[Taxacom] scientific predictions concerning Wallacean marsupials and primates

[John Grehan]

Jason,

Appreciate your input. Comment inserted below:


“OK, I´ll bite. The problem is not “emphasis” on vicariance but in
outright denial of dispersal.”

I would agree with being critical over outright denial of dispersal, but
since that is not applicable to panbiogeography that I practice. If you
know of any panbiogeographers who express an outright denial of dispersal
(ability to move about) I would be interested to know.

“I have been consistent about this so I
can only conclude from the above remarks that “playing the victim” is
part of your argumentation.”

Don’t understand what you are getting at here.

“The “coherent analytical foundation” that
you refer to is fitting the data on to tectonics. Sorry but this is
not science unless you have a null hypothesis, and you are quite clear
that you don´t (unlike other branches of panbiogeography who have
dropped this untenable idea and accept that LDD exists).”

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Distributions are not ‘fitted’
onto tectonics, they are correlated when there are shared patterns of
occurrence.
As for LDD, where there is evidence for that being operable in the origin
of allopatry that is fine, but if it is just an assumption then not so.

“This school
of panbiogeography that you adhere to falls outside the realm of
science and it is more like a compendium of patterns with no checking
mechanism.”

Well, the method has resulted in novel and empirically corroborated
predictions about geology. In other words, the method works. What novel and
corroborated predictions has dispersalist theory generated about geology?
Also what are the other schools of panbiogeography?
“Platyrrhini and primate evolution in general. You insist that a more
parsimonious explanation would be to assume that the fossil record,
which broadly mirrors the phyogenetic sequence of splits is wrong by
2.5 times the age, in every single lineage. Your evidence is that the
plate tectonics require it to be so and that everything else must be
wrong as well. Result, panbiogeographic claim that is unfalsifiable.”

Falsification is a tricky concept in science, and especially in historical
sciences (tricky enough in falsifying what happened last week let alone
millions of years ago – which is why judges or juries are called in to make
their best guess). One is constantly presented with the phrase ‘older than
previously thought’ when an earlier fossil turns up. I admit to a limited
comprehension of philosophical theory, but in that context I have read
views by philosophers of science and literary theory that argue that
falsification can be a problematic criterion, especially when dealing with
competing research programs. An alternative might be corroboration – either
there is subsequent evidence that is in agreement or there is not. In the
latter situation one is confronted with unresolved conflict for which there
is no objective recipe to make a choice. From my perspective the ‘gap’
between oldest fossil and tectonic age is one of these situations. My
inclination is for the tectonic history, but that choice is personal, not a
falsification of the age being that of the oldest fossil, and vice versa.

“Nymphalid butterflies and observed current vagrants. I had to press to
get an answer out of either of you, but in the end you say that these
are examples of “normal” dispersal. If so, I submit that said normal
dispersals are the origin for patterns of past dispersals”

When you say the “origin for patterns of past dispersals” are you saying
that such mechanisms were operable historically in the establishment of
ancestral distributions? If so, I would have no argument.  If you are
saying that these mechanisms explain allopatry then I would question that.
The point is that biogeographic analysis can help interpret the role of
means of dispersal. For example, in the nymphalid butterfly genus Vanessa
the Canary Island Vanessa vulcanica is the basal sister group to four
species in south east Asia that is in turn the sister group to a clade of
two species - one in Hawaii and one in North America and mostly western
Asia. One might just say that this is chance dispersal somehow, but the
interesting thing is that the Canary Island species is phylogenetically
basal to the eastern Asian relatives, and the clade is largely allopatric
to its sister species. A vicariance origin does not necessitate any
dispersal anomalies and the track does show a good match to former Tethyan
connections. So for these taxa dispersal has operated in the establishment
of a widespread ancestor in a particular time and since then has been
operating largely as a means of survival for descendant taxa.

