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.
Home
About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Member Login
Incidence Geometry
Composite Construction
Orthogenesis
Quaternion Algebraic Geom
Vicariance
Vicariant Time
Galton's Law
Primate Vicariances
Individual Track Construc
Generalized Tracks
Taxogeny
Nodes
Edges
Distributions
Propositions
CREADer
Areas
Main Massings
Geology
Track Analysis and MetaCo
Martitrack Panbiogeograph
Applications
Work
Replies to Criticism
Multimodel Selection
Search Encounter
Cenomanian
TinkerPopPanbiogeography
Track Analysis beyond Pan

 Vicariance
 
map by John Grehan


Vicariance is a view that denies there is difference between "primary forms" and geographically caused changes only to those forms indpendently. It allows motion in space to directly result in those forms descent obtains.  It permits a denial of the Haceklian dichotomy expressed as "” the derivation of the various organisms from common primary forms ( the theory of descent!), the degeneration from the primary form of the  species by natural wanderings (the migration theory! p.65)” (The history of creation, or the development of the earth …chapter V).

For Lamark this was nothing other than the divisions in a dichotomous key.  Croziat went much father by making a special study of panbiogeography as distinct from genetics or taxonomy say.  There are primary forms on which vicariance receives substance not matter the forces and how far these cell doublings during differentiation are related to adaptations remains to be determined.  Williams was mistaken on this point (biotic adaptations). Panbiogeography finds the primary forms generations regenerate through genetically non-degenerate dynamics.  It might be extremely instructive to see if Darwin fully operated with disperal only able to degenerate from the Malthusian increase within a species.  If so that will explain how Croziat could use dispersal both to demolish prior zoogeographies and pytogeographies and to prop up his own systematic examination of distributions.  This might be possible regardless as well.

 Vicariant time is the temporality of species primary form-making by descent across determinable geography.

   

Heads has made it clear that distributions panbiogeographically can inform phylogeny and and vice versa.  That is what mapping between gene trees and species trees do.





DNA is generally thought of as symmetrical.  Any difference in the genes contributed by ones parents are presumed to be due to a mutation else, the gene copy from your mom is said to be the same as Dad’s gene copy.  Before the discovery of DNA it was hence simply debated that an individual in the homozygotic state had twice as much of a particular allele as the same offspring in the heterozygtotic state when taken from a subset population of wildtypes in the species.  The discovery of the genetic code and the multiple codes for the same amino acid got people thinking that some of the mutations in the species are simply neutral.  But when it comes to deciding if the trait is due to genetics or the environment are these difference simply of no proximate force difference and is there any ultimate sense in the idea of the “wildtype”?


It seems to me that neutral mutations provide a kind of variation which indicates that there is not a simple reflection between the parental hybrids of one parent and the other.  Rather there are translations and reflections involved which span across gene polymorphic differences phenotypically.  The netural substitutions are not strictly netural.  The divide each side of a homozyogtic genetyope into different vicariant regimes depending on the repulsions and attractions contributing to the vicariance genetically (not phenotypically as molecular evolution has it). 


A netural change from the protein or gene expression proximation can put the one gene copy into a different vicariant environment which alters the potential and kinetic energy set available and depending then on the regulation of the gene if the proximation is silent or truly netural or expressed and ultimately differentiating the double nature of the Mendel hybrid populationally and in the wild appears or does not (different molecular strata statistics between chromosomes per reflection, rotation translation).  This is why Wright digrammed Kimura’s view as point and Fisher’s as a double directed vector.  Kimura’s view is simple evolution of different Fisher elastic or inelastic (kinetic vs potential) regimes which Wright sought to network.  Vicariance is a property of the entire chromosome compared to its last generation duplicate. Fundamentally vicariance can be distrupted by changing the linkeage group or it can be categorgically manipulated during the evolutionary change by changing the forces cellularly applied and ESS stable per vicariance regime which takes into account the  changes in repulsions and attractions of adjacent amino acids both down stream and upstream of the supposed strategic mutational difference.


  Some of these mutations will not result in a different a priori vicariance pattern and will be subject to classic ESS theory (mixed vs not) but the confounding categories of vicariant netural substitions and non-vicariant make the notion of the “molecular evolution” independent of organismal evolution null but not void – only of much less importance (where it can effect classic ESSes only (no other existential games applied to wild populations).




