Skip to main content

Axiomatic Panbiogeography

offers an application of incidence geometry to historical biogeography by defining collection localities as points, tracks as lines and generalized tracks as planes.
About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Member Login
Incidence Geometry
Composite Construction
Quaternion Algebraic Geom
Primate Vicariances
Individual Track Construc
Generalized Tracks
First State
Second State
Fourth State
State Five
States 6 and 7
Main Massings
Track Analysis and MetaCo
Martitrack Panbiogeograph
Replies to Criticism
Multimodel Selection
Search Encounter
Track Analysis beyond Pan


Panbiogeographers tend to suggest  considerably older  phylogenetic scenarios than other historical biogeographers.

Here is a geographic suggestion for the origin of the modern amphibians and the reason they and only they survived (see the Dimetron explanation below)

Salamander Speciation - a Dumb Bell Model

 Taxa speciate into different biogeographic spaces which can be remarked with differing coefficients of relationships between tracks- nodes- masses and baselines.


Questions biologists may ask most frequently about Panbiogeography are answered using John Grehan's  introduction and some of my own reflections.He also wrote this article on panbiogeography for Encyclopedia of Time: Science, Philosophy, Theology, & Culture. 2009. SAGE Publications.
A: The track explicitly maps the spatial connections between disjunct localities. The difference in these locations are comprehended by population geneticist Sewell Wright as extant between deme substantiated subdivisions and a non-isolated genetic continuum.  Insertion of spatial meaning is necessary for methods that assume a historical connection between congruent patterns of biological relationship and a theorized geological or climatic sequence of events. The most frequent form of track construction formalizes the track as a line graph called a minimal spanning tree in which the shortest possible line is drawn between disjunct localities (Page, 1987;Craw and Page, 1988). The individual track is a spatial representation of the evolutionary space of a particular genetic continuum. The minimal spanning criterion is applied in the absence of other information such as phylogenetic relationship where the line graph may first connect points between most closely related taxa.

A:For many evolutionary biologists, biogeography may seem to be an arcane discipline that is out of place in a theory of evolution that is predominantly about the fossil record and the presumed action of natural selection over time. And yet biogeography must be central to evolutionary theory because evolution takes place in space and time as well as in biological form.

A: Panbiogeography is distinct, as it is the only method of analysis and synthesis that accepts locality information as the raw, primary data. In particular, it does not incorporate the theoretical speculations of Darwinian biogeography about hypothetical centers of origin, routes of dispersal, and biogeographic regions that are geographically distinct units or areas (Wallace, 1876).

A:If life is discovered on Mars, for instance, Croizat's demolition of the Wallacian/Matthewian/Darlingtonian view of biogeographic area, may be completely annihilated as the "simple form" of Darwin would be subject to Croizat's format which it has not been methodologically objectified this far, particularly since the notion of "climate" has only been discussed in reference to Earth as of yet no matter what the route of dispersal would have to be substituted for Darwin's "country" even if the center of the Solar System was then proposed as the ostensive origin. Regardless, these putative darwinian biogeographic orbits would be outside any notion constructed from antiquated permanance of land/water boundaries based on the current distribution of land and water on Earth and probably are bound by any form of an ellipse which seems required on Darwin's view. Darwin biogeographers assert isolation where linkage exists. Linkage between the Earth and Mars would exemplify a kind of space such as Cantor conceived where continuous motion is possible in a discontinuous space. Fractal dimension is in position to measure this objectively. Our current notion of geographic area is not in the place where Wright supposed natural populations' current array changes with population growth no matter the form, content by content.

A: This is an ongoing conversation as can be discovered by reading through the posts on Panbiog-L where what is and is not was considered.
More threads are comming soon.

A: Do not substitute fancies for concepts and words for things. I found Croizat's initial suggestion in The Manual to try to keep contained in one thought multiple locations on Earth as one thinks about phylogeny to present a three dimensional motion that can be bifurcated in a quaterion representation of the same geometries' degrees of freedom. Reading further through Croizat's corpus is requried to reach the simple explanation I just gave. Spatail homology need not be downplayed. It is doubtful that S.J. Gould's reading of panbiogeography really occasioned this much of Croizat. Mayr obviously did not.  After hearing from Robin Craw in 2009 and readingh Chapter 7 of "Panbiogeography" on-line, that John put out, I am certain that the  notion of deduction as presented below can be gain said.