“as can be
found in comprehensive phylogenies such as those of metalstreaks (DOI:
10.1098/rspb.2010.2213 ) Riodinidae
(doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.08.006) or species groups such as
Polygonia (DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2001.tb02470.x), and that these
dispersal to lead obviously lead to speciation since a restricted
geneflow is conducive to divergence. I can´t see how you can make the
distinction or on what it is based.”

Just referring me to a paper is not helpful to discussion. Need to
explicity state what, in your opinion, constitutes such evidence in the
paper so I can address that. Otherwise I am just guessing. So look forward
to your explicit characterization and then would be happy to respond.

“I mentioned that the Malagasy dung beetle fauna showed elements of
both mechanisms at work. The fact that so many species are shared with
the mainland (including taxa such as termitophilous Rhyparini, over
2/3 of the fauna) and that 95% of the lineages are shared with the
Afrotropical region (but not India) should be enough to show that,
although difficult, some things can get across.”

It either shows that some species have population connections maintained
over wide areas, or that the species have not changed perceptively over the
time of geological separation. Hard to know which in cases where the means
of survival operating over those distances are not observed.

“Continuing with insects and biotic filtering, Wallacea. So many
examples of taxa that have originated on one side and then spread and
diversified on the other: Onthophagus (several invasions by Oriental
species - doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.08.016. Epub 2016 Aug 2 );
Hybosoridae: Phaeochrous (emarginatus (several subspecies, ranging
from Pakistan to Australia)) ; Dytiscidae: Hydaticus pacificus grp;
Ataenius australasiae (several subspecies ranging from S. China to
NSW); Passalidae (Leptaulax); ...”

Need to cite what is presented as evidence of origination on either side
followed by dispersal in these papers and I will respond.

"If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple
statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your
guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees
with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it."

Experience is relative. It is experience that makes it appear that the sun
moves and the earth does not. Direct experience shows how animals and
plants move about that effects their survival. Biogeography shows how these
abilities may have operated in the origin of allopatry.

Altogether some interesting points made and appreciate your effort and
courage to state them publically. I do look forward to explicit
characterization of dispersal evidence that you see in those papers. That’s
the meat in the biogeographic sandwich.

Regards,

John Grehan


On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:28 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

