[Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal vs. vicariance

[John Grehan]

Hi Daniel,

Enjoying your observations. My comments inserted below:

“You're missing the point. Whether or not your argument is actually correct,
couching your opponent's argument in nazi propaganda does nothing
meaningful to the debate, and does indeed make you look like Makhan et al.”

There’s nothing particularly nazi about it. I did not call attention to its
nazi use (at least I don’t think I did) (and anyway, Stalin also apparently
adopted the same reasoning). The point is that the proposition that fossil
calibrated molecular dates are actual or maximal is effectively asserting,
and continuing to assert (with minor exceptions so far) a major untruth.

“When someone first showed people in my lab the "article" in which Makhan
declares that because another coleopterist is Austrian, Makhan is obviously
the innocent victim of an international nazi conspiracy to deny the truth
that only he can reveal (for a not insubstantial price), it certainly made
us raise our eyebrows. What it didn't do was make us think, maybe Makhan is
correct.”

Not relevant here. I was not accusing anyone of being a nazi, or that there
is any international conspiracy in this matter.

“I am indeed not familiar with this whole debate, other than what I've read
on taxacom over the years (though these discussions tend to become very
tedious after a while).”

They are tedious for you. OK, no problem. delete button.

“However, if there is a "very large published literature" out there on the
subject, then evidently there is no conspiracy to suppress these facts you
assert, making the comparison with Hitler's Grosse Lüge even more
preposterous.”

I think a couple of different things are mixed up here. One is suppression
of panbiogeography, which fortunately has not been completely successful,
although successful in part depending on individual journals and editors.
When I say a very large published literature, it is certainly a small piece
of the total pie. Certainly suppression was much more successful in the
1950’s-1970’s in the English speaking world. Second is the Big Lie – this
just referring to the molecular divergence question.

“It may just be that the evidence you refer to isn't as convincing as you
believe it is to people who don't already agree with you.”
But of course.

“I have no idea, I've never worked with biogeography, and if your side of
the debate is as repetitive and poorly organised as Heads' 2010 article
(which I read the other day as it was referenced so many times here
recently), then maybe you need to work on presenting your ideas and data in
a different fashion?”
All this says is that the paper did not communicate with you in the way you
wanted it to. Darwin’s book is ‘repetitive and poorly organized’. But so
what? Usually anything that comes across as contrary to one’s perspective
can be seen that way.

“What I *do* know, however, is that the discussion over Eichler's ideas has
ended entirely. …….seems ludicrous to me to suggest that animals that can
freely fly and walk and crawl and jump and whatever could not do that
sufficiently frequently that a similar balance shouldn't be seen in them.”

Perhaps so, or perhaps not. That is the question. (Oops – allusion to
Shakespeare purely unintentional, but what the heck). In traditional
biogeography the supposed ability to disperse has often been taken as an
indicator of the biogeographic process. Another approach is to analyze
patterns to assess the role of the ability to disperse (move about).

Cheers,
John Grehan


On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Leo Gustafsson <
kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com> wrote:

> You're missing the point. Whether or not your argument is actually correct,
> couching your opponent's argument in nazi propaganda does nothing
> meaningful to the debate, and does indeed make you look like Makhan et al.
> When someone first showed people in my lab the "article" in which Makhan
> declares that because another coleopterist is Austrian, Makhan is obviously
> the innocent victim of an international nazi conspiracy to deny the truth
> that only he can reveal (for a not insubstantial price), it certainly made
> us raise our eyebrows. What it didn't do was make us think, maybe Makhan is
> correct.
>
> I am indeed not familiar with this whole debate, other than what I've read
> on taxacom over the years (though these discussions tend to become very
> tedious after a while). However, if there is a "very large published
> literature" out there on the subject, then evidently there is no conspiracy
> to suppress these facts you assert, making the comparison with Hitler's
> Grosse Lüge even more preposterous. It may just be that the evidence you
> refer to isn't as convincing as you believe it is to people who don't
> already agree with you. I have no idea, I've never worked with
> biogeography, and if your side of the debate is as repetitive and poorly
> organised as Heads' 2010 article (which I read the other day as it was
> referenced so many times here recently), then maybe you need to work on
> presenting your ideas and data in a different fashion?
>
> What I *do* know, however, is that the discussion over Eichler's ideas has
> ended entirely. We now have overwhelming evidence that host-switching (i.e.
> the analogue of dispersal) happens very frequently even in chewing lice
> (which, remember, lack a free-living stage and thus live as eggs, nymphs
> and adults on the same host, unless that host comes in physical contact
> with another host), and that Fahrenholz' rule (i.e. the analogue of
> vicariance) is only sometimes correct. There are enough instances of
> chewing lice switching hosts to new species, genera, families, orders, and
> -- in at least one inferred case -- class, despite having no free-living
> stage, that it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that animals that can
> freely fly and walk and crawl and jump and whatever could not do that
> sufficiently frequently that a similar balance shouldn't be seen in them.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:14 AM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel,
> >
> > Thanks for the perspective. In my opinion (and of course its just an
> > opinion, so free to say its wrong) all forms of science as practiced by
> > people may be subject to assertions that belie the facts (yes, some say
> > facts are all theories anyway). But the focus of my assertion about the
> Big
> > Lie was in reference to molecular divergence estimates - that no matter
> how
> > often said to be otherwise (and it is a lot) it is not the case. And some
> > objections have been couched in terms of beliefs, but beliefs only define
> > our personal choices, not what science is. Creationism - I forget the
> > specifics, but if this were in reference to assertions about belief then
> > that indeed was the shared perspective.
> >
> > To anyone not familiar with the literature itself, I can indeed see how
> > the discussion here on Taxacom may seem to just be a quirk of different
> > dogmas. But the matter is not just that. There is a very large published
> > literature out there that does present information that constitutes
> > evidence for particular interpretations that conflict with commonly held
> > views to the contrary. This does not get well explored here because
> > criticisms presented in Taxacom do not get into the details of that
> > evidence (such as particular published patterns of allopatry, concordant
> > patterns of allopatry in different taxa, and tectonic correlation
> > patterns), or even of counter evidence (i.e. articles are cited as
> evidence
> > without saying what exactly is the evidence). Open forums such as Taxacom
> > have both advantages and disadvantages in discussing issues of contention
> > and in some respects cannot resolve differences to the satisfaction of
> > everyone. The prominent 'debate' (and suppression of) over vicariance has
> > been around now for about 40-50 years now (also in existence earlier, but
> > suppression of the subject was pretty much total) and likely to continue
> > for some indefinite time in the future, despite some expressions of
> > frustration in the literature that the vicariance approach has been
> > 'falsified' and should just go away, disappear etc.
> >
> > If you think I missed something in your comments please feel free to
> point
> > that out. Sometimes I miss the obvious.
> >
> > This does keep life from being boring!
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:20 AM, Daniel Leo Gustafsson <
> > kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, let's be honest and admit that repeated references to nazi
> >> propaganda
> >> and creationism in describing the arguments and evidence of the people
> >> you're arguing with isn't typical of all forms of science... More
> "Makhan
> >> style" than "Darwin style", so to speak.
> >>
> >>
> >> Incidentally, to me, this whole discussion is reminiscent of the
> >> discussions on the evolution and distribution of certain bird parasites
> >> during the mid-20th century. People like Wolfdietrich Eichler would
> argue
> >> that since chewing lice (and certain other parasites) have no
> free-living
> >> stage, their phylogeny should be a mirror image of that of their hosts
> >> (the
> >> so-called Fahrenholz' Rule). Any transmission between hosts was assumed
> to
> >> be extremely rare, and have no phylogenetic impact (i.e. it was assumed
> >> that lice *never* successfully established themselves on novel hosts).
> >> This
> >> further lead to the assumption that all lice found on a novel host must
> >> necessarily be a new species, regardless of whether or not there is any
> >> evidence for this. Eichler very clearly stated (in 1943, I think), that
> >> it's methodologically more accurate to say "we do not yet know what the
> >> morphological differences between these two taxa are" than to say "there
> >> two taxa are morphologically identical, so they are the same species".
> As
> >> a
> >> result, virtually no taxa on any level described by Eichler and his
> >> followers can be identified from their descriptions, as host
> associations
> >> was assumed to be "good enough" as a species description.
> >>
> >> The dogmatism of certain recurring participants of these discussions
> here
> >> are amusingly similar to Eichler's repeated statement that there "are
> *no*
> >>
> >> documented cases of a species of louse occurring naturally on two host
> >> species" -- a statement reinforced by him habitually splitting all lice
> >> from multiple host species into host-specific species, often without
> ever
> >> seeing any specimens.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 AM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Ken, That's your privilege. No one had to like how I respond. Your
> >> > choice. Sometimes I don't like the way you say things either, but I
> >> ignore
> >> > that as irrelevant and do the best I can to respond. Such responses
> may
> >> not
> >> > always meet the desires of the recipient, but that's life (and
> science).
> >> >
> >> > Cheers, John Grehan
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Jason,
> >> > >
> >> > >        I agree.  Your description "instead it all ends in a series
> of
> >> > > zingers written in scripted, telegraphic style" would pretty much
> >> > describe
> >> > > my views of John's polemics in particular.  Especially when his
> >> zingers
> >> > > involve creationists or Hitler   Thus my reluctance to respond to
> >> most of
> >> > > his e-mails.  I think I will now answer Michael's post instead.
> >> > >
> >> > >                       ------------------- Ken
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ________________________________
> >> > > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of JF
> >> Mate
> >> > <
> >> > > aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> >> > > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 8:41 PM
> >> > > To: Taxacom
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal vs. vicariance
> >> > >
> >> > > 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
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> > >
> >> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> > > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> > >
> >> > > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> >> 1987-2018.
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> >> 1987-2018.
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> 1987-2018.
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>