[Taxacom] Long-distance oceanic dispersal (rafting) of Nothofagus species

[John Grehan]

Jason,

I would suggest that the snag is not so much one side claims that molecular
data is glorified phenetics or that dispersal is an unquantified, undefined
amount that exists beyond the equally fuzzy "ecological dispersal". In the
present discussion the issue has revolved around the age of extant
Nothofagus and monkeys. In both cases the challenge presented to their
being young was to ask for evidence. So far the response has been fossils,
but without explaining how the present fossil record precludes Mesozoic
origins for the taxa. There has further been the assumption that molecular
dates are actual or absolute rather than minimal, but Ken says this is a
red herring, I think because he was indicating that his position was not
based on molecular divergence estimates (I may have that wrong in which Ken
can correct).

Arguments about molecular data and trees are phenetic or not is of no
concern as far as biogeographic analysis is concerned - which can analyze
the geographic distribution of any phylogeny.

John Grehan

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:42 PM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

> What I meant is that the topic, as far as I see it, is dead in Taxacom
> (bar a few brave souls) since no fruitful debate is possible. The
> discourse invariably hits the same snags:
>
> One side claims that molecular data is glorified phenetics with no
> contextual value if it contradicts a particular point of
> view/hypothesis.
> Dispersal is an unquantified, undefined amount that exists beyond the
> equally fuzzy "ecological dispersal".
> More fossils can always be found.
>
> As for the field, what I see is that people have long moved on,
> pursuing a hybrid model where the facts, always scarce and patchy, may
> support one model or another, and where novel data may refute previous
> hypotheses. In the end some things have moved (either due to luck or
> ability) and others haven´t, but in the end every case should assume
> that there is no de facto explanation.
>
> Jason
>
> On 4 June 2018 at 16:13, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jason,
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by 'the topic has been dead for years'. Do you
> mean
> > that as far as you are concerned that there is no resolution of the
> > different points of view and that for you the topic is dead - of no
> further
> > interest to you? Certainly for biogeographers in general the topic is not
> > dead since biogeography continues to involve active participation of many
> > biologists. And over the last few years there have been some considerable
> > clarity over the nature of shared biogeographic patterns and their
> > geological correlation that are predictive (of other taxa), testable (in
> the
> > sense of corroboration and also potentially future discoveries), and
> clear
> > definitions that everyone can understand.
> >
> > The principal problem with Ken's assertion about the floating Nothofagus
> > trees (with some upside down!) is that it is a scenario generated by
> > imagination rather than some kind of analysis, and based on an assertion
> > that the taxa involved evolved later than any geological separation, but
> > this is totally without evidence, there being no fossil or calibrated
> > molecular dates that preclude earlier origins. Same goes for his
> assertions
> > about monkeys. The papers he cites simply do what Ken does, assert a
> belief
> > system that monkeys rafted from one region to another, denying any
> > possibility of earlier origin even though there is no actual evidence to
> do
> > so. That is why I call such stories fairy tales. All science generates
> > stories (even in physics). Stories are our models of explanation, but to
> > have some integrity there must be a sequential connection to some
> evidence
> > as it is the nature of evidence that can come under scrutiny and analysis
> > and therefore be part of science. At least that is how I see it.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:57 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> You can´t win this Ken, that is why the topic has been dead for years.
> >> There is a clear problem with a lack of clear, predictive and testable
> >> hypotheses and definitions, without which advance is impossible.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> On 3 June 2018 at 03:51, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >       The recent thread got me thinking about a debate that some of us
> >> > were having on taxacom almost 12 years ago.  Namely whether
> long-distance
> >> > oceanic dispersal (by rafting) was a significant factor in the
> geographic
> >> > distribution of some species of Nothofagus (sensu lato).
> >> >        My hypothesis was that large rafts of dislodged Nothofagus
> trees
> >> > (due to tsunami or other massive flooding event) could have held some
> of
> >> > their fruit above the ocean surface and rafted from Tasmania to New
> Zealand,
> >> > where one or more  new species could evolve (due to founder effect).
> This
> >> > would be a relatively short rafting event compared to the much longer
> >> > driftwood oceanic rafting that happened from South America to
> Tasmania:
> >> > Barber, 1959, in the journal Nature; "Transport of Driftwood from
> South
> >> > America to Tasmania". Is there other evidence that such dispersal of
> >> > Nothofagus could have happened? Could certain insects, mosses, or
> other
> >> > organisms have hitched a ride on such a Nothofagus raft?
> >> >                                    --------------Ken Kinman
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2006-December/108385.html
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> >> > 1987-2018.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> 1987-2018.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>