Taxacom: Taxacom Digest, Vol 221, Issue 7

Fri Sep 13 13:28:39 CDT 2024

Les – you make some interesting and thoughtful observations. I for one do
not profess any

particular expertise when it comes to philosophy of science, so will leave
that to others on this subject. Regarding Popperian elimination of
alternatives, perhaps you are right. But my point rests more with the fact
that the prediction for Phassodes was based on tectonic correlation. That
correlation could not be made by center of origin-chance dispersal methods
since the mode of dispersal is chance dispersal. Chance can explain
everything and nothing, but either way, there is no rationale for having
predicted a taxon along the Vitiaz arc (former subduction zone) also being
present in Vanuatu (a displaced portion of the Vitiaz arc.

I suppose the argument that a prediction means little without elimination
of alternatives might be applied to Croizat's (1971) prediction that the
Americas represent a tectonic composite – before geologists discovered that
fact. The first composite tectonic origin model for the Americas by
geologists actually acknowledges Croizat for predicting the model in the
first place. They did not dismiss his prediction because other mechanisms
were not falsified (or is the successful novel [must emphasize that it was
novel – unprecedented] prediction in effect a falsification? I'll let
philosophers figure that one out.

I am familiar with the butterfly example you mention. Interestingly, the
authors acknowledged human shipping as a possible mechanism for such
events, but did not investigate for this case. But either way, its a great
example of ecological dispersal – range expansion (temporary or permanent)
of a species. This would be no different from some butterfly species in
eastern US finding its way over inhospitable continental terrane to end up
in the western US. This is different from 'chance dispersal' that is
usually unique for each taxon concerned, to explain the origin of
allopatry. Coincidentally I have a paper in review that references this
instance.