> “...they lack a coherent analytical foundation and instead tend to
> ignore or explain away anything to the contrary. … While at least one
> person has characterized this discussion as a waste of time etc., …
> While some on this list have been critical of the emphasis on
> vicariance, this emphasis is analysis driven”
>
>
> OK, I´ll bite. The problem is not “emphasis” on vicariance but in
> outright denial of dispersal. I have been consistent about this so I
> can only conclude from the above remarks that “playing the victim” is
> part of your argumentation. The “coherent analytical foundation” that
> you refer to is fitting the data on to tectonics. Sorry but this is
> not science unless you have a null hypothesis, and you are quite clear
> that you don´t (unlike other branches of panbiogeography who have
> dropped this untenable idea and accept that LDD exists). This school
> of panbiogeography that you adhere to falls outside the realm of
> science and it is more like a compendium of patterns with no checking
> mechanism. Evidence to back this view:
>
>
> Platyrrhini and primate evolution in general. You insist that a more
> parsimonious explanation would be to assume that the fossil record,
> which broadly mirrors the phyogenetic sequence of splits is wrong by
> 2.5 times the age, in every single lineage. Your evidence is that the
> plate tectonics require it to be so and that everything else must be
> wrong as well. Result, panbiogeographic claim that is unfalsifiable.
>
>
> Nymphalid butterflies and observed current vagrants. I had to press to
> get an answer out of either of you, but in the end you say that these
> are examples of “normal” dispersal. If so, I submit that said normal
> dispersals are the origin for patterns of past dispersals as can be
> found in comprehensive phylogenies such as those of metalstreaks (DOI:
> 10.1098/rspb.2010.2213 ) Riodinidae
> (doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.08.006) or species groups such as
> Polygonia (DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2001.tb02470.x), and that these
> dispersal to lead obviously lead to speciation since a restricted
> geneflow is conducive to divergence. I can´t see how you can make the
> distinction or on what it is based.
>
>
> What is surprising is not that these dispersals happen but how
> difficult it is for the vagrants to establish a foothold in spite of
> continuous dispersal events (e.s. Aglais io has not formed colonies in
> NA as far as I know and it is a rare but anual occurrence, same with
> Vanessa virginiensis, which has only managed to establish itself in
> historical times in the Canary islands) even when conditions are
> suitable. This in part answers Michael´s the original question of “why
> only once”.
>
>
> I mentioned that the Malagasy dung beetle fauna showed elements of
> both mechanisms at work. The fact that so many species are shared with
> the mainland (including taxa such as termitophilous Rhyparini, over
> 2/3 of the fauna) and that 95% of the lineages are shared with the
> Afrotropical region (but not India) should be enough to show that,
> although difficult, some things can get across.
>
> Continuing with insects and biotic filtering, Wallacea. So many
> examples of taxa that have originated on one side and then spread and
> diversified on the other: Onthophagus (several invasions by Oriental
> species - doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.08.016. Epub 2016 Aug 2 );
> Hybosoridae: Phaeochrous (emarginatus (several subspecies, ranging
> from Pakistan to Australia)) ; Dytiscidae: Hydaticus pacificus grp;
> Ataenius australasiae (several subspecies ranging from S. China to
> NSW); Passalidae (Leptaulax); ...
>
> "If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple
> statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your
> guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees
> with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it."
>
> Best
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 17:12, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have found Ken's assertions about chance dispersal to be quite
> > informative as it shows that the manner of reasoning about chance
> dispersal
> > has not changed from the time of Darwin who imagined the process and felt
> > that it could not be denied. Some of the inherent problems with
> > imagination, I would argue, is that they lack a coherent analytical
> > foundation and instead tend to ignore or explain away anything to the
> > contrary.
> > For example, with the statement:
> >
> > "The examples given in the last paragraph of your post are indeed
> > fascinating and indicative of vicariance,  And although they could also
> > involve some short distance island hopping as well, no long distance
> > dispersals would be required."
> >
> > If they could involve island hopping then the patterns cannot be
> indicative
> > of vicariance. What is left out of the picture here is that there is a
> > cohesive set of patterns correlated with tectonics which does provide
