Galapagos Iuridae scorpion outlier

pierre deleporte pierre.deleporte at UNIV-RENNES1.FR
Mon Apr 22 15:44:49 CDT 2002


> >At 12:52 PM 4/19/02 +1100, John Grehan wrote:
> >> > The Mediterranean occurrence was not a necessary component for
> describing
> >> > the East Pacific track ...
> >>
> >>That's an interesting concept. How can one leave out primary data
> points? Its
> >>presence on the map would have excluded this taxon from those
> >>corresponding to this track and (seems to me) placed it in another.
> >>
> >>   Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
> >
> >This will need to be explained for me to be able to comment. Please
> >describe the specific methodological principles of panbiogeography that
> >lead to this conclusion.
> >
> >John Grehan

In my view the methodological principle involved is in no way peculiar to
panbiogeography: it is the requirement of using total relevant evidence for
scientific explanation. You cannot discard some evoidence (Meditterranean
location of the (axon under study) unless you argue convincingly (and not
merely state) that these data are irrelevant to historical biogeography of
the taxon in general, or to the specific question you are asking
(concerning circumpacific distributions if I understand well).

John, I must suggest that you cannot answer such general methodological
questions by merely stating "it is like that in panbiogeography". Because
the whole, and very interesting, debate is about the explicitation and
justification of different approaches in biogeography, be they
panbiogeography or others. Discarding possibly relevant evidence is
unjustified in any scientific approach. If it is not part of
panbiogeography, this must be stated clearly, and discarding evidence must
be avoided as methodologically flawed. If it is part of panbiogeography,
then this approach is flawed in this respect. And I fear there is no escape
to this dilemma.
Biogeography is obviously far from having definitely clarified its
principles and methods. Being or not being part of the "present state of
the art in panbiogeography" is not an argument in itself. We have to
consider that panbiogeography MAY be flawed, as any other approach may be,
otherwise there is no possible progress in the debate.

cheers,
Pierre




More information about the Taxacom mailing list