[Taxacom] Grehan and panbiogeography

[JF Mate]

Thanks Ken, I admit the comment was in regards to those kinds of posts. But
now that I got that out of my chest I think I will follow the lion's advice.

Jason

On Mon., 6 Sep. 2021, 06:50 Kenneth Kinman, <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>        This time I have managed to resist the urge to respond to Grehan.
> But I certainly appreciated your comments, especially about "cherry
> picking" and "upending the whole field".
>        I almost responded to Grehan's post on Thursday (subject:
> "panbiogeography vindicated once again").  I don't know if that paper
> really vindicates panbiogeography, but noticed that the paper was about
> biogeography of species in the last 3 million years.  Maybe panbiogeography
> can be more useful applied to that recent time period.  However, when it
> comes to Paleocene, Eocene, and Miocene, panbiogeography seems to do more
> harm than good (that's why I liked your comment "upending the whole
> field").  Panbiogeography is even worse when it comes to Cretaceous or
> earlier events.
>                 ---------------Cheers, Ken Kinman
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of JF Mate
> via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 4, 2021 4:13 AM
> *To:* Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression
>
> John, you are offering nothing new that can convince the rest of the field
> that you are correct. The argument over panbiogeography is not entirely
> disimilar to the Ptolomeic epicycles. There are better, simpler models that
> can account for biogeographic patterns without upending the whole field and
> that is why biogeography has moved one.
>
> Best
>
> Jason
>
>
>