[Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression

Sun Sep 5 14:39:26 CDT 2021

John,
If you want specifics to respond to, how about any of the case studies in
Waters et al, not just the summary quotations?

I'll reiterate: I accept that I am backing off from this conversation, and
accept whatever negative impression that leaves of me to the readers here.
As I said, it was my mistake to enter the debate over panbiogeography since
that was ancillary to my actual point.
I feel I've sufficiently expressed what my problems were with your
statement.
Have a great day.

On Sun, Sep 5, 2021, 10:22 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ziv, you  might appreciate more specific content than "rubbish," but you
> might consider the converse and make your accusations more specific as
> well. When you just post accusations or characterizations without detail
> and reasoned argument, what kind of response can you expect. I said that
> the particular claim is rubbish. You need to demonstrate otherwise. It's
> all very well for you to post claims without substance and then back off
> with the excuse that further 'back and forth' would not be constructive. I
> think it would be really constructive to know the basis for your support of
> the claims that you post. Otherwise you give the appearance of sounding off
> without responsibility for your posts. Its quite bizarre (to me) that you
> would repeat, for example, a claim that panbiogeography has been
> "overwhelmingly resistant to adopting new evidence" without a shred of
> evidence. I think I am fully justified in saying that the claim is
> absolute rubbish. But as a courtesy to you I will give a specific answer in
> support of that response with respect to the recent Galapagos paper that
> cites new tectonic evidence that is so new that I don't think any other
> biogeographers have yet made reference to it. So how about coughing
> something up of substance?
>
> Cheers, John
>
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:31 AM Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>> I have indeed formed my own opinion of panbiogeography from reading the
>> literature beyond just critique.
>>
>> I was in error to engage in criticism of panbiogeography per se in this
>> conversation. My intention was not to foment debate about its merits or
>> drawbacks,  but rather to highlight what I consider to be an inappropriate
>> and potentially damaging analogy in the context of social responsibility,
>> viz. "Māori science." John has indicated that he thinks it was an
>> appropriate way to express his point; I have indicated that I disagree.
>>
>> I'm not interested in further back and forth about these points, as I
>> don't think it will be constructive for either of us, and this specific
>> debate has been rehashed sufficiently in this group.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I appreciate that your responses have more specific
>> content than "rubbish," whether or not I agree with you at the end of the
>> day.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ziv
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021, 23:17 Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ziv, you write that:
>>>
>>> ’… as a field it [panbiogeography] has been overwhelmingly resistant to
>>> adopting new evidence…’.
>>>
>>> Have you read any actual panbiog, or just critique? Our publications are
>>> full of reference to new evidence, especially new geology and molecular
>>> phylogenies – see, for example, the more than 4000 publications referred to
>>> in my 3 books cited below.
>>>
>>> ’… as a field it [panbiog] has been overwhelmingly resistant to…
>>>  responding to criticisms… [the] most vocal proponents [of panbiog]
>>> consistently choose not to respond to these points…’.  When have we chosen
>>> not to respond to criticism? Which criticisms have we not responded to?
>>> We’ve published hundreds of pages responding to criticism.
>>>
>>> ’… as a field it [panbiog] has been overwhelmingly resistant to…
>>>  adapting to nuance…’. What does this mean?
>>>
>>> ‘[panbiog is] a "research program" which fails to meet the criteria of
>>> established scientific rigor in specific, demonstrable ways…’. Which
>>> criteria?  Do you really think institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge,
>>> Berkeley etc. would publish it, or thousands of papers would cite it, if it
>>> didn’t meet the usual standards?