> > evidence of a vicariance history. Here there is a direct link in
> reasoning
> > between evidence and conclusion.
> >
> > "They are therefore somewhat similar to the marsupial expansion westward
> > into Wallacea. "
> >
> > Of course this begs the question of what is the empirical evidence that
> > marsupials ever 'expanded' into the region.
> >
> > "This is exactly the opposite of tarsiers that came from the other
> > direction and have their easternmost occurrences there."
> >
> > Again, no empirical evidence has every been presented for such a notion.
> >
> >
> > "None of your examples are of taxa going from west to east, so it is sort
> > of like comparing apples and oranges."
> >
> > Do you mean taxa that have an eastern boundary in SEA?
> >
> > "In any case, all those examples just make me even more impressed that
> > cuscuses (which also expanded westward)"
> >
> > No evidence.
> >
> > "were actually able to become established even further westward into
> > Sulawesi.  Of course, it could be that they just entered Wallacea a lot
> > earlier than the examples you gave.  Or perhaps they are very competitive
> > and very good at dispersal."
> >
> > Or perhaps not. No evidence. I have no problem with propositions of
> chance
> > dispersal, but in a science of biogeography one needs more than just an
> > assertion of a possiblity.
> >
> > "I would predict that carefully designed experiments..."
> >
> > Problem with these experiments is that they do not actually provide a
> > exclusionary text - the outcomes either way cannot exclude the
> alternative.
> > Thus one might find they do not coexist which might be dismissed as an
> > artifact of the current conditions, or they do coexist which might also
> be
> > explained away by the same argument. Early on Darwin 'tested' snail
> > dispersal by showing that pond snails could adhere to duck's feet or that
> > seeds could survive immersion in salt water. But these experiments
> actually
> > did not demonstrate anything in particular about whether or not such
> > ecological processes were involved in the origins of allopatric
> > distribution. Rather than ecology being informative about the mechanisms
> of
> > biogeographic origin, it is biogeographic analysis that is informative
> > about the role of ecological processes in biogeographic differentiation
> > (evolution).
> >
> > "And thirdly, any evidence showing that cuscuses might have entered
> > Sulawesi earlier than monkeys could also be scientifically valuable.  My
> > hypothesis would predict that cuscuses probably got there before
> monkeys."
> >
> > Herein lies the crux of the matter. Is the occurrence of cuscuses in
> > Sulawesi linked to the tectonic history of the region or the result of
> > chance dispersal. The biogeography would indicate that tectonics has been
> > the main player in the structure of allopatric distributions in SEA.
> While
> > some on this list have been critical of the emphasis on vicariance, this
> > emphasis is analysis driven, not simply imagined and asserted.
> >
> > While at least one person has characterized this discussion as a waste of
> > time etc., I do find Ken's perspective of interest to discuss and
> critique.
> > It is actually quite rare in the literature to directly view any direct
> > interactions between supporters of chance dispersal and supporters of
> > vicariance evidence. So in that respect the discussion, even if it may
> not
> > resolve anything in any absolute sense, may be helpful to those who are
> in
> > the process of developing their perspectives (and I am sure that there
> are
> > some on this list in that situation).
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Michael,
> >>
> >>       The examples given in the last paragraph of your post are indeed
> >> fascinating and indicative of vicariance,  And although they could also
> >> involve some short distance island hopping as well, no long distance
> >> dispersals would be required.
> >>        However, all these examples are taxa whose westernmost
> occurrences
> >> are on islands such as Peleng and Sangihe.  They are therefore somewhat
> >> similar to the marsupial expansion westward into Wallacea.  This is
> exactly
> >> the opposite of tarsiers that came from the other direction and have
> their
> >> easternmost occurrences there.  None of your examples are of taxa going
> >> from west to east, so it is sort of like comparing apples and oranges.
> >>        In any case, all those examples just make me even more impressed
> >> that cuscuses (which also expanded westward)  were actually able to
> become
> >> established even further westward into Sulawesi.  Of course, it could be
> >> that they just entered Wallacea a lot earlier than the examples you
> gave.
> >> Or perhaps they are very competitive and very good at dispersal.
> >>        ANYWAY, if you want predictions that are scientifically testable,
> >> here are some.  I would predict that carefully designed experiments
> placing
> >> male cuscuses with monkeys (male or female) of roughly equal weight
