[Taxacom] Why I do this, and Why you should too -- The End
barry_roth at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 29 15:21:50 CDT 2009
To be sure, my experience took place in the early to mid-1980s, so the resources you mention were not yet available. (Could you send the citation for the 1999 book you mention?) And I admit not having tried to keep up on that literature.
I did proceed to publish some work relating the fossil to the Recent distribution of land snail taxa, and finding repeated patterns therein. I'll scan those 1986 and 1988 papers and send the files to you. At the time I appreciated somewhat dimly the fact that to be useful a track has to pertain to members of a holophyletic group; and in most cases there was not enough phylogenetic analysis to demonstrate that. I relied on "membership in a genus" as proof of relationship -- and don't think I went far wrong, but I am conscious of that extra layer of rigor that would make the biogeographic analysis better.
ps.--your use of "suited" and "to [my] liking" implies more subjective and idiosyncratic judgments than I think I was making.
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:
I am certainly curious about your experience and evidently Croizat did not lay out biogeography in a way that suited you. But one need not rely solely on Croizat's work. There was a book in 1999 that gave a fairly straightforward overview and outlined methodology with more detailed outlines cited in the literature. It also gave a glossary of terms. There are also some pretty comprehensive analyses published by Heads that illustrate the correlation between biogeography and tectonics.
Perhaps that is still not to your liking, and that's ok.
I would be interested to see your draft contribution.
More information about the Taxacom