[Taxacom] Biogeography of Australasia

Mon Mar 24 23:11:59 CDT 2014

Shallow water species would need to lack actively swimming or planktonic or phoretic larvae ...

________________________________
From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>; Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2014 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biogeography of Australasia

Many cases of vicariance in island groups are most easily explained if the organisms regularly move between nearby islands, as a metapopulation on individually ephemeral islands. If the island group is rifted apart, the metapopulation may be divided by vicariance into two, as between Vanuatu and Fiji for example. This process can  operate on terrestrial biota, but also reef groups that require shallow water.

Michael

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

The distinction between vicariance vs. dispersal scenarios really only makes sense for terrestrial allopatric species separated on oceanic islands. Then we can ask if one of the species is derived from ancestors which did not need to swim or fly from another island. This would be vicariance. Amphibians are good examples, as they can't fly (actively or passively) and they can't tolerate seawater.
>
>Stephen
>
>From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
>To: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> 
>Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
>Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2014 4:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biogeography of Australasia
>
>
>Hi Jason,
>
>You said:
>
>'This is a play on words. There is no valid/clear-cut distinction
>between "chance dispersal", "range extension" or your "dispersal" vs
>the meaning of the word as used by most biologists. I understand that
>panbiogeography requires this (non-existant) difference to distinguish
>itself, but in the end you only need a few observed cases of organisms
>crossing barriers to show that, given the right conditions, dispersal
>is a valid mechanism.'
>
>The difference between normal, observed dispersal discussed by ecologists
>(e.g. weeds dispersing into a garden), and chance, 'jump' or 'long
>distance' dispersal as invoked by evolutionists, is that the former does
>not involve differentiation, whereas the latter is proposed as a mode of
>speciation.
>
>Dispersal theory explains range overlap by dispersal, but also explains
>allopatry by dispersal. Vicariance theory explains range overlap by
>dispersal, but explains allopatry by vicariance. Note that the dispersal
>invoked in vicariance theory is caused by geological change, whereas
>dispersal as invoked by dispersal theory to explain allopatry, is caused by
>chance.
>
>Michael
>
>
>On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:03 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mostly a reply to John but a sprinkling to Michael as well
>>
>> The use of quotes such as "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 ..."
>> suggests that, either by accident or design, you (John) are implying
>> dispersal is a mechanism akin to religion. That and the daily readings
>> suggest baiting.
>>
>> As to why congruence of phylogeny and known geological events is
>> important (your words):  "...sequence of geological events may
>> indicate that the phylogeny predates the geology, is related to a
>> different geology, or that the geological reconstruction is wrong."
>> John, this makes Panbiogeography unfalsifiable. Your fallback line is
>> "geology/genes/phylogeny" could be wrong if they don´t match a purely
>> vicariant model. Yes, I am sure that as more evidence acumulates the
>> biogeographical scenarios of certain groups will have to change. But
>> where panbiogeography fails is in the closed, one size-fits-all
>> mechanism department. Science is never "the last word" but the best
>> fit to facts. By using this to shield Panbiogeography you are
>> purposefully using scientific uncertainty to protect your ideas.
>>
>> As to "The significance of observed cases of dispersal of highly
>> vagile species as evidence of chance dispersal being a significant
>> force in biogeography is questionable and does not predict the
>> tectonic correlations between good and poor dispersers (in the sense
>> of means of dispersal)." There are plenty of examples of species
>> (mostly good flyers) which have crossed significant barriers (even
>> oceans) and colonized new areas in recent history. How are these
>> examples not appropriate to the discussion? As for successful
>> colonization, just look at gardeners in Europe or NA. Thousands of
>> introduced, carefully nurtured plants, often cultured for generations
>> and only a small fraction ever becomes naturalized. I acknowledge the
>> fact that successful dispersal over significant barriers (sea, major
>> ranges) can be an unlikely event on a daily event but over millions of
>> years a small probability can really make a impact. The mechanism is
>> certainly common enough to suggest it does not require divine
>> intervention to happen.
>>
>> "Similarly, repopulation does not substanciate chance dispersal as a
>> significant force in the sense of chance dispersal being a major
>> mechanism in biogeography." and Michael "No-one is arguing that
>> dispersal is a significant force. All organisms have dispersed to
>> their current locations. Dispersal can be observed every day.
>> Vicariance biogeography has never denied dispersal - you can't just
>> have vicariance otherwise there would only be a single taxon in any
>> area."
>>
>> This is a play on words. There is no valid/clear-cut distinction
>> between "chance dispersal", "range extension" or your "dispersal" vs
>> the meaning of the word as used by most biologists. I understand that
>> panbiogeography requires this (non-existant) difference to distinguish
>> itself, but in the end you only need a few observed cases of organisms
>> crossing barriers to show that, given the right conditions, dispersal
>> is a valid mechanism. Maybe not 99% of the time, but chance plays a
>> bigger part in evolution than 0, and that is what matters.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Dunedin, New Zealand.
>
>My recent books:
>
>*Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics.* 2012. University of California
>Press, Berkeley. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968
>
>*Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. 2014. Cambridge
>University Press, Cambridge. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>
>

-- 

Dunedin, New Zealand. 

My recent books:

Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. 2012.University of California Press, Berkeley. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968

Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis. 2014. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028 