jfmate at hotmail.com
Mon May 23 14:32:56 CDT 2011
John and Michael, we could go on and on about panbiogeographical tit-for-tat, but if wouldn´t achieve much. I can only assume that the problem is that we are looking at different things. Whereas you gather tracks with the idea of figuring out major vicariance events others (lets say me) study particular groups. Panbiogeography doesn´t need phylogenies because it works on large numbers. If you have two areas "joined" by the same tracks you argue that something is going on there, even if many of the tracks are duds. Chances are you are right. However, the problem is when you move from the general to the specific. When you pick one taxon from your dataset you can´t say, specifically, that that taxon´s distribution is predicted by the hypothesis or theory you have postulated. For that specific case you need the phylogeny of the group and fossils to determine if the diversification´s timing is concordant. That is my argument about the circularity of panbiogeography and why you can´t use tectonic evidence to time your taxa.
More information about the Taxacom