[Taxacom] Aging New Zealand's species

[John Grehan]

Hey Ken, there is a difference sometimes between what I say and what you
interpret. I said not all journals. Might imply many or not. But certainly
not what I said.

"s not only predicted by Craw and other biogeographers, but many who are
not panbiogeographers.   So that was really no big surprise to many. "
Sure, although it was Croizat who perhaps more than any others made the
most expansive argument early on (OK, so I could be wrong if someone else
did even more, no worries)

"However, extrapolating Craw's prediction about that into suggesting a
Mesozoic origin or very early Cenozoic origin for many organisms in New
Zealand and New Caledonia is not accepted by most." So? Science by the
vote? Remember Semmelweis, or even McClintock.

"What you call a wealth of evidence is regarded by many as an extreme
exaggeration, and that your claim of no "empirical evidence" to the
contrary is also exaggerated."

OK, so demonstrate that.

"This is what many refer to as "cherry-picking".

How so?

 "Trevor Worthy's belief that a lot of New Zealand's species aren't very
old is more likely correct even you think it is wrong."

Of course you and anyone is entitled to whatever opinion on that. But
opinions are not science. They are beliefs. Simply asserting a belief is
more akin to religion than science. Seems to me at least.

John Grehan


On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:56 PM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>       I think that suggesting that many journals subscribe to a
> "totalitarian control of science" is a bit much (if not an extreme
> exaggeration).  As for your earlier post about moths and angiosperms being
> found in the Jurassic, that was not only predicted by Craw and other
> biogeographers, but many who are not panbiogeographers.   So that was
> really no big surprise to many.
>      However, extrapolating Craw's prediction about that into suggesting a
> Mesozoic origin or very early Cenozoic origin for many organisms in New
> Zealand and New Caledonia is not accepted by most.  What you call a wealth
> of evidence is regarded by many as an extreme exaggeration, and that your
> claim of no "empirical evidence" to the contrary is also exaggerated.  This
> is what many refer to as "cherry-picking".   Trevor Worthy's belief that a
> lot of New Zealand's species aren't very old is more likely correct even
> you think it is wrong.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John
> Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 1, 2019 3:34 PM
> *To:* taxacom
> *Subject:* [Taxacom] Aging New Zealand's species
>
> Fortunately not all journals subscribe to totalitarian control of science
> and so despite calls for such  by some prominent NZ scientists, the popular
> Journal "The Listener" recently allowed reference to alternative viewpoints
> by publishing a 'letter to the editor' Transcript below. I can provide pdf
> of the original article and letter for anyone so interested.
>
> John Grehan
>
> The Listener December 22 2018 – January 4 2019
>
> Letters, p. 6
>
> Aging New Zealand’s species
>
> Trevor Worthy and his colleagues are to be commended for their efforts to
> reveal the existence of now extinct elements of New Zealand’s animal life.
> “Exotic Paradise”, September 29). However, I would assert that he is wrong
> in his belief that “a heck of a lot’ of New Zealand’s species aren’t very
> old. There is no empirical evidence for this and molecular clocks often
> cited as support are only minimum estimates. Instead, as demonstrated in
> unprecedented detail and broad  scope in Michael Head’s “Biogeography and
> Evolution in New Zealand” (2018, CRC Press), there is a wealth of
> biogeographic and tectonic evidence that most of New Zealand’s endemic
> biota are fragments of eastern Gondwana before the rifting of Zealandia.
> This evidence was further supported in a recent study in Zootaxa (2018:
> 4415) demonstrating that New Zealand’s ghost moths also follow similar
> Gondwana patterns. While many  researchers may have assumed that most of
> the original biota was ‘drowned’ in the Oligocene, or that the surviving
> fauna lacked major predator groups, this was never the case for pioneering
> researchers such as Robin Craw and Michael Heads who characterized the
> tectonic evolution of New Zealand’s biota long before the new fossil
> evidence. They demonstrated that New Zealand’s biological and geological
> origins have a shared history, and I contend that it is this finding to be
> the most significant educational message for the students of tomorrow.
>
> John Grehan
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>