More on Biogeographic memory
Pierre.Deleporte at UNIV-RENNES1.FR
Fri Oct 12 17:25:52 CDT 2001
At 08:35 12/10/2001 -0400, John Grehan wrote:
> In form systematics there is a very
>large number (relatively) of theorists involved and a matching diversity of
>thought on the right or best systematic approach). Its just a matter of
>history that we pioneered the exploration of panbiogeography. It could have
>been Nelson et al, except they chose to subsume panbiogeography under form
May I suggest that you also subsume panbiogeography under "form systematics" ?
- 1) you connect spatially nearest locations for one taxon. Thus it has to
be a taxon first... This is "form systematics", at least alpha-taxonomy.
- 2) you connect spatially nearest localities of the distribution networks
of two sister groups. Thus they have to be sister groups first. This is
"form systematics", called phylogenetic systematics, even if elementarily
condidered as disconnected sister-groups relationships, but you envisaged
the possibility of intregating the hierarchy of sister groups in a recent
message (... this could lead you very close to vicariance biogeography...).
Seems that differences with vicariance biogeography will have to be found
elsewhere than in "subsuming to systematics", or did I miss something ?
Maybe you are addressing only the way "elementary biogeographic units" are
defined, one-taxon spatial networks in Panb. rather than areas of
endemicity in Vic.Biog.?
Otherwise, Panbiogeography subsumes to systematics some way. Guess this is
logically unavoidable, given that we deal with geography of TAXA.
More information about the Taxacom