[Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal vs. vicariance
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Sun Jun 17 23:22:52 CDT 2018
Hi Jason,
Comments below:
“John, Michael, this isn´t going anywhere. I was waiting for a hint of
proper debate but instead it all ends in a series of "zingers" written
in scripted, telegraphic style.”
This is not the place to write essays, but everything is published in
considerable detail. Most of the various assertions only require a brief
response.
“I have not seen any ideas presented by
either one of you that aren´t encapsulated and operationalized in a
superior manner in cladistic biogeography or evolutionary
biogeography,”
That’s your opinion, OK.
“sans the unproven axiomatic mania that dispersal doesn´t
occur. In fact, you don´t seem to to agree on a definition of
dispersal or if it even occurs (Michael says he doesn´t question
"slight" dispersal, but you say otherwise).
I figured you would have read the literature so this would not be such a
mystery. So with apologies to the list for some more extended text, here is
some excerpts from Heads 2014
“As de Queiroz accepted, two concepts of dispersal are often confused (p.
10). Normal dispersal is seen every day in the weeds that colonise a
garden, or in an albatross crossing the Pacific, and takes place by normal,
observed means of dispersal. This sort of dispersal does not lead to
speciation. The second sort of dispersal is chance dispersal or founder
dispersal. (This is sometimes called ‘long-distance dispersal’ (LDD),
although it is proposed to take place at many spatial scales.) This process
is an inferred mode of speciation that involves one-off dispersal events
‘across a barrier’ by a founder. It may occur only once in the entire
history of a lineage, and it does not rely on the group’s normal means of
dispersal; these are ‘not informative in the context of LDD (Higgins et al.
2003). Chance dispersal from a centre of origin is the primary concept in
modern dispersal theory. (The term LDD,as used by ecologists, refers simply
to normal dispersal over long distances, with no implication of speciation;
as used by biogeographers and systematists, LDD refers to a mode of
speciation, as described above.)
Another key concept is vicariance. In this process, allopatric forms evolve
following the development of a new geographic barrier within the range of a
widespread ancestor. This contrasts with allopatric speciation by the
chance dispersal of a founder across a prior barrier. In a vicariance
event, the origin of the descendant clades does not involve their range
expansion, although this may, or may not, occur later. Vicariance was a
basic concept of Croizat’s panbiogeography, a synthesis of biology and
geology that gave rise to modern vicariance theory.
Dispersal theory and panbiogeography attribute allopatric speciation to
chance dispersal and to vicariance respectively, but they agree that
overlap is caused by normal dispersal (Table 1). (De Queiroz did not repeat
one myth that is often cited: the idea that vicariance theory denies
dispersal; see Heads 2014b).
In addition to vicariance and normal dispersal, the process of contributes
to distribution patterns. In practice, many accounts ignore extinction in
favour of chance dispersal. For example, the wattles are the species of
Acacia s.lat. (Fabaceae) that bear phyllodes (these species are now treated
as Acacia s. str.). They extend from Réunion island (near Madagascar) via
Australia to Hawaii, a standard pattern (cf. Myoporum: Myoporaceae; Heads
2014c, p. 139). Acacia heterophylla of Réunion is phylogenetically nested
among populations of A. koa of Hawaii, and so Le Roux et al. (2014)
inferred a single dispersal event from Hawaii to Réunion, a distance of 18
000 km. Nevertheless, they did not consider the possibility of extinction
in Australia, and this was also overlooked in a commentary on their paper
(Marris 2014). Widespread extinction in Australia following Miocene
aridification is well documented; however, instead of accepting this normal
process, or even mentioning it, dispersal theorists propose a unique event
for which there is no known mechanism.”
“In regards to the dung beetle fauna of Madagascar, we first have to consider
the fossil evidence. The oldest known Scarabaeinae fossil is of unknown
affinity (Prionocephale deplanate, U Cretaceous; Krell, 2007). Between this
assumed Scarabaeinae fossil and clearly identifiable ones we have to jump
to the Palaeocene-Miocene….their presence there is difficult to reconcile
with a purely vicariant model, even without considering the phylogenetic
evidence which have them evolving in the Palaeocene.”
All this shows is that the oldes fossils of extant taxa are so far in the
Palaeocen-Miocene.
“The Malagasy genera endemic genera (except Onthophagus) that have been
studied yield the following date estimates”
Are these fossil calibrated molecular estimates? If so they are only
minimums.
“However, the "coprophilous" Aphodiini are generally assumed to be
Laurasian in origin (incorrectly in my opinion but we have to refer to the
published studies).”
We do?
“This in itself, plus their assumed recent origin ( <60my; DOI:
10.1016/j.ympev.2003.10.019; the oldest fossil evidence is Miocene.), makes
it almost impossible for the lineage to have been present in Madgascar
before its split from Gondwana.
