Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Van Veller et al. (2000; see also Biswas and Pawar 2006; Brooks and
van Veller 2003; Ebach 2001; Morrone 2005a; van Veller and Brooks 2001;
van Veller et al. 2003; Wojcicki and Brooks 2005; Zandee and Roos 1987)
consider the existence of two groups of methods, whose purpose is to im-
plement different research programs:
• A posteriori methods: those that deal with dispersal, extinction, and du-
plicated lineages after the parsimony analysis of a data matrix based
on the unmodified taxon-area cladograms. They are intended to im-
plement “vicariance biogeography” sensu Zandee and Roos (1987)
or “phylogenetic biogeography” sensu van Veller et al. (2003). (The
name
phylogenetic biogeography
is inappropriate because for dec-
ades it has been the name of Hennig's [1950] and Brundin's [1966]
approach.) A posteriori methods include BPA and component compat-
ibility.
• A priori methods: those that allow modification of the area relationships
in the taxon-area cladograms to deal with dispersal, extinctions, or
duplicated lineages in order to obtain resolved area cladograms and
provide the maximum fit to a general area cladogram. They are in-
tended to implement “cladistic biogeography” sensu Zandee and Roos
(1987) and van Veller et al. (2003). A priori methods include com-
ponent analysis, tree reconciliation analysis, and three area statement
analysis.
Ebach and Humphries (2002) stated that a posteriori methods corres-
pond to a generation paradigm, whereas a priori methods correspond to a
discovery paradigm. Generation paradigm methods are based on previous
beliefs rather than facts. Additionally, these authors criticized the generation
methods for immunizing their results to avoid falsification, whereas discov-
ery methods are superior because they allow the free exploration of the
data. Ebach et al. (2003) also noticed both uses of the term
phylogenetic
biogeography,
considering that Van Veller et al.'s (2003) use corresponded
to Hennig's (1950)
parasitological method,
which is inappropriate for imple-
menting cladistic biogeography.
Brooks (2004) suggested that, in addition to using different methods,
cladistic and phylogenetic biogeographies are research programs justified
by different ontologies. Cladistic biogeographic methods modify the original
data in order to provide maximum fit to the null hypothesis of vicariance,
