[Taxacom] Panbiogeography

[JF Mate]

Thanks Michael for your response. I would have rather had a definition than
a particular example picked a propos but I guess it will have to do.
Notwithstanding my lack of training as a botanist or knowledge in the genus
Veronica,  I have two problems about your explanation.

Firstly the specifics of your example. The distance travelled by a sample
of between 193 and 36 seeds (check it out, fig 3) when splashed by rain is
hardly enough when discussing dispersal. It is useful when studying the
general ecology of a species or, as was the intention of the authors, on
the biomechanics of hygrochastic capsule dehiscence, but that´s it. You
either need seeds large enough that you can track or else studies of
population genetics. But taking the 1m from the article and multiplying it
to get "1,5 million times" is, at best, inaccurate.

As a more general argument, I find fault with your logic. You accuse Meudt
and Bayly (2008, and by extension I suppose non-panbiogeographers) of not
calculating the actual probability of long distance dispersal in each
individual case, yet you are perfectly happy (in general I mean, not
discussing the specifics Veronica sp) with accepting the existence of as
yet unknown tectonic events that can explain all biogeographical events.
Don't you think this is a bit unfair?

As a final comment, there are many examples of events where the probability
cannot be calculated. This doesn't mean that they are a throwback to a
pre-scientific time, as you have subtly insinuated.

Best

Jason