Panbiogeography from tracks to ocean basins: evolving perspectives

Abstract

ABSTRACT1 Misconceptions arising from efforts to translate panbiogeography into terms used in other biogeographic and evolutionary theories are discussed with respect to Cox's (1998, Journal of Biogeography, 25, 813±828) critique of panbiogeography. Croizat's rejection of`Darwinian dispersal' applies only to efforts to utilize this concept as a general explanation for biogeographic patterns. The conceptual difference between distribution and panbiogeographic dispersal maps is illustrated to show that Croizat did not synonymize distribution and dispersal. Croizat's position on continental drift and plate tectonics does not support Cox's (1998) claim that Croizat`for a long time' refused to accept the theory of plate tectonics. The methodological relationship between panbiogeographic analysis and geology suggests an independence of methodology that prevents geological theory from falsifying panbiogeographic predictions. Panbiogeographic predictions for the eastern Paci®c are shown to be in agreement with current historical geological models. Claims by Cox (1998) that the panbiogeographic method is variable and questionable are evaluated with respect to the biogeographic homology of primitive frogs, ratite birds, and southern beeches to demonstrate the consistent application of minimal distance, main massing, phylogenetic af®nity and baseline criteria. Panbiogeographic classi®cation concepts are contrasted with the Darwinian system (supported by Cox) utilizing a concept of unitary geographical area based on the language of Roman military rule. Inconsistent positions expressed in recent critiques of panbiogeography may indicate an underlying and implicit acceptance of the empirical and theoretical progress generated by panbiogeography within modern biogeography.The formation of groups has an invigorating effect in all spheres of human striving, perhaps mostly due to the struggle between the convictions and aims represented by the different groups' (Einstein, 1938. Collier's, 26 November).

Historical biogeography: A review of its basic concepts and critical issues

“…Ecology and history are indissolubly tied together, and therefore, the long established division between ecology and history is an obstacle to the progress of biogeography. Some efforts have been carried out to overcome this duality between historical versus ecological biogeography, such as Haydon et al (1994), Avise (2000), Grehan (2001), and Crisci et al (2006).…”

Panbiogeografía, componentes bióticos y zonas de transición

“…Para algunos autores es una precursora de la biogeografía cladística (NELSON & PLATNICK 1981;GRANDE 1990;COX 1998). Para otros es un programa de investigación alternativo (CRAW & WESTON 1984;HUMPHRIES & SEBERG 1989;PLATNICK & NELSON 1988;MORRONE & CRISCI 1990VARGAS 1992b;ZUNINO & ZULLINI 1995;COLACINO 1997;CRISCI et al 2000;GREHAN 2001d). Finalmente, hay quienes proponen que la panbiogeografía posee implicancias importantes para los estudios evolutivos (GREHAN 1984(GREHAN , 1988a(GREHAN , 2001bGREHAN & AINSWORTH 1985;HEADS 1985;GRAY 1988GRAY , 1992MORRONE 2000c).…”

Track analysis beyond panbiogeography

“…Cox then proceeded to evaluate panbiogeographic concepts, concluding that ‘[t]he whole methodology is so erratic and variable that it is confusing and unreliable’ (Cox, , p. 824). Grehan () replied to Cox (), basically stating that Croizat never rejected dispersal and that his new terminology reflected a conceptual framework completely different from both dispersalism and cladistic biogeography. According to Grehan (), panbiogeography incorporates neither dispersal nor vicariance in its methodology.…”

“…Grehan () replied to Cox (), basically stating that Croizat never rejected dispersal and that his new terminology reflected a conceptual framework completely different from both dispersalism and cladistic biogeography. According to Grehan (), panbiogeography incorporates neither dispersal nor vicariance in its methodology. Croizat's approach was to compare hundreds of distributional maps, where the ‘recognition of shared patterns of dispersal led Croizat to propose a general vicariant form‐making mode of dispersal where the “centre of origin” is represented by the combined range of all vicariant members of a taxon’ (Grehan, , p. 415).…”