Wandering Refugium

[Robin Leech]

What is a Wandering Refugium?

Glacial/geological evidence and biological evidence for an area during an
identified time may conflict.  In 1964, I offered an explanation that keeps
the geologist and the biologist happy.

Consider that biologists say, "There is a old assemblage here, probably
pre-Wisconsinan."  The geologists say, "This area was entirely covered
during the Wisconsinan."  There is an answer that solves the conflict.

A glacier front or tongue can move into an area at the same time ice is
receding from other local areas.   These movements usually happen very
slowly.  The result is that the biota (fauna and flora) there move away from
one front and move to an area or areas recently vacated by ice.   This is
called a "Wandering Refugium".  There are many examples of this in
Scandinavia and in the high Canadian Arctic (e.g., Lake Hazen area on
northern Ellesmere Island).

I have used the term "Wandering Refugium" since 1964.

Robin Leech

----- Original Message -----
From: John Grehan <jrg13 at PSU.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 12:16 AM
Subject: Evolutionary problems


> Don McAllistar wrote
>
> >Bird (=pigeon) milk might have been considered to have falsified
evolution
> >if its
> >chemical makeup and/or manner of generation was similar to that of
mammals.
>
> But how similar would be similar enough. just a rhetorical question.
>
> >I think this is a particulary strong type of prediction, the less likely
the
> >instance, the stronger a test of the theory.  Of course there are other
> >biogeographic examples. Biologists argued from their data that the Queen
> >Charlotte
> >Islands (Haida Gwaii), were unglaciated during the Wisconsin, a
hypothesis
> >rejected
> >by geologists. Later geologists found radioactive carbon data refuting
> >their own
> >hypothesis.
>
> Thanks for the example. There are similar instances in New Zealand where
> glaciers were hypothesized to have covered the entire landscape in certain
areas
> and this was incongruent with the biogeogrphic patterns. The glacial
models
> were later modified to restrict the glacial areas.
>
> Bill Shear  wrote
>
> Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, have the advantage of no
> constraints save observable physical law.  They also have the luxury of
> being able to constantly revise their theories to accommodate new facts;
it
> is not neccessary to explain those facts away or to ignore them because
> they do not fit the framework.
>
> Although this can indeed happen. But I agree, its not required.
>
> On the other hand, no explanations are
> allowed that violate known "laws of nature (themselves perhaps subject to
> revision from time to time)."
>
> If the laws of nature can be revised, then there is not necessity for
> explanations
> to conform I would think.
>
> John Grehan
>