 

Vicariance


side of each panel depicts dispersal upper or vicariant lower hypotheses that could account for the set of evolutionary relationships of the taxa and their current distributions The dispersal hypothesis suggests that the ancestor to taxa 1 3 existed only in area A and dispersed to area B Subsequent isolation resulted in divergence of species 1 and the common
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/413www/phylobiogeog1.html


http://www.themacorps.com/alimentation-nutrition/vicariance.htm

seem to be particularly likely See Asher 2005 Bertelli Porzecanski use a more straightforward method but it seems not to address the problems which Asher has tried to solve The remaining morphological studies both group moa and kiwi That seems reasonable A recent unpublished morphological study Dyke et al 2004 agrees and adds the elephant bird to this
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/350Aves/350.920.html

Lampropeltis map DATA citation
http://axiompanbiog.com/use.aspx


http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Phylogeography_animation.htm


http://axiompanbiog.com/use.aspx


http://axiompanbiog.com/use.aspx

and the Plethodon vandykei species group of salamanders including P vandykei and P idahoensis Both amphibian species fit the predictions of the ancient vicariance hypothesis whereas waters voles appear to have achieved the disjuct distribution by dispersal from the northern Rockies into the
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/CompPhylogeo.html

John Grehan on SEBA pulished this map This shows how vicaraince may be gleaned from distribution data Outline maps however can occlude potential vicariance caused by higher order
http://axiompanbiog.com/use.aspx

pulished this map This shows how vicaraince may be gleaned from distribution data Outline maps however can occlude potential vicariance caused by higher order panbiogeographic concepts
http://axiompanbiog.com/use.aspx




A very interesting possiblity is to describe vicariance as an infinite Conway disjunctive sum.  Vicariant time could then be derived from the finite breaks within infinite ordinals.  Thus vicariance under different regimes of mobilism and immobilism could be defined within one similar sum but different for different lineages and tracks..  Thus in the graph above the tree may be playing out (disjunctively vicariating)3 different summed areas that are one for the salamander!



The nature of the plant community: a reductionist view

" The school of panbiogeography sees many present-day restrictions in distribution between and within land areas as a reflection of the geography millions of years ago (Fig. 1.3), and its analyses of species distributions that have repeatedly been borne out by subsequent geological discoveries (Heads 2005)."





"In the center of origin/dispersal theory, the distribution of a group develops after its origin in phylogeny, through a separate process - range expansion from the center of origin.  In vicariance, distribution is produced by the phylogeny, and so distribution and phylogeny develop at the same time.  This means the distribution can be informative about the phylogeny and vice versa." (page 139 "Molecular Panbiogeography of the Tropics").


Parenti and Ebach put out Comparative Biogeography

in 2009 and included a couple of pages explicitly on Panbiogeography.

 

I will take some time to review the entire book but there are few things that popped out at me on my first cursory inspection.  The future of a big science biogeography is extremely exciting and it is important for biogeographers to try to find a common language but defining things unnecessarily to achieve homogeneity of communication is probably not the best way to go.  I have the feeling from Croizat and concurrence from Craw that panbiogeography ought to be applicable off Earth as well.

 

When Parenti and Ebach make the assertion that biogeography cannot  be “assigned” to geography but rather is geography,  this reduces the entire complexity of my own vision of area homology to the grammatical bounds of their writing.  It unduly restricts the intuition I have with confidence from reading Croizat that even the NZ work on Croizat is going to be progressive.  P and E note the four major Panbiogeographic concepts of track, node, mass and baseline and even graph a Heads “vicariance” arc but then conclude “Panbiogeography is a method of similarity, which uses common elements (taxa or  common terranes) to relate areas that share the same biota or the same ecology. This relationship is not heriarchical; the relationship of one track to a second relative to a third is not considered.”

 

This is notwhat I have done.  In fact since having *Croizat* available this year I HAVE compared one track to a second to a third :

 


I have finished this work to the generation of the hierarchy (indicated figuratively below, hierarchic above)

only because I am still making sure that what is being built is not in contradiction with the smallest area geographically that may intricate the modeling and I am working on a full dumbbell model of all salamander speciation.  Also I need to apply this to the Caecilians below geographically and the Frogs divided into both.

 

Furthermore if it was necessary that I restrict myself to a “monophyly”  apriori rather than a general idea of area from a subjective evaluation of species areas in a group and some idea about population genetics and the space of form-making then since some phylogeographer or evolutionary geneticist asserts that some distribution is a not monophyly (that I was taking on standard taxonomic grounds is) the actual geo-biogeographic  (north, south, east, west) question I was asking becomes or could become useless.  The definitional state of the discipline cannot be so constrictive that one must use a particular taxonomy one day and then the very next day a different one.  It may be that the focus on endemism is not  the actual area (concept) to which panbiogeography affords access.

