[Taxacom] Grehan and panbiogeography

[John Grehan]

Hi Ken, Not sure what you feel justified about since you never back up your
characterizations with anything of substance when it comes to objecting to
Cretacous or earlier events. Just reiterating the misrepresentation of
fossil calibrated molecular estimates as actual or maximal dates, or
asserting your faith in chance dispersal does not do it.

Cheers, John

On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 1:12 AM JF Mate via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>