[Taxacom] more on iguanas

[John Grehan]

My original email accidentally went off the list. With respect to " The
examples I’m thinking of would require invocation of “imaginary” vicariant
events where no geological evidence exists to support it." I would agree
that there may be instances where the tectonic evidence is not substantive.
After all, Croizat predicted a tectonic origin for the Galapagos biota, and
even predicted some of the geological formations that once existed in the
eastern Pacific -  even though at that time  'no geological evidence exists
to support it' (in fact because of this Mayr said this absence of
geological evidence was proof that Croizat was not only wrong about the
Galapagos, but wrong about everything else as well). It's not only about
tectonic or geological evidence, but also the geographic structure of
allopatry shared by different taxa that need to be taken into
consideration.  But if someone insisted that moas, for example, did swim
across the Tasman sea, I could not of course 'prove' otherwise. But this
does not mean a moa swimming hypothesis represents anything substantive in
biogeographic argument - in my opinion.

Cheers, John

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:24 PM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> The examples I’m thinking of would require invocation of “imaginary”
> vicariant events where no geological evidence exists to support it.  My
> point is, there is no reason to assume either vicariance or dispersal as
> the null hypothesis, because neither is universally most parsimonious.
> Each case has to be examined on the best collection of evidence.  No doubt
> there are plenty of examples where people mistakenly default assume
> dispersal as the origin of allopatry, but that does not excuse the equally
> egregious fallacy of default assuming vicariance.
>
>
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
>
> *Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum*
>
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
>
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
>
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>
> BishopMuseum.org <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html>
>
> *Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.*
>
>
>
> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 1, 2021 4:49 PM
> *To:* Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] more on iguanas
>
>
>
> "  where the most parsimonious explanation for the observed pattern of
> distribution is that a long time ago members from populations at one
> location dispersed to the other location (by “chance”?)," Perhaps it might
> be considered 'most parsimonious' according to whatever criteria, but it
> could also be due to a tectonic break within the range of the ancestor so
> that the isolated populations are now separated by open ocean.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:09 PM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we have differing understandings of the word “chance”?  But there
> are certainly examples in the marine world involving two allopatric
> populations of distinct sister species separated by open ocean, where the
> most parsimonious explanation for the observed pattern of distribution is
> that a long time ago members from populations at one location dispersed to
> the other location (by “chance”?), in such a way that gene flow was not
> maintained between the new founder population and the original source
> population for a long enough period of time that the geographically
> separated populations evolved/differentiated into two distinct allopatric
> species.
>
>
>
> Would a scenario of that sort count as allopatric
> speciation/differentiation as a consequence of chance dispersal?
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
>
> *Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum*
>
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
>
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
>
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>
> BishopMuseum.org <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html>
>
> *Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.*
>
>
>
> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:57 PM
> *To:* Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] more on iguanas
>
>
>
> I guess we will go around in circles on this one since I don't regard the
> process you describe as the same as the singular unique 'chance' dispersal
> event used to explain allopatry.
>
>
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:47 PM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, we’ve discussed this before.  We know chance dispersal happens at
> ecological timescales, but I think what might be “imaginary” is the
> assumption that the frequency of “chance” dispersal is never low enough
> that it can be a factor on evolutionary time scales.  There are plenty of
> examples of marine allopatry where invoking explanations other than chance
> dispersal involves a lot of conjecture and “just so” postulation.  From my
> viewpoint, in such cases the burden of proof lies with explanations of
> allopatric differentiation that involve factors other than chance
> dispersal.  I have seen examples of postulated vicariance that I could only
> characterize as “imaginary”.
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
>
> *Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum*
>
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
>
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
>
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>
> BishopMuseum.org <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html>
>
> *Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.*
>
>
>
> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:32 PM
> *To:* Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> *Cc:* TaxaCom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] more on iguanas
>
>
>
