The problem with biogeography

John Grehan jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Tue Oct 12 09:23:10 CDT 2004


>       I'm am not sure why you addressed this to "the not so serious
> scientist".  

Serious scientists generally don't like panbiogeography.

In any case, I am rather surprised that anyone would attempt
> to draw any biogeographic conclusions (generally or particularly) from
a
> family of mosses whose taxonomic content is so controversial.  

It seems to me that any number of groups may be 'controversial'. It only
takes conflict between two or more people. Sometimes it seems that the
more people involved in a group the more likely it will be
'controversial' (eg. Nothofagus).

One author
> even suggests that its holophyly (strict monophyly) is doubtful even
> beyond two genera (the type genus and a closely related genus).  It
just
> seems to be premature to draw biogeographical conclusions where
neither
> the content nor phylogeny is well established.

It's never premature to do panbiogeography. One can always draw out the
spatial connections of a taxon as currently understood.

John Grehan


>          ----- Ken Kinman
> *********************************************************
> 
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:35:30 -0400, John Grehan
<jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG>
> wrote:
> 
> >For the not so serious scientist, there is a nice summary view of
> >panbiogeography by Ray Tangey titled "The problem with biogeography"
in
> >the winter 2003 Newsletter of the Systematics Association. His final
> >conclusion is that "The geographic facts of biology are the key to
not
> >only what biogeography is, its conception (ontology), but also to
what
> >we know in biogeography, and how we go about it, its epistemology."
> >
> >
> >
> >The article can be viewed at
> >http://www.systass.org/newsletter/index.html
> >
> >
> >John R. Grehan




More information about the Taxacom mailing list