Space, Time, form: The Biological Synthesis.

Rosen, Donn Eric; Croizat, Léon

doi:10.2307/2412140

Cited by 88 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, nodes sometimes seem similar to "centres of origin". Additionally, Seberg (1986) considered that Croizat's (1958Croizat's ( , 1964 evolutionary ideas, which were interpreted by Rosen (1974) as orthogenetic, should be considered with great care. This can be contrasted with some panbiogeographers (Craw, 1984c;Gray, 1989;Heads, 2005a) that postulated that Croizat's views on orthogenesis are similar to those held by other authors.…”

Section: Who Was Léon Croizat?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Croizat’s dangerous ideas: practices, prejudices, and politics in contemporary biogeography

Morrone

2021

HPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biogeographic contributions of Léon Croizat (1894Croizat ( -1982 and the conflictive relationships with his intellectual descendants and critics are analysed. Croizat's panbiogeography assumed that vicariance is the most important biogeographic process and that dispersal does not contribute to biogeographic patterns. Dispersalist biogeographers criticized or avoided mentioning panbiogeography, especially in the context of the "hardening" of the Modern Synthesis. Researchers at the American Museum of Natural History associated panbiogeography with Hennig's phylogenetic systematics, creating cladistic biogeography. On the other hand, a group of New Zealand biologists formalized Croizat's original concepts and soon began arguing with cladistic biogeographers over the relative merits of their approaches. In Latin America, panbiogeography and cladistic biogeography were incorporated as parts of an integrative approach. A recent development, molecular panbiogeography, is based on the use of molecular phylogenetic data. The current practice shows that some authors insist on considering panbiogeography as the only appropriate approach and vicariance as the only relevant process, whereas others accept Croizat's dictum "Earth and life evolve together" as a useful guide to understanding broad, general patterns, but recognize that dispersal also contributes substantially to biotic assembly. The framework of integrative pluralism allows to explain the complexities of the biogeographic processes involved in biotic assembly without the need of unification on a large scale. This historical analysis intersects with the existing historiography of the Modern Synthesis and may provide some insights on the dynamics of integrative pluralism, which may be especially relevant in the current development of the Extended Synthesis.

show abstract

Section: Who Was Léon Croizat?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Croizat’s dangerous ideas: practices, prejudices, and politics in contemporary biogeography

Morrone

2021

HPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Croizat's (1952Croizat's ( , 1964 nodes seem to be almost impossible to distinguish from 'centres of origin'. Additionally, Seberg (1986) considered that Croizat's (1958Croizat's ( , 1964 evolutionary ideas, which were interpreted by Rosen (1974) as orthogenetic (progressive evolution due to internal causes, not driven by natural selection), should be considered with great care; however, some panbiogeographers (Craw, 1984;Gray, 1989;Heads, 2005a) have postulated that Croizat's views on orthogenesis are similar to those held by Darwin, Mayr, Gould and others. Seberg (1986) also criticized Craw & Weston's (1984) attempts to analyse biogeographical approaches in the epistemological framework of Lakatos (1978), by their redefinition of Croizat's concepts and citation of extracts from Croizat's works.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Generalized Tracks and Nodesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Track analysis beyond panbiogeography

Morrone

2015

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Panbiogeography, as originally formulated by L eon Croizat, assumed that vicariance and range expansion are the only biogeographical processes needed to explain general biotic distributions. This was in opposition to the prevailing paradigm at the time, known as dispersalism, which postulates that organisms evolve in 'centres of origin' from pre-existing species and then randomly cross barriers to occupy new areas, where they adapt and evolve into new species. The panbiogeographic approach is implemented through track analysis, which consists of three basic steps: constructing individual tracks for two or more different taxa, obtaining generalized tracks where two or more different individual tracks coincide, and identifying nodes in the areas where two or more generalized tracks intersect. In this synthesis I discuss some criticisms that have been directed at panbiogeography and track analysis.Location Global.Methods I evaluated the papers with track analyses that have been published in the last few decades and the critiques provided by several authors.Results Most of the critiques have been directed at the original panbiogeographic approach, with its complete or almost complete reliance on vicariance explanations. Track analyses published in the 1980s and 1990s usually applied a strict vicariance explanation; however, most of the analyses published in the last 10 years or so consider both vicariance and dispersal to explain the observed patterns.Main conclusions Although Croizat's metaphor 'Earth and life evolve together' may be a useful guide to understanding broad, general patterns, the relationships between Earth history and life are more complex because biotic history is reticulate. To reduce our explanations exclusively to vicariance or dispersal is misguided. We should integrate both processes into a dispersalvicariance model that allows us to understand the evolution of biotic distributions, incorporating the dating of the lineages and the identification of the cenocrons (sets of taxa that share the same biogeographical history) that coexist within biotas. In the framework of this model, panbiogeographic track analysis is a useful method for identifying biotas, and may constitute the first step of an evolutionary biogeographical analysis.

show abstract

“…Deductions from Replicated Distribution Patterns -Croizat's Approach Croizat (1958Croizat ( , 1964 has been read fairly widely by botanists but largely ignored by such leading zoogeographers as Simpson, Darlington, and Mayr. In recent years Nelson (1975 and Rosen (1974a), both ichthyologists, have advocated Croizat's views (see also . Croizat basically analyzes large numbers of individual distribution patterns ("tracks"), which, he suggests, fall into a series of basic types ("multiple tracks") revealing common ancestral distribution patterns that antedate contemporary distributional barriers.…”

Section: Numerical Analysis Of Regional Faunasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The strength of the Croizat method, it is suggested, lies in its impartial avoidance of assumptions, and the fact that conclusions are based only on "averages". Rosen (1974a) states that the results are testable and that they are potentially amenable to mathematical procedures. This, it is stressed, contrasts with the lack of exact methodology in the case of "dynamic biogeography" and the inability of its proponents to deduce generalizations.…”

Section: Numerical Analysis Of Regional Faunasmentioning

confidence: 99%