[Taxacom] Incongruent phylogeny and geology

[John Grehan]

Antionio,

I fully agree, geology and evolution are not in-congruent. What are
sometimes in-congruent are particular hypotheses of geological history and
particular biogeographic patterns, but this in-congruence does not indicate
an absence of relationship between the two. Also, particular biogeographic
approaches may be problematic, but others perhaps less so. It all depends
on what you mean by contradictions between other groups and geological
evidence.

John Grehan


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Antonio L?pez Almirall
<cycas at mnhnc.inf.cu>wrote:

>  For me, geology and evolution are not total incongruent, but we have to
> be carefull with interpretation of information, because biology and geology
> has ith own laws, and as I saw, there are not so many people has this in
> mind. It is the example of Rosen who wrote a paper about our islands, that
> can be very beautiful for his goup, but with hundreds of contradictions
> with the distribution  other groups and with geological evidences.
>  Antonio L?pez Almirall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Portal <
> biogeography at listes.upmc.fr>
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:32:19 +1300
> Subject: Incongruent phylogeny and geology
>
>  There was some criticism of the idea that incongruent phylogeny and
> particular geological events was just an escape route to avoid
> falsification (or words to that effect). It may seem that way in general,
> but when one gets down to specifics there is more to the picture. A classic
> example is that of contrasting NZ-SAm and Aust-SAm relationshipswhere that
> may represent a geological connection between NZ and SAm via West
> Antarctica and Australia connected via East Antarctica so that the patterns
> evolved in association with Jurassic-Cretaceous extension in the West
> Antarctic Rift System. I may have oversimplified so it would be best to
> read the section on this in Heads' book who also points out that this
> pattern was recognized by Brundin (1966).
>
>  John Grehan
>
>