> >> (including  cuscuses vs. macaques) might well find cuscuses able to hold
> >> their ground.  If so, my hypothesis of well-established cuscuses on
> islands
> >> east of Sulawesi being able to competitively exclude dispersing pregnant
> >> females (in particular) could provide scientific evidence in its favor.
> >> And secondly, given the size of Sulawesi and its wide range of habitats,
> >> detailed maps (of "fine geographic scale") of cuscus and macaque
> >> distributions might also be scientifically valuable.  And thirdly, any
> >> evidence showing that cuscuses might have entered Sulawesi earlier than
> >> monkeys could also be scientifically valuable.  My hypothesis would
> predict
> >> that cuscuses probably got there before monkeys.
> >>                               -------------------Ken
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:12 PM
> >> To: Kenneth Kinman
> >> Cc: Taxacom
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: competition on Peleng (actually versus two
> >> specie of cuscus)
> >>
> >> Hi Ken,
> >>
> >> Consider a group present in area A and B, while its sister is in B and
> C.
> >>
> >> Dispersal theory (your model) proposes a centre of origin of the whole
> >> group in B, followed by chance dispersal to A in one group, and to C in
> the
> >> other.Vicariance theory (my model) proposes an ancestor present in A, B
> and
> >> C, followed by a vicariant break somewhere in or around B (mediated by
> >> geology/climate), followed by overlap (dispersal) in B by one or both
> >> groups (caused by geology/climate).
> >>
> >> Monkeys, apes etc. (simians or anthropoids) range through America,
> Africa
> >> and Asia to Sulawesi (not Peleng, Siau or Sangihe). Their sister goup,
> >> tarsiers, range from SE Asia to Peleng, Siau and Sangihe (PSS). In
> >> dispersal theory, the tarsiers on PSS migrated to these islands (not
> their
> >> precursors) from the Sulawesi mainland using means that are essentially
> >> mysterious (Shekelle). In vicariance, the records on PSS are not the
> result
> >> of random processes, but reflect the ancestral distribution of the
> simian +
> >> tarsier common ancestor, and the break between them, caused by
> geological
> >> change. PSS and eastern Sulawesi are the result of terranes and
> subduction
> >> zones that have migrated west from New Guinea and the Pacific, 'piling
> up'
> >> at Sulawesi. The PSS tarser belt is probably a small fraction, a relic,
> of
> >> the original insular distribution, while the large ocean basins they
> were
> >> distributed across have been subducted.
> >>
> >> The key question is: why is the 'tarsier belt' on these particular small
> >> islands (PSS) and not others in the region? How can we distinguish
> between
> >> the two models? Dispersal theory makes no special predictions, as chance
> >> dispersal is not related to any other factor, biological or physical.
> >> Vicariance theory makes the prediction that these geographically
> >> insignificant islands will also be significant biogeographically for
> many
> >> other groups, as they have been exposed to the same geology. Here are
> some
> >> examples:
> >>
> >> The bird genus Eutrichomyias is endemic on Sangihe (= Sanghir) and has
> its
> >> closest relative in Fiji (see 'Relicts of the lost arc..', Mol Phylogen
> >> Evol 120: 28. 2018). The closest relative of the bird Colluricincla
> >> sanghirensis, endemic on Sangihe, is on islands off the eastern tip of
> New
> >> Guinea. The Pacific clade of the skink Lamprolepis has western outliers
> on
> >> Peleng and Sangihe (Fig. 10.6 in my Australasia book). (Note that Peleng
> >> and Sangihe are 600 km apart, while Peleng is only 25 km off mainland
> >> Sulawesi).  The parrot genus Eos ranges from New Guinea to Sangihe.
> Another
> >> parrot Loriculus amabilis is only on Peleng (also nearby Sula), Siau,
> and
> >> Sangihe.  The diverse frog Platymantis s.l. ranges from Fiji to Peleng
> and
> >> Sangihe (and the Philippines), but not Sulawesi (Fig. 10.7 in my
> >> Australasia book).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com
> >> <mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >> Hi Michael,
> >>
> >>         Although my hypothesis of Wallacea being a battleground between
> >> primates and cuscuses ("marsupial monkeys" as they are sometimes called)
> >> may seem ad hoc, but I think it is worth pursuing.  I finding it
> >> particularly interesting that the bear cuscus is unusual in being
> diurnal,
> >> so we have both diurnal and nocturnal cuscuses and primates in this
> >> battleground.
> >>
> >>         Sulawesi being a much larger island seems able to accomodate a
> mix
> >> of species that would not be possible on the much smaller islands to the
> >> east.  That tarsiers were able to spread to some of those much smaller
> >> islands could be due to their small size and secretive nature.   Or
> perhaps
> >> they just got there before cuscuses.
> >>
> >>        All of these small islands in Wallacea seem to be an evolutionary