You said it yourself – assumed recent origin. I don’t see how an assumption
can decide reality.
At the level of the subgenera that exist in Madagascar, most of them
are shared with Africa, even down to species:
“I believe the above examples are sufficient to illustrate the point.”
They illustrate that there are various levels of differentiation involved
ranging across different taxonomic levels.
Cheers,
John Grehan
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:41 PM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
> John, Michael, this isn´t going anywhere. I was waiting for a hint of
> proper debate but instead it all ends in a series of "zingers" written
> in scripted, telegraphic style. I have not seen any ideas presented by
> either one of you that aren´t encapsulated and operationalized in a
> superior manner in cladistic biogeography or evolutionary
> biogeography, sans the unproven axiomatic mania that dispersal doesn´t
> occur. In fact, you don´t seem to to agree on a definition of
> dispersal or if it even occurs (Michael says he doesn´t question
> "slight" dispersal, but you say otherwise). To move the debate towards
> some clear definition of dispersal, I would point to present day,
> observable examples such as Inachis io crossing from Europe to NA or
> Danaus plexippus going the other way. To me these are clear, working
> examples of dispersal, some successful (D. plexippus) others, like
> Inachis io, failing time after time. Neither is a slight jump Please
> think about this carefully before replying.
>
> In regards to the dung beetle fauna of Madagascar, we first have to
> consider the fossil evidence. The oldest known Scarabaeinae fossil is
> of unknown affinity (Prionocephale deplanate, U Cretaceous; Krell,
> 2007). Between this assumed Scarabaeinae fossil and clearly
> identifiable ones we have to jump to the Palaeocene-Miocene, where we
> find ichnofossils (brood balls). This in itself is interesting because
> they are the sort of easily preserved structures we should expect to
> commonly find (actually common in paleosols in SA), but we don´t in
> older deposits, so we must assume that they were either uncommon or
> nonexistent. This doesn´t mean that Scarabaeinae were not found then
> but that lineages that build deep nests with brood balls evolved after
> the K-T. These lineages are also found in Madagascar nowadays
> (Helictopleurus, Onthophagus, Scarabaeus) so their presence there is
> difficult to reconcile with a purely vicariant model, even without
> considering the phylogenetic evidence which have them evolving in the
> Palaeocene.
>
> The Malagasy genera endemic genera (except Onthophagus) that have been
> studied yield the following date estimates:
>
> Arachnodes, Epilissus & Apterepilissus 79-49my
> Nanos & Apotolamprus 24-15my (Wirta, Helena. (2018). Dung beetle
> radiations in Madagascar. )
> Epactoides 30-19my
> Helictopleurus 37-23 (doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.010)
> Scarabaeus 24-15my
> Onthophagus: >3 colonizations (age of entire Onthophagini lineage,
> Palaeocene)
> doi:10.3390/insects2020112
> doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00139.
>
>
> The Aphodiiinae presents more complex biogeography. The oldest fossil
> (a generalized "aegialid-like" genus from the Lower Cretaceous,
> Cretaegialia) suggests a window that may enable some of the lineages
> to be Gondwanan. However, the "coprophilous" Aphodiini are generally
> assumed to be Laurasian in origin (incorrectly in my opinion but we
> have to refer to the published studies). This in itself, plus their
> assumed recent origin ( <60my; DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.10.019; the
> oldest fossil evidence is Miocene.), makes it almost impossible for
> the lineage to have been present in Madgascar before its split from
> Gondwana.
> At the level of the subgenera that exist in Madagascar, most of them
> are shared with Africa, even down to species:
>
> Nonendemic subgenera: Aganocrossus (1 nonendemic sp); Blackburneus (2
> nonendemic sp); Koshantschikovius (4 endemic sp); Paradidactylia (1
> endemic sp); Pleuraphodius (1 endemic sp, 1 nonendemic sp);
> Pharaphodius (1 nonendemic sp, 2 endemic sp); Pseudopharaphodius (1
> nonendemic sp); Labarrus (2 nonendemic sp; 1 tramp; 1 endemic sp);
> Mesontoplatys (2 nonendemic sp); Neocalaphodius (1 nonendemic sp);
> Nialaphodius (2 nonendemic sp).
>
> Endemic Malagasy subgenera: Madagaphodius (1 sp); Neoemadiellus (8 sp).
>
> Bordat, Paulian & Pittino 1990
>
> The other Aphodiinae tribes have varying degrees of endemicity that
> suggest vicariance for some (e.g. Saprosites, Aulonocneminae/i) or
> dispersal for others (Rhyparini). I believe the above examples are
> sufficient to illustrate the point.