>>>
>>> Don’t believe everything you read – Waters et al. (2013) either haven’t
>>> read panbiog or they are simply making up stuff. For example, they claim
>>> that ‘…the panbiogeographic approach involves little more than mapping
>>> species distributions and drawing lines (tracks) connecting them’. If this
>>> were correct, no-one would call for its suppression. Of course, the claim
>>> is completely untrue – see, for example, the detailed integration of
>>> biogeography with tectonics carried out in panbiog analyses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Heads
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 3:13 PM Ziv Lieberman via Taxacom <
>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, as always, I'd appreciate any response to the specifics of Waters
>>>> et
>>>> al beyond disagreements, denials and "rubbish," but I know better than
>>>> to
>>>> expect such. From the actual details in Waters et al, their points are
>>>> solid, and those familiar with the literature can judge their merits for
>>>> themselves.  Interesting that the "vindication" you reference makes no
>>>> mention of the panbiogeographic program and uses analyses I've seen you
>>>> dismiss out of hand when they indicate non-vicariance results. Telling
>>>> as
>>>> well that you frame this as a "competition" of research programs. I
>>>> wasn't
>>>> aware that we are competing; perhaps I'm still young and naive in taking
>>>> Waters et al and similar criticisms as a concern for responsible
>>>> scientific
>>>> practice in the interest of finding and testing truths, not winning an
>>>> obscure game.
>>>> I suppose there is no need to call for suppression of panbiogeography;
>>>> its
>>>> most stalwart adherents are doing a fine job of ensuring its
>>>> obsolesence.
>>>> In any case, I've made my point about how to choose to discuss this
>>>> matter,
>>>> and my statements aren't really to convince you of anything but to
>>>> demonstrate to other readers of this list that at least some of us are
>>>> aware of the potential problems with the oblivious co-option of other
>>>> issues in your letter, and that your tone and style aren't
>>>> representative
>>>> of the taxonomic community at large.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021, 19:51 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Ziv, My comments below the bold text.
>>>> >
>>>> > “*Recommending caution in the implicit endorsement of a "research
>>>> > program" which fails to meet the criteria of established scientific
>>>> rigor
>>>> > in specific, demonstrable ways,*
>>>> >
>>>> > No one has established that panbiogeography fails to meet “the”
>>>> criteria
>>>> > of established scientific rigor in specific demonstrable ways”
>>>> >
>>>> > *and whose most vocal proponents consistently choose not to respond to
>>>> > these points, is not the same.”*
>>>> >
>>>> > Not true that “most vocal proponents consistently choose not to
>>>> respond to
>>>> > these points, is not the same.”
>>>> >
>>>> > “*Yes, Waters et al. go beyond recommending caution, a step I think is
>>>> > too far”*
>>>> >
>>>> > Good, we agree on that.
>>>> >
>>>> > “*There are several problems here. One is that your ethical argument
>>>> > seems to be "no suppression of ideas is ever acceptable in science,"
>>>> which
>>>> > is quite appealing but doesn't hold water. “*
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually my concern is the suppression of competing research
>>>> programs, not
>>>> > just individual ideas.
>>>> >
>>>> > “*Some ideas are invalid, i.e., unfalsifiable, inconsistent, dogmatic,
>>>> > and so forth.”*
>>>> >
>>>> > Sure, including many that are regularly published nevertheless.
>>>> >
>>>> > *The system we have arrived at to disentangle such ideas from those
>>>> which
>>>> > may be wrong, but are valid, is peer review.*
>>>> >
>>>> > It's what we have sure, but it's not a panacea.
>>>> >
>>>> > *I read Waters et al. (2013) as an opinion that, for explicit and
>>>> > demonstrable reasons, panbiogeography has shown itself to fall in the
>>>> realm
>>>> > of the untestable, inconsistent, and dogmatic, and should therefore be
>>>> > treated as invalid during the review process barring modification of
>>>> the
>>>> > evidence presented to meet these standards.*
>>>> >
>>>> > Sure – that is their argument and I have no problem with their making
>>>> that
>>>> > argument or getting it published.
>>>> >
>>>> > *Read their conclusion again. They don't opine that panbiogeography is
>>>> > invalid intrinsically, but as it is conducted and has been conducted,*
>>>> >
>>>> > All I am concerned with here is that they call for suppression of a
>>>> > competing research program.
>>>> >
>>>> > “*and that additionally as a field it has been overwhelmingly
>>>> resistant
>>>> > to adopting new evidence, responding to criticisms, or adapting to
>>>> nuance.”*
>>>> >
>>>> > rubbish
>>>> >
>>>> > *In other words, panbiogeography should be suppressed so long as it
>>>> > remains dogmatic and non-reproducible.*
>>>> >
>>>> > But they never establish that to be the case.
>>>> >
>>>> > *Again, I actually disagree with their call for blanket suppression of
>>>> > panbiogeography;*
>>>> >
>>>> > Good.
