[Taxacom] Another interesting paper (1981) on divaricates, moas, and climate

Fri Nov 8 12:08:10 CST 2019

Ken is quite correct about my paper indicating that there is no evidence
that moas had anything to do with the origin of divarication. The same goes
for a climatic hypothesis. These are all just stories made up to 'explain'
evolution and adaptation. In the paper I point out that "selection
narratives assume that random mutation can create any structure that is
needed by the organism, and so this approach suppresses interest or
curiosity in the structural nature of adaptation. In the case of
divaricates, the selection model (whether moas or some other
environmental variable) avoids investigating the growth pattern itself.
Heads (2017) has pointed out that evolution of the divaricating growth form
is not simply a reduction of leaves and stems, but a replacement of one
growth
form by another the replacement of an original vegetative system of
indeterminate growth (that occurs in most plants) with one that has
determinate growth like that of an inflorescence."

If one prefers selections stories then one is free to accept them or make
them up. If you don't like one story, then pick another (which more or less
comes down to picking a card from a pack. Pick a card, any card at all -
they are all the same). You see this selective preference for different
stories going into high gear when evolutionists try to 'explain' the
evolution of hominids. The variety is almost laughable. None of it is
scientific in my opinion, and none of it would stand up in a court of law
(unless the judge or jury was first stacked with selectionists).

John Grehan

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:07 PM Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear All,
>         After reading that paper by Greenwood and Atkinson, 1977, I then
> read a followup paper by McGlone and Webb, 1981.  They say "In this paper
> we restate the 'climatic' hypothesis for the origin of divaricating plants,
> first proposed by Diels (1897), and since elaborated and extended by other
> authors."
>         That makes more sense than moas.  Environmental factors, such as
> harsh climate (but perhaps soil fertility as well?), were probably
> selective factors influencing the increase of divaricating plants in
> various parts of the world.  When moas came along later in New Zealand,
> their browsing probably just added yet another selection factor which
> results in New Zealand having a greater percentage of divaricates than
> anywhere else.   Moas had nothing to do with the origin of divaricating
> plants (which happened earlier).
>         But what triggered the actual origin of divarication is still the
> question.  Environmental factors (harsh climate; and perhaps soil
> fertility?) would probably just be selection factors favoring divaricating
> plants in some regions after divarication arose.   How such plants actually
> originated seems to be a separate question from what selective factors then
> affected their differential survival in various places.   Even California
> and Arizona have quite a few such plants, although their form of
> divarication is apparently often less extreme than in places like New
> Zealand.
>        Anyway, here is a weblink to the paper by McGlone and Webb, 1981:
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1770/567d9e7bfda13ee4d473ed4ca3a07f549bb0.pdf
>                           ------------------Ken Kinman
> P.S.  I just read the paper "Hungry Moas and Divaricating Shrubs", which
> also concluded that moas had nothing to do with the "origins" of
> divaricating plants.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Kenneth
> Kinman via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 8:19 PM
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Moas and divaricates
>
> Note that only members of that Society can access the current newsletter
> at their website.
> There is a very interesting paper (Greenwood and Atkinson, 1977) on this
> subject available online (see weblink below).
>                                   ---------------Ken Kinman
>
>                   https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/2780.pdf
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John
> Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 5:50 PM
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Moas and divaricates
>
> For anyone interested in host plant relationships of extinct moas and the
> origin of divaricating plants there is a small article published in the
> Botanical Society of Otago on that subject. If interested, I can provide a
> pdf or you can access the newsletter at the Society websites at
> https://www.bso.org.nz/newsletter It is the most recent newsletter.
>
> Grehan, J.R. Hungry Moas and Divaricating Shrubs. Botanical Society of
> Otago Newsletter 88: 19-22.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>