>
> Best
>
> Jason
>
> On 12 June 2018 at 23:09, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jason,
> > You write: ''... it seems that we can all more or less agree that
> timing is
> > the key difference between both mechanisms, and in that context
> patterns in
> > themselves can´t distinguish either mechanism, so they are not
> informative
> > in this specific instance and we can dispense with tracks
> > and other such pattern searching'.
> >
> > Of course, you are free to ignore distributions if you like. But here is
> > what the author of the most cited bbiogeographic work had to say:
> >
> > "To do science is to search for repeated patterns, not simply to
> accumulate
> > facts, and to do the science of geographical ecology is to search for
> > patterns of plant and animal life that can be put on a map". (MacArthur,
> > 1972: 1).
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:21 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry to all for dropping off the map. In particular apologies to Ken
> >> for leaving him steadfastly defending the fort on his own. Anyway, it
> >> seems that we can all more or less agree that timing is the key
> >> difference between both mechanisms, and in that context patterns in
> >> themselves can´t distinguish either mechanism, so they are not
> >> informative in this specific instance and we can dispense with tracks
> >> and other such pattern searching.
> >>
> >> So when you claim that “... much of the opposition on timing comes
> >> from rejection of tectonic correlations that are earlier than the
> >> (minimum) molecular estimates.” you are mistaken. The problem is that
> >> if the timing is not in agreement with the tectonic evidence then
> >> vicariance can no longer be a contender for the time being. This is
> >> not a rejection of vicariance but a simple observation that the
> >> evidence available just isn´t´t in agreement and dispersal must be
> >> considered as likely.
> >>
> >> Saying that “To me this is about as feeble as it gets with
> >> biogeography - that dispersal occurred more than once but left no
> >> evidence. But it happened more than once for sure.” is semantic
> >> footplay posing as scientific rigour. There are limitations and these
> >> have always been acknowledged by molecular taxonomists from the
> >> beginning, but not to be used as an underhanded, semantic mallet to
> >> clobber dissent. And therein lies the issue I have with you and
> >> Michael. Nobody is questioning vicariance, you question dispersal. So
> >> really, we only need one example of dispersal to invalidate your
> >> epistemological building and that is pushing you to make semantics
> >> your arena with such choice examples as “I do not complain about
> >> molecular estimates of divergence, I only complain about minimums
> >> being misrepresentated as actual or maximal. There is a difference!”
> >> or “It only involves the Big Lie about molecular estimates.” Quacks
> >> like a duck and all that.
> >>
> >> You also try to distract the argument by introducing other groups that
> >> were not part of the initial discussion. Neither vicariance nor
> >> dispersal are on trial here. They are both generally accepted
> >> mechanisms (except by you two it seems) and the only question
> >> originally posed was, which had a hand in the Platyrrhini, so let´s go
> >> back to the Platyrrhini. The available evidence, the research on this
> >> topic, is pretty much in agreement with Ken´s assertion. What do you
> >> bring to the table to refute this. Claiming that “One can only assert
> >> otherwise by the Große Lüge that fossil calibrated molecular estimates
> >> are not minimums.” is pure semantics. The burden of proof is with you
> >> providing fossil evidence or a new dataset that, when calibrated,
> >> contradicts the previous studies.
> >>
> >> Ken also mentions the Malagasy fauna as having recent elements that
> >> precede its split from Gondwana, and he is correct in this regard as
> >> well. There are truly ancient lineages that are vicariant but much
> >> more recent ones that cannot have arrived by means other than
> >> dispersal (e.g. The dung beetle fauna is a combination). That is my
> >> bit of evidence. If you can provide counterfactual evidence that can
> >> be profitably discussed then that would be great. Semantics not so
> >> much.
> >>
> >> Have a good one.
> >>
> >> On 11 June 2018 at 05:26, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi Ken,
> >> >
> >> > My comments below.
> >> >
> >> > “ I've been reading a variety of papers on the debate (beginning
> about
> >> > 2005) between Alan de Queiroz (and others) on the one hand and Michael
> >> > Heads (and others, incl. John Grehan) on the other. I have come to
> the
> >> > conclusion that both sides represent polar opposites in the debate
> >> > between
> >> > oceanic dispersal and vicariance. The truth is probably somewhere in
> >> > between, meaning that both sides are right about some cases, but wrong
> >> > in
> >> > others. Not at all surprising. “
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > There is no evidence that the ‘truth’ is ‘probably’ somewhere
> inbetween.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “ Perhaps the strongest case for a large number of oceanic dispersals
> is
> >> > probably from the African mainland to Madagascar. “
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What is the purported evidence?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “but there is apparently evidence that some of those dispersals were
> >> > along
> >> > island chains that no longer exist.”
