, we take leaps of faith, possibly not
based on the best of evidence. Having said that, the repopulation of
islands after devastation or the observed cases of dispersal of highly
vagile species, together with phylogenitic patterns which are
incongruent with the timing or sequence of geological events are,
IMHO, sufficient to make dispersal a significant force in
biogeography.


Best
Jason

On 21 March 2014 12:04, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> It was Darwin who invoked the concept of miracles for anyone denouncing his
> theory of centers of origin and dispersal.  You are welcome to believe in
> extraordinary events as the basis of biogeography and evolution, but the
> point is that such an approach calls upon 'miraculous' events to explain
> patterns when such events are not even necessary.
>
> Explain away what 'survivors'. What you 'suspect' is uninformative. Better
> to read the book and then make assertions. . The 'superiority of
> panbiogeography , as I see it, is that it relies on the empirical facts of
> distribution, not to which area of the world it is applied since it is
> applied to all areas, as you will see in Heads' book if you take the time
> to read it.
>
> If there is no doubt many such cases of tracks and dispersals (this does
> not actually make any sense) this would have been demonstrated, but it has
> not.
>
> Caecillians are neither here nor there when it comes to biogeography since
> 'good dispersers' and 'poor dispersers' show the same tectonic
> correlations. In this context caecillians are no better or worse a
> demonstration of vicariance than any other group..
>
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi John,
>>           I don't think extraordinary events only happen once in tens of
>> millions of years.  Depending on the ability of an organism to disperse
>> across "large" distances, some such events could easily occur on the order
>> of thousands of years (not millions), but either way most simply fail to
>> become well-established where they happen to land (whether that dispersal
>> was by ocean currents, wind, on rafts of vegetation, or on the bodies of
>> vagrant animals, such as seeds or parasites).  Even those which do become
>> well-established would admittedly be "difficult to investigate or test",
>> but that certainly doesn't warrant your commentary that such
>> extraordinary events in evolutionary history should be compared with
>> miracles (a religious concept).
>>
>>       And Australia's long history of geographic isolation in particular
>> makes it a very poor candidate for documenting cases of dispersal
>> survivors, but I suspect panbiogeographers are inclined to explain away
>> such survivors in favor of a non-dispersal explanation.  So I am not
>> surprised that chance dispersal was not "necessarily" invoked in this book
>> on a very isolated part of the world.  A similar book on the biota of
>> Madagascar might be a better test of how superior panbiogeography might be
>> to other approaches.
>>
>>                  ---------------------------Ken
>>
>> P.S.  And by the way, there are no doubt many cases where it is actually a
>> combination of panbiogeographic "tracks" and dispersals that are the best
>> explanation (geographic factors constraining most dispersals to such
>> "tracks").  Why does it necessarily have to be just one or the other?
>>  Perhaps you are just too prone to explain such "tracks" by vicariance
>> rather than by constrained dispersal routes.  There could well be a
>> continuum from very rare dispersals (on the order of millions of years) to
>> more frequent dispersals (between a thousand and a million years).  So much
>> time during which many extraordinary events could occur.   I see no use in
>> branding any of them with a loaded term like "miracle".   Not that
>> vicariance should be dismissed either, especially in organisms like
>> caecilians that have very low dispersal potential----but one family of
>> caecilians apparently hitched a ride as India drifted from Africa to Asia.
>>  Probably one of the best cases of continental drift and vicariance
>>  explaining geographically separated taxa.   So I am certainly not
>> anti-vicariance.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> John Grehan quoted and then commented:
>>
>> > P 12 "The fourth process, speciation by founder dispersal, is
>> > controversial. It explains geographic distribution by chance -
>>
>> > extraordinary events that are proposed to happen only once in tens of
>> > millions of years...Chance dispersal events do not correlate with any
>> other
>> > physical or biological factor and can explain any distribution, but they
>> > are also difficult to investigate or test. Chance dispersal may occur,
>> but
>> > it has not been necessary to invoke it for any of the Australasian
>> > distributions examined in this book."
>> >
>> > Mike's previous book has been criticized by molecular dispersalists for
>> > using vicariance, and yet, as is pointed out above, it is not even
>> > necessary to invoke chance dispersal through extraordinary events. To
>> > invert Darwin's (1859) appealing to the extraordinary is akin to
>> appealing
>> > to miracles.
>> >
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.