The problem with biogeography

John Grehan jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Tue Oct 12 09:24:00 CDT 2004


John R. Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
 
http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-
Gate.htm
http://www.sciencebuff.org/primates/Human%20origins/Humanorigins.htm
http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Grehan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:23 AM
> To: 'Ken Kinman'; TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: RE: Re: [TAXACOM] The problem with biogeography
> 
> >       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