[Taxacom] Nothofagus flying to NZ

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 22 15:55:17 CST 2006

    Well, I think using the word "magically" is a little harsh.  I just 
finished skimming through the followup paper by Cook and Crisp, 2005, and 
although they criticized Knapp et al.'s paper on certain grounds, they did 
come to the same basic conclusion:  dispersal across the Tasman Sea during 
the Cenozoic (probably after previous Nothofagus had been extirpated from 
New Zealand, which I guess would have occurred around the Oligocene).

     The case seems most clear for the subgenus Fuscospora.  Even if you 
don't like the molecular data which groups N. gunnii together with the New 
Zealand species, there is also morphological evidence linking the New 
Zealand species to N. cethanica (Oligocene of Tasmania).

     So it seems to me the real debate is no longer about IF, but rather HOW 
(and also when) this dispersal of Nothofagus reintroduced it into New 
Zealand-----not once, but twice (one time for each subgenus that now occurs 
there).  Since floating in the sea doesn't seem to work very well, it seems 
to me birds are the best bet!!!
    ----Ken Kinman
>From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
>To: "Ken Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>,<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Subject: Nothofagus flying to NZ
>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:16:31 -0500
>I would be interested to know what Ken Kinman defines as a "good case"
>made by Knapp et al 2005. As far as I can see they take fossils that
>only represent minimal divergence dates and magically (I use this word
>because I am unaware of any scientific process involved) turn them into
>absolute or maximal divergence dates when mapped onto a theoretical
>molecular clock.
>John Grehan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Kinman
>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:07 PM
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Two primitive mammals in one week
>      The paper by Knapp et al., 2005, makes a very good case that
>long-distance dispersal of Nothofagus has occurred over the Tasman Sea.
>Nothofagus apparently doesn't like sea-water, but why has dispersal by
>migrating birds been rejected as a mechanism in the past?  Even if
>Nothofagus nuts are not eaten by birds today, perhaps they were eaten by
>some migrating species of bird which is now extinct.
>    ---Ken Kinman

Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get 
it now 

More information about the Taxacom mailing list