> >> filter in both directions, and as a mammalogist, I am finding the mix of
> >> primates and marsupials particularly interesting.  And cuscuses
> ("marsupial
> >> monkeys") are not as well studied, and it is thought that there are
> still
> >> undiscovered species in this region.
> >>
> >>        But there are admittedly other factors that make this
> battleground
> >> region more difficult to understand.  The changing ocean currents and
> >> changes in sea level that Scott mentioned could be a major factor for
> some
> >> organisms and not for others.  It is no wonder why biogeographers find
> >> Wallacea so interesting (and frustrating).
> >>
> >>                    -----------Ken
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:
> taxacom-bounces@
> >> mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 6:33 AM
> >> To: Taxacom
> >> Subject: [Taxacom] Fwd: competition on Peleng (actually versus two
> species
> >> of cuscus)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Ken,
> >> >
> >> > Monkeys range east only to Sulawesi, while the only primates east of
> >> there
> >> > are tarsiers on the interesting chain of islands: Peleng, Siau and
> >> > Sangihe. The cuscuses Strigocuscus and Ailurops are both on Sulawesi
> >> > and Peleng, Strigo. is also on Siau and Sangihe. Why would the
> cuscuses
> >> > prevent monkeys establishing on Peleng, Siau and Sangihe by
> competition
> >> > when they all live together on Sulawesi?
> >> >
> >> > A closely related question is why and how tarsiers are on Peleng, Siau
> >> and
> >> > Sangihe. The expert on this group, Myron Shekelle, admitted that 'How
> >> > tarsiers ever came to these islands is a mystery'. Also, why are
> >> > tarsiers on *these *islands, but not further east?
> >> >
> >> > The islands in this 'tarsier belt' - Peleng, Siau and Sangihe - are
> >> > geographically insignificant, but form one of the most interesting
> areas
> >> in
> >> > the world for biogeographers and geologists (distributions and
> geology in
> >> > the region are illustrated in Figs. 5-15 and 5-16 of my Tropics book).
> >> E.g.
> >> > apart from the tarsiers it has one of the highest densities of
> >> > endemic birds in the world. Why? Many of the birds are related to
> groups
> >> > further east (including eastern New Guinea groups, 1000s of km away),
> not
> >> > to groups on the much closer Sulawesi. The geology is also very
> unusual
> >> - the
> >> > Sangihe and Halmahera arcs are undergoing the only active arc
> collision
> >> on
> >> > Earth. Most biogeographers understand that at a subduction zone, such
> as
> >> > the Sangihe SZ, the plates move towards each other. What many
> >> > biogeographers do not understand is that active subduction zones
> >> (producing
> >> > islands) themselves often move long distances, at rates of ~10cm/yr.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com
> >> <mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear all,
> >> >>
> >> >>        I am still catching up on the changing taxonomy of the
> cuscuses.
> >> >> Back when I was working on our 1st Edition of the reference book
> "Mammal
> >> >> Species of the World" (1st Edition, by Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl,
> >> 1982),
> >> >> Strigocuscus was included within genus Phalanger, but genetic data
> since
> >> >> then has apparently shown them to be in separate subfamilies.
> >> >>
> >> >>       In any case, although the species of Strigocuscus on Sulawesi
> and
> >> >> Peleng Island is a "pygmy" species, the other species on Peleng is a
> >> more
> >> >> normal size.  I had overlooked is that the bear cuscus is also on
> Peleng
> >> >> Island.  So any monkey trying to become established on Peleng Island
> >> would
> >> >> have faced two species of well-established species of cuscuses.
> >> >>
> >> >>       So it is even less surprising that monkeys did not expand east
> of
> >> >> Sulawesi.  The battle ground between monkeys and marsupial cuscuses
> >> seems
> >> >> most intense between Sulawesi and nearby Peleng Island.  This
> >> battleground
> >> >> in Wallacea seems to have favored cuscus over monkeys, even though
> they
> >> >> managed to coexist on the westernmost Wallacean island of Sulawesi.
> >> Just a
> >> >> matter of Sulawesi being a larger island with more competition
> allowing
> >> a
> >> >> stalemate of sorts.  Both monkeys and cuscuses survived there, but
> not
> >> >> further east, and cuscuses did not survive further west.  Something
> that
> >> >> neither Wallace's Line nor Weber's Line seems to have anticipated.
> >> >>
> >> >>                             -----Ken Kinman
> >> >>
> >> >> P.S. When cuscuses were first discovered they were thought to be a
> >> >> species monkey.  So similar to monkeys in their form, habitat, and
> food
> >> >> sources, but only the discovery that cuscuses were pouched marsupials
> >> did
> >> >> their true relationship become known.  I'm not sure if you could say
> >> that
> >> >> they are more like monkeys or lemurs.  In any case, monkeys would
> have
> >> met