 

Thus it seems the lexicological prescriptions of comparative biogeography would have stalled what I have done in the past year, right at the start.  This can not be what a future biogeography is intended to do to its practitioners.

Perhaps comparative biogeographers will have to reconsider what was said in the very first footnote of the book.  Phylogenetics is no way irrelevant to historical biogeography.  Historically contingent hierarchies can be built on Earth but the form of this hierarchy must be compatible with the possibility of life off of Earth as well.  Nor should its shape be definitionally  dependent wholly on the continuum of common descent if the body of the generations reproducing be viewed without any area itself or be subject to conotative devolutions that do not let sense come from nature in the3 first.  That is just the difference of space and time and a failure to separate teleology from orthogenesis (perfecting) IN the evolutionary synthesis.   Mayr was wrong.  While it may have been the case that the "Evolutionaryu Synthesis" was extrovertedly informed by the dynamic Earth considered in Comparative Biogeography this does not preclude one from constructing a forward whole population perspective from within the ideation of the evolutionary synthesis where Earth and Life evolve together. The notion of endemism surely has some relation to population genetics. Simple transitivity and entropic irreversibilty (both temporalities) are however difficult to combine homogenously. The relationship of the same Earth areas to different times can probably not be topologically restrained by simple human definitional standards. Mapping distributions on a model of Planet Earth can.  Comparative biogeographers will have to do this if they really think Croizat has given us the place on which to stand. 

 

Parenti and Ebach footnote 11 in chapter2 (page  50, “Panbiogeographers (e.g. Craw, 1989) have argued that cladistic biogeographers who rejected Panbiogeographic concepts only considered the concepts of tracks, not the three other main panbiogeographic concepts –node, baseline and main massing – which may have equivalents in comparative biogeography (see Chapters 6 and 7)”) but later only discuss the possibility of a tracks (overlapping area similiarites) and nodes (hotspot area endemisms) in comparative biogeography.

 

On pages 162-164 they discuss the difference between areagrams and cladograms (noting the well discussed but little heeded difference of phylogenetic  trees and cladograms).

 Thus they come to the conclusion “Australia”(terminals)  in the areagram is THE SAME BRANCH.  This need not be the case if one applies main massings and baselines.  Parenti and Ebach seem to think only as if the reciprocal illumination is between geology and biology but the regularities Croizat witnessed seem to express that there are deep biogeographic rules which includes the flexible labeling of areagrams without committing oneself to any every and all TACs.

 

Parenti and Ebach write (page 43) "Area homology differs from the concept of spatial homology sensu Croizat (1952): the spatio-temporal relationship among areas considered independently of biotic relationships."

The notion of “independence” as referred to AND used, however confounds the distinction made by Kant in his Introduction to Logic between something that can be judged based on verisimilitude or probability (By probability we are to understand an assent from inadequate reasons, which however bear a greater proportion to the adequate reasons than do the reasons for the opposite. By this definition we distinguish probability (probabilitas) from mere verisimilitude (versimilitudo), which is an assent from inadequate reasons in so far as these are greater than the reasons for the opposite.”(Immanuel kant Introduction to Logic  Philosophical Library New York 1963)). As Kant said, “contrarie opposita” may both be false, propositionally (Kant op.cit. page 62).

Croizat’s 1952 notion of space is never an opposite of biotic areas as cognized by comparative biogeography but two area homology proposals may be contrary opposites and thus both not true(the opposite case may go across the goal of monophyly not achieved).  They need not be but they could be on Kant’s logic which only finds opposites subject to verisimilitude while no probability need apply (independent or otherwise) . This conceptual distinction is also responsible for the inadequate assertion in Comparative Biogeography that apparent temporal divergences have no a priori basis.  They failed to make clear what the difference of synthetic and analytic apriority is or is not.  It is true that prima facie divisions of distributions into ages makes the finding of patterns difficult and may even be at odds with technical stoichiometery of various methods it does follow that one need claim there is no a priori basis unless one was committed to a definte non-concept of separate creation for an area of endemism for instance. Even that may not be sufficient, logically.

With a further developed panbiogeography some amount of taxonomic projection in space should not be out of order.