One has a choice between biogeographic research programs that make novel
predictions (at least some being corroborated independently) and those that
do not.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:56 PM Leslie Watling via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> I think there is more than a little issue of Popperian science that needs
> to be considered here.
>
> A model is used to predict the occurrence of a species in a certain
> location. So species A is in location A, and because of some features in
> the model, it is then predicted to occur at location B, either as species A
> or its evolutionary derivative, species B.
>
> The model could well make the correct prediction, but that does not mean
> that the model's mechanism for species A getting to location B is correct.
> In fact, the model prediction presumes the mechanism, that is, the mode of
> movement between locations A and B. Popper would say that all other
> possible mechanisms of movement between locations A and B would need to be
> falsified before the mechanism that is presumed could be accepted. Nothing
> of the sort has been done here.
>
> I think an interesting case in point was the news story a month or so ago
> of West African butterflies arriving en masse on the eastern coast of S
> America. I don't remember the exact details, but it seemed a large number
> of butterflies had been swept across the Atlantic.... so a dispersal event
> for that species is possible if they survive in the new location. My point
> is that a dispersal event may be improbable in many cases, but here you
> have direct evidence of its possibility.
>
> Falsifying biogeographic mechanisms is extremely difficult. So I wouldn't
> get too excited when your model makes a correct prediction. Nice that it
> did, but it explains nothing.
>
> Les
>
>
> Les Watling
> Professor Emeritus
> School of Life Sciences
> University of Hawaii
>
> Professor Emeritus
> School of Marine Sciences
> University of Maine
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:00 PM <taxacom-request at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> > your reply.
> > ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. quoting on facts (John Grehan)
> >    2. Re: quoting on facts (John Grehan)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 22:51:33 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Taxacom: quoting on facts
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > CADN0ud2RxVGOKZ2um9n7WouUZAxJSJjgMFZ5F4Y2SYc8-KO+yQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > With respect to Mike's comment on my original posting: "statement? shows
> a
> > deep misunderstanding of logic and hypothetical-deductive reasoning.
> Facts
> > are -- they are not generated",  a colleague noted off list, that I had
> > said "generated predictions of new facts", not that facts are generated,
> > which is a quite different statement. Trivial perhaps, but nice to know I
> > was not entirely off the mark.
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SOYO1rfHH1PfA9v5TqGYkxuwldZGioBzN78fpEvldmza7MfRHxneUVYpwYrEiwZDPwO2c888mhr9HdA6N8j98v_Xt8MOu93I%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf49d218b46eb4d23687b08dcd421fa42%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638618489622280363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5%2BjzXbPFKJw0cmXSXgCV%2FNFxGFDNgDEN9L%2FUl3cJlU4%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 09:33:03 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > To: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Taxacom: quoting on facts
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > CADN0ud1RGksOWcac-zzjH_Egj0vdnE1XgP2-nxNMLMP96n59EA at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > I received an offlist response so I don't know if that was accidental or
> > intentional, so retain anonymity here. The response was "You ARE on the
> > mark, it is that the way you say that makes people ignore it!  That is my
> > point, communicate in a way that colleagues will listen to.  Your
> complaint
> > is that they ignore you, that is why."
> >
> > First, the way I 'said it' was clear enough - that
> > panbiogeography generated predictions of new facts. Not sure how this can
> > be viewed as a way of saying something that makes people ignore it.
> 'They'
> > don't ignore it just because of me. There are other contributions in
> > prominent research journals and books where editorial policy would not
> > allow for substandard language, and the stuff still gets ignored. I am
> more
> > inclined to the view that the ignoring of panbiogeography is because it
> > upsets the center of origin-chance dispersal applecart where
> > 'biogeographers' can just pump out results from recipes without having to
> > know actual biogeography. Imagine if biogeographers needed to be familiar
> > with details of distribution, not only for their group, but for taxa in
> > general, and globally. Oh what a lot of work, and so little time to get
> > another funding grant.
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 10:52?PM John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > With respect to Mike's comment on my original posting: "statement?
> shows
> > a
> > > deep misunderstanding of logic and hypothetical-deductive reasoning.
> > Facts
> > > are -- they are not generated",  a colleague noted off list, that I had
> > > said "generated predictions of new facts", not that facts are
> generated,
> > > which is a quite different statement. Trivial perhaps, but nice to
> know I
> > > was not entirely off the mark.
> > >
> > > Cheers, John
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SOYO1rfHH1PfA9v5TqGYkxuwldZGioBzN78fpEvldmza7MfRHxneUVYpwYrEiwZDPwO2c888mhr9HdA6N8j98v_Xt8MOu93I%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf49d218b46eb4d23687b08dcd421fa42%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638618489622280363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5%2BjzXbPFKJw0cmXSXgCV%2FNFxGFDNgDEN9L%2FUl3cJlU4%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SOYO1rfHH1PfA9v5TqGYkxuwldZGioBzN78fpEvldmza7MfRHxneUVYpwYrEiwZDPwO2c888mhr9HdA6N8j98v_Xt626m06n%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf49d218b46eb4d23687b08dcd421fa42%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638618489622280363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b25BfQbxs8P3M1hkJuFsjLE5y%2F4Yqe6EstlhEjp%2Fk6E%3D&reserved=0
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years,
> 1987-2024.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SOYO1rfHH1PfA9v5TqGYkxuwldZGioBzN78fpEvldmza7MfRHxneUVYpwYrEiwZDPwO2c888mhr9HdA6N8j98v_Xt8MOu93I%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf49d218b46eb4d23687b08dcd421fa42%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638618489622280363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5%2BjzXbPFKJw0cmXSXgCV%2FNFxGFDNgDEN9L%2FUl3cJlU4%3D&reserved=0
> > (use the 'visit archived web site'
> > link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom__%3B!!PvDODwlR4mBZyAb0!SOYO1rfHH1PfA9v5TqGYkxuwldZGioBzN78fpEvldmza7MfRHxneUVYpwYrEiwZDPwO2c888mhr9HdA6N8j98v_Xt626m06n%24&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf49d218b46eb4d23687b08dcd421fa42%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638618489622280363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b25BfQbxs8P3M1hkJuFsjLE5y%2F4Yqe6EstlhEjp%2Fk6E%3D&reserved=0
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> > about 37 years, 1987-2024.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 221, Issue 7
> > ***************************************
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years, 1987-2024.
>
>
>

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf49d218b46eb4d23687b08dcd421fa42%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638618489622280363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aE2DMBSLavo14xxSt5e1hkUOkQnXdL7jHnmrMMVB7DM%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.