[Taxacom] Killifish biogeography

[Ken Kinman]

Hi Michael,  
        Oh yes, there was definitely a response by dispersalist Briggs (Briggs J. C., 2003.  Fishes and birds: Gondwana life raft. reconsidered. Syst. Biol.;52:548-553).  And Sparks and Smith (2005) then responded to Briggs (about the killifish and cichlids).  It is a very interesting debate, and I am not yet fully convinced by either side on the killifish debate.  I was at first inclined to accept vicariance as the major factor in killifish biogeography, but now I am back on the fence and looking more carefully at dispersal (even across the ocean barrier between Madagascar and Africa).       
                                -----------------Ken Kinman
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:08:07 +1300
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Panbiogeography
From: m.j.heads at gmail.com
To: kinman at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Hi Ken, I didn't mean to imply that there was a debate about this group. Murphy & Collier (1997) accepted vicariance, but I don't know if there have been any responses to this from dispersalists.
 Michael

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:




Hi Michael,
         I don't know much about the debate concerning killifish biogeography, but assume (since you brought it up) that it must still be controversial (as with the cichlid fishes we discussed previously).  I can certainly see how the killifishes could be one of the few taxa which survived on Madagascar during the K-T extinction which killed off so many other vertebrates there.  Especially since some killifish can enter diapause during periods of drought and/or starvation. 

        Are you asking my opinion whether I side in this particular case with the dispersalists or those advocating vicariance?  If so, I would have to look at the dispersalist arguments on the other side of the debate.  Are there any recent papers still suggesting dispersal played a major role in the broad (worldwide) biogeography of killifish?   Sounds like an interesting debate.             

                           --------------------------Ken                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 10:39:23 +1300
> From: m.j.heads at gmail.com
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Panbiogeography
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> The aplocheiloid killifish illustrate a standard pattern, with two main
> clades (Fig. 2-3 in my 2012 book). One is in America, and (another

> subclade) mainland Africa. It's not in Madagascar, and you might
> assume that this was the result of extinction there. But the other main
> clade is in Madagascar and the Seychelles, and also (another

> subclade) from India to Java.
> 
> You could explain the pattern by chance dispersal from anywhere within the
> whole range, e.g. Guatemala or Gabon or Goa. Chance dispersal is not
> related to any other factor, and so this wouldn't make any particular

> predictions.
> 
> As an alternative, both groups could have been everywhere to begin with,
> and you could explain the pattern by the chance extinction of the first
> group from Madagascar - Java, and the chance extinction of the second group

> from America and Africa. This would predict fossils in the area of absence,
> but none have ever been found. It's also difficult to imagine why one group
> would go extinct in an area that is exactly allopatric with the area where

> the other group went extinct. This explanation also leaves the original
> differentiation of the groups unaccounted for.
> 
> Or you could explain the pattern by simple vicariance, with the first break

> located between Africa and Madagascar, at the Mozambique Channel. This
> would make the general predictions that other groups would show similar
> patterns, and that there would be a simple correlation between the pattern

> and tectonics, climate or some other environmental factor. Note that the
> first break, between Africa and Madagascar, comes before the secondary
> breaks (between America and Africa, and between Madagascar-Seychelles, and

> India - Java). This is congruent with the continental breakup sequence.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> > Hi Juerg,
> >        Well, certainly not a nude rock.  However, as I explained in an
> > earlier posting, the end-Cretaceous extinction wiped out a lot of taxa
> > (most vertebrates and probably all mammals).  This left it with a lot of

> > empty niches which new mammals and birds, etc. would fill during the
> > early-to-mid Tertiary.
> >         But I suppose John would deny that the end-Cretaceous extinction
> > was that bad in Madagascar.  I am giving up arguing with him about

> > Madagascar, because he just repeats the same old fallback positions, and
> > now claiming that there is no "analytical evidence" for dispersal to
> > Madagascar.  It might not be strictly analytical evidence according his

> > definition of analytical, but there is plenty of evidence.  He simply
> > refuses to accept any of it.   I should have given up trying to reason with
> > him a long time ago.
> >                       -------------------Ken Kinman

> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: demarmjc at hotmail.com

> > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:00:29 -0400
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Panbiogeography

> > >
> > > Seeing the comments by our dispersalist friends, I wonder then, whether
> > Madagascar was empty, a piece of nude rock, before the "great migration"
> > out of Africa?

> > > Juerg De Marmels
> > >



 		 	   		  


-- 
Dunedin, New Zealand.  My recent books: Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. 2012. University of California Press, Berkeley. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn—80520271968
 Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis. 2014. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028