 A blogger has noted some issues with this attempt to conceptually begin with endemism without differentiating moblism and immoblism in the descriptiv e phase:

On the other hand, it is also not clear to me how exactly I would utilize this new code in reality. Perhaps there is a list somewhere of currently accepted terms, but if so, I can't find it. So does that mean that everyone is starting from scratch? I don't even know what a realm is. And I would think that all of these areas would be attached to particular taxa. For instance the areas of endemism for freshwater fish are probably not going to be the same as the areas of endemism for ants or birds. At least at the province level. But they would certainly overlap. At the top of the hierarchy, though, they might be the same. How does that work?

Now another blogger received word back that, "As I suspected, one of the authors contacted me to say that they included it for reasons of utility rather than as a theoretical claim, and that it is not compulsory" (Aggassiz's notion of geographic distribution and range however does not distinguish between homogeneal physical causation in the small and the large which is avoided by any kind of theroetical claim in comparative biogeography which seperates the general law from the universal system for whatever reason.)

 

I am willing to try out ICAN for the region overlaying the Marcellus Shale  as a means to show that not all areas are of equal biotic value even though the region may be legally subject to equal access to mineral rights/drilling.  Comparative biogeography may intially be useful to suggest to legislators what areas to avoid the most intense potentially destructive activities in (this may also be of use in urban planning as well) but whether it will theoretically achieve making  historical biogeography big science, this can be disputed purely and perhaps practically as well. That comment will require "basal prunners" to show thier shears.

 

Criticism of ICAN as applied in comparative biogeography has been marshaled under the following categories:

  • lack of distinction between classification and nomenclature,
  •  the use of ranks,
  • the criteria of area definition,
  • the conflation of diagnosis and description,
  • the ambiguous use of valid/available,
  • and the system of amendments.

 Looking at how far along I am by working with tracks from axiomatic panbiogeography and seeing how needed the delimitation of areas of unequal biotic value is where political decisions are being or will be made under assumptions of equal value, some of these categories of dispute on the accuracy and definiteness of the code can be obviated as the work moves forward essentially in "vicariant time."  This discussion was started on Panbiog-L.

 

The three areas circled over the supposed inland Devonian sea

were "diagnosed" from multiple salamander tracks even if the description is going to involve other ecological associations regardless of differences in nomeclature and classification that could arise when other taxa  are considered similarly (to the formation of generalized tracks).  Comparative biogeography is essentially a set theory of track inclusion.

One may begin to define biotic areas with names that are standardized so that politicians can make decisions based on at least some, but not as definite and accurate as it becomes better worked out, biological data rather than based on purely economic and political regional divisions.

Some preliminary BIO GEO METRY here looks intuitively like:

with standard area names rather than standard water/land boundaries panbiogeography can come to the aid  developing area definitions. Work will need to be done on the notion of nodes as "hotspots" vs multiple individual track claims. With named areas when ranked could provide a distribution of places that are not crucial for linkage and thus better choices for economic development. This does not preclude theoretical disagreeement about the mathematical background of the classification and nomenclature. The lexicology and the grammatology are seperate.

The area name ranks are functions of (track(node(mass)baseline)) and can be assigned tentatively to random fractal maps from the points in the distribution with varying dimension depending on depth in the areagram (more basal area names are closer to 2 dimensions than the most included area names which may be less than 1.

 

 Parenti and Ebach state on page 7 "If we assume that ancestors are found at the nodes of phylogenetic trees...".  This assumption is necessary for comparative biogeography but it is not sufficient to assume it. It will depend on the fractal sorting of species across the various dimensional representations of the distribution THROUGH the even and odd population genetic curves that compound into the various contributions to isolation by distance etc genetically. This can be cognized with algorithms that create random fractals from given sets of lats and longs (A,C odd; B,D even).

Area homology is helpful to get some general biotic hierarchies and rough out the dimensional transitions on Earth but the contributions of various taxa may be via isolated alleomorph series or pure genic selection which given different history of even and odd past events may result in different area relationships even if within the same clade but not grade.

Two salamanders and one frog indicate the issue when three areas are being considered:

In the answer to this question (quaternions may be helpful) the results will bear on the claim of "vicatraince zones" asserted from the insect map (2nd below)as a full function of the geographic distribution of Ambystoma macrodactylum  (2nd below right). A temporal suggestion for the salamander  is here.

IN TERMS OF TRACKS,NODES,MASSES AND BASELINES

 bears a solution to this problem.

