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

Wed Jun 6 17:49:03 CDT 2018

How do you explain the example I mentioned - two butterfly sister groups
with partial overlap? This is a very common type of pattern.

The monkeys (discussed at length in my 'Tropics' book and in Zool.
Scripta.  39: 107. 2010) are another example of this:

Haplorhines (monkeys etc.): America, Africa, Asia (not Madagascar).
Strepsirrhines (lemurs etc.): Africa, Madagascar, Asia (not America).

Competitive exclusion doesn't explain the absences in America and
Madagascar, as the two groups overlap extensively through Africa and Asia.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:

> How do you explain the example I mentioned - two butterfly sister groups
> with partial overlap? This is a very common type of pattern.
>
> The monkeys (discussed at length in my 'Tropics' book and in Zool.
> Scripta.  39: 107. 2010) are another example of this:
>
> Haplorhines (monkeys etc.): America, Africa, Asia (not Madagascar).
> Strepsirrhines (lemurs etc.): Africa, Madagascar, Asia (not America).
>
> Competitive exclusion doesn't explain the absences in America and
> Madagascar, as the two groups overlap extensively through Africa and Asia.
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>        Competitive exclusion as it relates to oceanic dispersal does not
>> have to be between groups that are that closely related.  It
>> perhaps explains why there are no monkeys in Madagascar.  The lemur
>> ancestor dispersed to Madagascar first.  If any monkeys dispersed to
>> Madagascar later, they would have found all their niches filled by
>> well-established lemurs.
>>
>>      And likewise, lemurs may have dispersed back into mainland Africa,
>> but if they did, they would have found their niches already filled by
>> monkeys.  So many monkeys that the lemur invaders would probably be killed
>> by them.
>>
>>      So your question "why only once" is answered.  It probably wasn't
>> only once.  There are probably lots of cases with multiple dispersals of a
>> group, but only the first to disperse became well-established, and small
>> numbers of later dispersers simply died very soon after arriving.  They
>> would have left no evidence of their dispersal.
>>
>>                 ---------------Ken
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 4:18 PM
>> *To:* Kenneth Kinman
>> *Cc:* Taxacom
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Long-distance oceanic dispersal (rafting) of
>> Nothofagus species
>>
>> the competitive exclusion idea only works if the clades are allopatric.
>> In many cases two groups overlap in large parts of their range. For
>> example, the Polyura 'eudamippus  group' of butterflies: China to Sumatra
>> and Borneo; P.  'pyrrhus group':Sumatra (not Borneo) to SE Australia and
>> Fiji. The two groups overlap through Sumatra.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>>        Excellent post.  Regarding Michael's "why only once" argument, I
>> would only add that I have provided another explanation in a post back in
>> 2012.  Namely: competitive exclusion, where the first dispersal is so
>> successful that it fills all the niches for that animal or plant.  If
>> another dispersal happens millions of years later, they usually can't
>> compete with the already well-established populations of its relative.
>>
>>       Here is a quote from the end of my posting on 01 January 2012:
>>
>> "In view of John's criticisms, it should be remembered that dispersal
>> ability certainly does not ensure that oceanic dispersals will be
>> successful in most cases. Being able to disperse long distances is only the
>> first step, but lack of suitable habitat, and more importantly competitive
>> exclusion by other taxa already well-established, are obviously barriers to
>> even good dispersers being automatically spread geographically. Such
>> arguments against dispersalist hypotheses are therefore unconvincing
>> (perhaps simple, but perhaps too often simplistic)."
>>
>> Here's a weblink to that post: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipe
>> rmail/taxacom/2012-January/121575.html
>>
>>
>> -------------Ken
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of JF Mate <
>> aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 11:23 AM
>> To: Taxacom
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Long-distance oceanic dispersal (rafting) of
>> Nothofagus species
>>
>> John,
>>
>> analyzing biogeographic distributions is not very useful in the
>> absence of a time scale. Timing is often the only difference between
>> dispersal and vicariance, and all the arguments I can recall revolve
>> around the absolute or relative timing of splits of one lineage vs
>> another and/vs tectonics. That is why I think you focus so much on the
>> only proxy we have to complete the extremely patchy fossil record.
>> In the particular case of the Platyrrhini, the available evidence
>> suggests that the age for the group is c. 25-32mya
>> (https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msg172) and this is the most widely
>> accepted date (give or take but close to this range) using well
>> accepted molecular dating methods and fossils. You can quibble about
>> fossils and calibrations if the window was small enough, but the gap
>> is a chasm considering what you would need for the alternate scenario,
>> so we can only conclude, based on the available evidence at hand, that
>> the NW monkeys arrived there over sea and not as a result of
>> vicariance. Should fossils be found at a later date that push the
>> origin back sufficiently to consider the latter scenario then great,
>> but so far this is not the case. If they made it there swimming,
>> rafting or island-hopping (all three possible perfectably reasonable
>> dispersal mechanisms) is a matter of testing the ability of these
>> monkeys to survive each of these scenarios. None of this is a fairy
>> tale, pseudoscience nor an attack on vicariance.
>>
>> This sort of dovetails with Michael´s often repeated question of "why
>> only once". My answer is because dispersal is hard, unplanned and the
>> chances of success slim to nil.
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 June 2018 at 01:00, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dunedin, New Zealand.
>>
>> My books:
>>
>> *Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC,
>> Boca Raton FL. 2017.  https://www.routledge.com/Biog
>> eography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand/Heads/p/book/9781498751872
>>
>>
>> *Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge
>> University Press, Cambridge. 2014. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028
>>
>>
>> *Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California
>> Press, Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968
>>
>>
>> *Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University
>> Press, New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
>> http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC
>> <http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dunedin, New Zealand.
>
> My books:
>
> *Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC, Boca
> Raton FL. 2017.  https://www.routledge.com/Biogeography-and-Evolution-in-
> New-Zealand/Heads/p/book/9781498751872
>
>
> *Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge
> University Press, Cambridge. 2014. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028
>
>
> *Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California
> Press, Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968
>
>
> *Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University Press,
> New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan). http://books.google.
> co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC
> <http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Dunedin, New Zealand.

My books:

*Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC, Boca
Raton FL. 2017.
https://www.routledge.com/Biogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand/Heads/p/book/9781498751872

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

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

*Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University Press,
New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC
<http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s>