> >> >> their match in both Madagascar (versus lemurs) and east of Sulawesi
> >> (versus
> >> >> the two species of cuscuses).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------
> >> >> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:
> >> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of
> >> >> Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com<mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>>
> >> >> *Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2018 8:54 AM
> >> >> *To:* Michael Heads; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] competition on Peleng (was: Jurassic
> >> >> primates???)
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >>
> >> >>        Well, I was talking about monkeys in general, but even with
> >> >> macaques, I would think a male cuscus could take on a female macaque.
> >> When
> >> >> I talk about transoceanic dispersal of primates, I am usually
> thinking
> >> >> about of a group of pregnant females.  No adult males required, as
> long
> >> as
> >> >> one or more of the females are pregnant with male offspring.
> >> >>
> >> >>      Such a group of pregnant female monkeys landing on a small
> island
> >> >> like Peleng that has a well-established cuscus population could have
> a
> >> very
> >> >> rough time trying to get established.  If not killed by male
> cuscuses,
> >> the
> >> >> cuscuses could drive the pregnant monkeys away from the best food
> >> sources
> >> >> (and they just die from malnutrition).  Likewise, cuscuses haven't
> >> spread
> >> >> further east because monkeys were already well established there.
> >> >>
> >> >>       Monkeys introduced by humans in New Guinea is a different
> story.
> >> >> They get established around human habitations and then spread out
> from
> >> >> there.  And there is a lot more territory than on a small island like
> >> >> Peleng.
> >> >>
> >> >>                      --------------Ken
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com<mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com
> >>
> >> >> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 2:09 AM
> >> >> To: Kenneth Kinman
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] competition on Peleng (was: Jurassic
> primates???)
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Ken,
> >> >>
> >> >> You say: 'Cuscuses are a very monkey-like marsupial', and suggest
> that
> >> >> they prevented monkeys from establishing east of Sulawesi.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know cuscuses and monkeys quite well (I lived for a long time in
> >> Africa
> >> >> and in New Guinea) and I wouldn'y describe them as very similar at
> all
> >> >> really - for a start, the monkeys concerned (macaques) are at least
> >> twice
> >> >> the size of a cuscus, much smarter and much more aggressive.  But in
> any
> >> >> case, New Guinea is very rich in cuscuses and, as I mentioned,
> >> introduced
> >> >> monkeys have established there with no problems.
> >> >>
> >> >>    I'm sure you can think up an ad hoc reason for that particular
> >> >> phenomenon, but I prefer to look at the group, and all its
> biogeographic
> >> >> boundaries, overall. As Edgar Allan Poe said, 'the ingenious are
> always
> >> >> fanciful, and the truly imaginative never otherwise than analytic'.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com
> >> <mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>
> >> >> <mailto:kinman at hotmail.com<mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >>
> >> >>       Sulawesi and Peleng (being in the western part of "Wallacea")
> are
> >> >> an interesting battleground between the Asian and Australian
> faunas.  In
> >> >> answer to your question, I suspect that monkeys could have
> encountered
> >> >> competitive exclusion on Peleng by a combination of not only the
> >> tarsiers
> >> >> there, but even more so by the marsupial species Strigocuscus
> >> pelengensis.
> >> >> This marsupial is also in the Sula Islands, which might also explain
> why
> >> >> monkeys didn't get into the Molucca Islands either (although a
> greater
> >> >> distance gap might also explain that).
> >> >>
> >> >>       The other species of Strigocuscus does live on Sulawesi, but
> being
> >> >> called a dwarf cuscus, I assume it is smaller (and therefore less
> >> >> competitive and aggressive) than the species on Peleng.  So I would
> say
> >> >> that studying the possible battle between the cuscus marsupials and
> >> monkeys
> >> >> in western Wallacea (especially on Peleng) could be far more fruitful
> >> than
> >> >> just tarsiers vs. monkeys.  It could be a combination of both
> battles in
> >> >> this transition zone.
> >> >>
> >> >>       The males of cuscuses in particular can be quite aggressive.
> And
> >> >> the cuscus on Peleng (presumably being larger than those on Sulawesi
> and
> >> >> being on a much smaller island) might be the main reason any
> attempted
> >> >> monkey dispersals would fail.  Probably more so than tarsiers.
> Cuscuses
> >> >> are a very monkey-like marsupial.
> >> >>