>>>> >
>>>> > *To me, Waters et al. suggest that panbiogeography is not being
>>>> treated
>>>> > with the same stringency as other science in review.*
>>>> >
>>>> > Suggesting is not the same as demonstrating.
>>>> >
>>>> > *"As presented in recent studies, the panbiogeographic approach
>>>> involves
>>>> > little more than mapping species distributions and drawing lines
>>>> (tracks)
>>>> > connecting them.”*
>>>> >
>>>> > Not true.
>>>> >
>>>> > *As early as 1989. . .there were calls for panbiogeography to become
>>>> more
>>>> > quantitative. . .*
>>>> >
>>>> > Quantification of itself is not necessarily the same as validation.
>>>> One
>>>> > can invent a 'quantitative' approach for anything, including imagined
>>>> > centers of origin and dispersal. That does not make them necessarily
>>>> real.
>>>> > Anyway, there are quantified approaches to panbigoeography.
>>>> >
>>>> > *but the approach has remained broadly qualitative and lacking in
>>>> > reproducibility" (p.1)*
>>>> >
>>>> > That might be what they claim.
>>>> >
>>>> > *". .for any rigorous scientific approach. . . the results should
>>>> wherever
>>>> > possible be validated by independent data.*
>>>> >
>>>> > Whatever 'independent' data is. Interestingly in this respect
>>>> > panbiogeography has been validated by 'independent' data such as with
>>>> the
>>>> > novel tectonic predictions (made before they were geologically
>>>> > corroborated) and also note the recent posting about the role of
>>>> tectonic
>>>> > uplift.
>>>> >
>>>> > *In contrast, panbiogeographers have proposed scenarios that seemingly
>>>> > dismiss all other data regarding the history of life on earth" (p. 2)*
>>>> >
>>>> > 'Seemingly' – notice the weasel words. Panbiogeography does not
>>>> dismiss
>>>> > any data. To the contrary.
>>>> >
>>>> > *"When panbiogeographic hypotheses. . . conflict with data from
>>>> geology,
>>>> > paleontology and molecular genetics. . . panbiogeographers tend to
>>>> dismiss
>>>> > these other information sources as unreliable" (p.2).*
>>>> >
>>>> > Not true. A fabrication.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers, John
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 8:57 PM Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Yes, I suppose to a degree it is a matter of personal opinion. I
>>>> >> personally believe that censorship or suppression based on race,
>>>> ethnicity,
>>>> >> national origin, and other identities are issues of social justice,
>>>> and I
>>>> >> don't understand how they aren't. Recommending caution in the
>>>> implicit
>>>> >> endorsement of a "research program" which fails to meet the criteria
>>>> of
>>>> >> established scientific rigor in specific, demonstrable ways, and
>>>> whose most
>>>> >> vocal proponents consistently choose not to respond to these points,
>>>> is not
>>>> >> the same. Yes, Waters et al. go beyond recommending caution, a step
>>>> I think
>>>> >> is too far, but the journal publishing this paper is not the same as
>>>> >> adopting their recommendations.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There are several problems here. One is that your ethical argument
>>>> seems
>>>> >> to be "no suppression of ideas is ever acceptable in science," which
>>>> is
>>>> >> quite appealing but doesn't hold water. Some ideas are invalid, i.e.,
>>>> >> unfalsifiable, inconsistent, dogmatic, and so forth. The system we
>>>> have
>>>> >> arrived at to disentangle such ideas from those which may be wrong,
>>>> but are
>>>> >> valid, is peer review. I read Waters et al. (2013) as an opinion
>>>> that, for
>>>> >> explicit and demonstrable reasons, panbiogeography has shown itself
>>>> to fall
>>>> >> in the realm of the untestable, inconsistent, and dogmatic, and
>>>> should
>>>> >> therefore be treated as invalid during the review process* barring
>>>> >> modification of the evidence presented to meet these standards*. Read
>>>> >> their conclusion again. They don't opine that panbiogeography is
>>>> invalid
>>>> >> intrinsically, but as it is conducted and has been conducted, and
>>>> that
>>>> >> additionally as a field it has been overwhelmingly resistant to
>>>> adopting
>>>> >> new evidence, responding to criticisms, or adapting to nuance. In
>>>> other
>>>> >> words, panbiogeography should be suppressed *so long as it remains
>>>> >> dogmatic and non-reproducible*. That, to me, is at least a partially
>>>> >> reasonable argument which has a place in the literature.
