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

Wed Jun 6 19:28:02 CDT 2018

you explain the lack of overlap between the two primate clades in
Madagascar and America by competition, but the overlap in Africa and Asia
by a lack of competition. How does that work?

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Michael,
>
>       (1) I've already explained the probable reason that Haplorhines are
> absent from Madagascar.   Lemur ancestors got their first, radiated into
> all the available niches (which are quite varied), and competitive
> exclusion would have prevented any later haplorhine dispersals from
> becoming established (if there were any).
>
>      (2) The same is probably true for the absence of Strepsirrhines from
> America.  Haplorhines just dispersed there first.
>
>      (3)  And finally, the overlap of the two groups in much of Africa and
> Asia is probably because where they do overlap geographically, the
> Strepsirrhines are usually noctural and the Haplorhines are usually
> diurnal.  The only times they might be active at the same time would be
> around dusk and dawn.
>
>                       ----------------Ken
>
> P.S.  As for the two butterfly sister groups, butterflies wouldn't be
> killing rival intruders coming into their territories.  Primates on the
> other hand can be quite vicious if a rival competitor invades their
> territory.  The same is true for Carnivora.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 5:49 PM
> *To:* Kenneth Kinman; Taxacom
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Long-distance oceanic dispersal (rafting) of
> Nothofagus species
>
> 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.c
> o.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/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.c
> o.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>