> >> >>                                 -----------------Ken Kinman
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com<mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com
> >> ><mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com<mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com>>>
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 6:31 PM
> >> >> To: Kenneth Kinman
> >> >> Cc: Taxacom
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Jurassic primates???
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Ken,
> >> >>
> >> >> Mesozoic mammal fossils are very different from modern groups, and
> their
> >> >> affinities are often very controversial or simply admitted as
> unknown.
> >> If
> >> >> modern morphological work identified the phylogenetic position of
> groups
> >> >> such as cetaceans incorrectly - when the vast wealth of morphological
> >> >> information was available from complete specimens - isn't it very
> likely
> >> >> that they have misidentified many, fragmentary Mesozoic fossil
> groups in
> >> >> which the key features are not preserved?
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you see the lizard paper I mentioned (pushing back dates by 75
> >> m.y.)?
> >> >> Do you agree with my earlier statement that Goswami & Upchurch's
> >> reasoning
> >> >> is illogical (they wrote that fossils provide minimum ages, but then
> >> >> treated the fossil age of eutherians as a maximum age for primates)?
> >> Also,
> >> >> you haven't said which examples of vicariance you accept.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some other 'extraordinary' evidence for primates:
> >> >> Monkeys are diverse on Philippines/Sulawesi, but they reach their
> limit
> >> >> there and are entirely absent from islands to the east, such as
> Peleng,
> >> 20
> >> >> km off eastern Sulawesi, the Moluccas etc. If monkeys dispersed
> across
> >> the
> >> >> Atlantic long after it opened, why would a 20 km strait block their
> >> >> dispersal?
> >> >>
> >> >> Peleng is a small island, so you might think that large monkeys could
> >> not
> >> >> exist there. But macaques are famously 'weedy' and Peleng is the same
> >> size
> >> >> as Zanzibar (30 km off the African mainland), which has endemic
> monkeys.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might hypothesize that the tarsiers on Peleng prevented the
> monkeys
> >> >> from establishing there by competition, but monkeys and tarsiers
> overlap
> >> >> through most of the tarsiers' range.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might suggest that islands east of Philippines/Sulawesi are
> >> >> ecologically unsuitable for some other reason, but monkeys
> introduced to
> >> >> Palau and to western New Guinea have thrived and are now pests.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, the 'extraordinary' break between Sulawesi and Peleng
> could
> >> >> just be due to the vagaries of chance dispersal, but wouldn't it be
> >> useful
> >> >> to investigate other possibilities?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <
> >> mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> Taxacom Info Page - mailman.nhm.ku.edu<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Mailing Lists
> >> >> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>
> >> >> mailman.nhm.ku.edu<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named and
> brought
> >> >> to life by Drs. Patricia Eckel and Richard Zander, Taxacom began its
> >> >> peripatetic existence on a cold and rainy day, January 12, 1987, as a
> >> Latin
> >> >> translation service, part of a dial-up Bulletin Board System at the
> >> Buffalo
> >> >> Museum of Science, Buffalo, New York.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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@
> >> 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<
> >> http://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><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://co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC>
> >> > <http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=
> >> panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dunedin, New Zealand.
> >>
> >> My books:
> >>
> >> *Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC,
> Boca
> >> Raton FL. 2017.
> >> https://www.routledge.com/Biogeography-and-Evolution-in-
> >> New-Zealand/Heads/p/book/9781498751872
> >>
> >>
> >> *Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge
> University
> >> Press, Cambridge. 2014. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028<http://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><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<
> >> mailto: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@
> 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<
> >> mailto: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@
> 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<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.
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>