>>>> >> Again, I actually disagree with their call for blanket suppression of
>>>> >> panbiogeography; however, I strongly agree that tenacity and
>>>> validity of
>>>> >> ideas are not the same. If we are not applying our standards of
>>>> scientific
>>>> >> rigor equally across different research programs, then our checks and
>>>> >> balances have failed. To me, Waters et al. suggest that
>>>> panbiogeography is
>>>> >> not being treated with the same stringency as other science in
>>>> review.
>>>> >> I will provide a few quotations from Waters et al. (2013) for those
>>>> who
>>>> >> may be unfamiliar with the paper in question: "As presented in recent
>>>> >> studies, the panbiogeographic approach involves little more than
>>>> mapping
>>>> >> species distributions and drawing lines (tracks) connecting them. As
>>>> early
>>>> >> as 1989. . .there were calls for panbiogeography to become more
>>>> >> quantitative. . . but the approach has remained broadly qualitative
>>>> and
>>>> >> lacking in reproducibility" (p.1)  ". .for any rigorous scientific
>>>> >> approach. . . the results should wherever possible be validated by
>>>> >> independent data. In contrast, panbiogeographers have proposed
>>>> scenarios
>>>> >> that seemingly dismiss all other data regarding the history of life
>>>> on
>>>> >> earth" (p. 2) "When panbiogeographic hypotheses. . . conflict with
>>>> data
>>>> >> from geology, paleontology and molecular genetics. . .
>>>> panbiogeographers
>>>> >> tend to dismiss these other information sources as unreliable" (p.2).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The other big problem, and the one which incited my response, is
>>>> that the
>>>> >> comparisons you make, and the language you use to discuss this
>>>> issue, are
>>>> >> important and have impact beyond semantic disagreements. As
>>>> scientists, but
>>>> >> also as members of a community, it is our responsibility to consider
>>>> how we
>>>> >> represent ourselves through our argumentation strategies and the
>>>> words we
>>>> >> use, the context of our words in history, and their potential effects
>>>> >> beyond our intentions. Those who wish to be seen as
>>>> scientifically-minded,
>>>> >> dedicated to the improvement of the global community, and supporters
>>>> of
>>>> >> free exchange of ideas should engage in conversation following these
>>>> >> principles, and it is my strong opinion (yes, my personal opinion)
>>>> that you
>>>> >> aren't doing so. Your points should stand on their own without the
>>>> need to
>>>> >> appropriate the narrative of prejudice against a group of people who
>>>> are
>>>> >> marginalized *due to the perceived nature of their existence* *or
>>>> >> intrinsic character*. Waters et al. (2013) do not suggest that
>>>> >> panbiogeography be suppressed because they don't like
>>>> panbiogeographers, or
>>>> >> because they think you are an inferior sort of person, or because
>>>> they
>>>> >> stand to benefit from colonization of your laboratory.  If I
>>>> established a
>>>> >> Hollow Earth research program, which stands on decadesof tradition,
>>>> and is
>>>> >> widely supported by people around the world (both true), it would
>>>> still
>>>> >> fail to be demonstrable, reproducible, and quantifiable. A call for
>>>> >> suppression of glaphyrogeography in scientific journals would be
>>>> eminently
>>>> >> reasonable.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am not Māori, so it's not up to me to decide if the parallels you
>>>> are
>>>> >> drawing are damaging to Māori people. However, I do belong to other
>>>> >> historically and presently marginalized groups, and if you had cited
>>>> a
>>>> >> hypothetical suppression of papers by Jewish authors, or queer
>>>> authors, or
>>>> >> transgender authors, I would feel that you were inappropriately
>>>> drawing
>>>> >> connections between my lived struggles and your situation, and it
>>>> would
>>>> >> make me feel less welcome in the scientific community.
