[Taxacom] Deja vu (too much vicariance)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Jason,
         I certainly agree that "Even if people were marginally sympathetic to panbiogeography, the over the top language would harden their stance."  But it would be technically more accurate to say "too much vicariance team".  This is especially true when it comes to Madagascar.  As I said in a post in 2014, they don't seem to "realize how devastating the K-T extinction event was to the biota of Madagascar, and how that cleared the way for the vertebrate dispersers during the Cenozoic."
         I also said:  "In spite of the growing amounts of evidence for Cenozoic dispersal (for invertebrates and plants, as well as vertebrates), you [John] always retreat to your fallback position complaining about "minimal estimates", but your imagined "maximal estimates" would often have to be so old that they seem even more problematic. Perhaps there was more Cenozoic vicariance in Australasia, but if you keep on harping about dispersal to Madagascar, it makes people wonder if you are also exaggerating the role of vicariance elsewhere. "    Source: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2014-March/126916.html

                   -----------Ken Kinman

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 12:33 AM
To: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Jason Mate <polyphagans at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 187, Issue 18

Now, now Jason. It's one thing to object to the way I describe a particular
approach, but another to create an "all vicariance team".  See Heads'
response on that. And it is incorrect to say that I am complaining "that
they are using timing to discern between tectonics and active dispersal".
Not at all. What I am 'complaining' about is the continued use of
the fiction that fossil calibrated estimates somehow generate actual ages
when they don't. And they carry this on as if this has never been pointed
out. That is why it is a fiction, and why their approach is garbage - in my
opinion. A fossil can empirically generate only an actual date for the
oldest known record. One may have personal views about limiting how much
older a taxon may be, but that estimate cannot come from the fossil. A
minimum is a minimum, is a minimum.

I would also note that many have dismissed panbiogeography as 'garbage' one
way or another, and I have no problem with that as everyone is entitled to
their personal view, but how they reach that opinion is up for challenge,
at least in science, in theory anyway. Some try to get around that little
impediment by trying to have panbiogeography suppressed so they can
presumably avoid having to defend their views from critique.

Cheers,

John Grehan

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:16 AM Michael Heads via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> I don't know any 'all-vicariance biogeographer', let alone a team. Can you
> name any? If evolution really was 'all vicariance', every species would
> have its own range, shared with no other.
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:48 PM Jason Mate via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > "Here's another predictable example of garbage biogeography. Garbage,
> > because ...
> > ...maintaining the fiction ...
> > It's all a total fabrication, now verging on fraud ..."
> >
> > Even if people were marginally sympathetic to panbiogeography, the over
> the
> > top language would harden their stance. What you are complaining about,
> > again, is that they are using
> > timing to discern between tectonics and active dispersal. We already know
> > the "all-vicariance-team" has no room for the latter so... what's new?
> >
> > Jason
> >