Time and space in biogeography: response to Parenti & Ebach

  • M. De Bruyn
  • , M. de Bruyn
  • , B. Stelbrink
  • , T.J. Page
  • , M.J. Phillips
  • , D.J. Lohman
  • , C. Albrecht
  • , R. Hall
  • , K. von Rintelen
  • , P.K. Ng
  • , H.T. Shih
  • , G.R. Carvalho
  • , T. von Rintelen

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    A recent Guest Editorial by Parenti and Ebach (2013, Journal of Biogeography, 40, 813–820) disagrees with the methods or interpretations in two of our recent papers. In addition, the authors open a debate on biogeographical concepts, and present an alternative philosophy for biogeographical research in the context of their recently described biogeographical subregion called ‘Pandora’. We disagree with their approach and conclusions, and comment on several issues related to our differing conceptual approaches for biogeographical research; namely, our use of molecular phylogenetic analyses, including time estimates; and Parenti and Ebach's reliance on taxon/general area cladograms. Finally, we re-examine their ‘tests’ supporting the existence of ‘Pandora’.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2204-2206
    JournalJournal of Biogeography
    Volume40
    Issue number11
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2013

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Time and space in biogeography: response to Parenti & Ebach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this