>>>> >> I am uncomfortable being quiet when disadvantaged peoples are used
>>>> as a
>>>> >> lever for unrelated arguments.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -Ziv
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:28 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I guess it's a matter of personal opinion as to whether it's a
>>>> relevant
>>>> >>> equivalency or not. I happen to think that it is. It's not a social
>>>> justice
>>>> >>> issue at all - in my opinion. It is all about the operation of
>>>> suppression
>>>> >>> in science, and that is the problem with Waters et al and the
>>>> decision by
>>>> >>> the Royal Society Te Apārangi to accept suppression as being
>>>> consistent
>>>> >>> with its ethics.  That is the bottom line, whether or not one
>>>> thinks I have
>>>> >>> made a good or poor comparison.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Cheers, John
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 6:00 PM Ziv Lieberman <
>>>> zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Apologies for the repeated message - I meant to reply to all
>>>> including
>>>> >>>> the list. To reiterate:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The fact that it is occurring doesn't make it a relevant
>>>> comparison. In
>>>> >>>> fact, as I pointed out, making this false equivalency detracts
>>>> from the
>>>> >>>> cause of indigenous representation.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:57 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Hi Ziv,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I expect you won't know about a recent attempt in NZ by some
>>>> >>>>> scientists to disconnect Maori science from other science. So I
>>>> don't
>>>> >>>>> understand what is dishonest about referencing such a possibility.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Cheers, John
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:29 PM Ziv Lieberman via Taxacom <
>>>> >>>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> John,
>>>> >>>>>> Your question "why not, for example, call for the suppression of
>>>> Māori
>>>> >>>>>> science?" is, at best, poorly thought through, and at worst an
>>>> >>>>>> intentional,
>>>> >>>>>> dishonest conflation of issues which is deeply disrespectful. I
>>>> >>>>>> choose to
>>>> >>>>>> not infer where your intentions fall on this spectrum.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> While I actually don't agree with the recommendations of Waters
>>>> et al.
>>>> >>>>>> (2013) to not publish panbiogeographic works as a blanket policy,
>>>> >>>>>> there are
>>>> >>>>>> some obvious differences in the scenario called for in this
>>>> paper and
>>>> >>>>>> your
>>>> >>>>>> hypothetical situation. Waters et al. (2013) lay out a cogent,
>>>> >>>>>> evidence-based, and highly specific criticism of the
>>>> panbiogeographic
>>>> >>>>>> approach. They give explicit reference to epistemological and
>>>> >>>>>> methodological conflicts between panbiogeography and the modern
>>>> >>>>>> approach,
>>>> >>>>>> which they illustrate with particular examples. In other words,
>>>> they
>>>> >>>>>> clearly justify*—*or at the very least, explain*—*their
>>>> contention
>>>> >>>>>> that "as
>>>> >>>>>> it stands, panbiogeography is not a useful approach for
>>>> evolutionary
>>>> >>>>>> biology" (p. 3). They provide a structure which could be
>>>> responded to,
>>>> >>>>>> point by point, with evidence of your own.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Obviously, no such logical structure could be erected to dismiss
>>>> >>>>>> research
>>>> >>>>>> produced by a (real or perceived) racial or ethnic group. Of
>>>> course,
>>>> >>>>>> history has seen many such attempts to justify eugenics and other
>>>> >>>>>> scientific racism. But such arguments would be patently untrue,
>>>> i.e.
>>>> >>>>>> unable
>>>> >>>>>> to withstand logical, scientific, and moral refutation.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> In summary: your choice of language and analogy degrade your
>>>> point as
>>>> >>>>>> a
>>>> >>>>>> whole, discredit your position as a critical thinker, and
>>>> represent
>>>> >>>>>> co-option of social justice issues into an unrelated scientific
>>>> >>>>>> discussion.
>>>> >>>>>> In fact, the use of this analogy makes it seem like you lack an
>>>> >>>>>> understanding of the problem you are criticizing, whether that is
>>>> >>>>>> true or
>>>> >>>>>> not. This tactic also detracts from the realities of the
>>>> >>>>>> marginalization of
>>>> >>>>>> indigenous peoples, which ironically contributes to upholding the
>>>> >>>>>> kind of
>>>> >>>>>> (historical and present) exclusionism which you are taking
>>>> advantage
>>>> >>>>>> of to
>>>> >>>>>> express your outrage.  You cannot behave this way while
>>>> simultaneously
>>>> >>>>>> calling for scientific integrity and credibility.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> -Ziv Lieberman
>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>