 

 

Endemic Animals of the Olympic Peninsula

Mammals
Olympic marmot - Marmota olympus
Olympic yellow-pine chipmunk - Tamias amoenus caurinus
Olympic snow mole - Scapanus townsedii olympicus
Olympic Masama pocket gopher - Thomomys mazama melanops
Olympic ermine - Mustela erminea olympica

Amphibians
Olympic torrent salamander - Rhyacotriton olympicus

Fish
Olympic mudminnow - Novumbra hubbsi

Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)
Hulbirt's skipper - Hesperia comma olympica

Orthoptera (grasshoppers)
Olympic grasshopper - Nisquallia olympica

Coleoptera (beetles)
Mann's gazzelle beetle - Nebria danmanni

Quileute gazelle beetle - Nebri acuta quileute
Tiger beetle - Cicindela bellissima frechini

Mollusks
Arionid slug - Hemphllia dromedarius

Arionid jumping slug - Hemphillia burringtoni

A Unique Community
The wildlife community of the isolated Olympic Peninsula is also unique.  This community is noteworthy not only for its endemic animals (found only here), but also for species missing from the Olympics, yet found elsewhere in western mountains. Pika, ptarmigan, ground squirrels, lynx, red foxes, coyotes, wolverine, grizzly bears, bighorn sheep and historically, mountain goats, did not occur on the Olympic Peninsula. Meanwhile, endemic species like the Olympic marmot, Olympic snow mole and Olympic torrent salamander are found here and nowhere else in the world!

 

 

The point I just remade above, which is straight out of PANBIOGEOGRAPHY 1958, is also not recognized by a reviewer of Comparative Biogeography from KANSAS because whatever the “expansion” of the evolutionary synthesis can be narrated to say it is not about the achievements of individual researchers .

After seeing how difficult and divided the field of biogeography is as evidenced by the conversation on Panbiog-L spring I do not understand exactly how Bruce Lieberman expects someone to bring all biogeographers together. It is not even possible to bring “pattern cladists” (parsimony vs 3IA)  together let alone gather them to authentic panbiogeography as it is beyond this.

Actually , his review points to an issue that Parenti and Ebach raise.  “Is biogeography not dependent on evolutionary theory? “ or  “Is it”, as Liebermann expects, “a progressive fodder mill for evolving thoughts on evolution?” Parenti and Ebach noted the origin of biogeography before evolution by natural selection. So  Liberman’s comments do nothing to show what nature of the evolutionary process biogeography can be expected to continue to move forward on or towards.

If it was the other way around as Liberman suggests then he should be saying how a series of geographic places may be sorted or selected by species growing out of populations which will depend on whether one thinks the Earth was smaller in the past or if life may be distributed in the past off Earth for any and all geology.  Instead Liberman continues to only point to the negative that continues to keep biogeography from being the big science it undoubtedly is.

The “dynamism” of the field and diversity of approaches IS the problem. A liberal viewpoint will not help in this regard. When I attempted to discuss with Ernst Mayr the need for a more detailed relationship between math and natural history (which undoubtedly Comparative Biogeography enjoys but in a way different than I would fully endorse) he simply was able to get away with saying, by pointing  his arm away from his body and quiping like a tanager that the action of change (speciation) is occurring way out there on the horizon. A viewpoint that simply accepts this as a possible way to locate where the data of biogeography is is no more helpful than pointing to the sky and saying there may be life out there. Dr. Brown noticed my dilemma and tried to assuage my concern by saying that Mayr had acted that way to him decades ago. Great, what goes around, comes around!!

Unless Libermann wants to say himself how evolutionary theory and geographic ranges themselves are causal together he does not more proximally than Warren Allmon did for SJ Gould when his light faded  on  the Goethe color wheel holistically.

 

Here is why all of the topology cannot be necessarily and sufficiently located in the nodes.

Under a tree construction of Brownian motion with random fractals as the area monophyly scales from station to area to realm the chain moves from state K to K+/-(1) with properties of variable dimensions.

 

and different relations to other chains that may only intersect at one vertex across this state.

This is necessary if descriptive vs. explanatory dispersal and vicariance are to be kept separate and one intends on finding patterns before modeling mechanisms. The gene trees and the species trees for the same area may have different dimensions due to different states of congruent intersections. 2 kinds of Weyl 1-D symmetry contribute to the dimensionality purely.

 

 

Here is where the issue of 3D in comparative biogeography becomes difficult. Also how shopuld one relate the AREAS as presented in the audubon bird map below

Could one simply relate the area size differences by different nodal connections similar to the comological application?

 

 It appears to me that there may, in fact, be a LOGICAL contradiction between hierarchical selection theory as cognized by Gould and comparative biogeography as recognized by Ebach and Parenti.  This results from comparative biogeographers using spatial homology (Croizat) as different than area homology (over using the difference of "habitation" and "station") while Gould intends a "core" logic to exist across levels of aggregation of data. Requrining mechanism to be divorced from pattern seems to hedge against some hierarchical shapes of varying empirical frequency and pits intuition against concept.