> Hi Rich. What you are referring to is what I would view as ordinary
> ecological dispersal that is empirical (observable) and does indeed explain
> range expansion and persistence. This is different from 'chance' dispersal
> that is used to explain allopatric differentiation.
>
>
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:51 PM Richard Pyle via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Chance dispersal is also certainly not imaginary among many/most marine
> organisms that have planktonic larval stages, even though they can swim of
> their own volition and have lifespans that may cover several years, have a
> wide range of dietary strategies, and in most cases are not attached to
> other organisms as adults (but in most cases are unable to make large-scale
> movements across vast geographical areas as adults).
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
> Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> BishopMuseum.org
> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the
> exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> > Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 2:29 PM
> > To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] more on iguanas
> >
> > "the imaginary conception of 'chance' dispersal"
> >
> > For minute, parasitic, wing-less insects that have no free-living stage,
> never
> > leave the host, cannot walk on a non-feather surface, are constantly
> under
> > threat of being killed by their host which is several orders of
> magnitude larger
> > than they are, have a life span after hatching of about a month, and of
> course
> > virtually always die when their host dies -- for these, "chance
> dispersal" (or
> > host switching) has been shown to be a major issue confounding old ideas
> > about strict co-speciation in virtually every genus that has been
> studied to any
> > extent in the last 20 years, and is uncontroversial.
> >
> > But for large, non-parasitic, animals that can walk, fly, swim etc. of
> their own
> > volition, may have life spans that cover several years, may make regular
> large-
> > scale movements across vast geographical areas, may be omnivorous or at
> > least not limited to a single kind of food, and have life stages that do
> not
> > consist of being attached to another organism -- for these chance
> dispersal is
> > imaginary.
> >
> > What a time to be alive.
> >
> > Are these repetitious, and above all non-taxonomic, discussions on
> > panbiogeography ever going to end, or is this a preview of the hell that
> all
> > taxonomists go to when we die?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > To the biogeographic hobbyists: in my opinion, the primary problem of
> > > the molecular age underestimate papers is not even so much about their
> > > misrepresentation of fossil age calibration, but the way this
> > > technique lets such authors escape from any responsibility to be
> > > familiar with biogeographic patterns in general. After all, if each
> > > individual taxon has its own history of 'chance' dispersal, then there
> > > is no need to see any connection with the biogeography of any other
> > > taxon or the possibility of tectonic correlations. In effect, an
> > > intellectual curtain is drawn over the biogeographic stage. What is
> > > not seen, does not exist. For the iguanas, for example, there seems to
> > > be no comprehension of the basic distributional facts as noted in
> > > Heads & Grehan (2021): "The Iguanidae and their sister, Agamidae (with
> > > Chamaeleonidae), are almost perfectly allopatric, and this is
> > > consistent with the origin of each clade more or less in situ, by
> > > vicariance in a global ancestor (Heads, 2014 p. 119). In this model,
> > > Iguanidae did not cross the Pacific in either direction. The origin of
> > > the trans-Pacific affinity is explained by breaks in a global ancestor
> > > at sites that correspond with the western margin of the Pacific plate.
> > > The only dispersal required in either Iguanidae or their sister group
> > > is in or around Madagascar, where the two clades overlap." I do hope
> > > the critics on Taxacom make due note of the reference to the evidence
> > > for dispersal here!
> > > But of course, it is not the imaginary conception of 'chance'
> > > dispersal,
> > > but ordinary ecological dispersal (an observable phenomenon)
> > > responsible for range expansion. The real biogeographic issue has
> > > never been about contesting vicariance against dispersal [which has
> > > generated the trite conclusion that both are involved in different
> > > taxa], but coming to an understanding about how the two processes are
> > > interrelated in the evolution of distributions. Croizat's work was, in
> > > my opinion, the first substantial effort to accomplish that - by
> > > making reference to the by far greatest biodiversity resource
> > > available - the distributions of animal and plant taxa that are made
> > > evident through the combined sciences of taxonomy, systematics, and
> > > geography.
> > >
> > > As for my characterizations sometimes being seen to be 'over the top',
> > > I suppose they might be. Perhaps from now on I will just refer to such
> > > papers as 'really, really, really terrible'. Hope that will be a
> > > widely acceptable expression of an opinion. And of course always, with
> > > reference to why that opinion is reached, since how one reaches an
> > > opinion in science is more important than the opinion itself.
> > >
> > > Interesting that those who are so outraged by language are evidently
> > > not able to come to the table with responses to questions about their
> > > assertions (as in recent questions by Heads). I think that says a lot.
> > >
> > > Cheers, John Grehan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > > 1987-2021.
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor Institute of
> Zoology
> > Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
> >
> > Ask me about chewing lice!
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
>