[Taxacom] North America, Central America + S.E. Asia sister taxa
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Fri Dec 30 07:45:49 CST 2011
bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:32 PM
> But just for the sake of
> argument, let's assume that they are actually sister groups which
> somewhere in southeastern Asia. The original stem-group could have
> easily been confined to southeastern Asia, with Salvadoraceae
> west, while Bataceae dispersed east to New Guinea, then to Australia,
> and from one of those across the Pacific by rafting (the longer
> event having been made possible by the earlier shorter jumps across
> closely-spaced islands in southeastern Asia (halotolerance increasing
> along the way).
This is as about nonsensical as it gets in biogeography (although there
are plenty of competitors for that title in published works). There is
little meaningful difference between this creation theory (let there be
a center of origin where I say it existed, and then there was) and
creationism. There is no scientific content, just a series of imaginings
- just as it was for Darwin who got the center of origin ball rolling,
all because he could not even recognize the geological implications for
biogeography of his own observations during the Voyage.
> The major difference between this and the Hemiprocnidae birds or
> Kip's beetle taxa, is that they invaded the New World from Europe,
> Bataceae probably invaded in the opposite direction across the Pacific
> (by whatever route one might think most likely).
A difference between two imaginary events is an imaginary difference.
> In any case, "simple
> vicariance" just seems too simplistic in all these cases without some
> dispersal following the vicariance event which gave rise to the sister
Some people cannot accept the world is more or less round. It seems to
simplistic. There is a difference between simple as uncomplicated and
simplistic as naive.
More information about the Taxacom