[Taxacom] panbiogeography critique

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Mon Jun 29 11:41:23 CDT 2009


Michael Ivie characterized Croizat's writings as thousands of pages of
gibberish and that Croizat being right on something is a correlate of
the chimpanzee or orangutan pounding on a typewriter and occasionally
producing a sentence.

The trouble with such characterizations is that they are made without
substance. Croizat had his own style, but it was not gibberish any more
than modern biogeographic papers (that in my view sometimes do read like
gibberish). 

One could pick and chose I suppose, but since most biogeographers have
probably never bothered with Croizat (and in my experience so far, most
found his writings objectionable because they did not have the patience
or interest to read about the spatial details of biogeography) I have
excerpted a couple of paragraphs below that pertain to his geological
hypothesis for the Americas. I think they read well enough to be
understood here even without the remaining text, and they make it clear
that Croizat makes his geological prediction not as an accident, but as
a necessary outcome of the biogeographic facts - prediction that was
later geologically corroborated. If anyone wants to argue about the
views expressed in these paragraphs that is fine with me if they have
also read the overall text within which they were written.

p. 77 Main massings and major "tracks" and channels are the biological
expression of basic geologic underlying realities. Flesh and rocks
evolve together. There is reason of the strongest why the biogeography
of the New World (and all the earth) does not necessarily agree with its
present geography. This biogeography is primarily answerable as a matter
of fact indeed to former geographies, not to the current one.

p. 79 Let us assume that instead of being, as of today, of a single
piece in geography the American Continent was at some geological time
past of two pieces, one western, the other eastern; which two pieces
eventually 'floated' to get together in current geography. Let us cast
the dispersal of Drosera and Halenia generally to fun on these discrete
pieces (Fig. 8), and next inquire whether when coming together these two
discrete pieces would alter that dispersal in any manner really to
count. The answer is that the change, vital as it could be in the sense
of geophysics, would surely not make much different in that of
biogeography, for Western and Eastern America would still differentially
hold the dispersal of Drosera and Halenia, respectively. Figure 8 is
undoubtedly crude, yet what it displays is enough, I believe, to reveal
that "floating continents" need not necessarily be incompatible with
quite orderly dispersal, of course within certain limits. I do
underscore, because the very moment within geophysics might claim
something which dispersal cannot allow, the certain limits in question
would be prohibitive even against a science of geophysics and all its
theories.

John Grehan



Dr. John R. Grehan

Director of Science

Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway

Buffalo, NY 14211-1193

email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org

Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372

 

