[Taxacom] What exactly is or is not a Gondwanan distribution?
tokay at ufl.edu
Wed Mar 27 15:05:21 CDT 2013
The single wayward genus (and a good, uncontested genus at that) has
good morphology separating it from the "west of the Andes" genus in
South America. These genera do not occur in Australia (where three
other distinct genera occur) or New Zealand (where one more genus occurs
exclusively). Morphology seems unquestionable as to whether or not this
is a tribe distinct from the other two tribes in the subfamily (of
Molecular evidence (my own work) is ambiguous and weakly supported for
the tribes in question, but does not aim me away from the viability of
the tribe in question. Naturally, I have yet to find a DNA-viable
specimen of the wayward genus.
I cannot address your other taxon-specific questions.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:43:14 -0700, Peter Rauch wrote:
> Is South Africa east of, or west of, South America ? (Now?, Then?)
> Is the taxonomic placement of the "wayward" genus correct ? (Right
> Tribe?, Or is it a misplaced, and of a different, non-Gondwanan
> Is the wayward genus a recent evolutionary development, having
> evolved from a Gonwandan "legitimate" So. Amer. taxon ? (split later
> than the Gondwanan split ?)
> It seems that there are a number of taxon-specific bits of
> information that would need to be brought to bear on your question,
> the simplest of them being whether your statement about the genera of
> the particular tribe in question refers to a genus (or several
> occurring in several of those locations, or if each genus is
> restricted to one or another of those locations ? I.e., how are those
> genera distinguished from the wayward genus other than the fact that
> the wayward genus is found "only" east of the Andes (and that all the
> genera are presently placed in the same tribe)?
> At 12:17 13/03/27, Leavengood,John wrote:
>> I am not well-versed in biogeography; hardly versed at all, in
>>I have encountered many references to Gondwanan distributions often
>>pointing to taxa which span Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa
>>Chile/Argentina bound by the Andes. Definitions seem to match this
>>notion. So if a taxon (say, a tribe) has genera in New Zealand,
>>Australia, Chile and Argentina, but one genus among them occurs only
>>east of the Andes from northern Argentina all the way to Guatemala,
>>that tribe still considered of Gondwanan distribution?
>>Why or why not? Or perhaps it points to a certain type of Gondwanan
>>distribution attributed to a particular timeframe facilitating that
>>lineage propagated east of the Andes but has no members west of them?
>>I would appreciate answers accompanied by references, but all
>>John M. Leavengood, Jr.
>>University of Kentucky
>>Department of Entomology
>>S-225 Agricultural Science
>>Center Building - North
>>Lexington, KY 40546-0091
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
John M. Leavengood, Jr.
University of Kentucky
Department of Entomology
S-225 Agricultural Science
Center Building - North
Lexington, KY 40546-0091
More information about the Taxacom