Taxacom: Nature of argument panbio and climate change

[John Grehan]

In an earlier posting it was asserted (without any details) that the
arguments about suppression of panbiogeography and climate change denial
were the same, or nearly so. Without details it's a bit hard to assess. The
implication seems to be that if the arguments are similar and one is
discredited, so is the other. In the case of climate change denial, as far
as I am aware, the denial arguments have been empirically addressed. For
panbiogeography this is not so straightforward. In some past papers there
have been some objections to the validity of panbiogeography, even by some
vicariance cladists (!) who contrarily also claimed that panbiogeography is
one of the foundations for the validity of vicariance biogeography (figure
that one out). Most objections were on philosophical or methodological
principles in general, rather than addressing the empirical findings of
panbiogeography (correlated distribution patterns, correlated sister taxa
relationships, correlated tectonics, novel corroborated geological
predictions). One paper (if I recall correctly) even complained about
panbiogeography still being active when it should be dead :)

In general, objections about methodology and geology have since been
addressed (and see Heads on New Caledonia for recent examples), and
subsequently there has been pretty much no counter attack . Each of the
critiques have been one-off (or pretty much so) attempts by varous
individuals with no follow-up. It's as if they bring out what they think of
as the heavy artillery to make a knockout blow against panbiogeography, and
then retire (a bit like the Union generals until Grant came along - but
perhaps analogy overextended here). Some papers would raise absurdities
such as phylogeny being ignored (a false representation that was either
intentional or showed a failure to comprehend the discipline) which further
obfuscated the debate.

In the recent butterfly (Coenonymphina)  work, panbiogeography illustrates
once again, how such 'dispersible' organisms (and many other examples in
the past, including birds) are amenable to panbiogeographic analysis and
interpretation (and demonstrate a consistency of evidence between
phylogeny, distribution, and tectonics). It's not the only such butterfly
study (others cited in the Coenonymphina work). The response so far has
been typical. In a recent CODA study of the butterfly genus Papilio
supporting center of origin and dispersal, the lead author 'forgot' about
the vicariance evidence published for one of the subgenera (I know he
forgot because I sent him a copy of the paper!). Forgetfulness remains a
big problem for the science of biogeography.

John Grehan



-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3379baab2a19482f38f608dba64b2cdb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286614049997326%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BDpn4uHaTU09GyDev4Ot03Hsmuyq7fE3hVq6VJ8bHVM%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.