[Taxacom] (no subject)

[Jason Mate]

Dear Michael, some of the comments need clarification."Accepting a literal reading of the fossil record implies that biogeography is caused by random trans-oceanic dispersal and that any repeated patterns are meaningless.""...but you don't accept biogeographic evidence as it is all caused by chance."Current biogeography is built upon two mechanisms, vicariance and dispersal. From your writings I assume (maybe I?m wrong) that you only truly accept a form of vicariance.  In addition, repeating patterns may or may not indicate vicariance.Repeated dispersal along particular routes can result in patterns. 
"So why are more and more authors putting distribution maps in their abstracts at Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution? Are all these simple, clear-cut distributions really just due to chance?" 
Why bring-up MPE specifically? It is a pretty bizarre comment. Maps are a handy way to convey information, they are not a prelude to track-drawing, so it is no wonder people use them more."If they are not, this suggests that a literal reading of the fossil record might be misleading."I would add that the notion that the fossil record is completely unreliable, thus essentially eliminating lower limits is misleading as well. Taxa can be and are evaluated not just on their direct fossil evidence but on that of higher or related clades. So, even if the evidence for a group is lacking there is often outgroup fossil evidence that can be brought to bear on the problem.
Best
Jason