 

This issue is due largerly, as noticed by,  Lieberman and Vrba that if/when species selection (or species classification of comparatve biogeogrqaphy for any sort) is in play then clade shape and topology are extremely important. Area homology of comparative biogeography continues to locate area under formation within the clade shape along with center of origin views, but panbiogeographic spatial evolution allows for possiblites from outside this format.

 

Comparative Biogeography falters at/when distinguishing areagrams and TAC(S).  This is because the subtree identity may reside within a biogeographic as opposed to geographic congruence and specify not a relation of areas but a relation of gene trees to the species trees of another taxon in the same generalized track.  The species form of one taxon may map to the gene tree form of another in the same set of areas.

 

 

 

Comparative biogeographers call for the use of tests for repeated patterns before the search for mechanism yet they do not recognize that one may be able to compare the three areas of Java, Cuba and Central Brazil as indicative of correct ontological division of the Earth surface yet epistemologically be dependent on dynamics that implies some mechanisms.  Three area statements of these places can provide the 3-D test to extend beyond the regions of Merriam into the area as place stationed per habitation as comparative biogeographers desire but I will have to explain a  possible (even if not necessarily likely) mechanism of change a priori developed out of Kant’s Dynamical natural philosophy to show that indeed the generalized track is already a comparison of more than two areas. Vicariant time will comprehend this but show that epistemology is separate from the ontology just as the mathematic-physical is distinct from the philosophical-dynamical.  Comparative biogeographers relied on a combination of geology and biogeography that was not dynamically drawn by Croizat. Vicariance is where velocity is applied.

 

The 3-d nature mentioned above can be tested fully (no matter the temporal discord) with C(AB) areas below:

 

Ans as a final criticism of comparative biogeography there is no reason that area homoly and area monophyly ca not be represented panbiogeographically.

Forum: Philosophy of Biology
Author: Jonathan Birch (Cambridge University)
Individuating Species

Hi Mohan, Regarding (1): I suspect that, by the time speciation was complete, the population would have a common ancestor postdating its geographical isolation. I'm assuming here that (a) speciation generally requires at least one new mutation to appear in the population; and (b) new mutations originally appear in a single individual.  If (b) is right, then, when a new mutation spreads through the population and goes to fixation, all the remaining individuals will be descendants of the individual who introduced the trait. And ...

 

Under this idea one can have prior biogeographic congruity (on the map) and current geographic congruity depending on how gene fixation and geography are interrelated. Hierarchies of areas can result  (dependent on different functions of (track,node, mass, and baseline for the entire geometry of the geography)and if this process also involves  Wrightian orthogenesis, species individuation may not be populationally pure as idealized above even though species would have distinct ancestors. New species could arise from within the old or the new dependent more so on interactions of genes and mutations not quite going to fixation and able to oscillate (this is possible condition in macrothermodynamics). This indicates how difficult it will be to make an a priori decision to separate area monophyly and phylogenetic (species)  monophyly linguistically. Phoronomy demonstrates how mechanism combined demonstrations (incorporating a moving force) preponderate over purely kinematically combined motions. It is not clear that comparative bioeographers have adequately incoporated this division into their analysis of historical biogeography.

 Ebach and Parenti state on page178 that

"Because three-item analysis does not discriminate among evolutionary models, it will not favor any mechanism over anothe.r"

This is not true at all.

The input hierarchies to that progam affect how area similarity and area homolgy may be structured per lineage per different combinations of geometry and algebra for the lat/long points that eventualy must sustain into a common scaleble areagram under the project of comparative biogeograpy.

The direct falseness of this assertion on a "universal evolutionary method" is becoming increasingly clear as I construct trees based on my own understanding of panbiogeography under axiomatic panbiogeograpy and that possible with generalized tracks using  the Martitrack geometric algorithm.

 

And because comparative biogeography continues and intends comparisons WITH systematics it is unable to retain the panbiogeographic perspective of streams of distribution in historical biogeography understood after disperalism has probed the best systetmatic compilation as Croizat did.  This is the point that Gareth Nelson left the discussion with Robin Craw on Panbiog-L in the spring of 2009. A simple areagram of turtles from the Caymans could show this.

 

Comparative biogeography is unable to sustain the DIVISION introduced between Chorology and Geography by Kant.  Vicarism can.