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What is the purported evidence?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “Whether such islands existed or not,”
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Then there is no actual evidence?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “the debate between the two sides seems to be largely centered on
> >> > molecular
> >> > estimates of divergence (about which Grehan seems to repeatedly
> complain
> >> > ad
> >> > nauseum). “
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That comes across as a misrepresentation (unintentional I am sure). I
> do
> >> > not complain about molecular estimates of divergence, I only complain
> >> > about
> >> > minimums being misrepresentated as actual or maximal. There is a
> >> > difference!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “Therefore, my increasing reluctance to respond to his continued
> >> > "baiting".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ????
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “ If he wants evidence, there is lots of evidence in the literature
> from
> >> > many authors (many who seem to be somewhat more objective than Alan de
> >> > Queiroz). “
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Then state what is the purported evidence. No good just saying so.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “The case for oceanic dispersal from Australia (including Tasmania)
> to
> >> > New
> >> > Zealand is admittedly even more controversial. That controversy not
> >> > only
> >> > involves molecular estimates of divergence,”
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It only involves the Big Lie about molecular estimates.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “but also whether or not New Zealand was completely submerged at some
> >> > time
> >> > in the mid Cenozoic.”
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This never had legs to begin with and has been generally buried by
> >> > geologists and even orthodox biogeographers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “ Therefore, I am playing devil's advocate in suggesting how one or
> two
> >> > species of Nothofagus could have rafted from Tasmania to New Zealand
> in
> >> > the
> >> > middle of the Cenozoic. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but
> both
> >> > possibilities should be kept in mind. “
> >> >
> >> > If there is evidence for rafting then sure, consider it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “Given the long-standing debate between Alan de Queiroz and Michael
> >> > Heads,
> >> > I find the Nothofagus case the most challenging (even though some
> >> > earlier
> >> > Nothofagus dispersals seem likely to have been due to vicariance over
> >> > land
> >> > in Gondwana).”
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nothofagus is not a ‘Gondwana’ group.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > “Nothofagus distribution could be due to a combination of both
> >> > vicariance
> >> > and some cases of more recent oceanic dispersal.”
> >> >
> >> > Or not. But panbiogeography shows clearly that such a combination does
> >> > not
> >> > have to be invented.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > John Grehan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I've been reading a variety of papers on the debate (beginning
> >> >> about 2005) between Alan de Queiroz (and others) on the one hand and
> >> >> Michael Heads (and others, incl. John Grehan) on the other. I have
> >> >> come to
> >> >> the conclusion that both sides represent polar opposites in the
> debate
> >> >> between oceanic dispersal and vicariance. The truth is probably
> >> >> somewhere
> >> >> in between, meaning that both sides are right about some cases, but
> >> >> wrong
> >> >> in others. Not at all surprising.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps the strongest case for a large number of oceanic
> >> >> dispersals
> >> >> is probably from the African mainland to Madagascar. And the case
> for
> >> >> numerous oceanic dispersals between the African mainland and South
> >> >> America
> >> >> (when they were closer together) is more controversial, but there is
> >> >> apparently evidence that some of those dispersals were along island
> >> >> chains
> >> >> that no longer exist. Whether such islands existed or not, the
> debate
> >> >> between the two sides seems to be largely centered on molecular
> >> >> estimates
> >> >> of divergence (about which Grehan seems to repeatedly complain ad
> >> >> nauseum). Therefore, my increasing reluctance to respond to his
> >> >> continued
> >> >> "baiting". If he wants evidence, there is lots of evidence in the
> >> >> literature from many authors (many who seem to be somewhat more
> >> >> objective
> >> >> than Alan de Queiroz).
> >> >>
> >> >> The case for oceanic dispersal from Australia (including
> >> >> Tasmania)
> >> >> to New Zealand is admittedly even more controversial. That
> controversy
> >> >> not
> >> >> only involves molecular estimates of divergence, but also whether or
> >> >> not
> >> >> New Zealand was completely submerged at some time in the mid
> Cenozoic.
> >> >> Therefore, I am playing devil's advocate in suggesting how one or
> two
> >> >> species of Nothofagus could have rafted from Tasmania to New Zealand
> in
> >> >> the
> >> >> middle of the Cenozoic. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but
> both
> >> >> possibilities should be kept in mind. Given the long-standing debate
> >> >> between Alan de Queiroz and Michael Heads, I find the Nothofagus case
> >> >> the
> >> >> most challenging (even though some earlier Nothofagus dispersals seem
> >> >> likely to have been due to vicariance over land in Gondwana).
> >> >> Nothofagus
> >> >> distribution could be due to a combination of both vicariance and
> some
> >> >> cases of more recent oceanic dispersal.
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------Ken
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------
> >> >> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:08 AM
> >> >> *To:* Kenneth Kinman
> >> >> *Cc:* Michael Heads; Taxacom
> >> >> *Subject:* Re: Oceanic dispersal (rafting) of mammals in particular
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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