Biogeography and geological evidence etc.

P.Hovenkamp Hovenkamp at NHN.LEIDENUNIV.NL
Thu Feb 6 10:24:37 CST 2003

At 11:48 AM 2/5/03 -0500, john Grehan wrote:
>When Croizat predicted the existence of a major tectonic feature at the
>Galapagos this was not an empirical finding for geology at that time. The
>fact that this prediction has since been corroborated is interesting (at
>least I think so) in that the biogeographic model (of land connections
>between the Galapagos and the Americas etc) may be unacceptable to
>Darwinian biogeographers, yet the model worked in predicting future
>geological findings.

Croizat wrote quite lot - there may even be some unsuccessful predictions
hidden away in the 5K pages comprising his books. And the prediction of a
"major tectonic feature" involved in an oceanic island group strikes me as
rather unspecific - and one that would hold for quite a large number of
island groups (or else there wouldn't be any islands on that location).
Maybe it is possible for someone with plenty of time, and all of Croizat's
writings at hand, to compile a simple list of all his predictions, and to
score those predictions as either successful or not. Only with a list like
that will it be possible to assess the actual success of Croizat's method.
Failing such a list, I think one would be justified in regarding this much
flaunted successful prediction simply as a fluke.

Peter Hovenkamp

More information about the Taxacom mailing list