[Taxacom] "Biogeography Off the Tracks" (Panbiogeography criticized)

[Michael Heads]

Hi Ken,

Jason claimed that we reject dispersal, but we have never done that. You
replied : 'A careful reading of Jason's first paragraph indicates that he
was referring to LDD (long distance dispersal) being denied by
panbiogeographers' [rather than normal dispersal]. So it is not a
strawman'. .However, Jason doesn't accept that these are different.
(Earlier he wrote that '... distinguishing between "normal" and LD
dispersal' is simply 'a matter of semantics', 'a  subterfuge'). Perhaps you
yourself agree with our idea that these should be distinguished.

   You cite Waters et al. (2013), but you don’t mention my reply to them.
Why not? Perhaps you don't know the literature, but I assume you have
Google. Or you are deliberately 'overlooking' it, and this is a standard
tactic in the dispersal school. In contrast, we have always cited our
opponents’ arguments.  Anyway, in my reply to Waters et al. (Biogeography
by revelation: investigating a world shaped by miracles. *Australian
Systematic Botany* 27, 282–304. 2014). I wrote:

   ‘De Queiroz (p. 277) also claimed that there is ‘other evidence’ that
the vicarianists have ignored, but what is this evidence? My 2012 book
(Heads 2012*b*) alone cited more than 1000 papers. Panbiogeography has not
ignored evidence, but it does disagree with the traditional interpretations
of it. The dispersalists in turn have responded to our critique, not by
engaging with panbiogeography, but by ignoring the issues it raises or
objecting to the ‘editorial and review processes [that] continue to allow
this misleading approach to be promulgated’ (Waters *et al*. 2013).’

    ‘Trewick (pers. comm. in de Queiroz, p. 277) claimed that
panbiogeographers are fundamentalists, and Waters *et al*. (2013) compared
us with creationists. But it is dispersal theory, not panbiogeography, that
accepts centres of origin (cf. Eden and Ararat), ‘design’ and ‘purpose’ in
nature, chance dispersal as ‘revealed’, and Earth as ‘a world shaped by
miracles’ (p. 281). Thus, it is the dispersalists, not the advocates of
vicariance, whose thinking resembles that of fundamentalist creationism’.













On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason and Michael,
>
>          A careful reading of Jason's first paragraph indicates that he
> was referring to LDD (long distance dispersal) being denied by
> panbiogeographers.  So it is not a strawman.  I thank Jason for his
> excellent post.
>
>         Criticism of such LDD denials by panbiogeographers is also
> expressed in the article "Biogeography Off the Tracks" (Waters et al.,
> 2013) in Systematic Biology, 62(3):494-498.  It is a bit harsh, and even
> describes panbiogeography as detrimental, misleading, biased and moribund.
> The article's abstract is given below, and for those who would like to read
> the whole paper, a weblink is provided.
>
>                                -------------Ken
>
>
> https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/62/3/494/1653732
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> We write to convey our concerns that some mainstream evolutionary journals
> continue to publish articles that, in our view, present misleading accounts
> of biological evolution. Specifically, we argue that "panbiogeographic"
> studies of spatiotemporal biological history (e.g., Craw 1988; Heads 2010a,
> 2010b, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) are detrimental to the progress of biogeography
> as a discipline. The panbiogeographic approach usually ignores
> long-distance dispersal and considers alternative hypotheses only within
> the narrow confines of assumed ancient vicariance. Although previous
> commentators have already penned epitaphs for the panbiogeographic paradigm
> (e.g., Cox 1998; McDowall 2004; McGlone 2005; Briggs 2007), some editorial
> and review processes continue to allow this misleading approach to be
> promulgated as a useful scientific method. Despite the approach being
> termed "moribund" (Briggs 2007), recent years have seen an apparent upswing
> in the number of panbiogeographic studies published (e.g., Kutschker and
> Morrone 2012; Mercado-Salas et al. 2012; Silva et al. 2012).
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Michael
> Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2018 1:38 AM
> To: JF Mate
> Cc: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] scientific predictions concerning Wallacean
> marsupials and primates
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> You write:
>
> 'The problem is not “emphasis” on vicariance but in
> outright denial of dispersal'
>
> This is a strawman. We have never denied dispersal. If you read my last
> posts, you will see I cite plenty of examples, e.g. the 8 widespread clades
> of primats in Amrica, the 10 in Africa and the 9 in Asia. You can see
> dispersal every day. All (almost) individual plants and animals have
> dispersed to their present position.
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:28 PM, 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
> > >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
<http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s>