[Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal (rafting) of mammals in particular
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 10:08:19 CDT 2018
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your latest observations on the subjects. Some reflections below.
“I do not object to vicariance (it explains many distribution
patterns). I just think panbiogeographers tend to overdo vicariance, and
you in particular have a tendency to start ranting when vicariance is
challenged in some cases. So I probably won't be doing any more posts on
the subject.”
No problem with that. All counter responses may be viewed that way. That is
why I have said that what is important is how a particular view is
connected to the evidence and the nature of that evidence. And why should I
not 'rant' when vicariance is challenged? Is that not the nature of science
in general? I suppose one could ignore alternative views and that also is a
choice scientists often make (at least in evolutionary biology).
“I will just close by saying that there seems to be a pattern of
Africa to South America transoceanic dispersal which also includes
caviomorph rodents, the hoatzin, and lots of different small reptiles
(amphisbaenians, geckos, skinks, lizards, and blind snakes). So the New
World monkeys would not be an isolated case.”
So you keep saying. And I keep asking for your to explicitly state the
nature of the evidence, which you keep avoiding. I have no problem with
your presenting your view as we are all entitled to that, but to avoid
making a reasoned argument as to the nature of the evidence and how that
indicates your model and falsifies other evidence of vicariance is
problematic to say the least. It is as if you are trying to protect your
'evidence' from external scrutiny (which again is the nature of being
scientific). If your view is so strongly supported by evidence I would have
thought you would have no such trouble in presenting that evidence – i.e.
explicitly stating the nature of the evidence and how it necessarily means
that vicariance evidence is not real evidence. I get the impression that
chance dispersal is so obvious to you that you decline to provide the
supporting evidence and have little patience with your viewpoint being
challenged.
As you know, I have analyzed some lizard patterns attributed to
trans-oceanic dispersal and shown in detail that in these cases there is no
actual evidence of dispersal and that the patterns conform to a process of
allopatric differentiation. My arguments and evidence may be contested
(which is fine by me), but at least I present the nature of evidence for my
views in considerable detail.
“There are presumably lots of invertebrates and plants that also show this
pattern, but I don't have the time to delve into that.”
No worries, since more assertions of your model would not add anything in
the absence of evidence.
“Vicariance does explain lots of Africa-South America relationships, but I
still think it needs to be challenged in some cases.”
Challenging vicariance is fine, but it needs evidential argument, not just
assertions or, as in the literature, misrepresentations of the fossil
record of calibrated molecular estimates.
“Anyway, if you want answers to all your questions about such hypotheses,
you should stop calling the answers fairy tales. I was not surprised when
Jason said: "None of this is a fairy tale, pseudoscience nor an attack on
vicariance."
I can stop calling them fairly tales when they are sequentially connected
to evidence and that evidence is shown to falsify vicariance. At this point
all I see are assertions without evidence, or artificially created evidence
(molecular divergence that is not correctly presented as minimums).
Actually whether I consider them fairly tales or not is neither here nor
there. Some critics have characterized panbiogeographic reconstructions in
a similar manner. It does not matter. In science (as I understand it) the
issue is always about the presentation and nature of what constitutes
evidence. This seems to me to be as true for a laboratory experiment as it
does for historical reconstruction.
John Grehan
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> I do not object to vicariance (it explains many distribution
> patterns). I just think panbiogeographers tend to overdo vicariance, and
> you in particular have a tendency to start ranting when vicariance is
> challenged in some cases. So I probably won't be doing any more posts on
> the subject.
>
> I will just close by saying that there seems to be a pattern of
> Africa to South America transoceanic dispersal which also includes
> caviomorph rodents, the hoatzin, and lots of different small reptiles
> (amphisbaenians, geckos, skinks, lizards, and blind snakes). So the New
> World monkeys would not be an isolated case. There are presumably lots of
> invertebrates and plants that also show this pattern, but I don't have the
> time to delve into that.
>
> Vicariance does explain lots of Africa-South America relationships,
> but I still think it needs to be challenged in some cases. Anyway, if you
> want answers to all your questions about such hypotheses, you should stop
> calling the answers fairy tales. I was not surprised when Jason said:
> "None of this is a fairy tale, pseudoscience nor an attack on vicariance."
>
> ------------------Ken
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 10:04 PM
> *To:* Kenneth Kinman
> *Cc:* Michael Heads; Taxacom
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal (rafting) of mammals in
> particular
>
>
> Ken,
>
> What I interpret from your position is that when you think a distribution
> arose by chance dispersal then dispersal explains how they got there, and
> if dispersal occurred more than once and did not succeed we will have no
> evidence of it. And allopatry is due to competitive exclusion and sympatry
> is explained as the lack of competitive exclusion. All of this is fine as
> assertions of your personal belief and there is no falsifying that. What is
> at issue, is how you reach the dispersal conclusion in the first place, and
> for both NW primates and Nothofagus you have not explained that.
>
> Jason makes the argument that if a vicariance event to 'too much' earlier
> than the oldest fossil then it cannot be believed. I don’t know if that is
> your position or if this is your reasoning for Nothofagus and Primates.
> Perhaps you would be so good as to make an explicit statement on that? It
> would go a long way to clearing up the otherwise confusing nature of your
> objections to vicariance. I realize that you do not publish on
> biogeographic method and reasoning, but it might be helpful in general to
> better understand how your views are connected to empirical sources since
> many others may share your particular perspective.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, competition between primate groups in Madagascar and America
> would have only been the deciding factor if there were later oceanic
> dispersals, as in Madagascar after lemurs had become so well-established in
> many different ecological niches. Either way (later dispersals or not),
> the lack of overlap is primarily due to the ocean barriers which are very
> difficult to cross. Without ocean barriers, overlap seems to be primarily
> due to noctural vs. diurnal.
>
>
> It is somewhat similar in the case of Carnivora. In Madagascar you
> only have Family Eupleridae, and any subsequent dispersals of the related
> Family Herpestidae would have been prevented by competitive exclusion.
> Elsewhere, the Herpestidae can overlap geographically with Viverridae,
> because Herpestids are primarily terrestrial and diurnal, while Viverrids
> are primarily arboreal and nocturnal.
>
> -------------Ken
>
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 7:28 PM
> To: Kenneth Kinman
> Cc: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Long-distance oceanic dispersal (rafting) of
> Nothofagus species
>
> 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
> <mailto: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<mailto: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.
> [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif]
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com
> <mailto: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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:
> 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<mailto:taxacom-bounces at m
> ailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com<mailto:
> 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<mailto:
> 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<mail
> to: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<mai
> lto: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<mailto: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<
> http://www.cambridge.org/9781107041028>
>
>
> Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. University of California Press,
> Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968<
> http://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/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<
> http://www.cambridge.org/9781107041028>
>
>
> Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. University of California Press,
> Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968<
> http://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/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<
> http://www.cambridge.org/9781107041028>
>
>
> Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. University of California Press,
> Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968<
> http://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/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<
> http://www.cambridge.org/9781107041028>
>
>
> Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. University of California Press,
> Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968<
> http://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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list