A: According to comparative biogeographers it is the view that the Earth's surface is divisible following the intention of Sclater with respect to bird distributions into natural sectors or geographies, a division of the surface. This view presupposes that the most original trajectories that gave rise to the divisions depend demonstrably on past and present earth geology erlse it fails to suggest any geometry that the distributions may retrodict different Solar System origins (more from the Venus side, the Mars side or much father away)of.  Ontological divisions may however have this more intricate reality and different spaces may be mixed up into the geographic distribution of species. Divisions exist in the same space and it may be false to suppose that the hierarchy of spaces on the Earth's surface topologically matches the out of orbit formations of the current diverse phylogenies.  It is rather the velocities that organize the distributions across the space of the Earth's surface.

A: Tracks, nodes, masses and baselines enable diverse matching of a phylogenetic hierarchy to an area or spatially divisible hierarchy depending on the relationship of the panbiogeographic concepts within the form-making of a particular lineage. 
A: All of the point collection localities must be homogenously divisible into a set of velocities across the space covered in the lineages' biogeography. Mass boundaries may be adjusted to faciliate common nodes and the current baseline representation provided that no change in already established generalized tracks are affected. Sting geometries express these relationships.

A: Yes, but area homologies need a more nuanced space of implementation where rotation and revolution of the Earth is taken into account.




Below is a gene tree for the collection localities above,  found in: 

Speciation, phylogeography and evolution  of life history and morphology in …The top junction is all Ouachitas.



 Thus with this gene tree there is still no prima facie evidence wehter the the moreinternal mulitplicata geography or the outgroup Desmognathus geography answers the qeustion. The question on the molecular level is how does the location group {13,15} which did show up in the data connect back through 4 nodes.


This the same issue that one faces with Pseudoeurycea lebrosa for which it has been argued that evolution of the spieces (with a new species forming to the South) ocurred over a few million years from East to West across Mountains in Mexico.

Oddly the authors conclude based on the gene tree sans a biogeography of species trees that muliplicata is not a monophyly.  The narrowness of the issue is revealed in lebrosa which suppossedly evolved from East to West EXCEPT the last two mountains westward which went both ways.


This highlights the need and difficulty to combine gene and species trees in historical biogeography. The current fashion seems to even preclude the asking and answering of certain questions. I need to thank Croizat for providing a rational alternative perspective. 


Using a figure found inComparative Biogeography (page 132) to incorporate orthogonalities and vicariance (without any assumption about mechanism) an "axiomatic" panbiogeography scenario seems preferable to that from published phylogeography  above linked which readjusts formally only in the scale where nodes are present but is thus not open to any influence from main massings. Panbiogeography offers a more structurally possible format indeed if indeed Eurycea multiplicata is a duplication as drawn above. 


It is thus not always the case as stated in Comparative Biogeography (page 136) that when a phylogeographic study asks "Is the degree of genetic distance correlated with geographic distance" the hypothesis is testable because there can be different directions  geographically for various combinations of short-range and long-range dispersal (contributing to dispersion within and among random ideal demes) in Wright's shifting balance theory (unless I misunderstood something here) under isolation by distance.



The data from these salamander populations puts a margin of geographical error on the three rotation angles that must be constrained when all species trees are under consideration projectively.


It seems that perhaps the comparison Wright considered when discussing random differentiation of panmictic units in a continuum applies to these Eurycea salamanders and accounts for a the differences in the phylogeographic  vs  Panbiogeographic (as being developed here) perspectives.


Wright wrote, “Returning to biparental reproduction, the situation in a random breeding unit imbedded in a continuous population of defined size may be compared in some respects with that in an “island” whose population is replaced to such an extent in each generation by migrants representative of the whole that the inbreeding coefficient of individuals is the same.  There is the important difference that the adjacent groups should be closely similar in the former but uncorrelated in the latter.”

Could it be that the southern multiplicata populations has the aspect of a random breeding unit imbedded in the continuous population defined by a size that has the northern multiplicata wherein there were migrants representative of the whole (tynerensis,spelaus) but within the larger whole of longicauda/lucifua the uncorrelated northern panmixis becomes correlated phenotypically and cleaved developmentally? Could developmental differences of neotny and life history be not reflected in the non-correlated"" group differences compared irreversibly to a random breeding population in a larger panmictic whole with migrants. If this was a case then "delta g" chemistry may be differentiable in the same.