[Taxacom] Factual tectonic and biological correlations

[John Grehan]

As I have noted in earlier postings, one of the most important
considerations in biogeography is the potential for spatial analysis to
render information that helps with understanding how the ability to
disperse actually functions in the formation of allopatry (vicariance)
rather than relying on speculations about dispersal ability to explain
allopatry (and as noted on this list, quite often generates mysteries,
puzzles,  paradoxes, enigmas and other perplexities (perhaps one day
someone should write a paper giving a full list of publications of this
kind) rather than any definitive insight.


With panbiogeographic approaches (whether or not ‘panbiogeographic’ in the
formal sense) that look at the spatial relationships between distribution
boundaries of differentiated entities and tectonic boundaries, it is
certainly a relevant and necessary issue for modern evolutionary biology to
address the fact (yes it’s a fact) that there is as much correlation
between distribution and tectonics as there is. In the almost frantic rush
to embrace molecular clocks, the science of biogeography has, for the most
part, experienced a 20-30 year period akin to the Dark Ages of Europe.  Now
even with the misrepresentation of molecular ages as actual or maximal
having been shown to be a fiction, the writers of the fiction continue to
push their way forward, as if somehow reasserting the misrepresentation
will make it all true.


The above opinions aside, Heads’ book does give many factual examples of
biological and tectonic correlations. These examples are, in my opinion,
where modern biogeography needs to make a new start – to address the
spatial evidence and if correlations are to be denied as representing cause
and effect, to provide evidence that is better than misrepresented
molecular ages or simply saying “I cannot believe it” (or words to that
effect).


John Grehan