Panbiogeography

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
han/evolutionary-biography

Ghost moth research

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
han/ghost-moths

Human evolution and the great apes

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
han/human-origins

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mivie at montana.edu [mailto:mivie at montana.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:06 PM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] panbiogeography critique
> 
> I know I am going to regret this....
> 
> Croizat being right on something is a correlate of the chimpanzee (or
> Orang if you prefer) pounding on a typewriter and occasionally
producing a
> sentence.  In thousands of pages of gibberish, something would be
correct
> by random coincidence.  This is the major error of panbiogeographers:
> confusing the coincidental accident with ex post facto verification.
> 
> I have been attracted to Panbiogeography at 3 points in my career, the
> most recent just a couple years ago. I have spent most of my career
> working in the West Indies, and 30 years ago knew a huge amount about
how
> West Indian Biogeography worked.  Over the last 30 years what I know
has
> been dramatically decreased -- the more I learned, the less I know.
> Today, as I write this from St. Lucia, I am mostly just confused on
the
> subject.  I doubt we will really understand the region without a major
> improvement in our understanding of its physical origins and history
that
> differs from what we think today.
> 
> Recently, I spent 5 years working on the tiny Lesser Antillean island
of
> Montserrat. The geologic history of the island and region seem pretty
> clear, it is a volcano in a line of volcanoes.  However, the more I
> learned about its fauna, the more weird anomalies I found that made it
> more Greater Antillean than any of its sister islands.  Attempts to
remove
> this problem by more sampling of surrounding islands (hyp: the
patterns
> observed are due to under-sampling of intervening islands) did not
work.
> It just reinforced the oddities.
> 
> The only answer seemed that there was something unknown that made
> Montserrat's history different from the surrounding islands, that
> something being totally beyond current geologic understanding.
> 
> This lead me to reexamine Panbiogeography, thinking maybe I had missed
> something the first 2 times.  I reread what I could stomach of the
> literature (passing on a reread of Croizat himself). But, again, for
the
> third time, it let me down.  It produces an ex post facto narrative
with a
> seductively attractive answer that fits the data, but it is circular
and
> inherently unscientific in the end.  It does produce predictions, but
> those predictions can only be supported by possibly random
coincidence,
> and cannot be refuted by non-corresponding data, as those are
explained by
> the same method as just other tracks, not refutation of the one
previously
> proposed.  Like religion, panbiogeography will explain any discovered
> annomaly.
> 
> Plus, certain of its practitioners are so bizarre!  [NOTE: THIS REFERS
TO
> SOME PRACTITIONERS NOT TO ANY SPECIFIC ONE, AND SPECIFICALLY  NOT TO
> ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TAKE PERSONAL OFFENSE] They are the intellectual
> equivalents of someone who believes in some random but brilliant guy
in
> New York finding golden tablets in an unknown language descended from
> Egyptian, finding truth there, sending the tablets away with an angel,
and
> then founding a religion that is centered in an isolated geographic
> setting.  The followers then use the "fact" of the tablets to justify
> their current beliefs, and tend to feel anyone who disagrees is
attacking
> them and their divinely revealed truth.  Plus, they are very anxious
to be
> viewed as mainstream, not marginal.
> 
> Correspondingly, panbiogeographers believe in some random but
brilliant
> guy in Venezuela, hammering out a series of books in a language that
is
> descended from English (but not quite there), whose followers form a
> colony in New Zealand, and believe with all their heart and sole that
they
> have discovered truth, but that the rest of the world is out to attack
> them.  They do send out missionaries, etc.  And, they are desperate --
> desperate -- to be seen as a mainstream valid science, not marginal.
> 
> However, while this approach makes excellent religion, it does not
make
> good science.  Not a group I want to be associated with.  If the
theory
> was more validly based, it would attract a wider, perhaps nearly
> universal, following.  The fact that it does not makes its
practitioners
> very much like the persecuted self-validating members of minority
> religions -- very sure of their superiority and of their eventual
> vindication and salvation in this world or the next.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of mivie at montana.edu
> >>
> >> Clearly should have stayed out of this discussion, it is not going
to
> >> change anything by getting into  it, but sometimes I go over the
edge.
> >> Spending your life in a wheelchair can make you grumpy, I am
finding.
> > But
> >> a few corrections:
> >
> > No worries. Anyone who participates on this list is probably "over
the
> > edge".
> >
> >> > Michael feels
> >> > that panbiogeography is ridiculous and teaches his students this,
> >>
> >> Again, not what I said.
> >
> > The quote is " I and many others still ridicule panbiogeography at
every
> > opportunity -- I did it this morning with some students."
> >
> > So I think Heads can be forgiven to interpreting "I did it this
morning
> > with some students" to mean "that panbiogeography is ridiculous and
> > teaches his this".
> >
> > I do ridicule it, but mostly because of the
> >> bizarre practitioners, and never in an actual teaching environment.
> >
> > But see above.
> >
> > In what way are the practioners "bizarre"?
> >
> > It is
> >> hard to actually talk about Croizat's books with a straight face
(have
> > you
> >> actually tried to read them?).
> >
> > Yes I have read them. Also read plenty of 'standard' books that are
> > sometimes no better or worse.
> >
> > In the conversation I cited, I was having
> >> a discussion with grad students and am guilty as admitted of
ridicule,
> > but
> >> not as stated above.
> >
> > Clarification understood, but the inference was reasonable I think.
> >
> >> Mainstream religion believes in talking snakes, but that does not
make
> > it
> >> good science.
> >
> > But in science publishers such as OUP seem to be pretty conservative
and
> > citing other fields may not be germane. If the nature of the
publisher
> > has no bearing on being mainstream, then the opinions by critics of
the
> > method don't really add to much either. They are just opinions that
may
> > or may not be correct. But some comments below.
> >
> > Cracraft's "oversimplistic interpretation" claim my or may not be
> > correct. But if "oversimplistic" interpretations result in
successful
> > geological predictions then so what?
> >
> >> "Most applications of the panbiogeography
> >> method tend towards the narrative rather than the analytical"
> >
> > This could be said of all dispersalist accounts (the analysis being
the
> > phylogeny, the narrative being the dispersalist claims). This claim
> > about panbiogeography ignores the fact that the panbiogeographic
method
> > is analytical.
> >
> >> "...they strongly advocate using biogeographic distributions
> >> as evidence of phylogenetic relationships, but their examples have
> >> preconceived notions of relationships built into them."
> >
> > Who knows what this might mean. The fact is that the use of
> > biogeographic relationships has generated phylogenetic predictions
that
> > have been later corroborated through biological analysis.
> >
> >> "The authors are strong supporters of the importance of
systematics,
> >> but they are short on specific analytical procedures of how
> > biogeography might be used to infer relationships."
> >
> > Hard to figure that one out.
> >
> >> Serious problems inherent in the Panbiogeography method, which have
> > been
> >> documented in the literature ad nauseum.
> >
> > No they have not. Just theoretical objections to a method that
works.
> > That's the bottom line - the method does work. No one has
demonstrated
> > that the standard tracks and nodes do not exist, that there are no
ocean
> > basin correlations of global patterns of distribution, that there
are no
> > centers of basal evolution, that there are no correlations between
> > distribution and tectonics, that Croizat was wrong about the
tectonics
> > of the Galapagos or the Americas. One can theoretically debate any
> > method theoretically, but the bottom line is the result (in my
opinion).
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
of
> > these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
> >





More information about the Taxacom mailing list