Time and space in biogeography: response to Parenti & Ebach
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
StandardStandard
Yn: Journal of Biogeography, Cyfrol 40, Rhif 11, 01.11.2013, t. 2204-2206.
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Time and space in biogeography: response to Parenti & Ebach
AU - De Bruyn, M.
AU - de Bruyn, M.
AU - Stelbrink, B.
AU - Page, T.J.
AU - Phillips, M.J.
AU - Lohman, D.J.
AU - Albrecht, C.
AU - Hall, R.
AU - von Rintelen, K.
AU - Ng, P.K.
AU - Shih, H.T.
AU - Carvalho, G.R.
AU - von Rintelen, T.
PY - 2013/11/1
Y1 - 2013/11/1
N2 - 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’.
AB - 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’.
U2 - 10.1111/jbi.12166
DO - 10.1111/jbi.12166
M3 - Article
VL - 40
SP - 2204
EP - 2206
JO - Journal of Biogeography
JF - Journal of Biogeography
SN - 1365-2699
IS - 11
ER -